81

Yes they have an expiration date, but do they actually go bad?

all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 43 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
[-] BreadOven@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Agreed to an extent. Due to the lack of regulation for vitamins though, long-term degradation studies aren't routinely performed. So as they "lose potency" aka degrade, it's not clear what the breakdown products are.

While probably safe to consume far after their expiration date, more regulations would need to be put in place to ensure that.

This is done with drugs by the FDA for drug safety. As far as I know vitamins and other supplements like that do not fall under that category and often are much less regulated than they should be.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 3 points 8 months ago

Yeah, it’s pretty vague. I think the proper takeaway is to use them as soon as possible, and at the very least they probably won’t do harm. Hopefully.

[-] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago

I will note, unless you are deficient, multivitamins may not do much if anything. I have a vitamin d deficiency and if I don't take supplements, it shows up on my blood tests so if your body is lacking or you have a terrible diet, it may just be a waste of money.

Source: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/is-there-really-any-benefit-to-multivitamins

[-] Aurix@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Multivitamins may actually be harmful. Fat soluble Vitamins may have weird properties which could be bad even with correct dosage. Vitamin B6 can be easily overdosed as even the recommended values are questionable.

However, I strongly advise against going to just by "terrible diet" and do only until something shows on regular check-ups. There can be subacute deficiencies, they won't show up on routine checks or not at all anywhere as we can't "Star Trek Health Scan" the human body and especially the brain. Also your diet is terrible by default. Why? Because depending on the geographic region and especially with modern agriculture which killed off all kinds of biodiversity and trace elements is more than likely to be worse than a century ago with the same ingredients. It is not easy to recommend a Vitamin stack as there are so many things we don't quite know and regulation is practically absent.

[-] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I agree on top of the fact they aren't regulated so their dosage may and can be completely off.

[-] Alimentar@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

And depending on what brand you buy or how much you take, you could be exposing yourself to a lot of heavy metals

[-] Atemu@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago
[-] matjoeman@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Isn't the whole point of multivitamins to make sure you're not deficient?

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 8 months ago

No, the point of multivitamins is to sell as many multivitamins as possible. The 80s and 90s were a minefield of dubious nutrition information. Taking supplements you don't need to take can have detrimental health effects, or at best, is a waste of money.

[-] DrRatso@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Yes, most people who live in a western country and don’t take major shortcuts when it comes to their diet don’t need to supplement much. Taking vitamins can in fact lead to serious complications, given that there is no benefit for the vast majority, there is no reason to take on that risk for “prophylaxis”.

Notable exceptions is Vitamin D - this is produced by your skin in the sun. 5 direct sunlight minutes in a T-shirt daily is enough, so supplementing 1k IU daily in months when you can not do that is advisable. So necessity will depend on climate.

[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That HIGHLY depends on the climate. 5 minutes in direct sunlight in a t-shirt was referencing someone around the equator under optimal conditions I believe.

As an example, here in belgium, it is often cloudy and rainy for weeks or months at a time, combined with winter sun being significantly less effective at generating vitamin D just due to passing through much more of the atmosphere.

The majority of central and northern European countries, along with most people above Missouri or so in America, especially in the midwest will not get enough vitamin D from the above reasons along with the fact that wearing a T-shirt just isn't feasible, and people will be often fully covered outside of their face. That means that possibility of absorption is extremely low. Studies have shown that many or most people in these areas are vitamin D deficient through the winter.

Also the "standard recommendation" for vitamin D has been suggested by a few studies to be significantly too low (>2x higher daily dosage needed before deficiency), but that is getting into less supported theories. Though there isn't much funding for those types of studies, so who knows.

[-] DrRatso@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Yes, the D data is incomplete and mostly done in sunny climates, the reference range for vitamin D in blood is also based in iirc Spain or that climate, so it might be that slightly defficient in colder climates is a-ok. Plus it is hard to separate bogus claims when it comes to D, since people want to implicate it in everything from immune compromise to why your nanas cookies don’t taste too good.

That said, 5 minutes out in direct sun is probably a fair recommendation because most people will likely spend more than 5 minutes out if they have made it there. I think the recommendation is more about the climate / weather conditions rather than “take off your clothes for 5 mins in the winter”. If you have to go out more covered (i.e. long sleeves, pants) for the majority of a month, you will want to supplement. If you are unsure can always check serum levels.

Personally I take more than 1k IU, but I will stick to official recommendations when giving advice.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Can you even GET simple multivitamins any more? I remember they were fairly small pills (aspirin size) and you'get a bottle of 365. Now they are big pills in fancy packaging so you get like 30 in a bottle, and you have to take a whole pile of pills to get the same set of vitamins that used to come in 1 pill.

[-] kautau@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Yes, one a day men’s for example is $17.50 for a 200 count bottle

https://a.co/d/73ifhuZ

There are other brands like that.

All the multivitamins that are like “Life Extension, Brain Support, Sexual Health” or some other baseless claim are the ones banking on uneducated people to pay 60 dollars for 30 pills

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

This is from Walgreens way back but I don't see anything like it anymore. 365 pills for $8, expired 2016, so maybe 1.5x inflation since then.

[-] ReiRose@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Multivitamins marketed to the elderly are usually a great deal less expensive with similar or identical content. I found this out while comparing vitamins during pregnancy, just had to add extra folate.

this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35311 readers
1146 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS