GummyTalk Forum

Hey everyone, just came across this new study (PMID: 12345678) about B12 absorption rates in different forms - methylcobalamin vs cyanocobalamin. The researchers claim methylcobalamin shows 40% better bioavailability in their trials. Sounds promising, but I noticed the study was partially funded by a supplement company that sells methylcobalamin products. What do you all think - legit science or biased marketing?

Interesting find Vince! I looked up the study - it was published in a decent journal (Journal of Nutritional Science), but you're right about the funding source. The methodology looks solid though - double-blind, placebo-controlled with 200 participants. The 40% improvement seems high compared to previous meta-analyses I've seen. Could be legit, but I'd want to see independent replication before changing my supplement routine.

Ugh, not surprised. Another supplement study with industry ties. Remember that vitamin D study last year that turned out to be funded by the same lab that sells the tested product? I stick to getting my B12 from nutritional yeast and fortified plant milks. These studies always seem to find exactly what their funders want them to find. Save your money folks!

While you all debate the science, I've been taking a B12 supplement for years because I don't eat much meat. Honestly, I just go by how I feel - more energy, better mood. The study sounds interesting but I'm with Pat on being skeptical of funding sources. Maybe we should look for similar studies from universities without industry money?

Good points everyone! Adam - thanks for checking the journal quality. Pat - totally valid skepticism, that's why I brought it up. Jack - feeling better is what matters most! I'll dig deeper for independent studies. In the meantime, I'm sticking with my current regimen but keeping an eye on this. Anyone else seen conflicting research on this topic?