Science deep dive

mistybear4 said:The study was done back in the late 90s over in San Francisco, specifically at LabCorp (I think I got the name right, but don't quote me on it) 😕

Man, this is going to be tough to track down...
Do you have the actual title of the study, or even just the name of one of the authors?

Maybe you have a summary somewhere that actually cites the references (or at least names the people who originally wrote it)?

It’s a shame we can't get into that one article we have so many citations for... I wonder if your employers have a subscription to that journal? Or maybe someone you know personally does?

Anyway, I've gotta get back to work. Catch you later. 🙂

nimbledriver81 said:I’m afraid I just can’t seem to get my hands on that article—I'll try to track it down! I am here! Ready to get things moving. And it just won't let me through... honestly! It’s like hitting a brick wall—you know that feeling when you’re trying to log into your bank account from a new device and everything just stalls? That’s exactly what I'm dealing with here. Just stuck. Total standstill!

It’s the exact same story on my end—honestly, I couldn't agree more!

Back in the late '90s—I believe it was around 1998 or '99—there was this fascinating study conducted over in San Francisco, specifically carried out at LabCorp.

Ahem. Honestly, without a specific name, we're just guessing here—it could be anything from a local facility in San Francisco to a specialized Food Testing Lab (though, let's be real, it’s likely just a quality control lab, much like the ones they run over at Pfizer in major cities). But hey, without an exact name and a clear reference to us, it doesn't actually help much!

nimbledriver81 said:Ahem. It could just be anything from San Francisco to a local Food Testing Lab—though it’s probably just some quality control facility, much like the ones they have over at Pfizer in Chicago. But without an actual name or a direct link to us, it doesn't really get us anywhere.

you're right, that's exactly it, an American public health institute...
found it, thanks... 👍

http://www.wolframkober.de/Interesse...htvitamine.htm

now we just need someone who actually speaks German to sit down and translate this whole mess for us... anyone here up for the task? 🙂 :klap: 😉

Are natural vitamins actually superior?
Balance and bioavailability are key. And when we're talking about synthetic
(multi) vitamins, that bioavailability tends to hover right around zero.

Are natural vitamins better?
The most important thing is how balanced the mixture is and its level of bioavailability—which, frankly, is practically non-existent in synthetic (multi) vitamins.

Nutrients are absorbed most effectively when they are "built into" plant structures. Apparently, the physical state (colloidal) plays a massive role here. Additionally, provitamins always present in plants (precursors) have a positive influence on the usability (absorption) of nutrients.

Nutrients are best absorbed if they are "embedded" within plant parts. In this process, the physical state (colloidal) plays a significant role. Additionally, provitamins always present in plants (precursors) have a favorable influence on the usability (absorption) of nutrients.

The rest of the page is just a list detailing various vitamins and minerals along with their specific roles in metabolism.

http://www.nahrungsergaenzung.de/dow..._1986_2002.pdf

http://home.hccnet.nl/henk.dewit/ver..._onderzoek.htm

http://www.perfektegesundheit.de/cms...t.php?idcat=28

http://www.canadian-vitamins.com/themenspecial/was.html

👋

nimbledriver81 said:Are natural vitamins actually better?
Balance and bioavailability are key, and when it comes to those synthetic multivitamins you see on drugstore shelves, they pretty much fall short.

Nutrients are absorbed most effectively when they are "built into" plant structures. The physical state—the colloid—plays a massive role here. Additionally, provitamins always present in plants (precursors) have a positive influence on the usability (absorption) of nutrients.

The rest of this page is just a breakdown of various vitamins and minerals and how they function in your metabolism.

Thanks, this breakdown regarding synthetic vitamins is actually pretty important to me... 🙂
it backs up the whole idea that "artificial stuff just doesn't pack the same punch as the natural version." 👍

You've handed me four different links all pointing to the exact same chart—and they’re all just clippings from various daily newspapers! Look, if you aren't sure about the actual primary source—like whether this study was even officially published in a peer-reviewed journal—then just be upfront and say you don't have the real reference.

mistybear4 said:thanks, this breakdown regarding synthetic vitamins is actually pretty crucial for me.. 🙂
it really backs up that whole idea that "synthetic stuff just doesn't pack the same punch as the natural version".. 👍

ps: if you're interested in Dr. Louis Ignarro’s book (No More Heart Disease), I can lend it to you—it's in English, so I'm still wrestling with it myself.. 🙂

mistybear4 said:Thanks so much—this whole breakdown regarding synthetic vitamins is actually pretty vital for me... 🙂
It really clarifies that idea that "synthetic versions just don't pack the same punch as the natural ones." 👍

