You can google the papers yourself, I didnt make up that 10-30%. This is a known issue with pill supplements, and a massive criticism of the industry. Its a known scam, a waste of money that means people are “fixing” problems by buying expensive powder pills that do nothing for them.
Theres a minor push among medical professionals to stop advising patients take supplements and instead reccomend specific dietary additions, but there is some speculation that the reason its not taken on by more doctors is a mix of inertial laziness of “good enough” medicine practices and supplement manufacturers paying doctors for their brand to be the reccomendation of choice.
But sure bud, your anecdote about a blood test undermines all of that from the ground up.
Generic versions are still a brand being advertised, you just arent the person advertised to.
If you think a maximal 30% intake of a deficient nutrient is enough to prevent the problems youre taking supplements for, youre absolutely the target demographic for this scam.
But you clearly are more interested in an internet gotcha than your own health, so by all means bud. I dont give a shit if youre sick, and if you dont either more power to ya
Right, right, right. Thats why I cited my personal blood test, and not multiple public peer reviewed research papers.
Anti science kooks are a riot man, you should take this show on tour
Hey, kook, did it ever once occur to you that the reason youre “totally real and definitely happened” blood test comes up in the green is cause your diet is already sufficient? And your doc has you buying useless powder for no gain?
Second link, under your chosen section, used child gummi supplements which I explicitly said are suspected to avoid the powder pill problem E:( also this is about starving child deficiency, the one situation where a 10% intake means you are going from ZERO to SOME, so unless you are a starving stunted child its hardly a relevant comparison.)
Third study has a 3rd hand report of some correlation at multi vitamin use and lack of deficiency, the source of which did not show causation and did not even control for other dietary intake sources or socio-economic factors as an impact on diet
Last link is just like the first, neither research nor relevant
Were you hoping I would see blue links, get scared, and not click them?
Government sources, as well as the bloody WHO out of all sources, is irrelevant. Yeah, sure. I’ll just listen to a rando instead of an organization lead by the leading experts in the medical field as well as my doctor.
Jesus Christ.
I have noticed you also never bothered to link anything of your own.
You cited a private blood test, I assumed you wouldnt read anything I gave you. Also, Im not your mother, the issues with these pills is widely googleable.
Government wiki paragraphs with the quality, accuracy, and peer review quality of webmd are 100% not sources, thats correct. You also shouldnt cite them in your science paper this term. Notice how the actual peer reviewed studies got proper responses? Shocker.
You can google the papers yourself, I didnt make up that 10-30%. This is a known issue with pill supplements, and a massive criticism of the industry. Its a known scam, a waste of money that means people are “fixing” problems by buying expensive powder pills that do nothing for them.
Theres a minor push among medical professionals to stop advising patients take supplements and instead reccomend specific dietary additions, but there is some speculation that the reason its not taken on by more doctors is a mix of inertial laziness of “good enough” medicine practices and supplement manufacturers paying doctors for their brand to be the reccomendation of choice.
But sure bud, your anecdote about a blood test undermines all of that from the ground up.
You keep saying 10-30% and then that they are ineffectual. So which is it? Clearly you then absorb 10-30% of the nutrients.
And yeah, I don’t think doctors are being paid by private companies to advertise here in Norway. Especially because I get prescribed generic versions.
Generic versions are still a brand being advertised, you just arent the person advertised to.
If you think a maximal 30% intake of a deficient nutrient is enough to prevent the problems youre taking supplements for, youre absolutely the target demographic for this scam.
But you clearly are more interested in an internet gotcha than your own health, so by all means bud. I dont give a shit if youre sick, and if you dont either more power to ya
Yeah, I’m sure you know more than my doctor.
Right, right, right. Thats why I cited my personal blood test, and not multiple public peer reviewed research papers.
Anti science kooks are a riot man, you should take this show on tour
Hey, kook, did it ever once occur to you that the reason youre “totally real and definitely happened” blood test comes up in the green is cause your diet is already sufficient? And your doc has you buying useless powder for no gain?
No, couldnt be. Perish the thought.
Fine.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6775441/ under supplementation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710417/ Under importance of dietary supplements
https://www.who.int/health-topics/micronutrients#tab=tab_1
First link is literally irrelevant
Second link, under your chosen section, used child gummi supplements which I explicitly said are suspected to avoid the powder pill problem E:( also this is about starving child deficiency, the one situation where a 10% intake means you are going from ZERO to SOME, so unless you are a starving stunted child its hardly a relevant comparison.)
Third study has a 3rd hand report of some correlation at multi vitamin use and lack of deficiency, the source of which did not show causation and did not even control for other dietary intake sources or socio-economic factors as an impact on diet
Last link is just like the first, neither research nor relevant
Were you hoping I would see blue links, get scared, and not click them?
Government sources, as well as the bloody WHO out of all sources, is irrelevant. Yeah, sure. I’ll just listen to a rando instead of an organization lead by the leading experts in the medical field as well as my doctor.
Jesus Christ.
I have noticed you also never bothered to link anything of your own.
You cited a private blood test, I assumed you wouldnt read anything I gave you. Also, Im not your mother, the issues with these pills is widely googleable.
Government wiki paragraphs with the quality, accuracy, and peer review quality of webmd are 100% not sources, thats correct. You also shouldnt cite them in your science paper this term. Notice how the actual peer reviewed studies got proper responses? Shocker.