site map



Health news:
June 2010 - Dec 2013

Minimizing breast cancer risk

May 2010

Time to move beyond salt ?

Salt hypothesis vs. reality

Is sodium bad?

April 2010

Salt studies: the latest score

From Dahl to INTERSALT

Salt hypothesis' story

March 2010

Salt war

Do bone drugs work?

Diabetes vs. drugs, 3:0?

February 2010

The MMR vaccine war: Wakefield vs. ?

Wakefield proceedings: an exception?

Who's afraid of a littl' 1998 study?

January 2010

Antibiotic children

Physical activity benefits late-life health

Healthier life for New Year's resolution


December 2009

Autism epidemic worsening: CDC report

Rosuvastatin indication broadened

High-protein diet effects


November 2009

Folic acid cancer risk

Folic acid studies: message in a bottle?

Sweet, short life on a sugary diet


October 2009

Smoking health hazards: no dose-response

C. difficile warning

Asthma risk and waist size in women


September 2009

Antioxidants' melanoma risk: 4-fold or none?

Murky waters of vitamin D status

Is vitamin D deficiency hurting you?


August 2009

Pill-crushing children

New gut test for children and adults

Unhealthy habits - whistling past the graveyard?


July 2009

Asthma solution - between two opposites that don't attract

Light wave therapy - how does it actually work?

Hodgkin's lymphoma in children: better alternatives


June 2009

Hodgkin's, kids, and the abuse of power

Efficacy and safety of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's:
behind the hype

Long-term mortality and morbidity after conventional treatments for pediatric Hodgkin's


May 2009

Late health effects of the toxicity of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel's true 5-year chances with the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection or medical oppression?

April 2009

Protection from EMF: you're on your own

EMF pollution battle: same old...

EMF health threat and the politics of status quo

March 2009

Electromagnetic danger? No such thing, in our view...

EMF safety standards: are they safe?

Power-frequency field exposure

February 2009

Electricity and health

Electromagnetic spectrum: health connection

Is power pollution making you sick?

January 2009

Pneumococcal vaccine for adults useless?

DHA in brain development study - why not boys?

HRT shrinks brains


Bookmark and Share


Nutritional supplements and health 2

Health supplements - Random vs. optimum - }Balanced preventive - Herbal

Your use of nutritional supplements can only be optimal if based on your nutritional and health status. But this doesn't mean that any other form of it is inherently risky or detrimental. Not only that most of the essential nutrients are being recognized as deficient in American diets - meaning that the average intake falls significantly below the DRI (Dietary Reference Intakes, the most recent set of dietary recommendations set by the government) level - chances are good that

we need more of nearly every nutrient
than what the current DRI suggests!

This is due to significantly increased body pollution level, caused by chemical contaminants in our food, air and water, the widespread use of pharmaceutical drugs, and high intake of junk foods, further depleting the body of nutrients and increasing free radical damage to its tissues and organs. It requires higher level of nutrients to support body organs and functions burdened by neutralizing and eliminating toxic chemicals.

If needed nutrients aren't available in sufficient levels,

it is only a question of time when disease sets in.

Consequently, a moderate, broad-spectrum balanced supplementation is beneficial to most people. More so considering that nearly all DRI values are established as the level of nutrient at which there is no evidence of short-term signs of health disorder. However, this doesn't necessarily equal  optimum longer-term nutrient level.

Good example is vitamin C, whose DRI is at present 75mg and 90mg a day for an average healthy female and male, respectively. Average adult intake of vitamin C in the U.S. is around 100mg (slightly less for women, and slightly more for men). While it is pretty much guaranteed to safeguard you from scurvy, this intake level is a far cry from the optimum which, depending on the source - and individual - may be anywhere from 1000mg to 5000mg a day.

Possible consequences of the significantly lower intake are quite serious, since it makes body more vulnerable to damages, especially under increased stress and trauma. Most other animals have the ability to synthesize vitamin C, and their production of this essential antioxidant

skyrockets in physically/psychologically challenging situations.

If you limit yourself to the basic, scurvy-preventing DRI vitamin C level, your body simply won't be able to prevent cumulative oxidative damage at the cellular level, and the ensuing long-term health consequences.

Needless to say, any broad balanced supplementation should include plentiful amounts of vitamin C. Such supplementation should cover as many of essential nutrients as possible, roughly in proportions given by their DRI. This is, of course, subject to your dietary nutritional intake, which is always to some extent relatively excessive in some essential nutrients, and deficient in others. While determining these dietary biases is time consuming, it is worth every minute of it. It gives you important indications of how balanced is your intake of the essential nutrients.

Since no single nutritional supplement, no matter how broad-spectrum it is, covers all essential nutrients, it is advisable to take mineral and vitamin supplement separately. Since ingredients, their proportions, quality (potency) and level of contamination vary unpredictably from one to another, try not to stick to one brand. If you don't use natural oils containing essential fatty acids, you need to supplement them. Also, try to have major accessory nutrients deficient in your diet included in your supplemental regime, in addition to essential minerals and vitamins.

However, beware of supplements "dusting" nutrients to form a visually impressive, long list, while many are in such small quantities that will have no appreciable effect on your health.

The positive of broad-spectrum balanced supplementation is that it works on two levels. Not only that it protects you from intake deficiency in essential nutrients, more importantly - at least in developed countries - it helps moderate the negative effects of gross imbalances in dietary intake of specific nutrients. For instance, if your diet provides only 100% of the optimum for one mineral, and 300% for some other, the ratio of imbalance is 3. If you supplement 100% of both, your intake becomes 200% and 400%, respectively, with the imbalance ratio cut by 1/3. As this simplistic example illustrates, broad-spectrum supplementation is not likely to resolve gross imbalances, but should lessen their consequences.

The only way to address serious nutritional imbalances efficiently is to determine the specifics of nutritional status - and often the state of metabolism as well - with reliable laboratory tests.