We (husband and I and my parents) are on fish oil (about 1100 g EPA+DHA), 2000 IU Vitamin D3 and 500 mg calcium daily. If we had to add one more to that list, what should that be ?

Our diet is fairly rich in fruits, vegetables, diary and some nuts.

I have heard about magnesium but do we really need it if we eat some nuts and leafy greens multiple times a week ? If we do, then how much per day ?

Also my 2.5 year old son is on 200 g fish oil and 1000 IU Vitamin D3 per day. Does he need anything else ? He also eats lots of fruits and veggies, as well as an egg a day.

1. Number one superfood would be fermented cod liver oil for vitamins A,D, and K and DHA, EPA. But technically this isn't a supplement. It's a food.
2. (distant second) A multimineral supplement, especially containing magnesium and calcium. The minerals in vegetables and nuts are poorly absorbed. The best place I know from food to get these is bone broth, and raw dairy is pretty good too. If you don't consumre either of these regularly you might want to consider the mineral supplement.
3. Selenium, especially if you smoke. It's the only antioxidant I know of that I have seen convincing evidence of its effectiveness.

I'd be very careful about the cod liver oil. The vitamin A in it is generally man-made and added just to make the amount standard. I'd stick to natural vitamin D (D3) and natural vitamin A. (from fish liver)

Sounds to me like you have a pretty good start. I might add magnesium, depending on how much calcium you take. I personally supplement with half as much magnesium as I do calcium.

Ok, have included Now Foods Cal-Mag stress formula this time, apart from the usual Omega-3, Vitamin D3.

What about Vitamin K2 ? Hearing a lot about that. Is it necessary and if so, how much ?

What about a general multivitamin ? Any good brands or product lines ?

A good multivitamin. I like Twinlab Daily 1 without iron. It's a good insurance against any deficiencies.

If you're close to 40, I'd recommend 100mg of coenzyme Q10. As we age, our bodies produce less. Some would recommend adding it sooner.

So my top 5 are

Vitamin D3
Fish oil
multivitamin
coq10
calcium/magnesium - supplement with both

good point. it is almost always man made. I use green pastures fermented. I know this is natural. You know it's funny that you mention this, because if you buy vitamin A pills from a reputable source it will often say on the label "derived from cod liver oil". To me there is a certain degree of irony and dishonesty here. The US government has declared that cod liver oil has to be distilled to remove any mercury and the process removes all the vitamins too. Can you imagine if you discovered after years and years that the steak you are eating has had all the B vitamins removed from it and sold to the vitamin industry and replaced with sythetics, perhaps at a lower dose as well? But mercury is water soluble and is found in only the most insignificant traces in any fats or oils. So now you and I have to worry about synthetic vitamins in this once all natural superfood (the col) because of an intruding government which knows nothing about nutrition.

No K2 ?
I've heard about CoQ10, maybe will order it next time.

No specific order

Whey protein (no sugar) i use Dymatize with enzyme to digest it.
ON Opti-Men multi vitamine or Opti-Women
Omega 3 oil - Udo choice for me
Calcium + vitamine D
After my back injury Animal Flex from universal glucosamine complex and Collagen try to rebuild joints.

Took CoQ10 once but have been told that its better to wait until you are like 50 years old to start taking it, i was 32 at the time.

Vitamin C, there are countless studies showing the health benefits and anyone who does not supplement is almost surely deficient. A good source is something like Durk Pearsons Dual C.

I thought recent evidence debunked the Vitamin C benefits ? Not sure, but I do remember reading that multiple times.

I don't believe it has been debunked at all, I consider it a foundation nutrient. Many animals make their own C, humans do not. Here is good quote from an article published by Vitamin Research Products:

"Vitamin C became popular in 1970, when Linus Pauling published his groundbreaking work, “Vitamin C and the Common Cold.” Vitamin C sales skyrocketed, with some impressive results, including a staggering 40% drop in the number of deaths attributed to heart disease in the next decade. Scientists now estimate that over 250,000 lives are saved every year because of the efforts of Linus Pauling and other dedicated researchers to educate the public about the benefits of vitamin C. Based on these statistics, it has been estimated that if everyone in the United States took several hundred milligrams of vitamin C a day, over 100,000 lives and $100 billion in health care costs would be saved each year."

http://www.vrp.com/articles.aspx?ProdID=art1086&zTYPE=2

vitamin D3
vitamin A from fish liver
calcium and magnesium
iodine
vitamin C
omega 3
CoQ10

That's seven, but I wouldn't be without any of them.

Hmmm.

Well, here are some links that might have made me question Vit C as a wonder supplement.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quacker...s/Cancer/c.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6901405.stm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26697.php

Maybe they all do look at the same study/meta analysis.

IMHO, those aren't the sources I'd look to for information on the efficacy of any supplement.

I look on pub med generally...original studies are always best, and looking at the papers of that vitamin/supplement's experts/researchers. The University of Oregon's Linus Pauling Institute is always good as a starting point for basic information on a nutrient/supplement...they also cite references.

But when researching any vitamin supplement, you have to know not only what it will do/how it is utilized but what the effective dose is, and if it has required co factors or synergistic partners.

Many so called blind studies are designed to disprove the efficacy of vitamins or supplements. They design for failure by deliberately using a known/proven ineffective dose, a biologically inert form of the nutrient, and/or by leaving out co factor supplements needed to ensure best effectiveness.

True, but since Vitamin C was Pauling's baby, they would be kind of biased don't you think ?

I admit its possible although I'm not sure why they would do such a thing. Also, we don't really know that these media reports necessarily refer to those type of studies.
I know about original journal studies, peer review etc etc ... but often studies which supposedly prove the efficacy of a supplement/drug are also sponsored by people who sell them - they're no less biased.