Do I need to take additional Supplements?

Ken asks: I am sending you a link for your review regarding vitamins and heart health. I personally have reviewed the information on the site extensively and believe a lot of it makes sense. My question is do you agree with the information, and ...

should I take additional supplements above and beyond the Total Balance Men's Premium to meet the standards the web site suggests? I am 44 years old with no known heart issues (however, I have never had blood work to identify such issues either).

Heres the link,

Warren answers:

If you are in good health, have reasonable exposure to sunshine then there is no need to take any extra supplements in addition to the Total Balance Men's Premium, other than one of our Omega 3 Fish Oilproducts. I agree with most of the info in the link but not all. For example, I do not agree with high doses of Vitamin C and never have. There is evidence to suggest that doses in supplement form in excess of 400mgs a day can act as a pro-oxidant when taken orally. In my view, you should only take high doses when you are sick, or intravenously.

The form of vitamins and minerals that you take are very important. Some are more bio-available than others. We endeavour to keep up with the latest developments in this area and use the best form. For example, for Vitamin B2 we use the Riboflavin-5-Phosphate form, likewise with Vitamin B6 we use Pyridoxal 5-Phosphate. These forms are not widely used in supplements as they are around seven times more expensive. But, the bio-availability and efficacy is much better.

What may be an idea for you at age 44 (if you are not already doing so) is to upgrade your Omega 3 Fish Oil to our Omega 3 / QH Premium CoQ10 which has the Kaneka Ubquinol (CoQ10) in it. This is not the ordinary CoQ10 which is oxidised, but the un-oxidised form which is much, much more effective. Using this along with the Premium version is all you really need to ensure that you have a good foundation for maintaining your current good health.

4 Responses

Hi Warren,

FYI: Referenced to my question about why the link is an opponent to Ester-C: The link has since been updated, and we can read his clinical reason under point 6 here:
<a href= >

Jon Therkidlsen February 15 2011

I am a little curious why the link provided by Mr Ken, explicitly informs the recommendation is for NOT for Ester-C?

To my knowledge "Ester-C" has superior qualities compared to "C" concerning the rate of utilization amongst others!

Jon Therkildsen November 05 2010

Hi Jon,

I really dont know why that site is against Ester C.  The salt form can indeed be better that the straight ascorbic acid if taken in higher doses.  I wouldnt take too much notice of their negative suggestion.

Warren Matthews November 11 2010

Hi Nick, If you are taking high doses of Vitamin C in ascorbic acid form it can become a pro-oxidant.  There is controversy about this assertion with some experts agreeing and others not.  However, this is when it is ingested directly into the stomach.  When it is taken intravenously then these concerns do not apply.  It seems to be the action of the stomach acid on the Vitamin C that creates the problem.

As you are taking it in enteric coating form and by passing the stomach you are likely avoiding that problem.  Given that you had that virus quite recently and it was so serious I would suggest that you maintain what you are doing for some months to come.  With regard to promoting stem cell growth there are quite a few nutrients that are believed to do that, but the evidence is still very sketchy.

Warren Matthews November 11 2010

Leave a comment (all fields required)