You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
Lmao, no sources of your own. Figures.
Easy to dish out but not to take, eh?
Did you want me to go dig up those reports? I can do that for you when I get home, I just figured you got your blood test and you have repeatedly told me you do not value my input at all.
I wasnt about to waste the time reading papers to make sure I grab the right link for some numbnuts who wouldnt click em. Do you need me to do that for you?
Also looool, yeah bud its very easy to dish out a bunch of completely irrelevant links when you think a link is just a hollow gotcha that no one will read. Shame you couldnt find anything relevant, but if you need me to show you how to do that I am happy to.
Hey, actually? I got super lucky with the first article I found.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/8/1096
So for starters, this is specifically for B12. Not intentional, as my point applies to all powder pills, but sure as shit topical.
Article details dietary B12, an equivalent intake pill B12 supplement, and a 4x intake pill B12 supplement.
The dietary? Restored the deficiency.
The 2 pills? Not only signifigantly less effective, but also almost equivalently so.
Thats insane. I assumed that quadrupaling the dose would improve the intake, its just a huge waste of money to eat 4-8 vitamin pills a day. But the study shows a quadruple dose is completely ineffective!
Also, (and I skimmed this specific bit from the results) it seems that the pill based intake was primarily in the liver. Now, the study correctly makes no causational link here, but that lightly implies that the liver is filtering out supplementals rather than letting it enter the dietary process. No clue if thats true, but a big possibility that I hope gets looked into further.
(Article also implies its not the powder pill form but rather the dietary type used in the pill. But it doesnt isolate powder sources of both versions of B12, so thats not conclusive.)
So, uh. Yeah. Big research article for you, the pill doesnt do shit, eating more of them also doesnt do shit, you need to be eating it in the food.
And yet it does improve B12 levels sufficiently to resolve what would be a deficiency for rats.
I never claimed that dietary nutrients don't have a better uptake.
In addition, while rats and humans are similar, it's still done on rats and not humans. Maybe instead of a daily pill the rats needed a pill twice a day? And if we were rats that's what would recommendation would be? After all, rats need a lot more B12 than we do. In addition, this was just 6 weeks. Maybe given sufficient time both methods work just fine? You should note that even the dietary B12 failed to raise B12 levels back to the original value. The timescale may just be too short.
Sure, interesting study, but it's not conclusive for humans.
As a last note, the study that seems to be most commonly cited is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532799/
The study literally demonstrated that a quadruple dose only provided a partial effective intake for the liver and failed to provide enough for the brain, and you think a double dose would work? The kook strikes again!
Also, you understand that rats are used for nutrient studies because our digestive systems are insanely similar? "Hurr but Im not a rat" hasnt been a real rebuttal in a century.
Wild, who would have guessed the blood test kook would deny peer reviewed evidence. Oh, shit, it was me? I called that? Gnarly. Guess I was right, giving you the link was a waste of time.
Cited about what? That study appears to be about diagnosing cause of specifically B12 deficiencies and response to injections, which 1) has nothing to do with powder pill vitamin intake and 2) is talking about malabsorption, not suplementation of an intentionally abandoned dietary intake.
If you want to talk about a study, you need to say what your context is. Lol who am I kidding, the kook doesnt give a shit about science