This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katiekuhl1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
How are they made? J1812 ( talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article should contain content on the history of multivitamins: invention, development, production, anthropological/sociological histories, etc. I think this encyclopedia entry should include relationships to other topics, people, times. -- 76.211.245.65 ( talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
have there been no criticisms of multivitamins i also agree with the preceding statement
i agree. some form of criticism is needed. there was a video on cnn recently showing that multivitamins are not useful for healthy individuals if not harmful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zone ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
what is mean by "time release niacin, especially old versions over one hour" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Substantiate ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
This page should link to large, long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of the effect of specific commercially available multivitamin supplements on objective measures of intelligence, strength, endurance, disease, scholastic achievement, etc.
bananas are awsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.68.62 ( talk) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC) The current article looks like someone has naively swallowed all the advertising hype. These articles http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6657795.stm http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/10/754 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/10/742 , on the other hand, show that using multivitamins increases the risk of death from cancer, because there is a narrow margin between a good dose or a harmful dose of vitamins. I used to think I was doing myself good from taking a multivitamin, but after carefully studying the second article I now no longer take any vitamin pills but just eat a varied diet. 80.2.221.47 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Proper (multi)vitamin use is an individual affair for genetic, environmental, nutritional and health condition related reasons (there is a lot of overlap) as somewhat reflected in the differentiated product lines.
There are a number of nutrients that have very narrow ranges or significant subpopulations of concern.
Iron is another fairly common nutrient of morbid, even deadly, excess especially for HFE and other iron absorbing/conserving genes, non-anemic "mature" (50+) persons, males especially prostatic males and cancer cases.
Fluoride is one such mineral micronutrient. Never minding the tooth issue, its practical biochemical deficiency seems to be uncommon. Excess intake of F- beyond limits identified by EPA research, is not uncommon.
Marginal vitamin status or deficiencies may be further “crowded out” by other similar nutrients. In unbalanced usage, especially with larger quantities, synthetic betacarotene and all-racemic (synthetic) vitamin E [7] [8] have been shown to create measurable physicological differences or to displace other related natural isomers & analogs, e.g. the natural spectrum of carotenes and tocopherols that have also been shown to have biological significance in health as well as vitamin K.
Potentially inadequate vitamin K levels are associated with less familiar problems such as osteoporosis, arterial calcification, connective tissue disorders, cancer, as well as inadequate blood clotting . Vitamin K deficiency can be associated with antibiotics (over)use, malabsorption, and aggravated by aspirin, BHT, excess sugar as well as larger doses of vitamins A, D and E. Individual vitamin K supplement sizes range from ~100 mcg K1 (very common) and 50 mcg K2 (as MK-7) to 15,000 mcg (K2 as MK-4), sometimes in combinations [9]. Vitamin K status is seldom assessed, especially on a graded basis, despite impressive work associating corrrective levels of vitamin K with amelioration and effective treatement of osteoporosis , cancer, and liver disease as well as bleeding problems (clot formation). Vitamin K is typically not in vitamin formulas outside of minor use in some female (and mature??) oriented formulas partly because of concerns about interferences with coumadin or heparin. The key to vitamin K use with these latter medicines is *consistency and monitoring*. I will note that in the orthomolecular & nutritionally oriented medical world that one might not use "high voltage" blood thinners until exhausting other modalities for various sources of bllod problems such as fibrin (niacin for fibrinogen formation; systemic serrapeptase, nattokinase or lumbrokinase use for fibrin clot degradation) and mixed tocopherols (including high gamma tocopherols, "natural vitamin E").
vitamin A nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin D nutrient interactions
medical interactions
vitamin E nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin K nutrient interactions medical interactions
If a study with sweeping statements does not systematically address (exclude or treat) these long known variables and problems, it is an incomplete study that should be weighted accordingly and augmented by other, more informed sources.-- TheNautilus ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors of this article would be welcome to participate in this RfC. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Various (Na, K, Mg) borates are commonly listed as a boron source for common US supplements(e.g. Centrum, One-A-Day and most major generics) and in the Canadian multivitamin monograph. The Canadian monograph specifically mentions "borax", a hydrated sodium borate, as a source. A borax industry view on boron, bones and arthritis. Although human poisonings have been known to occur, it is "classified as relatively nontoxic," with an oral LD50 > 4 gram/kg in rats, its indirect use and residue are regulated [10]. "borate(s)" will be more accurate.
