>The thing about nutritional supplements is that it presumes that
>modern science has a perfect and complete understanding of the way
>human metabolism works. For example, that the vitamin A in a pill is
>biologically equivalent to that in a carrot as far as the body is
>concerned. Is this true? It indeed be, but it may also be the case
>that the vitamin A in a carrot is superior because the biological
>context in which it is found. Do we really know all the variables?
I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the vitamins in tablets are not the same in terms of nutrition as vitamins in whole foods. Simply because fruit and vegetables for example have a lot of other stuff in them as well. I'm glad to see I'm not alone.
An apple doesn't only have vitamin C. It has lots of others goodies. It may well be that you need some of the other ingredients, or the particular complex mix of the other ingredients, to efficiently metabolise the vitamins. It doesn't seem unlikely at all, that's the thing with nutrition, its an extremely complex chemical reaction.
>For this reason, vitamin pills should probably be supplements to a
>good diet, not a substitute.
Pills are probably better than nothing, but it isn't safe to rely on them. It certainly isn't cheap. And can you trust the manufacturing process? No, you can't.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas