http://www.optimen.com/
anyone else take this supplement? Just bought this last week, seems really good.
anyone else take this supplement? Just bought this last week, seems really good.
opti-men multivitamin
- Thread starter darkdiablo
- Start date
It's a bunch of herbal/plant extracts, amino acids, vitamins, and digestive enzymes packed into a pill. A whole ton of useless, if you ask me.
How much does it cost?
I usually take a different whole-food multi called every man's once daily from New Chapter. Costs me like 33 cents a pill after finding a good deal, but it's all organic, yadda yadda. I go through cycles of taking them on and off.
When I do take it, I feel my hair and nails grow quicker and seem healthier. I do subscribe to the belief that a whole-food multi will be more effective, but nothing is more effective than actual food.
I usually take a different whole-food multi called every man's once daily from New Chapter. Costs me like 33 cents a pill after finding a good deal, but it's all organic, yadda yadda. I go through cycles of taking them on and off.
When I do take it, I feel my hair and nails grow quicker and seem healthier. I do subscribe to the belief that a whole-food multi will be more effective, but nothing is more effective than actual food.
Herbal/plant extracts: efficacy AND safety, for the majority, unproven - particularly in the pharmacological, concentrated doses in the pills. According to DSHEA (the Dietary Supplement & Education Act), the onus is on the FDA to prove that supplements are unsafe. In other words, supplement makers can put whatever they want into bottles and make whatever claims they want (provided the claims do not explicitly claim to treat a disease). Oh, and I should add that many have unknown interactions with medications, so if you are on medications you would best not futz around with "natural" herbal supplements. They DO contain active ingredients.
Amino Acids: Eat a steak and get a lot more aminos than found in this pills. There is *some* evidence to indicate supplementation with leucine can improve lean tissue synthesis in UNTRAINED individuals, but it's far from conclusive. In any event, you are probably better off just eating a steak.
Vitamins: Supplements don't generally make a difference with respect to vitamins and "more is better" does not necessarily apply - even with the water solubles, which can cause complications in the short-term. The only populations that may really need vitamin supplements are infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and the infirm. Most people consuming an adequate diet should get enough of the vitamins in their diet. Even somebody whose diet is devoid of vegetables is still getting some measure of vitamins in their diet, thanks to fortification.
Digestive Enzymes: If you have a pancreatic insufficiency, you might need these. But for those of us whose pancreases are working fine, the pancreas releases sufficient amounts of digestive enzymes and juices to handle generally whatever macronutrients you throw at it. Adding more to the mix doesn't hurt, but it doesn't necessarily help, either. This assumes that the pills are actually enteric-coated, meaning that they can survive the trip through the stomach into the small intestine. Enzymes are proteins, and proteins are denatured (broken down) into amino acid chains in the stomach. In other words, consuming enzymes intact without any protective coating would result in a very expensive protein supplement. This is the reason diabetics cannot consume insulin orally: it would simply be broken down in the stomach and small intestine and absorbed as amino acids.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
Ding ding ding. These things may work, but they are inefficient compared to the natural available sources - a well-rounded diet consisting of fruits, veggies, and other various sources. People are just lazy. Everybody wants a quick fix in the form of a pill. If you put the initial effort in, the diet just works itself out and can make for improved function/energy levels/performance/interests/etc.
Inefficiency isn't really the issue here. Usually supplements come in purified form that is designed for increased biological availability. They are perfectly good for what they are designed to do - supplement diets. However, there are a myriad of physiologic benefits associated with whole food consumption that you simply don't get in pills. That said, we also have ZERO idea how the active ingredients in some of these foods work - they may work in conjunction with certain micronutrients, other active ingredients, chemicals, etc. The interactions may be simple, or they may be complex and myriad. It's not even clear that the supposed active compounds are even responsible for promoting the desirable effect(s).
I also profoundly disagree with the charge that people who choose to use supplements are "lazy." They simply have greater resistance to change, which makes breaking the habit more difficult. In that situation, wouldn't you turn to a simpler solution? EVERYBODY has habits they find are fiendishly difficult to break, from biting nails to smoking. Would you call the compulsive nail-biter or smoker who can't stop lazy? There is something culturally significant about food that compels us to call those with poor eating habits lazy.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
Inefficiency IS the issue here. I was referring that they were inefficient in the manner that the supplements lack a lot of other pro's that the natural options don't (ie things like anthocyanins, flavanols, etc). I agree that they pack a ton of crap in a pill without knowing how it interacts. That's a large con to me.
