It’s pretty hard to compare the sugar content of vitamins.
The Nature’s Way Vitamin D I bought, whose pills look like they are bathed in caster sugar, does not state the amount of sugar on the pack. Neither does the website.
But a friendly woman at Nature’s Way just advised me: 1.1 gm of sugar per gummy.
Now how does that compare with its rivals?
Blackmores on one website mentions NO ADDED SUGAR to its Vitamin D. But does that mean the manufacturing process resulted in a sugar fee pill or just that no MORE sugar was added to the pill over and above the (unstated) required amount for manufacturing?
I was taking those, as pictured, and also struggled with the size. I have now found an equivalent by the same brand, with very similar packaging, that is a chewable round tablet. They taste fine, however they are more expensive.
I might give the Blackmores capsules a go, just for comparison.
I’ve submitted the following question to the Consumers Health Forum https://chf.org.au/ who co-chair the Consumer Panel for the National Covid-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce https://covid19evidence.net.au/
No reply yet. Should I share here if/when I get one?
Submission
I wish to bring to the attention of the Consumer Panel a possible anomaly in the Taskforce literature regarding Chemoprophylaxis & Vitamin D. Section 6.3.13.4 correctly recommends against Vitamin D analogues (calcifediol/cholecalciferol) as Disease-modifying treatment, but in section 7 Chemoprophylaxis the topic of Vitamin D is absent altogether.
In addition, section “Cumulative list of suggested topics that are currently out of scope” includes this entry " Vitamin D to protect against COVID-19 including optimal levels and deficiencies".
No explanation is given for this out-of-scope decision which seems to be at odds with recent published research that Vitamin D deficiency directly correlates with Covid-19 severity & mortality.
A question best posed to the taskforce itself rather than to a third party forum and potentially ‘trial by media’. Their response to your pointed comments seems warranted.
The majority of observers are aware that COVID-19 with its ramifications and evolving understanding is complex and unfolds a bit almost daily.
A response would be interesting here, noting that single research papers do not necessarily make a general case and sometimes single papers are used to promote fringe or conspiratorial ideas, and as a layman I am not implying this is the case for your cited paper but something the taskforce might be spending time about prior to responding to your submission/query.
In this thread we have information that Vitamin D deficiency is common and that there are a raft of possible consequences from this. We are also told that the deficiency is more common in countries nearer the poles especially in winter. It is acknowledged that the vitamin is synthesised through the action of one UV component of sunlight on the skin. There is an obvious link that sunlight is weaker near the poles in winter and that we go outdoors less in winter wearing more clothing, in some cold temperate regions there would be no exposure of skin (or almost none) for long periods. Bathing in artificial UV lamps is mentioned as a remedy that has been used.
Then there is information on getting tested by your doctor and taking pills. We are informed about various brands on the market, what they taste like, how easy they are to swallow, their price etc.
Little has been said about exactly why so many Australians who live in a very sunny land have this deficiency or what might be done other than finding the best value pills.
If you have been tested and found deficient and were told by their doctor to take pills, was the amount of sunlight your skin gets discussed? Did the doctor talk about ways to get adequate exposure safely? Has anybody been diagnosed and been told to get more sun instead of taking pills, or perhaps given pills for the short term and told to get more sun so they don’t need the pills?
Hi PhilT. Sorry for any misunderstanding but I did actually submit that question directly to the Taskforce in my submission “If the Taskforce deems this topic out-of-scope then which other group/organisation deems the topic to be in-scope?”
Still no response or reply from the Taskforce. Not even acknowledgement in their regular email updates listing questions received.
I don’t personally feel the need to take that particular issue further as 1) there are now plenty of medical people in Australia currently pursuing the same question with the authorities, and 2) there are other Taskforce priority anomalies which I’m pursuing in relation to chemoprophylaxis outside the scope of this particular community discussion.
I do send copies of such correspondence to my Federal & State MPs to support advocacy if necessary.
