Vitamins

[Olddaddy]

I take vitamins everyday

Mostly B and vitamin D 

Over the last few months I have tried Zinc and another called Tongkat Ali 

They seem to be working in making me more "horny " and increasing sperm cum 

I have ditched the vitamin E and multi vitamins they don't seem to work and the Berocca is another 

May any of guys share your vitamins regime and comment if you think there is any actual benefit particularly in regards to sexual health ,and old age health 

Vitamin B complex X 2 a day 

Zinc X 1 

Tongkat Ali X 2 

Vitamin D 2000ie a day 

 

 

[vinapu]

1 hour ago, Olddaddy said:

 

May any of guys share your vitamins regime and comment if you think there is any actual benefit

yes , there's benefit. For companies making and selling them. As for us , most likely our grandmother's advice works the best  : " an apple a day keeps doctor away ". Small shot of gin won't hurt either, Elizabeth, Queen Mother would  second it

[floridarob]

2 hours ago, Olddaddy said:

and increasing sperm cum 

Planning on children?

[Olddaddy]

2 hours ago, floridarob said:

Planning on children?

Never 

But I see a few gay couples in my area pushing prams 

[BjornAgain]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

Small shot of gin won't hurt either, Elizabeth, Queen Mother would  second it

Couldn't agree more.

Next International G&T day is 19th October. 

[Moses]

4 hours ago, Olddaddy said:

I take vitamins everyday

I hope you did tests on the level of these substances in your blood before you started taking vitamins? Excess vitamin D causes cancer and shuts down the kidneys.

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, Moses said:

I hope you did tests on the level of these substances in your blood before you started taking vitamins? Excess vitamin D causes cancer and shuts down the kidneys.

Where did you get the information that it causes cancer? Unless one lives in the tropics, or between the tropics and the 45 latitude in the Spring and Summer, and wears short sleeves and no sunblock, vitamin D supplementation is usually needed, generally a good 2000 to 3000 IU's a day. While it's not a bad idea to check levels before starting therapy, and recheck a few months after going on therapy, it's safe to assume that absence sunblock-less sun exposure at appropriate latitudes, there will be vitamin D deficiency. I remember a visit in Canada when I saw billboards encouraging vitamin D supplementation. This supplementation will be needed by almost all Canadians (unless living in the southern Ontario Peninsula) and all Russians (unless living in southern Krasnodar Krai), barring unusual activity such as tanning bed usage. 

If you, @Moses , have had your 25-OH vitamin D levels checked in the winter, and you don't supplement, I would be extremely surprised to learn you weren't deficient. (Obviously, now, late summer, is the worst time to check those levels, especially if you live along the Black Sea) As for toxicity, this scientific article which summarized 135 studies showed that toxicity only comes with daily doses some 10 times or more currently available supplements. Yes, hypercalcemia can cause kidney damage, but I know of no evidence of a cancer risk. 

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(22)04376-3/pdf

"...All of the reports of vitamin D toxicity showing the convincing evidence of hypercalcemia involve serum 25(OH)D concentrations well above 200 nmol/L (Table 5), which requires a daily intake of ≥1000 mg (40 000 IU), and which could thus be conservatively considered the LOAEL...". 

[Olddaddy]

15 hours ago, Moses said:

I hope you did tests on the level of these substances in your blood before you started taking vitamins? Excess vitamin D causes cancer and shuts down the kidneys.

I had no idea !!

I take 2000.ie a day 

I see some people bodybuilding say take 12000 a day ! 

[unicorn]

13 minutes ago, Olddaddy said:

I had no idea !!

I take 2000.ie a day 

I see some people bodybuilding say take 12000 a day ! 

2000 IU per day will definitely not lead to excessive blood levels of 25-OH Vitamin D. This is what one can call a usual dose which will get most people at least close to, if not within the recommended range (depending on sun exposure/season). If you have little sun exposure, you may need 3000 IU per day. Assuming you've been taking the same dose for a couple of months, you might as well get a level checked, probably optimally in the winter. 2000 IU represents 50 mcg. A toxic dose would entail a daily dose of 1 GRAM per day, or 20 times that dose. It's probably not a good idea to take 12,000 IU per day (3 mg), as that's way above daily needs (even if you spend all day in a cave), and I don't think there's any evidence that taking larger doses does much good. Even without Vitamin D and calcium, bodybuilding in and of itself increases bone density. This is why the one tangible health benefit of obesity is a lower risk of osteoporosis (though the many health risks of obesity greatly outweigh this benefit). As far as one's bones are concerned, carrying all of that weight is tantamount to bodybuilding (of course, lower extremity joints don't like that excess weight and will wear down).

I personally take one 2000 IU capsule daily, plus two tablets of Citracal+D tablets, which provide an additional 1000 IU. (I do put SPF 30 or higher when outdoors due a history of basal cell skin cancers). This gets my 25-OH D levels in the mid 30s, in the recommended range.

Toxicity gets seen with levels over 150 (ng/ml):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665033/#:~:text=Vitamin D insufficiency is now,be > 30 ng%2Fml.

"...With all of this information collectively, most experts now agree that vitamin D deficiency should be defined as a 25(OH)D of < 20 ng/ml. Vitamin D insufficiency is now recognized as a 25(OH)D of 21-29 ng/ml. The preferred level for 25(OH)D is now recommended by many experts to be > 30 ng/ml... Based on the literature, it appears that vitamin D intoxication does not occur until blood levels are above 150-200 ng/ml. Vitamin D intoxication is defined as a 25(OH)D > 150 ng/ml that is associated with hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria and often hyperphosphatemia...". 

 

 

[vinapu]

18 hours ago, BjornAgain said:

 

Next International G&T day is 19th October. 

instead of gin and tonic I strongly recommend my own receipt - 70 % of gin and 30% of gin. People with vitamin D deficiency may consider to lower it to 40% of gin and 60% of gin

[Moses]

20 hours ago, unicorn said:

I would be extremely surprised to learn you weren't deficient.

I'm not. The easiest and most efficient way to get enough of D-vitamin is to eat normal fish like salmon and caviar. Both kind of food are cheap here. SO I don't need to eat artificially synthesized pills with questionable efficiency - D-vitamin (strictly speaking, all 5 substances, the complex of which is called vitamin D) is a fat-soluble substance, and without the participation of fat in absorption, this substance simply passes through the gastrointestinal tract without any positive consequences for the body (digestibility of tablets is 5-10%).

Therefore, the natural consumption of lightly salted salmon, trout, salmon (in Russian we have different names for that fish, but Google translates both cases as "salmon") and caviar, which initially contain fats for the absorption of vitamin D, is the most effective way to cover the deficiency when you haven't enough sun.

Slightly less effective is the consumption of fish oil pressed from these fish. The disadvantages of this method are the unpleasant taste of fish oil (even when it is in capsules), the advantages are that in addition to vitamin D, the fat also contains omega-3 and omega-5 fat acids necessary for the body.

20 hours ago, unicorn said:

but I know of no evidence of a cancer risk. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21123442/ "Vitamin D toxicity..."

Quote

most had a disorder that can be associated with hypercalcemia [squamous cell cancer (n = 1), Pneumocystis or mycobacterial infection (n = 3), lymphoma (n = 1), granulomatous disease (n = 1), hyperthyroidism (n = 2)]

 

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, Moses said:

I'm not. The easiest and most efficient way to get enough of D-vitamin is to eat normal fish like salmon and caviar. Both kind of food are cheap here. SO I don't need to eat artificially synthesized pills with questionable efficiency - D-vitamin (strictly speaking, all 5 substances, the complex of which is called vitamin D) is a fat-soluble substance, and without the participation of fat in absorption, this substance simply passes through the gastrointestinal tract without any positive consequences for the body (digestibility of tablets is 5-10%).

Therefore, the natural consumption of lightly salted salmon, trout, salmon (in Russian we have different names for that fish, but Google translates both cases as "salmon") and caviar, which initially contain fats for the absorption of vitamin D, is the most effective way to cover the deficiency when you haven't enough sun.

Slightly less effective is the consumption of fish oil pressed from these fish. The disadvantages of this method are the unpleasant taste of fish oil (even when it is in capsules), the advantages are that in addition to vitamin D, the fat also contains omega-3 and omega-5 fat acids necessary for the body.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21123442/ "Vitamin D toxicity..."

