(Yikes, I typed up a post on supplements and saw you had posted again. I'll paste in the supplement stuff at the end; you've got enough on your mind for now.)
kolganito wrote:Maybe because he is feeling better, his appetite is bigger now, but his stomach is not ready yet for that much of milk?
This crossed my mind, too. Vitamin C, taken in the proper amount, has the curious property of making you feel better before you are actually all the way well. Dr. Robert Cathcart called this "Unsick". He said sick people taking vitamin C should be careful not to push themselves too far as they felt better, because their bodies were still working hard to eliminate the virus. Looks like maybe this is happening to your son, too, and making his eyes bigger than his stomach, so to speak.
kolganito wrote:I can't control how much he is taking from the breast. Should I express and give a bottle for now? But then, he wants to nurse for comfort too...
It sounds like a good idea to express and feed by bottle (you might even have success adding some sodium ascorbate to the milk). You could also try a slow flow nipple, so he can nurse longer for comfort without overloading his stomach.
kolganito wrote:I thought I would give him more Vit C today as he was taking it better, but between his vomiting and sleeping practically all day, I didn't know how and when to squeeze a dose in him (So he probably took only about 3g if that.).
One really good thing is he's been able to sleep. Sleep is healing. And if you can reduce his vomiting with a bottle/slow flow nipple, you should be able to get more C in him.
Did your pediatrician have any suggestions for reducing vomiting?
kolganito wrote:There is so much contradicting information that my head spins from all of this. It is impossible to take all the supplements, how do you choose which ones are right for you?
Ditto on this. It's a huge job to sort out the facts, and learn how much of which nutrients to take. It's the kind of specialized learning that we usually pay professionals for - but in this case, the professionals are scarce. So we're left to sort it out ourselves.
It's best to take it a step at a time. The people here know quite a lot, and can point you in the right direction for many nutrients. There's still a lot of self-education needed, though.
A few I can tell you that are drastically low in most Americans are C, D, K/K2, iodine, and magnesium.
kolganito wrote:Do we really need that much magnesium? Do you take in powder form and mix it with ascorbic acid?
Yep, magnesium is a biggie. 500 - 1000 mg is correct, although I wouldn't take magnesium oxide, as it's absorbed poorly. Unfortunately, magnesium can be tricky to get enough of, because taking too much at one time has a laxative effect (speak of the devil...). It's best to get magnesium citrate, or one of the "chelated" forms, like magnesium malate, glycinate, orotate, etc.
gofanu wrote:You will find that "vitamin/mineral complexes" are wildly out of balance, especially B vitamins. It is necessary to correct for this, notably B3-Niacin, B5-pantothenic acid, PABA are usually low by a factor of 20.
kolganito wrote:Doesn't B50 contains enough B vitamins? 1600mg of folic acid seems too much for me.
I agree with gofanu, although don't worry too much for now - it's not the end of the world to get only 50 mg of Bs 1 - 6.
Regarding folic acid (I think that should be 1600 micrograms, not milligrams):
In How to Live Longer and Feel Better, Linus Pauling wrote:
There is an odd situation involving folic acid. In 1960 the FDA ordered that no vitamin tablet or one-day supply of vitamins contain more than 250 micrograms of folic acid, later increased to 400 micrograms. These cautious orders were not issued because of evidence that folic acid is toxic in larger doses. Folic acid is not toxic. Indeed, the FDA limit of 400 mcg is less than the amount considered necessary for good health. Professor Roger J. Williams, who... carried out some of the early work on folic acid, has written that "...about 2000 mcg, instead of 400 mcg... would be recommended if it were not for the conflicting FDA regulations".
Why, then, does the FDA prevent all of us from obtaining the proper amount of this important vitamin? The action was taken... to make it easier for physicians to diagnose ...pernicious anemia. This disease results from the failure to transport vitamin B12 from the stomach to the bloodstream. The resulting deficiency of vitamin B12 is characterized by anemia and by neurological damage leading to psychosis. Both vitamin B12 and folic acid are required for the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, and a deficiency in B12 is in part compensated for by increasing the intake of folic acid. Accordingly a high intake of folic acid may prevent the anemia from developing, but does not control the neurological damage resulting from B12 deficiency...
In 1960 spokesmen for the medical profession argued that physicians relied on the development of anemia to recognize the disease and that if folic acid prevented the anemia, they would not know that a patient beginning to show signs of psychosis was in fact suffering from pernicious anemia. The FDA then announced its order limiting the amount of folic acid in vitamins...
Now, a quarter of a century later [when Pauling wrote this], physicians know more about pernicious anemia, vitamin B12, and folic acid. It is easy to test any patient with neurological problems for B12 deficiency. There is no longer any need for the FDA regulation that limits the amount of folic acid in vitamins. This regulation should be revoked.
And I would add that people taking more folic acid can easily get yearly B12 shots, which guarantees the B12's availability. People should be more concerned about getting too little folic acid than too much.