What? I'm referring to the people who are trying to care about their health, but would rather trust a pill with unknown effects and unknown chemicals rather than do it the entirely proved method of honing in one's diet. Habits are never easy to break. However, if you're making an effort to fix these things then clearly you aren't lazy. I am referring to the majority of the supplement users that just don't want to educate themselves enough to know that these are unacceptable substitutes. I'm calling people who act like they want to change, yet only take the easy roads out, lazy. Those who love to eat poorly and take the repercussions that come with are fine by me. That's their decision. I'm saying if you make a decision, put forth enough effort to have some follow-through. If you'd like to call me wrong, I'd like you to refer to all the people you know who have started trying to get in shape or change something and then have quit because it was "too hard" or they "didn't have enough time." These people are lazy. That is truth.
Nice post, very informative. I already eat what i hope is a balanced diet, veggies, 1g of protein per pound of body weight, fruits, and whatnot, to add to that diet I take 1 pill of vitamin C, 8 capsules of fish oil, and 3 pills of multivitamins, spread out over the course of 4 meals that i eat.
I take New Chapter Organics too and I like them a lot. I don't like taking too many pills though, so I just take one instead of the recommended 3.
There doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the New Chapter Organics and the Opti-Men except the Opti-Men doesn't have all of the hippie crap I like.
The Sauce
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 4,741
- 34
- 91
Nice post. Took a lot of effort. But very biased and chock full of misinformation and generalizations.
With regard to vitamins, you can not generalize that all are unnecessary for people on an average diet. Most Americans have a crappy diet that consists in large part of high fructose corn syrup and unfermented soy waste. In areas in the US (yes the US) vitamin deficiencies are the norm. For example, Vitamin D in the Northeasten states. Critical to muscle and bone growth and health. Other minerals in multi's have proven health benefits (e.g. selenium, boron, lycopene, magnesium) which are commonly deficient in American diets. Other vitamins do have antioxidant effects which are known to diminish oxidative damage (e.g. Vit C and E). I personally do not trust Corporate America enough to believe in the quality or quantity of their "fortified" white bread to ensure that I am getting sufficient amounts of these.
Regarding the rest - I agree about the aminos. Arginine and Glutamine have both been shown to stimulate HGH release but is there a proven benefit to that - the jury is still out. Combining creatine and arginine alpha ketoglutarate has been shown to be a good combo, though, in recent research. The digestive enzymes are completely useless. The phytonutrient blend? Who knows. A lot of them are also antioxidants. It has been argued that these can not be properly handled by the body outside of the mileiu of the foods from which they are derived. No one knows. Some of them are generally accepted, though, such as the green tea extract, ginko and ginseng.
Biased? Fair enough. Full disclosure: I'm a graduate nutrition student. But I'm afraid you are mistaken. I didn't say "average" diet. I said "adequate" - i.e. balanced diet. Note that the subject of vitamin D is a matter of huge academic debate because it serves such a wide variety of functions. Some people say the RDAs are too high, some people would like to do away with RDAs entirely, some people say they aren't high enough. The current recommendation is about 400 IU/day, which can easily be met by consuming three cups of milk (of course, NOBODY consumes three cups of milk/day, which is the reason for some of this controversy - the recommendations may be out of date). There is also question of whether the dietary surveys are accurately assessing the amounts of vitamin D consumed. You can generally get an accurate idea of someone's dietary intake (I use 'accurate' in a very broad sense here) based on a validated questionaire, but these questionaires are often quite inaccurate and they DO NOT ACCOUNT for sunlight exposure. There is no real way to assess the amount of exposure, because it is based on a combination of skin pigmentation, the time of day, cloud cover, glass used (if indoors), total skin exposed, etc.
I'd like to point out that a number of the nutrients/chemicals you have mentioned are not necessarily 'required.' Lycopene, for example, has an active effect in the human body but this isn't a reason to eat it. Tomatoes are not part the diet in certain ethnicities, and there are surely other phytochemicals with a similar action. The role of boron (an ultratrace nutrient) is little understood, and it's not even definitive that it is even necessary. Magnesium is pervasive through the food supply. So are vitamins C and E. Although these do have an antioxidant function, anybody consuming an adequate diet should suffer no deficiencies.
Regarding your 'distrust' for corporate America and fortification (ironic since you advocate supplementation, and supplements frequently underdeliver) - these levels are strictly mandated and regulated by the FDA. It's not particularly good business or particularly smart for major food processors to short-change the amount of vitamins that they reintroduce to foods, especially if they don't want Uncle Sam breathing down their neck. Regardless of whether you consume fortified foods or not (everybody does to some degree - that's why the foods are fortified), odds are if there is sufficient variety you are getting more than enough. The B-vitamins (with the exception of B12) are really pervasive throughout the food supply anyway. When was the last time you saw someone come down with a case of scurvy (vitamin C), beriberi (thiamin) or pellagra (niacin)?
