View Single Post
Old 05-09-2013, 06:38 AM   #20
New Brawn

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 30
Training Exp: 4
Training Type: Powerbuilding
Fav Exercise: Squat
Fav Supp: Education
Reputation: 2260
Corcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good postsCorcioch has made some good posts

Originally Posted by Tannhauser View Post
Hi Corcioch,

1. The article linked to, as I said, expresses my own views on supplementation. The study referred to is peer-reviewed.

2. There's every point in referencing such a study. The participants were taking multivitamins as well as various minerals. Multivtamins include vitamin C. Clearly, most people who take vitamin C don't just take vitamin C, because they buy into the whole vitamin supplementation argument.

3. The whole 'athletes need more vitamins' argument is largely a mechanism to sell more vitamins. Vitamins support various metabolic processes, and it's really hard to think of one that is going to necessitate an intake of many times what a sedentary person needs.

4. The Cochrane review shows a modest effect of vitamin C (based on a relatively low number of studies) on colds in runners, skiers etc, which you've extrapolated to recreational weight-trainers. But OK, fair enough, that's reasonable. Now weigh that against the emerging body of evidence (referenced elsewhere on MAB) that active supplementation with vit C reduces recovery. That vitamin C interacts with huge numbers of other processes, such as processing of iron, which may well bring about deleterious effects. That in some people it's linked to formation of kidney stones. Add in the increased mortality from vitamin supplementation shown in some big trials (remembering that typically people don't supplement individual vitamins).

5. To address your fear that a blanket statement about vitamins fails to take into account all possible cases, I'll add this:

"If you're pregnant, you should probably supplement with folate.

If you have zero understanding of nutrition, and you haven't absorbed the messages about eating a balanced diet that you've been bombarded with since you were five, and you're eating no fruit and vegetables, and yet you've somehow found your way onto a weightlifting site, then you would benefit from changing your diet. If you really can't change your diet for some reason, then you might want to consider multivitamins. If you're a contest bodybuilder cutting for a contest and eating a highly restricted diet, again you might want to consider them.

Before you do so, you may want to talk to someone with formal training in the subject, instead of scarfing them down like smarties in the belief that they are completely harmless compounds and that more is always better."

How's that?

The meta analysis and subsequent 'peer reviewed' articles on it did not limit the list of possible benefactors of Vit C to those listed in the Cochrane Review. It referred to physical and environmental stress.

Which you tried to then whittle down to recreational weight trainers......,,where did I state recreational weight trainers?? stick to the facts.

Then you move onto an assumption about the manner in which people supplement with Vit C......and you make a statement, based utterly on assumption, that most people who take Vitamin C are doing so through multi vitamins. I think you'll find most don't...but that wouldn't be convenient to your 'argument'

Then we go back to your little I said, it's not peer reviewed. And it's extremely poor. There are too many sweeping statments and too few facts.

How many IU of Vit C were administered to each person daily, what was the amount in excess of rda IU given and for how long?

As for the rest of the sweeping assumptions and generalisations in your reply about chewing on vitamins like smarties or whatever, knowing nothing about Nutrition etc.........thats where your argument went all 5year old and I'm not going to even bother.

Like I said, I wouldn't change a thing based on that article you referenced. It's poor to say the least as a piece of factual nutritional science

Last edited by Corcioch; 05-09-2013 at 06:40 AM.
Corcioch is offline   Reply With Quote