4 ms·

> 23. (~This is not medical advice~). Don’t waste money on multivitamins, they don’t work. Vitamin D supplementation does seem to work, which is important becau

> 23. (~This is not medical advice~). Don’t waste money on multivitamins, they don’t work. Vitamin D supplementation does seem to work, which is important because deficiency is common. Sorry, but this is BS. The first consideration is: are you able to get all the nutrients you need from the food you eat. Even if you can (and that's a big if) did you know that absorption of the said nutrients gets worse with age? (ie it may be a sensible thing for a 20yo to not take multivitamins, but if you're 60 you're sort-of better off taking them).

ergocoder 6y ago
What is the downside of taking multivitamins? It costs like 10 bucks a month and ensure you achieve some decent nutrition level. If you are afraid of overdosing, then take it every 2 days instead. If you are a person who eat one head of broccoli every day, then by all means. No need to take multivitamins.
alexmingoia 6y ago
It’s not BS. There’s no evidence demonstrating a significant difference and clear link in health outcomes for people who take multivitamins or placebo. http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/ http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/ https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-multivitamins-make-you-healthier https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-multivitamins-...
- lazyjones 6y ago
  8% less cancer in healthy people is pretty significant (your 2nd link). But the whole discussion is moot when you assume everyone to be healthy. It's like saying plasters are useless because there's evidence that most legs aren't broken. Multivitamins are fine because most of us aren't perfectly healthy. Targeted vitamin supplements are better, but require regular blood testing (who has the time...).
  - rantwasp 6y ago
    here: https://www.insidetracker.com/ https://www.insidetracker.com/ This is expensive AF, but you can get 40+ markers measured once every X months. And you can monitor exactly were you are and if the supplements you are taking are actually doing their job. (spoiler alert: not all supplements are created equal from purity and active ingredients pov)
    - lazyjones 6y ago
      It's not a bad idea, but instead of mailing samples across the Atlantic Ocean, I'd rather visit my doctor 2-3 times per year and let him take blood samples. If I wanted to spend more, I could get one to visit me at home. I was actually looking at buying lab equipment for myself for extra flexibility, but lost interest. It's an interesting and underdeveloped market niche for all the self-tracking people though.
      - rantwasp 6y ago
        you don't mail stuff. you go in to do blood-work
- rantwasp 6y ago
  I have seen this opinion and I see it reinforced everything that multivitamins (and supplements in general) are just really expensive urine. I also saw that experts in gerontology disagree. I believe the cost of a high quality multivitamin makes this a no-brainer (if all the info we had was just the study you linked to 8% reduction in the risk for cancer is still nothing to sneeze at) https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/overview https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/o...

ergocoder 6y ago

What is the downside of taking multivitamins? It costs like 10 bucks a month and ensure you achieve some decent nutrition level. If you are afraid of overdosing, then take it every 2 days instead. If you are a person who eat one head of broccoli every day, then by all means. No need to take multivitamins.

alexmingoia 6y ago

It’s not BS. There’s no evidence demonstrating a significant difference and clear link in health outcomes for people who take multivitamins or placebo. http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/ http://phs.bwh.harvard.edu/ https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-multivitamins-make-you-healthier https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/do-multivitamins-...

lazyjones 6y ago
8% less cancer in healthy people is pretty significant (your 2nd link). But the whole discussion is moot when you assume everyone to be healthy. It's like saying plasters are useless because there's evidence that most legs aren't broken. Multivitamins are fine because most of us aren't perfectly healthy. Targeted vitamin supplements are better, but require regular blood testing (who has the time...).
- rantwasp 6y ago
  here: https://www.insidetracker.com/ https://www.insidetracker.com/ This is expensive AF, but you can get 40+ markers measured once every X months. And you can monitor exactly were you are and if the supplements you are taking are actually doing their job. (spoiler alert: not all supplements are created equal from purity and active ingredients pov)
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    It's not a bad idea, but instead of mailing samples across the Atlantic Ocean, I'd rather visit my doctor 2-3 times per year and let him take blood samples. If I wanted to spend more, I could get one to visit me at home. I was actually looking at buying lab equipment for myself for extra flexibility, but lost interest. It's an interesting and underdeveloped market niche for all the self-tracking people though.
    - rantwasp 6y ago
      you don't mail stuff. you go in to do blood-work
rantwasp 6y ago
I have seen this opinion and I see it reinforced everything that multivitamins (and supplements in general) are just really expensive urine. I also saw that experts in gerontology disagree. I believe the cost of a high quality multivitamin makes this a no-brainer (if all the info we had was just the study you linked to 8% reduction in the risk for cancer is still nothing to sneeze at) https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/overview https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/micronutrient-inadequacies/o...