"If you're eating two energy bars a day, plus a protein shake..............."

[fogg88]

I remember someone posting an article on this board a few years ago that showed that sewers are filled with residue from vitamin tabs that were not fully digested.

This admittedly is a problem with vitamin tablets, as opposed to capsules. Vitamin tabs can be compressed so tightly during manufacture that they don't completely dissolve before leaving the stomach and duodenum, thus being wasteful. Again though, capsules counter this problem.

As far as actual bioavailability goes, the chemical structure of a synthetic vitamin is no different that that of a 'natural' vitamin. Your body doesn't know the difference. As long as there are macronutrients (protein, carbs, fat) in the digestive system for the vitamins to bind to, they will cross into the bloodstream just as well as food-based vitamins.

 

[vinylgroover]

Like Frackal asked, I'd like to see where you get this from.

Are you referring to incomplete breakdown of the tablet itself? True, that can occur, but taking capsules counters that problem.

If you're referring to absorption from the gut across the GI barrier, I haven't heard of those statistics. Taking vitamins on an empty stomach may yield those results, as they must 'piggy-back' on macronutrients to cross the intestinal wall... which is why you should take them with food, not on an empty stomach.

Are you talking about cellular absorption once vitamins are actually in the bloodstream? Structurally, supplemental vitamins are no different than those found in whole-food, and your body can't tell the difference.

...or are you referring to the 'use it or lose it' aspect of water solubles that was already covered in this thread?

Partly all of the above.

Take vitamin c as a example......once your body has reached saturation point, your body will excrete the 'excess' vitamin c to prevent over toxicity, so unless you are already deficient in essential vitamins, any supplementation abve this saturation point which is something like 130mlg per day for vitamin c will be wasted.

 

[Frackal]

I disagree.... 5-10 grams of vitamin C has cortisol supressing properties for example..

 

[vinylgroover]

As far as actual bioavailability goes, the chemical structure of a synthetic vitamin is no different that that of a 'natural' vitamin. Your body doesn't know the difference. As long as there are macronutrients (protein, carbs, fat) in the digestive system for the vitamins to bind to, they will cross into the bloodstream just as well as food-based vitamins.

I have read numerous studies which indicate this is incorrect. Our bodies have been formed through thousands of years of complex genetic 'evolution' and interaction with 'real' foods. To simply suggest that the body doesn't know the difference between a synthetic product and 'real' food' is highly problematical.

 

[fogg88]

Partly all of the above.

Take vitamin c as a example......once your body has reached saturation point, your body will excrete the 'excess' vitamin c to prevent over toxicity, so unless you are already deficient in essential vitamins, any supplementation abve this saturation point which is something like 130mlg per day for vitamin c will be wasted.

Okay, I won't argue about unneeded water-solubles being excreted; that's common knowledge. However, I disagree with the 130mg figure you give as a 'saturation point'. That may be the saturation amount for someone sitting sedentarily in a controlled lab for 24 hours, having their urine collected. But, in the real world, with stress, toxins, and other factors, that level will be much higher, and also fluctuate more.

Like I said before, it's kind of like insurance. Sure, I piss out a lot of the vitamins I take in, but at least I know they will be there when my body needs them. When a particular process needs to occur, it doesn't just wait around for the necessary catalyst to arrive.

 

[vinylgroover]

Ok, but even in performance athletes, supplementation over and above an already solid diet has not proven to have any tangible benefits (the Australian institute of sport has undertaken a number of studies).

My contention is that if your diet is properly constructed and you take in plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables in particular, the money you're spendng on vitamin supplements is unnecessary.

I'm no nutritionist or biologst by any means, but nothing i have read would lead me to believe that vitamin supplementation has any proven benefits (unless one is deficient through poor diet).

 

[fogg88]

I have read numerous studies which indicate this is incorrect. Our bodies have been formed through thousands of years of complex genetic 'evolution' and interaction with 'real' foods. To simply suggest that the body doesn't know the difference between a synthetic product and 'real' food' is highly problematical.

'Natural' vitamin-C has the chemical formula C6H8O6.
'Synthetic' vitamin-C has the same formula, C6H8O6.
Both are arranged in the same 3-D structure.
There is no difference between natural and synthetic in the three elements that make up this molecule.
On the molecular level, there is no difference whatsoever. The cell will absorb either with the same affinity.

With regards to absorption across the GI barrier...
'Natural' vitamins have the benefit of already being bound to the food they came packaged in. They piggy-back on this food across the intestinal wall. 'Synthetic' vitamins have the extra step of binding to the food before transport across the wall, but the body's only role in this process is providing the environment in which it occurs. The food is still absorbed into the bloodstream, regardless of whether or not it has a synthetic vitamin molecule attached to it. There is no mechanism which disallows macronutrients which have synthetic micronutrients bound to them.

 

[vinylgroover]

'Natural' vitamin-C has the chemical formula C6H8O6.
'Synthetic' vitamin-C has the same formula, C6H8O6.
Both are arranged in the same 3-D structure.
There is no difference between natural and synthetic in the three elements that make up this molecule.
On the molecular level, there is no difference whatsoever. The cell will absorb either with the same affinity.

With regards to absorption across the GI barrier...
'Natural' vitamins have the benefit of already being bound to the food they came packaged in. They piggy-back on this food across the intestinal wall. 'Synthetic' vitamins have the extra step of binding to the food before transport across the wall, but the body's only role in this process is providing the environment in which it occurs. The food is still absorbed into the bloodstream, regardless of whether or not it has a synthetic vitamin molecule attached to it. There is no mechanism which disallows macronutrients which have synthetic micronutrients bound to them.

LOL, i can't argue with that lot. I will bow to your superior chemistry/biology knowledge

All i have to go on is what i have read in relation to supplementation and sports science.......up to now i haven't read anything that has shown proven tangible benefits.

 

[fogg88]

Ok, but even in performance athletes, supplementation over and above an already solid diet has not proven to have any tangible benefits (the Australian institute of sport has undertaken a number of studies).

My contention is that if your diet is properly constructed and you take in plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables in particular, the money you're spendng on vitamin supplements is unnecessary.

I'm no nutritionist or biologst by any means, but nothing i have read would lead me to believe that vitamin supplementation has any proven benefits (unless one is deficient through poor diet).

As with anything, there are going to be studies supporting both pro and con positions. It's up to each person to decide which to believe.

I agree 100% that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is important, not so much for their vitamin content as for all the other phytochemicals they contain. ...unfortunately, factors such as soil depletion, irradiation, shelf time, cooking, etc. can have a negative effect on their nutritional content.

Anyways, I think we've done a good job of presenting both sides of the issue here. It's been nice debating with you.

 

[vinylgroover]

LOL, we'll call it a draw (even though you got me with all the technical stuff)