Similar to the continued use of nitrite and nitrate to control obligate anaerobes in processed meats, in the 19th century, meatpackers and others used the slime, mold and odor inhibiting properties of substantial quantities of borax both to prevent deterioration in then common conditions and to mask decayed products (ham, sausage). Borax was used as part of preservative solutions, a 3500+ ppm example, or even as a dry powder. Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle (1906), in chapter 14 on meatpacking, exposed reprehensible meatpacking industry practices, mentioning the wholesale abuse of borax specifically, that led to the very creation of the US FDA and food laws [11] [12]. In part the objection to borax as an additive was to the inferior pretreatment products themselves and the handling conditions rather than just borax toxicity alone. Such a large, uncontrolled dosing was a much different proposition than with a multi.-- TheNautilus ( talk) 18:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like everything from yoghurt to margarin has added vitamins in them these days. Even candy and mints. Has there been any studies about the subject and safety of these products? One would assume that eating 100 grams of yoghurt which has 30% of your daily dose of vitamin X in it and taking a multivitamin (or just eating healthy enough to actually get all the vitamins you need) would cause an overdose, and health problems in long term use. -- 88.115.50.38 ( talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The US Government Regulation section indicates that prescription vitamins are drugs (references the Rx vitamins as drugs in the second sentence quoted below). I do not believe this to be the case.
It also states that some vitamins require prescriptions as a result of DESI. While this may be true for older preparations of vitamins (i.e. those on the market before 1962), I do not believe DESI applies to the regulatory path for any vitamin coming to the market since then. DESI was a 160-person body that evaluated products marketed prior to the Kefauver-Harris Amendment that required evidence of efficacy in addition to safety. I can believe that this legislation requires some vitamin formulations to bear a certain burden of evidence (for efficacy?) in order to obtain licensure, and this burden is greater than for a standard multivitamin but less than for a standard drug. But that prescription vitamins are "allowed on the market as drugs due to the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation program" doesn't seem correct to me.
I would appreciate it if someone familiar with the regulatory path for prescription vitamins would comment and/or correct the text. Vitamins/supplements are not my area of expertise. I would also appreciate a comment on the claims that prescription vitamins can make. Can manufacturers of these products make claims greater than the structure/function claims available to dietary supplement manufacturers? Many thanks! Lhowson77 ( talk) 21:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The section on biotin seems sketchy--biotin supplements aren't exceptionally expensive (drugstore.com has one offering a purported 1667% of the recommended daily value for $15.99 a bottle), and the reason biotin isn't included in many multivitamins is actually that intestinal bacteria produce ample biotin. 24.61.46.155 ( talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition, there is no RDA for biotin. There is an adequate intake, AI, currently set at 30mcg for adults (see http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/biotin/) The Daily Value, DV, listed on supplements, which dates from the 1960s, if I recall correctly, is 300mcg. I suggest that many supplements deliberately include only 10% (or so) of the DV because they are aiming to supply the more recent AI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.163.11 ( talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
See [13]. I'm not sure that our article accurately reflects current medical knowledge. In particular, there seems to be a growing body of evidence suggesting that multivitamin supplementation is, at best, not beneficial and perhaps minimally but measurably harmful ( [14]). Thoughts? MastCell Talk 23:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, I appreciate that you view these studies as worthless and designed solely to "bash" vitamin supplements. Nonetheless, we are probably obligated to move beyond your personal viewpoint and inform the reader of actual expert opinion in the field, which seems to be solidifying with accumulating evidence of multivitamins' ineffectiveness and possible harmfulness. MastCell Talk 23:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
But anyway. There are a lot of primary studies about vitamin use. Rather than cherry-pick our favorites, we should be presenting them in the context of how they've been interpreted by expert bodies. This is basic stuff, outlined in the relevant guideline. Literature reviews by experts consistently find no evidence of benefit for multivitamin supplementation (e.g. PMID 16880453, PMID 20697066, PMID 21273283, etc.) That should be clear to the reader, in the interest of basic honesty. We can cite individual studies to help illustrate the basis for expert opinion, but the tone on this talkpage is more like "let's pick a bunch of studies to illustrate how the experts are wrong". MastCell Talk 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to interrupt your argument or anything, but about the only way that an absolute answer could be achieved (and not "cherry picking" that both sides tend to do) would be if some non-biased person or organization could raise the potentially few million dollars it would take to fund a solid, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a good quality multivitamin in a controlled clinical setting over the course of several months to see what effect there would be. The problem is, about the only organizations that have that kind of money to spare would be the drug companies (which actually do fund most of the studies that "pro-vitamin people" find questionable, whether directly or through another company name... look it up). It's a nice ideal, but to find a completely unbiased person or organization willing to do that would be virtually impossible so a final answer that both sides would accept would never be found without that. My only point in stating this (aside from hoping to end this seeming stale-mate argument that may be more appropriate via E-mail) is that both sides may not agree, but if you look at the basis behind any studies used, it may help to deem which ones are invalid or unacceptable by Wiki standards. Burleigh2 ( talk) 15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think the entry below doesn't add any new information, and is less specific, compared to the HHS. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 12:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