 

I don't know about Russia, but what makes you think that vitamin D capsules have "questionable efficacy"? Vitamin D deficiency was one of the most common conditions I treated as a physician, and, of those who started off with levels of 10 ng/ml or less, I was able to get ALL of my patients to over 30 ng/ml (recommended range) with supplements. The study you referenced in no shape or form was designed to show that vitamin D causes cancer (and certainly the authors didn't even suggest that). If you had actually read the study, you would have noted that the study looked at a group of people from the Dominican Republic who took a supplement (only available there) which the study itself described as containing "massive" amounts of vitamins D and A: "...Laboratory analysis by HPLC revealed that the supplement actually contained vitamin D(3) (864,000 IU) and vitamin A (predominantly retinyl palmitate 123,500 IU) per vial..." (Note that most supplements have 2000 or 3000 IU). To conclude from the fact that one of the participants (who took 40 times the recommended dose) had squamous cell cancer and one had lymphoma, that normal vitamin D supplements can cause cancer is so preposterous it leaves me breathless. You obviously have zero understanding of biostatistics, or how to interpret scientific studies. You even show a complete lack of basic common sense. Really, now.

The one hint of truth in your post, is that I think you might have been referring to rainbow trout, or радужная форель, which sometimes could be translated to salmon. Indeed, this is the food with the highest amount of dietary vitamin D (salmon itself is also relatively high in vitamin D). Yet even if you ate this every day, it has only 645 IU's per 3 ounce serving, which would not get you to the recommended range, unless you go suntanning along the Black Sea coast, and are measuring your levels in August (I don't know where in Russia you live). Even if you ate a whole tablespoon of sturgeon caviar daily, that adds only a paltry 37 IU of vitamin D (though I do envy you if you can eat that much Osetra caviar a day, which would be horrifically expensive in the US). I would find it incredible if you told me you had your 25-OH Vitamin D levels checked in February, with levels over 30, from simply daily consumption of salmon and rainbow trout. 

[Moses]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

To conclude from the fact that one of the participants (who took 40 times the recommended dose) had squamous cell cancer and one had lymphoma, that normal vitamin D supplements can cause cancer is so preposterous it leaves me breathless.

Looks like you didn't search on Pubmed "Vitamin D toxicity"...

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, Moses said:

Looks like you didn't search on Pubmed "Vitamin D toxicity"...

You're the one who made the wacky claim, so you have the onus of finding such a study, not me. The best you could come up with was an observational study which looked at people who took massive, long-term overdoses of both vitamins A and D, orders of magnitude above recommended doses (even then, it couldn't even establish an association, since only two people developed completely unrelated cancers during the study period). On this forum, posting bogus, unscientific statements, based on lack of understanding of how to interpret studies, has the potential to harm people. In particular, scaring people away from safe and effective supplementation of vitamin D, the most common vitamin deficiency in most temperate countries, has the potential to increase the risk of serious fractures. Your misstatements regarding vitamin D and supplementation are Trumponian in magnitude. Statements don't become real because of fanciful imaginations. 

This issue has been studied. While, ideally, one will direct therapy according to the results of lab tests, the addition of 2000-3000 IU of vitamin D will not lead to vitamin D toxicity. In the absence of sun exposure, one will not get the vitamin D from one's diet, even if one ate rainbow trout and/or salmon daily--and certainly not from caviar, which adds negligible quantities. You have no idea what you're talking about, and should not be dispensing medical advice. Amazing that people believe Trump's outright lies. Hopefully, readers on this site won't believe yours.

[unicorn]

The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the US (and this doesn't even count those with vitamin D insufficiency) has been measured at 41.6%. Obviously, for places with less sunlight, such as Canada, Russia, and most of Europe, it's likely to be significantly higher.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21310306/#:~:text=The overall prevalence rate of,followed by Hispanics (69.2%).

"...The overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency [in the US] was 41.6%, with the highest rate seen in blacks (82.1%), followed by Hispanics (69.2%)...". 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34004105/

"...In regions that represent a geographically representative sample of regions of the Russian Federation with a high risk of developing low levels of vitamin D, it's deficiency was noted in 55.96%, and the level of deficiency and insufficiency was recorded in 84.01%...".

