Liver Pills - The Forgotten Supplement

Liver Pills - The Forgotten Supplement
0.0 0


As I have said before, I am old school. I still take liver pills as part of my daily supplement regiment. I feel liver pills should be a staple for everyone. They are inexpensive and full of amino acids, minerals, and key vitamins like B Vitamins. A good source of iron. They are good for overall health. Plus they are an easy way to get extra protein throughout the day by taking a couple tablets with a meal. Below is a picture of the brand I use… Uni-Liver by Universal Nutrition.


I did the math a long time ago, and you actually get a decent amount of protein per dollar on those things - not like a cheap whey, but it’s not horrible.

Have you ever eaten real liver? I have some grass-fed beef liver in the freezer awaiting… I don’t think I’ve ever had any, to be honest!

I also have some tongues too. Organ meat’s supposed to be what the animals FIGHT over, why not us?!


I don’t eat liver…LOL Tastes bad. I will take the pills…:slight_smile:


Very high levels of cholesterol.


Never been drawn to this supplement. Just something about taking liver pills seems gross. But the owner of the local gym swears by these and downs them by the dozen I think. Comes in for 500 caps every few weeks.


They are effective. Vince Gironda -pioneer of bodybuilding swore by them. They are good for healthy blood too.


Is this sarcastic? Really can’t tell.


I don’t think its sarcastic because the liver does store lipids (fat), which are tasty obviously. LOL The liver is the home of lipid metabolism in the body. :smiley:


Are you saying liver tastes good? I think you’d be in the minority there. But I agree fats taste good! I’m mildly obsessed with butter. Back to the cholesterol comment, it seemed to me (could be wrong) that he was saying we shouldn’t eat it because of the cholesterol.


I eat a ton of these, and so does my dog lol

also, science has pretty much proven dietary cholesterol has no effect on serum.


Could you link a study?


Minimal effort here as I’m in the middle of a ton of work, but first result on search:

“Globally, many nutrition recommendations no longer set limitations to the intake of dietary cholesterol.”


No problem.

For that study they found adding an egg did not raise the relative risk of a heart attack or further thicken arterial walls not that cholesterol in the diet did not effect serum cholesterol, the study this article is based on does actually mention
"In general populations, the effects of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol concentrations are modest. ".

Now I would disagree with not setting a limit to the intake of cholesterol but there is little reason to have a limit if its as high as 300 mg a day.


I’ve read before (I’d have to re-find it) that eating more eggs actually lowers cholesterol levels. Basically, the idea I’ve gotten from my (limited) reading about cholesterol is that often a high cholesterol level can be indicative of a problem, but the cholesterol itself isn’t actually harmful. In fact, on superhuman radio, Carl talked about a study in which elderly subjects with the highest cholesterol levels lived longer as well as maintained their health better in old age.


Link me the study when you find it.

As for the elderly population study
I found two that reached this conclusion and spent allot more work then I needed to researching them given what I am about to write…

Both of them are only looking at numbers and have no mechanistic data, now while the outcome is interesting is very heavily conflicted in both paper, with the first one taking out people who have had heart disease or diabetes before the test, or get diagnosed within 14 days, and found that statin use increased survival either way.
The 2nd one has allot of conflicting interesting in the authors, several have written books criticizing the cholesterol hypothesis and the key author even founded an organisation about criticizing the cholesterol link.

Now as for the outcome it does not prove high ldl is not harmful, merely there is a link with higher ldl levels and survival(below a certain rather high threshold), Assuming the numbers are true in the real world I would sooner guess that it would be due to the problem that some very elderly people have trouble eating, due to issues with appetite, swallowing, chewing ect.

But it turns out my guessing and reading was massively unnecessary on my part as there is a very good article from which I will quote from now(regarding the 2nd study).

…there are serious methodological flaws with their study, not least the lack of a published protocol, searching of only one database, nonuniform application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a lack of critical appraisal of the methods used in the included studies, no indication of the quality or uncertainty of the included data and issues with the accuracy of data extraction. A lack of controlling for confounding due to the effect of lipid-lowering treatment and HDL-C levels presents major bias and more likely underpins the majority of the observed inverse associations.

1st study
2nd study
CEBM review of the 2nd study


I asked my doctor one time how can my cholesterol be good and so low for eating a lot of bad food over the years. She told me I can thank my parents for that. It’s mostly genetics. She said you are predispositioned to have either high or low levels of cholesterol. She also stated your body utilizes and handles the cholesterol you get from foods better than it does from the cholesterol it naturally produces.