NIHstmt2006
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Huang
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've seen rumors on the internet that multivitamins are only 20% absorbed by the body. Some say that liquid multis are better absorbed. However I can't track down a reputable source stating anything concrete on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 ( talk) 19:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes bioavailability tends to be an issue that gets raised and probably warrants at least a paragraph. The form the compounds are in, compounds potentially blocking the absorption of some of the other compounds, etc. Anonymous 06:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This section is about a one-off article that made some extraordinary claims, and which was subsequently questioned by later articles; and it takes quite a lot of text to do this.
Since the article itself is not WP:MEDRS compliant I think its inclusion (and the necessary inclusion of the counter material) is simply unnecessary - or at the very least too long, and the whole section should be ideally be removed.
Thought? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Hearing no opposition. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a 2013 meta-analysis "Multivitamin-multimineral supplementation and mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" that should probably also be referenced. Anonymous 06:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I'd like to add something like this [20] to balance out 'According to the Harvard School of Public Health: "Looking at all the evidence, the potential health benefits of taking a standard daily multivitamin seem to outweigh the potential risks for most people"', which looks to be becoming a minority view lately. However, my edit got reverted by User:Vitaminman. I'm not very familiar with WP:MEDRS yet, maybe removing the Harvard School of Public Health blurb instead of adding the AIM editorial would be the right thing to do to achieve NPOV without violating WP:MEDRS? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 02:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
"Pregnant women should only take vitamin supplements on a health care provider’s recommendation." [21]
1. Does this pass WP:MEDRS?
2. What's the majority view? The Mayo Clinic seems more sanguine, and is specifically addressing mutivitamins. [22] The current text, "Generally, medical advice is to avoid multivitamins, particularly those containing vitamin A, during pregnancy unless they are recommended by a health care professional", seems too strong IMHO. I would argue for something like "Most multivitamins contain substances like vitamin A that may be harmful in the case of pregnancy. Therefore, organizations such as the Mayo Clinic strongly recommend against the consumption of general-purpose non-prenatal multivitamins by pregnant women, and by women attempting to become pregnant; appropriate prenatal vitamins should be consumed instead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Multivitamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
in the quote from the Guardian summary of the Cochrane review at the end of the article: "Current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general healthy population or in patients with certain diseases." the phrase in patients with certain diseases. is confusing to the point of being meaningless. Does this mean
Additionally, it's a quote discussing antioxidant supplements, not MVMs. MVMs contain antioxidants, but they contain other things also. That could mean
DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The redirect Vitaped has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Vitaped until a consensus is reached. Tartar Torte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Oralovite has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Oralovite until a consensus is reached. Tartar Torte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Amdexyn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Amdexyn until a consensus is reached. Tartar Torte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katiekuhl1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
How are they made? J1812 ( talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article should contain content on the history of multivitamins: invention, development, production, anthropological/sociological histories, etc. I think this encyclopedia entry should include relationships to other topics, people, times. -- 76.211.245.65 ( talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
have there been no criticisms of multivitamins i also agree with the preceding statement
i agree. some form of criticism is needed. there was a video on cnn recently showing that multivitamins are not useful for healthy individuals if not harmful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zone ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
what is mean by "time release niacin, especially old versions over one hour" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Substantiate ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
This page should link to large, long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of the effect of specific commercially available multivitamin supplements on objective measures of intelligence, strength, endurance, disease, scholastic achievement, etc.
