|
|
| |
| Free Weekly Newsletter | Post a Question on this Site |
 |
Home |  |
About |
|
Daily Program | |
Lifestyle Tips | |
Why VRP? | |
Order Products | |
Checkout |
|
Account Information | |
Security | |
|
Questions and AnswersQuestion No.: 19327 Submitted By: Bob Submitted on: October 22, 2009 Subject: food-based vitamins? Question: In the quest to refine my supplementation, I find the synthetic vs. natural (or food state) vitamin debate a bit concerning. A lot of reputable multivitamin brands are still for the most part synthetically derived or at best an "isolate", not containing co-factors. Do you think it wise to invest in a "Food-Based"multi- vitamin. What's your take on the subject? Thanks Dr. Cinque's Answer: No, that is not something I consider to be a valid aim. Why should it be so important? If you break your multi down to its ingredients, you realize it really doesn't matter. For instance, if you are getting Vitamin D from your multi, why does it have to be food-based? You take Vitamin D3 and that's it; there's nothing better. If you are getting Vitamin B12 from your multi, why can't it be methylcobalamin, which has the unique ability to penetrate the brain? Why does it have to be food-based? As far as getting the "co-factors" I presume that your diet consists of whole foods, as mine does. I don't see the purpose of the vitamin supplement being to duplicate foods. Another example would be selenium. Why can't we take a good organic form of selenium, such as selenomethionine or seleocysteine and leave it that? In putting together a good multi, the best and most ideal forms of the various nutrients can be selected, and it's simply not a priority that they be food-based. You can use the MTHF form of Folic Acid, which is the best there is. And remember that size & volume are a consideration. It's about getting the most good things in there with the smallest possible bulk. So, my answer is: No, I do not think it is wise to invest in a "food-based multivitamin." |
