Superfood vs. Vitamin/mineral Supplementation
Category: Health > Fitness and Nutrition
Asked by: satnam-ga
List Price: $10.00
23 May 2006 10:57 PDT
Expires: 22 Jun 2006 10:57 PDT
Question ID: 731720
Compare and Contrast the differences of taking a vitamin/mineral pill or a superfood/wholefood supplement for nutritional needs maintaining and/or healing? Is there any scientific, conclusive studies? For example, is it more effective to take superfoods/wholefoods (powders ie, bluegreen algae, wheat grass, barly grass, chlorella, etc.) for vitamins and minerals and complete nutrition compared to taking a vitamin/mineral pill? I have talked with many professional people/scientist/doctors who say the superfoods are in a more natural state (effective molecular, smaller size for cellular assimulation) And other health professionls say it doesn't really matter as long as you can get it in. Also, for example Calcium (Casinate) found in most mineral supplements like Tums, etc. is a larger size to be absorbed in the cell making it difficult to utilized. Angstrom size is found in food form and is much smaller in size enabling it to pass in and out of the cellular walls.
|There is no answer at this time.|
Re: Superfood vs. Vitamin/mineral Supplementation
From: sublime1-ga on 24 May 2006 00:06 PDT
Decades ago, when the natural food craze was getting its baby teeth, there was a much-publicized landmark study which compared the nature of the vitamin C taken from an orange to the vitamin C in a tablet of manufactured ascorbic acid, using the graphic device of gas chromatography. Suffice it to say the the difference was similar to the contrast between an oil painting and a stick drawing in a cave.
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at email@example.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
|Search Google Answers for|