bananas are awsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.68.62 ( talk) 17:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC) The current article looks like someone has naively swallowed all the advertising hype. These articles http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6657795.stm http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/10/754 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/10/742 , on the other hand, show that using multivitamins increases the risk of death from cancer, because there is a narrow margin between a good dose or a harmful dose of vitamins. I used to think I was doing myself good from taking a multivitamin, but after carefully studying the second article I now no longer take any vitamin pills but just eat a varied diet. 80.2.221.47 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Proper (multi)vitamin use is an individual affair for genetic, environmental, nutritional and health condition related reasons (there is a lot of overlap) as somewhat reflected in the differentiated product lines.
There are a number of nutrients that have very narrow ranges or significant subpopulations of concern.
Iron is another fairly common nutrient of morbid, even deadly, excess especially for HFE and other iron absorbing/conserving genes, non-anemic "mature" (50+) persons, males especially prostatic males and cancer cases.
Fluoride is one such mineral micronutrient. Never minding the tooth issue, its practical biochemical deficiency seems to be uncommon. Excess intake of F- beyond limits identified by EPA research, is not uncommon.
Marginal vitamin status or deficiencies may be further “crowded out” by other similar nutrients. In unbalanced usage, especially with larger quantities, synthetic betacarotene and all-racemic (synthetic) vitamin E [7] [8] have been shown to create measurable physicological differences or to displace other related natural isomers & analogs, e.g. the natural spectrum of carotenes and tocopherols that have also been shown to have biological significance in health as well as vitamin K.
Potentially inadequate vitamin K levels are associated with less familiar problems such as osteoporosis, arterial calcification, connective tissue disorders, cancer, as well as inadequate blood clotting . Vitamin K deficiency can be associated with antibiotics (over)use, malabsorption, and aggravated by aspirin, BHT, excess sugar as well as larger doses of vitamins A, D and E. Individual vitamin K supplement sizes range from ~100 mcg K1 (very common) and 50 mcg K2 (as MK-7) to 15,000 mcg (K2 as MK-4), sometimes in combinations [9]. Vitamin K status is seldom assessed, especially on a graded basis, despite impressive work associating corrrective levels of vitamin K with amelioration and effective treatement of osteoporosis , cancer, and liver disease as well as bleeding problems (clot formation). Vitamin K is typically not in vitamin formulas outside of minor use in some female (and mature??) oriented formulas partly because of concerns about interferences with coumadin or heparin. The key to vitamin K use with these latter medicines is *consistency and monitoring*. I will note that in the orthomolecular & nutritionally oriented medical world that one might not use "high voltage" blood thinners until exhausting other modalities for various sources of bllod problems such as fibrin (niacin for fibrinogen formation; systemic serrapeptase, nattokinase or lumbrokinase use for fibrin clot degradation) and mixed tocopherols (including high gamma tocopherols, "natural vitamin E").
vitamin A nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin D nutrient interactions
medical interactions
vitamin E nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin K nutrient interactions medical interactions
If a study with sweeping statements does not systematically address (exclude or treat) these long known variables and problems, it is an incomplete study that should be weighted accordingly and augmented by other, more informed sources.-- TheNautilus ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Editors of this article would be welcome to participate in this RfC. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Various (Na, K, Mg) borates are commonly listed as a boron source for common US supplements(e.g. Centrum, One-A-Day and most major generics) and in the Canadian multivitamin monograph. The Canadian monograph specifically mentions "borax", a hydrated sodium borate, as a source. A borax industry view on boron, bones and arthritis. Although human poisonings have been known to occur, it is "classified as relatively nontoxic," with an oral LD50 > 4 gram/kg in rats, its indirect use and residue are regulated [10]. "borate(s)" will be more accurate.
Similar to the continued use of nitrite and nitrate to control obligate anaerobes in processed meats, in the 19th century, meatpackers and others used the slime, mold and odor inhibiting properties of substantial quantities of borax both to prevent deterioration in then common conditions and to mask decayed products (ham, sausage). Borax was used as part of preservative solutions, a 3500+ ppm example, or even as a dry powder. Upton Sinclair's book, The Jungle (1906), in chapter 14 on meatpacking, exposed reprehensible meatpacking industry practices, mentioning the wholesale abuse of borax specifically, that led to the very creation of the US FDA and food laws [11] [12]. In part the objection to borax as an additive was to the inferior pretreatment products themselves and the handling conditions rather than just borax toxicity alone. Such a large, uncontrolled dosing was a much different proposition than with a multi.-- TheNautilus ( talk) 18:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like everything from yoghurt to margarin has added vitamins in them these days. Even candy and mints. Has there been any studies about the subject and safety of these products? One would assume that eating 100 grams of yoghurt which has 30% of your daily dose of vitamin X in it and taking a multivitamin (or just eating healthy enough to actually get all the vitamins you need) would cause an overdose, and health problems in long term use. -- 88.115.50.38 ( talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The US Government Regulation section indicates that prescription vitamins are drugs (references the Rx vitamins as drugs in the second sentence quoted below). I do not believe this to be the case.
It also states that some vitamins require prescriptions as a result of DESI. While this may be true for older preparations of vitamins (i.e. those on the market before 1962), I do not believe DESI applies to the regulatory path for any vitamin coming to the market since then. DESI was a 160-person body that evaluated products marketed prior to the Kefauver-Harris Amendment that required evidence of efficacy in addition to safety. I can believe that this legislation requires some vitamin formulations to bear a certain burden of evidence (for efficacy?) in order to obtain licensure, and this burden is greater than for a standard multivitamin but less than for a standard drug. But that prescription vitamins are "allowed on the market as drugs due to the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation program" doesn't seem correct to me.
I would appreciate it if someone familiar with the regulatory path for prescription vitamins would comment and/or correct the text. Vitamins/supplements are not my area of expertise. I would also appreciate a comment on the claims that prescription vitamins can make. Can manufacturers of these products make claims greater than the structure/function claims available to dietary supplement manufacturers? Many thanks! Lhowson77 ( talk) 21:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The section on biotin seems sketchy--biotin supplements aren't exceptionally expensive (drugstore.com has one offering a purported 1667% of the recommended daily value for $15.99 a bottle), and the reason biotin isn't included in many multivitamins is actually that intestinal bacteria produce ample biotin. 24.61.46.155 ( talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
In addition, there is no RDA for biotin. There is an adequate intake, AI, currently set at 30mcg for adults (see http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/biotin/) The Daily Value, DV, listed on supplements, which dates from the 1960s, if I recall correctly, is 300mcg. I suggest that many supplements deliberately include only 10% (or so) of the DV because they are aiming to supply the more recent AI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.163.11 ( talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
See [13]. I'm not sure that our article accurately reflects current medical knowledge. In particular, there seems to be a growing body of evidence suggesting that multivitamin supplementation is, at best, not beneficial and perhaps minimally but measurably harmful ( [14]). Thoughts? MastCell Talk 23:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, I appreciate that you view these studies as worthless and designed solely to "bash" vitamin supplements. Nonetheless, we are probably obligated to move beyond your personal viewpoint and inform the reader of actual expert opinion in the field, which seems to be solidifying with accumulating evidence of multivitamins' ineffectiveness and possible harmfulness. MastCell Talk 23:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
But anyway. There are a lot of primary studies about vitamin use. Rather than cherry-pick our favorites, we should be presenting them in the context of how they've been interpreted by expert bodies. This is basic stuff, outlined in the relevant guideline. Literature reviews by experts consistently find no evidence of benefit for multivitamin supplementation (e.g. PMID 16880453, PMID 20697066, PMID 21273283, etc.) That should be clear to the reader, in the interest of basic honesty. We can cite individual studies to help illustrate the basis for expert opinion, but the tone on this talkpage is more like "let's pick a bunch of studies to illustrate how the experts are wrong". MastCell Talk 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to interrupt your argument or anything, but about the only way that an absolute answer could be achieved (and not "cherry picking" that both sides tend to do) would be if some non-biased person or organization could raise the potentially few million dollars it would take to fund a solid, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a good quality multivitamin in a controlled clinical setting over the course of several months to see what effect there would be. The problem is, about the only organizations that have that kind of money to spare would be the drug companies (which actually do fund most of the studies that "pro-vitamin people" find questionable, whether directly or through another company name... look it up). It's a nice ideal, but to find a completely unbiased person or organization willing to do that would be virtually impossible so a final answer that both sides would accept would never be found without that. My only point in stating this (aside from hoping to end this seeming stale-mate argument that may be more appropriate via E-mail) is that both sides may not agree, but if you look at the basis behind any studies used, it may help to deem which ones are invalid or unacceptable by Wiki standards. Burleigh2 ( talk) 15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think the entry below doesn't add any new information, and is less specific, compared to the HHS. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 12:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
NIHstmt2006
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Huang
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've seen rumors on the internet that multivitamins are only 20% absorbed by the body. Some say that liquid multis are better absorbed. However I can't track down a reputable source stating anything concrete on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 ( talk) 19:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes bioavailability tends to be an issue that gets raised and probably warrants at least a paragraph. The form the compounds are in, compounds potentially blocking the absorption of some of the other compounds, etc. Anonymous 06:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
This section is about a one-off article that made some extraordinary claims, and which was subsequently questioned by later articles; and it takes quite a lot of text to do this.
Since the article itself is not WP:MEDRS compliant I think its inclusion (and the necessary inclusion of the counter material) is simply unnecessary - or at the very least too long, and the whole section should be ideally be removed.
Thought? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Hearing no opposition. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a 2013 meta-analysis "Multivitamin-multimineral supplementation and mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials" that should probably also be referenced. Anonymous 06:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I'd like to add something like this [20] to balance out 'According to the Harvard School of Public Health: "Looking at all the evidence, the potential health benefits of taking a standard daily multivitamin seem to outweigh the potential risks for most people"', which looks to be becoming a minority view lately. However, my edit got reverted by User:Vitaminman. I'm not very familiar with WP:MEDRS yet, maybe removing the Harvard School of Public Health blurb instead of adding the AIM editorial would be the right thing to do to achieve NPOV without violating WP:MEDRS? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 02:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
"Pregnant women should only take vitamin supplements on a health care provider’s recommendation." [21]
1. Does this pass WP:MEDRS?
2. What's the majority view? The Mayo Clinic seems more sanguine, and is specifically addressing mutivitamins. [22] The current text, "Generally, medical advice is to avoid multivitamins, particularly those containing vitamin A, during pregnancy unless they are recommended by a health care professional", seems too strong IMHO. I would argue for something like "Most multivitamins contain substances like vitamin A that may be harmful in the case of pregnancy. Therefore, organizations such as the Mayo Clinic strongly recommend against the consumption of general-purpose non-prenatal multivitamins by pregnant women, and by women attempting to become pregnant; appropriate prenatal vitamins should be consumed instead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Multivitamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
in the quote from the Guardian summary of the Cochrane review at the end of the article: "Current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general healthy population or in patients with certain diseases." the phrase in patients with certain diseases. is confusing to the point of being meaningless. Does this mean
Additionally, it's a quote discussing antioxidant supplements, not MVMs. MVMs contain antioxidants, but they contain other things also. That could mean
DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The redirect Vitaped has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Vitaped until a consensus is reached. Tartar Torte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Oralovite has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Oralovite until a consensus is reached. Tartar Torte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Amdexyn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Amdexyn until a consensus is reached. Tartar Torte 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)