Look, if we’re talking pure chemical structure, "natural" and "synthetic" vitamins are identical twins—we've basically covered this ground before, haven't we? 🙄 The labels really just describe the source—whether they come straight from fresh produce or are manufactured into a pill. But here is the kicker: fruits and vegetables aren't just solo acts; they come packed with a whole entourage of other nutrients that actually help your body soak everything up better.

nimbledriver81 said:You’ve dropped four different links for the exact same table, all pulled from daily newspapers. If you can't pin down the actual reference—if the study was even officially published to begin with—just admit you don't have the right source.

Quelle: 1996. Pfizer, FDA / Mayo Clinic

But there's an actual source cited here, so you can see we're trying to track down the original document... 🙂

nimbledriver81 said:Chemically speaking, there isn't a shred of difference between "natural" and "synthetic" vitamins. I thought we moved past this debate years ago. 🙄 Those labels really just describe how they're sourced—either pulled from actual produce or cooked up in a lab to make a pill. The real kicker is that whole piece of fruit comes with a whole entourage of other nutrients that actually help your body absorb the good stuff.

Sure, they might look identical on a molecular level, but the real test is whether they actually do anything once they hit your system... and if they don't, then the whole expensive charade of manufacturing "synthetic" versions starts looking pretty pointless, wouldn't you agree?

I’m afraid that doesn't quite qualify as an actual REFERENCE. A proper citation—you know, the kind we all need to stay organized—really ought to include the authors' names, the specific title of the paper, the year it was published, and the name of the journal itself.

nimbledriver81 said:Sorry, but that’s not an actual REFERENCE. A real one needs the authors, the paper title, the year it came out, and the journal name...

man, he’s talking about that one study in J. am Col. Nut that nobody can actually find... I mean, that WAS the reference!

Jose Miller3 said:Well, he’s actually referring to that specific study out of J. am. Col. Nut—you know, the one that’s basically impossible for anyone to track down nowadays... I'm pretty sure *that* was the intended reference!

True, but this second one isn't quite the same thing—it's really just a summary of the study's findings.

Based on the dates I'm seeing, it looks like they aren't even the same... but whatever, we're a patient bunch anyway, right Luce?

nimbledriver81 said:I hate to be the one to say it, but that doesn't count as an actual reference. A real citation needs authors, the paper title, the year, and the journal name.

Look, I get that it isn't a formal citation, but we have a solid trail leading back to where this was documented, so if anyone manages to dig up the primary source, just let us know..

For me, this is enough to prove I’m not just spinning yarns out of thin air; all the breadcrumbs I find point toward the reality of how depleted our food supply has become, and it’s clearly something that's been scientifically proven somewhere, even if it isn't common knowledge yet. 🙂

Well, we finally tracked down the data source I mentioned at the start, so I'm curious to hear what you all think now. Do you honestly believe that the fruits and vegetables you eat during your day actually provide all the vitamins and minerals your body needs to function?

It seems to me that you might be a bit out of your depth when it comes to nutrition and human physiology—no offense intended! That chart you’re obsessing over just lists the nutrient density found in specific foods. But here is the kicker: those numbers aren't static. They are actually shrinking—constantly declining—due to things like environmental pollution, modern industrial farming methods, and even how we handle storage and logistics. It’s a bit of a moving target, really. However, if you are intentional and make the right choices with what you put on your plate, you can absolutely meet your body's daily requirements. The thing is, you haven't actually shared the actual nutritional requirements table with us yet!

mistybear4 said:It’s pretty obvious you don’t have much of a grasp on nutrition or how the body actually works. That chart you're obsessing over just lists what's typically found in certain foods, but those levels are steadily dropping because of environmental pollution, industrial farming, and poor storage methods. If you actually pick your food carefully, you can still hit your daily requirements, but you didn't bother to show us the actual nutritional guidelines you're using.

you're just brilliant... 😁 👍

My point was simply that back in the day, one apple might have done the trick, whereas today you'd probably need five to get the same amount of vitamins—I'm exaggerating, obviously—so go ahead and run the math on what you actually need to consume to stay healthy. 😉

Since you clearly have all the answers, why don't you enlighten the rest of us by listing out exactly what our daily recommended intake for every vitamin and mineral should be? 🙂

"Those amounts are getting smaller and smaller due to pollution, production methods, storage, and so on."

thank god... 🙏 .. you finally caught on. 👍