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/scheer/docs/sunbeds_co7a_en.pdf

"...Between 70% and 97% of Canadians demonstrate vitamin D insufficiency. Furthermore, studies assessing 25(OH)D levels of vitamin D at 25–40 nmol/l reveal
that many Canadians have profoundly deficient levels...". 

[Riobard]

On 8/11/2024 at 9:37 PM, vinapu said:

instead of gin and tonic I strongly recommend my own receipt - 70 % of gin and 30% of gin. People with vitamin D deficiency may consider to lower it to 40% of gin and 60% of gin

Are you staggering when using tumblers? I assume that when you shake or stir the cocktail those metrics land at 100% and Schweppes has long ago fizzed out of business. 

[vinapu]

29 minutes ago, Riobard said:

 I assume that when you shake or stir the cocktail those metrics land at 100% and Schweppes has long ago fizzed out of business. 

100% correct. I don't dilute an alcohol with water, ice or anything, after gulp may chase it with sip of water juice or usually tea just to get rid of aftertaste.

[Moses]

On 8/11/2024 at 9:50 PM, unicorn said:

but I know of no evidence of a cancer risk

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

You're the one who made the wacky claim

Now you know about evidence of cancer risk, and you are the one who made wacky claim.

[unicorn]

9 minutes ago, Moses said:

Now you know about evidence of cancer risk, and you are the one who made wacky claim.

[Riobard]

This Canadian has had the recommended Imvamune inoculation prior to Vitamin D supplementation shots.

The predictable anti-vaxxer shade:

[Riobard]

On 8/10/2024 at 10:35 PM, Olddaddy said:

They seem to be working in making me more "horny " and increasing sperm cum 

 

What other cum is there if your tub of yoghurt is empty? 

[Riobard]

Vitamin D sourced from sunlight may appear to increases skin cancer risk because sun exposure is relevant to risk. However, any claim of association between D and cancer is spurious (= false). If you hold constant in multivariate analysis all the individual factors deemed as all other inputs implicated in skin cancer, that is, teased out for analysis of association with cancer, including the measurable aspect of D for the sake of thoroughness (although it’s not a known input) sunlight nevertheless clinically and statistically emerges as a genuine independent variable for skin cancer incidence. We won’t get into metastases as it does not add to this piece. 

Vitamin D supplementation is one single nutrient. That a single nutrient on its own could have a statistically significant and clinically significant impact on the development of a disease that requires so many inputs is a stretch. If one were to claim the relevance of Vitamin D, a multivariate analysis inclusive of all nutrient intake would be required to support it because arbitrarily singling out one nutrient without adding the others introduces problematic bias. 

That said, cancer can be studied as a categorical binary variable: incidence vs no incidence. Vitamin D level is measurable. No research has uncovered an independent association between Vitamin D and cancer. If a correlation were to occur it would then need to successfully and rigorously satisfy all the assumptions of causation. Not happened and will not likely. 

Similarly, a single person with skin cancer history may avoid sunlight and as a result increase Vitamin D supplementation for clinical benefit. A recurrence or exacerbation would be associated with an increase in Vitamin D levels. It would be an artefact of the range of inputs outside of Vitamin D consideration, not the least of which would be an existing predisposition to skin cancer. The relation to Vitamin D is, again, spurious. 

[Riobard]

On 8/12/2024 at 4:52 PM, Moses said:

Looks like you didn't search on Pubmed "Vitamin D toxicity"...

Still, well played.

[donJ]

I take vitamin B as well as Magnesium, which helps with sleep which I'm sure would help with sexual health. Not a vitamin but I also use a lot of Maca which is supposed to have libido beneifts as well. I can't say I can directly measure the help, & I'm 33 so results might vary, but will say there's nothing like getting enuf sleep and taking a few days off from the cognac.

[Olddaddy]

On 8/15/2024 at 1:00 AM, donJ said:

I take vitamin B as well as Magnesium, which helps with sleep which I'm sure would help with sexual health. Not a vitamin but I also use a lot of Maca which is supposed to have libido beneifts as well. I can't say I can directly measure the help, & I'm 33 so results might vary, but will say there's nothing like getting enuf sleep and taking a few days off from the cognac.

I have magnesium capsules in my cupboard unopened

Does it do anything for you do you think ?

I know without my vitamin B I become stressed ,maybe it's all the mind ,but apart from making my pee yellow 🟡it's seemed to calm me