This is a helpful correction to a lot of oversimplified narratives around supplements. The emphasis on chemical identity, bioavailability, and context really matters, especially when we think about long-term cardiometabolic health where deficiencies and imbalances can quietly influence risk over time.
Really appreciated this piece because I embarrassingly fell for some of this anti-supplement fearmongering myself about 6-8 months ago. I stopped taking the B vitamins my functional nutritionist recommended because these posts had me convinced supplements were basically “fake chemicals.” Huge mistake. Within weeks my mouth was covered in canker sores, like 7-8 at a time. Finally got over myself, started taking the vitamins again, and the problem almost completely disappeared.
That’s why I think some of this rhetoric online can become genuinely reckless. It’s one thing to encourage whole foods and good habits. It’s another to convince people to distrust every supplement or medication because it’s supposedly “unnatural.” That mindset can absolutely push people away from things they legitimately need, whether that’s B vitamins, magnesium, thyroid medication, etc.
What also resonated with me was the “just eat real food” section. I track my nutrition in Cronometer with micronutrients included, and I eat extremely well. Organic, regenerative foods, home-cooked meals, nutrient-dense diet, the whole thing. I also have a degree in dietetics and nearly 20 years in nutrition/fitness spaces. And even with all that, it is still difficult to consistently hit every micronutrient target, especially vitamin D, choline, and certain B vitamins.
If someone eating like me can still come up short sometimes, the average person probably will too. Food should be the foundation, absolutely. But the internet has swung so hard into anti-supplement ideology that some people are starting to sound chemically illiterate while pretending to be “natural.”
When trust in conventional medicine collapses, and for good reason given the level of pharma abuse and corruption out there and doctors refusing to connect the dots, you get a window of opportunity for people who profit from confusion and shocking content. Funny enough, I started writing because I wanted to push against the system. Now I find myself dealing with a whole second front of flat-earth-level claims from the alternative crowd.
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to write this out.
With genuine deficiencies, you almost always have to supplement, and often 300%+ daily value whatever it is you’re deficient in.
I’m going to shill L-Lysine. Sort of, depends on your situation. But I bought it to help increase my iron absorption alongside my iron to correct a deficiency and it’s been helpful for mood and energy.
I still take great exception to the claims by some friends and family that have been convinced by TV doctors, or their own doctors, that taking supplements just makes “expensive urine” 🙄
This is a much needed counter to the growing anti-supplement narrative - Thank You!
Though I have supplemented and megadosed for decades and have had an amazingly illness-free and healthy life I started reducing supplementation in recent years.
My own healthful journey goes back to reading Back To Eden by Jethro Kloss when I was in my early 20's.
Some 40+ years later and I remain unusually healthy as far as I can tell.
Medicine Girl and Agent 1234567...(whatever) here on Substack are two of the major anti-supplement accounts that I now avoid after their fear porn tactics.
Great to read this, Bob. I’m new to Variana’s writing but it is definitely resonating with me. As, with you, it seems — also, it appears we are both “unusually healthy” for our age (or something like that). However, more honest research did not start when in my 20s, unfortunately for me, but eventually, I read Nutrition & Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, and everything changed from there!
I see more and more organ derived vitamins. When humans ate organs I doubt there were deficiencies. The they scared everyone away from animal skin and took collagen out of Jello. One can almost think it was planned.
Would you give a brief explanation of the term “liposomal” which I regularly see specifically regarding Vit C? The reasoning I have mostly read is that it is more effectively absorbed than others where the majority of it is excreted in the urine.
Hi Mimi, liposomes are tiny spheres made of phospholipids (the same molecules your cell membranes are built from). Vitamin C gets encapsulated inside, which is supposed to help it cross the intestinal wall more efficiently. BUT! The marketing claims of better absorption come almost entirely from studies funded by liposomal vitamin C manufacturers themselves. Independent review found that every single pharmacokinetic study on liposomal vitamin C bioavailability had industry funding or industry-employed authors, and most had methodological limitations. So the "more effectively absorbed" claim is not as well established as the marketing suggests. Also worth knowing that quality varies enormously, since many products labeled "liposomal" are actually emulsions that don't form real liposomes. So for now, I'd cautiously say that it's mostly marketing.
