Perhaps I ought to rephrase it as AI sources for these types of questions shouldn’t link to companies peddling products in support of the claims.
It may only be Google though.
One thing I’ve found troubling is for these “AI overviews”, there never seems to be any quantification:
Mg levels have dropped in vegetables over the last fifty years. Fine, but by how much? 5%, 50% or 0.0001%.
On the other thread regarding weight loss etc, there’s mention by AI of a continued calorie burn after exercise which is true but in fact, for what most people consider to be daily exercise, is so small as to be unnecessary to mention.
It was on the same set of results of the CGPT response but ironically I didn’t want to overload my post with data.
A UK study comparing nutrient data from the 1930s to the 1980s found significant declines in key nutrients in vegetables (e.g. 19% less magnesium, 22% less iron).
Your body limits the amount of vitamin D it produces from sun exposure to the skin.
Taking a ‘normal strength’ supplement (600-1000 IU) and eating lots of oily fish etc. and getting out in the sun everyday will not get you anywhere near an overdose.
But, online, a quick google shows supplements with 3200 IU, 11200 IU etc (just from one company).
It’s possible you may need these for a specific medical condition but people should really not be buying and taking tablets of this strength without medical supervision.
In conclusion recommends that the causes of the differences in mineral content and their effect on human health be investigated.
The article was dated 1997 but I haven’t read anywhere (as a result of research) where supplements are recommended to make up this short-fall and still, the only supplement which seems to be recommend is Vit. D.
As a thought, it may be worth looking at research into the diets of indigenous people who for many months of the year, have not historically had access to fresh fruit and vegetables and whose diet has consisted mainly of fish etc such as Eskimos.*
I take the dose prescribed by my endocrinologist and I trust her.
Anyone who just randomly takes any supplement they find on line without doing their research first is obviously stupid.
I was intrigued by the UK study and I must admit also highly sceptical. I found this; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113
There is a perception out there that somehow we all need supplements. There is almost no evidence for this allowing for the small number of people who suffer from particular deficiencies. A well balanced diet should suffice. Modern supermarket products may not not be as tasty as home-grown (Organic often tastes better in my experience) but nutritionally they should be just fine,
Magnesium is the only ‘supplement’ that I take, but only in response to vigorous exercise where I’ve been sweating a lot and/or I’m feeling muscle fatigue or cramps. As such I view it as a treatment (and a very effective one) rather than a supplement.
My question: Why the hell didn’t my AI search also mention and link to this rather than say they are in decline and then link to various vitamin and supplement suppliers?
Same goes for @ShirleyNot 's different AI engine which gave the same (incorrect results) as mine?
I think this just reinforces what I wrote early.
This isn’t knocking AI though as a whole - there was an announcement today that AI has been used to design two antibiotics which can treat a drug-resistant form of gonorrhea and MRSA.
no until the fat woman sings! Let me write a thesis about Vitamin D here.
Nah, forget about it, people wouldn’t want to read it.
Let me just write that there are food supplements (FS) that are sold in Europe and are forbidden in Switzerland, and viceversa. Or viceversa. Let alone US!!!
And this is because even the experts (EFSA and EMA and Swissmedic) cannot agree among them.
For example Vit A. The type of Vit A that is sold in Europe is forbidden in Switzerland. And viceversa. Why? Well, a lot of observational and meta-analyses studies on various cohorts show that specific type of carotenes seem to increase the incidence of lung cancer on specific populations. Other meta-analyses show exactly the opposite…
And…don’t start me on Vit D
Having worked with several companies on this area, I can only tell you one thing:
if it is cheap, most probably is not good.
Not all vitamins (or mineral complexes) are ‘born equal’
Well, a lot of observational and meta-analyses studies on various cohorts show that specific type of carotenes seem to increase the incidence of lung cancer on specific populations. Other meta-analyses show exactly the opposite…