Well damn. Also says it seems to specifically increase risk of lung cancer? Wonder how that works. Also increases twofold if you smoke, of course. Hm.
Expect sales of 5hr Energy to drop.
o nice, this is some fun reading seeing as I've been taking 100 mg's of B6 for the last month since I fucked up some nerves in my arm. i mean obviously this applies for people that take these for like years, but still, crazy timing.
Well that's great... I already am tired all the time due to having a B deficiency. So I guess it's be tired or have cancer.
Cool.
Long time lurker here, finally made an account, I just have to say that there are so many different chemical make ups for B6 and B12 yet no mention of which actual chemical was used in the study?
Folic acid is the artificial form of Folate and has been shown to build up in the body since its not easily converted into its usable form which is Methylfolate.
Also, Cyanocobalamin isnt easily absorbed by many people who have GIF (Gastric Intrinsic Factor) same goes for the genetic defect known as MTHFR for Folate methylation.
I have both MTHFR variances and GIF and it causes me to honestly feel like shit 24/7 if I dont take a special form of B vitamins, specifically Methylated forms of both.
I would attribute the rise of cancer to the artificial forms of the vitamins rather than lumping all of them into the same cancer causing category.
So HUGE GRAINS OF SALT with this study. Just my 2 cents and life experience.
Do you eat meat regularly?
You have enough B12 in your system.
You don't need supplements if you're not a vegan/vegetarian.
Try to. From what I understand, my body just has a problem with breaking it down and using it. About 99.8% sure it's anemia, but have been too scared to get a solid answer... plus, y'know, USA. Can't really afford going anyway.
I mean, I can function. I just wish I could function for a full day without being tired for 3/4 of the day.
There's some strong correlation to this with a sample size that solid:
A total of 77,118 participants of the VITAL cohort, 50 to 76 years of age, were recruited between October 2000 and December 2002 and included in this analysis. Incident, primary, invasive lung cancers (n = 808) were ascertained by prospectively linking the participants to a population-based cancer registry. The 10-year average daily dose from individual and multivitamin supplements were the exposures of primary interest.
Just imagine those people who drink 6 hour energy in fact look at this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/601zt4/i_think_at_this_point_meth_would_be_cheaper/
Vitamin B6 is pyridoxine and related compounds, not folate. Folate is vitamin B9. Folic acid and folate are the same thing: one is simply the ionised form of the other, and it is not artificial. Also, all forms of vitamin B12 are treated more or less equally by the body, both in terms of absorption and subsequent metabolism. There is no evidence to support the superiority of one form over another, except in certain rare cases where hydroxocobalamin may be better: see this review for a quick overview.
That guy has to be the cancer equivalent of Mr. Burns.
The cancer is literally fighting off the other cancers.
Eat a balanced diet people, and then you don't need supplements except in rare cases or conditions.
My bad, yes B9 is Folate.
Methylcobalamin is superior in terms of absorption for people suffering from GIF. Yes they are treated the same, I was mentioning that in terms of absorption they are completely different. The only reason being is that GIF sufferers cant methylate B12 in its Cyanocobalamin form. Hydroxo and adenosylcobalamin are also good forms for B12 injections. Also Folic acid and Folate ARE NOT the same. https://www.authoritydiet.com/folate-vs-folic-acid-whats-difference-same/
Folic acid is directly correlated with cancer/ heart disease. Folate is not.
Folic acid is pteroylmonoglutamic acid, which does not occur naturally. It is manufactured and added to some supplements and foods.
Synthetic folic acid is actually more readily absorbed by the body (18).
Folates that occur naturally in foods are only 80% as bioavailable as folic acid.
However, most of the folic acid that is consumed is not converted into 5-MTHF in the intestines.
This isn't really aimed at people taking dietary supplements anyway though, even though the title is a bit misleading.
The recommended dose of B12 is 2.4µg whereas people in this study were taking 20-55µg every day for 6 years.
I eat mostly vegan and take a multivitamin which contains 2.4µg of B12 so I'm not concerned, this is aimed at supplements that give you 1000-2000% of your recommended daily intake claiming it has health benefits.
Whilst that's often the case for people deficient in elements of B complex, some people are unable to absorb some B vitamins at the right level even if they do eat meat. I seem to remember reading that B6 is often injected rather than taken in pill form too, at least in people with absorption issues.
IF-deficiency impairs absorption of all forms of cobalamin equally, and it does not affect the ability to process cobalamin once it inside cells. It is treated by injections of cobalamin, including cyanocobalamin. My bad on folate/folic acid, I got confused by the nomenclature as -ate is usually used to denote the conjugate base of an acid but in this case it is used to refer to several different dietarily-relevant forms of folic acid.
A lot of B12 and B6 supplements I've seen have doses in the thousands, like 8,000%.
I'm pretty sure this is so you don't need to take the supplement as often if you're in a low-light area or are otherwise deficient, not so you can take your 8k daily every day
I'm a bit confused about the claims about B12 supplements. They're only found to have a higher risk of lung cancers in smokers, the daily recommended intake is 2.4 micrograms and it was considered a high risk when people took 20 times this amount (that's quite high), and you can buy B12 at doses of 5,000 micrograms (that's really fucking high).
Is there any evidence that taking the recommended daily intake of B12 in supplement form while not being a smoker causes an increased risk of lung cancer? Did I misread the article and miss it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