If fish oil should be reconsidered, are there any recommendations for how to supplement it? Other than eating a lot of fish? I try to eat salmon once a week and sardines once a week, but I don't think that's enough.
Good question, and worth zooming out on. The "you need more omega-3" framing comes from mainstream nutrition, but it doesn't really hold up from a metabolic standpoint. EPA and DHA are highly unsaturated fats, which means they oxidize easily inside the body, not just on the shelf. Once incorporated into your tissues, they're vulnerable to peroxidation, especially under stress, infection, or inflammation. The push to load up on them rests on shaky assumptions about heart disease and inflammation that don't actually replicate well in good studies.
Salmon once a week and sardines once a week is genuinely plenty. You don't need more. If you want variety, oysters, mussels, and shellfish are excellent and bring zinc, copper, B12, and selenium along for the ride. Small fish like anchovies and herring are good too.
I wouldn't add a fish oil supplement at all, and personally I'd be cautious about chasing higher omega-3 intake as a goal. Whole foods, in reasonable amounts, are the right level of exposure.
Lisa, I just answered Mary's question above in detail. The short version: I'd actually push back on the framing that we need more EPA and DHA than a few servings of whole fish a week provides. Have a look at the longer reply on Mary's thread.
This is a helpful correction to a lot of oversimplified narratives around supplements. The emphasis on chemical identity, bioavailability, and context really matters, especially when we think about long-term cardiometabolic health where deficiencies and imbalances can quietly influence risk over time.
Really appreciated this piece because I embarrassingly fell for some of this anti-supplement fearmongering myself about 6-8 months ago. I stopped taking the B vitamins my functional nutritionist recommended because these posts had me convinced supplements were basically “fake chemicals.” Huge mistake. Within weeks my mouth was covered in canker sores, like 7-8 at a time. Finally got over myself, started taking the vitamins again, and the problem almost completely disappeared.
That’s why I think some of this rhetoric online can become genuinely reckless. It’s one thing to encourage whole foods and good habits. It’s another to convince people to distrust every supplement or medication because it’s supposedly “unnatural.” That mindset can absolutely push people away from things they legitimately need, whether that’s B vitamins, magnesium, thyroid medication, etc.
What also resonated with me was the “just eat real food” section. I track my nutrition in Cronometer with micronutrients included, and I eat extremely well. Organic, regenerative foods, home-cooked meals, nutrient-dense diet, the whole thing. I also have a degree in dietetics and nearly 20 years in nutrition/fitness spaces. And even with all that, it is still difficult to consistently hit every micronutrient target, especially vitamin D, choline, and certain B vitamins.
If someone eating like me can still come up short sometimes, the average person probably will too. Food should be the foundation, absolutely. But the internet has swung so hard into anti-supplement ideology that some people are starting to sound chemically illiterate while pretending to be “natural.”
When trust in conventional medicine collapses, and for good reason given the level of pharma abuse and corruption out there and doctors refusing to connect the dots, you get a window of opportunity for people who profit from confusion and shocking content. Funny enough, I started writing because I wanted to push against the system. Now I find myself dealing with a whole second front of flat-earth-level claims from the alternative crowd.
Thank you for reading and for taking the time to write this out.
With genuine deficiencies, you almost always have to supplement, and often 300%+ daily value whatever it is you’re deficient in.
I’m going to shill L-Lysine. Sort of, depends on your situation. But I bought it to help increase my iron absorption alongside my iron to correct a deficiency and it’s been helpful for mood and energy.
I still take great exception to the claims by some friends and family that have been convinced by TV doctors, or their own doctors, that taking supplements just makes “expensive urine” 🙄
I wonder if they would say that of any of the drugs that they prescribe that are eliminated in urine 🙄
Don't wine, champagne, Scotch, etc. just make expensive urine? What do grass feed beef, lobster, or fancy meals at restaurants make, lol.
I’m new to your substack, I love the level of detail 🙌🏼
This is a much needed counter to the growing anti-supplement narrative - Thank You!
Though I have supplemented and megadosed for decades and have had an amazingly illness-free and healthy life I started reducing supplementation in recent years.
My own healthful journey goes back to reading Back To Eden by Jethro Kloss when I was in my early 20's.
Some 40+ years later and I remain unusually healthy as far as I can tell.
Medicine Girl and Agent 1234567...(whatever) here on Substack are two of the major anti-supplement accounts that I now avoid after their fear porn tactics.
Thank you again Varianna!
Thank you, Bob. 40+ years in and still unusually healthy - whatever you're doing is clearly working! Thank you for reading and for sharing your story.
Great to read this, Bob. I’m new to Variana’s writing but it is definitely resonating with me. As, with you, it seems — also, it appears we are both “unusually healthy” for our age (or something like that). However, more honest research did not start when in my 20s, unfortunately for me, but eventually, I read Nutrition & Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, and everything changed from there!
I see more and more organ derived vitamins. When humans ate organs I doubt there were deficiencies. The they scared everyone away from animal skin and took collagen out of Jello. One can almost think it was planned.
Totally. People stopped eating the most nutrient-dense parts of the animal. That's a nutritional tragedy.
Xena (Shepsky) and Chuck (cat) both love freeze dried organ treats.
Another good one - a great summary!
Thank you, Volva!
Would you give a brief explanation of the term “liposomal” which I regularly see specifically regarding Vit C? The reasoning I have mostly read is that it is more effectively absorbed than others where the majority of it is excreted in the urine.
Hi Mimi, liposomes are tiny spheres made of phospholipids (the same molecules your cell membranes are built from). Vitamin C gets encapsulated inside, which is supposed to help it cross the intestinal wall more efficiently. BUT! The marketing claims of better absorption come almost entirely from studies funded by liposomal vitamin C manufacturers themselves. Independent review found that every single pharmacokinetic study on liposomal vitamin C bioavailability had industry funding or industry-employed authors, and most had methodological limitations. So the "more effectively absorbed" claim is not as well established as the marketing suggests. Also worth knowing that quality varies enormously, since many products labeled "liposomal" are actually emulsions that don't form real liposomes. So for now, I'd cautiously say that it's mostly marketing.
Great info here, thank you!
What a thorough analysis! Thank you
Thank you for reading, John!
Excellent info. Thanks
Well said
Excellent.
Thank you for sharing and providing some clarity.
If fish oil should be reconsidered, are there any recommendations for how to supplement it? Other than eating a lot of fish? I try to eat salmon once a week and sardines once a week, but I don't think that's enough.
Good question, and worth zooming out on. The "you need more omega-3" framing comes from mainstream nutrition, but it doesn't really hold up from a metabolic standpoint. EPA and DHA are highly unsaturated fats, which means they oxidize easily inside the body, not just on the shelf. Once incorporated into your tissues, they're vulnerable to peroxidation, especially under stress, infection, or inflammation. The push to load up on them rests on shaky assumptions about heart disease and inflammation that don't actually replicate well in good studies.
Salmon once a week and sardines once a week is genuinely plenty. You don't need more. If you want variety, oysters, mussels, and shellfish are excellent and bring zinc, copper, B12, and selenium along for the ride. Small fish like anchovies and herring are good too.
I wouldn't add a fish oil supplement at all, and personally I'd be cautious about chasing higher omega-3 intake as a goal. Whole foods, in reasonable amounts, are the right level of exposure.
Sardines
Yes I’m also interested in knowing how to source EPA and DHA if fish oil isn’t useful
Lisa, I just answered Mary's question above in detail. The short version: I'd actually push back on the framing that we need more EPA and DHA than a few servings of whole fish a week provides. Have a look at the longer reply on Mary's thread.