Consuming amino acid supplements for an ergogenic benefit is one thing (still controversial), but we are talking for general use. Even among athletes, there is the matter of HOW MUCH. Simply because substance A causes a release of substance B doesn't necessarily mean that you will get any sort of tangible, worthwhile result.
Regarding your belief that green tea extract, ginkgo and ginseng are "accepted," you should consider that although *SOME* of these substances have been studied, they have not been studied exhaustively. Some interact.Ginseng, for example, interacts with anticoagulants and effectively diminishes/eliminates their function. These substances, for all intents and purposes, are pharmaceuticals with a pharmaceutical effect in the body. Simply because they are "natural" does not make them safe. Considering most supplement makers take extracts and pack them into supplements at many times the traditional dosage, I really have to question the supposed 'safety.' Especially because these companies conduct little or no testing of their products. Case in point: ephedra was marketed as a weight loss supplement but was subsequently found to caused heart and kidney damage, and was traced to a few deaths before it was pulled off the market.
I can see little risk in consuming these substances in their original, unprocessed form (such as green tea, instead of consuming the extract, or eating ginkgo berries, etc.), but there is much uncertainty with supplementation. As you suggest, there isn't even particularly good evidence that certain compounds have the same effect in vivo when abstracted from their natural state.
Now you say I can't generalize to the rest of the population with poor diets, but let me ask you this: what exactly does having adequate vitamin D status do for a population with abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, and hypertension with an LDL level through the roof? These people will probably die from cardiac events before they even get old enough to worry about osteoporosis or osteomalacia (adult rickets). Fixing the diet corrects both of these problems, obviating the need for a supplement. But this is, of course, easier said than done.
I take them. Used to 3x a day, then 2x a day, then 1x a day, then came college, and it's down to whenever I remember ( about 1x a week LOL useless).
They're good. Green pee ftw.
They're good. Green pee ftw.
Kipper, I agree with some of what you've posted, there a lot of facts in your post. But I completely disagree with your view of supplementation in general. It's interesting that you mentioned vitamin D, I've noticed this vitamin mentioned a lot lately in the news suggesting anti-cancer properties. What's interesting is that this vitamin is often included in milk in form D3, which is mouse poison.
I think you mentioned it, but sunlight is the best source of vitamin D. You mentioned the fda holding manufactures to account, this is almost never the case. For example the D3 content in milk was found to vary greatly between milk producers in a 1992 study. Basically their quality control was terrible and has had no indications of improving, and the fda has done nothing about it. This is just one example of their effectiveness.
I think you mentioned it, but sunlight is the best source of vitamin D. You mentioned the fda holding manufactures to account, this is almost never the case. For example the D3 content in milk was found to vary greatly between milk producers in a 1992 study. Basically their quality control was terrible and has had no indications of improving, and the fda has done nothing about it. This is just one example of their effectiveness.
Okay, a few things: the research on vitamin D is still scant and upcoming. Far from any major conclusions, although adequate vitamin D status does seem to be linked to reduced development of certain cancers. Second, the inclusion of vitamin D in a rodenticide does not necessarily mean it is toxic. More than likely there are multiple chemical compounds in the rodenticide which interact with the vitamin D to produce the desired physiological effect. Simply because vitamin D is an ingredient does not mean it is toxic to humans when in milk. This is FUD. There is ZERO problem with fortification, and in fact it is fortification which is credited with the great reduction in rickets we've seen over the past two generations. Finally, you can't expect me to believe that a 17-year old cross-sectional study (?) is actually applicable today. Especially with this sort of thing subject to change (literally) overnight. I would be certainly interested in seeing how accurate the study was - with respect to the sample, size of producers, assay methods, etc. But it's still out of date.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. For those consuming an ADEQUATE diet, supplementation is completely unnecessary. Adequacy is a measure, obviously, of the variety and balance in the diet in relation to physiological needs.
I'm guessing that the people telling you that multivitamins are useless, take a protein supplement of some kind so why aren't they getting everything from their diets?
Most people are only taking a protein shake or two a day, and usually post workout because whey protein will digest a lot quicker and be used by the body At least that is how I understand it.
SociallyChallenged
Elite
- Mar 22, 2002
- 10,483
- 32
- 81
Because that is something that can be usefully supplemented while vitamins cannot? Look up some multivitamin research. They are useless in many cases, while protein supplementation has been shown to have legitimate benefits.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter