An Interesting Article

[MoKayD]

Thought I'd share this article about the need for above normal levels of B12 in the elderly. newatlas.com/brain/alzheime...

[charks]

Thank you. I keep trying to get my MIL to take B12. I buy her the tablets but she won't take them. I'm fed up of nagging her. Maybe she will take them after reading this article.

[MoKayD in reply to charks]

I hope it helps.

[wedgewood]

Yes, interesting. But I’d like to know why mushrooms are included in the photo depicting the range of foods that contain vitamin B12 . Mushrooms do not contain B12 . I find that odd.

[MoKayD in reply to wedgewood]

That is strange.

[Tanitha in reply to wedgewood]

mushrooms....I didn't know that.

australianmushroomgrowers.c...

[Tanitha in reply to wedgewood]

Interesting. "Among edible mushrooms, relatively high levels of Vitamin B12 were detected in the commercially available shiitake mushroom fruiting bodies, but the Vitamin B12 content significantly varies (1.3–12.7 μg/100 g dry weight), which is significantly lower than that found in dried purple laver. " pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articl....

[wedgewood in reply to Tanitha]

Mushrooms displayed in photo are not shitake 🤏The b12 found in shitake mushrooms cannot be made use of .

[helvella]

Odd that they say:

To provide a consistent comparison, the reference ranges for each country have been converted to picomoles per liter (pmol/L):

United States: 148 to 748 pmol/L

Australia: 135 to 650 pmol/L

United Kingdom: 115 to 740 pmol/L

Because the reference intervals vary by lab rather than by country. (Though agree that using the same units is better practice than many articles manage.)

[PlatypusProfit8077 in reply to helvella]

All the more reason to hope we get a global standard…and one that’s higher than those abysmal levels! My serum B12 was 172pmol/l, which was considered “low end of normal” and not particularly worrisome. It was only that there was no other clues to my illness in the blood tests that my dr investigated the B12

[Cherylclaire Forum Support in reply to PlatypusProfit8077]

....UK range starting at 115 pmol/L ? Isn't that 155.8 ng/L ?

My level was 196 ng/L - luckily for me, the lab range started at 197 ng/L and so injections were started and I didn't have to deteriorate further.

I think a global standard could well be detrimental to health - depends perhaps on who we trust to decide on one !

I can't see where they got the UK figure from - as we are all aware in the UK currently, where you are tested can make a huge difference to range, but this one does not look right at all.

Research quite often mentions <200 ng/L as a marker for deficiency - which would be 148 pmol/L, as listed for USA.

[PlatypusProfit8077 in reply to Cherylclaire]

Hmm that’s puzzling. Maybe they’ve done some averaging?

A global standard, decided by PAS? I’d go for that. Or even the Japanese standard - under 400? Bad! lol

[helvella in reply to PlatypusProfit8077]

There is a huge problem with a global standard.

Once set, it becomes next to impossible to change. However good the science, the technology, the medical understanding, behind changing, it could take many years for a change to be agreed, and many more to actually be implemented.

Then imagine trying to achieve a changeover from serum B12 to the new kid on the block - Active B12...