Morbius wrote:Huh? wrote:Morbius wrote:Julie wrote:You (not PR tho') find me legitimate medical journal articles (like those from NIH, Lancet, etc) of the last decade that say B12 has an upper limit beyond which bad things will happen to you and I'll stop writing here for a week. Maybe even a month. How about forever?
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/6/1632.full
Bye!
Given current controversies over mandatory fortification, further research is needed to determine whether these are causal associations.
Bye!
Damn!
I was really hoping you were dead!
And maybe if you read (you DFB) you'd see that:
The only studies to date of dietary B12 intake and prostate cancer risk both reported positive associations: Vlajinac et al. (12) found 2-fold higher odds (OR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.08-3.97; Ptrend = 0.02) for the highest versus lowest tertile, and Weinstein et al. (among smokers; ref. 14) found 36% higher odds in the highest versus lowest quintile (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62; Ptrend = 0.01). Both studies reported that these results withstood adjustment for dietary covariates: Vlajinac et al. (12) for intake of total energy, protein, total fat, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrate, total sugar, fiber, retinol equivalent, α-tocopherol, folate, sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and iron, and Weinstein et al. (14) for total energy, total protein, animal protein, total fat, animal fat, folate, B6, methionine, iron, and specific foods that are correlates of B12 intake (fish, organ meats, sausages, cholesterol, fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals). Hence, there was no confounding by other nutrients that cooccur in foods high in B12 and which may be associated with prostate cancer risk. Both studies also adjusted for nondietary covariates.
