On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:02:57 -0500, Mark Labbee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Since when are vitamins more dangerous than prescription drugs? There has
>never been a documented case of anyone dying from an overdose of any
>vitamins and the only vitamins that are known to cause problems at high
>doses are the fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, K. B6 has caused nerve problems
>at high doses. Iron can be dangerous at high levels but since we are eating
>all this red meat (most of us anyway) we would have no need to supplement
>with iron.

Since vitamins are million year old components of chemical
pathways inside the body that are common to most creatures on earth
we can expect that their use is pretty safe.

But since we evolved without vitamin pills, how can we assume that
we need them *now*? Through unprecedented high stresses on our systems
like from radioactivity, chemicals, smoking.
Ok - for some vitamins - like Vitamin C.

I think furthermore, the unability to satisfy needed vitamin amounts
simply shows the fact, that we are *not* eating the original diet
we really evolved with. At times where significant metabolic developements
orrured, where adaption occured.

There's the debated question, at which time genetical adaptions occured,
how many generations they need.

The dependency of primates on vitamin C points toward *very* long times
very long ago. Fruit eating wood inhabiting times.
The possibly dangerous vitamins and minerals to humans you mentioned
- Vitamin A, D, and Iron - occur in nature only in animal body in such
a (possibly dangerous) concentrated form
(For Vitamin E and K, I don't know a natural occuring concentrated source).
This is a hint, that our metabolism evolved, how it is now at times
where such sources were very low in intake, IMO.

With animal sources care has to be taken therefore,
but otherwise natural occuring
vitamins shouldn't pose a problem ever.
And should be sufficient, shouldn't they?

regards

Amadeus