Slashdot Mirror
The Man Who Convinced Us We Needed Vitamin Supplements
An anonymous reader writes "The Atlantic has an interesting piece on the life and work of the scientist most responsible for moms around the world giving their kids Vitamin C tablets to fight off colds, Linus Pauling. From the article: 'On October 10, 2011, researchers from the University of Minnesota found that women who took supplemental multivitamins died at rates higher than those who didn't. Two days later, researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found that men who took vitamin E had an increased risk of prostate cancer. "It's been a tough week for vitamins," said Carrie Gann of ABC News. These findings weren't new. Seven previous studies had already shown that vitamins increased the risk of cancer and heart disease and shortened lives. Still, in 2012, more than half of all Americans took some form of vitamin supplements. What few people realize, however, is that their fascination with vitamins can be traced back to one man. A man who was so spectacularly right that he won two Nobel Prizes and so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack.'"
In very rare cases does someone need to take any supplements at all. If one pays attention to having a proper diet one can get all the vitamins needed naturally. Part of the whole vitamin craze is how lazy people are. It can take some thought and effort to eat a healthy diet containing all the nutrients a body needs to thrive. It's quite worth doing so though.
A man who was so spectacularly right that he won two Nobel Prizes and so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack.
Being wrong doesn't make you a quack, slashdot. You can follow the scientific method perfectly and arrive at the wrong result. In fact, you can be fairly certain that most of what we think we know today will later be proven wrong. Even Einstein said he hoped people would one day prove him wrong -- being proven wrong means progress. It means a better understanding of the universe. Scientists, real ones, don't mind being wrong, or mistaken. Sure, there's pride in one's work, and yes, that can make it hard for people to accept a new truth. But by and far, scientists do get around to doing it.
A quack is someone who doesn't use the right process, who avoids peer review, who insists they can't be wrong. They aren't true scientists. This man won two nobel prizes because he followed the scientific process. And, today, that process is still being followed, and that man's original assertions are now wrong. Taking vitamins is something tens of thousands of doctors and medical professionals have advised. Researchers the world over have endorsed it. That doesn't happen with, say, magnetically vortexed water that some people believe has a "higher energy level" and is thus more beneficial to drink, or that crystals or magnets will somehow improve our health.
It's wrong to put him in the same category as those people. Slashdot, you fail, and you should be ashamed. You should issue a retraction immediately -- you're using words and making accusations that you don't really understand. Your editors are stating opinions that are overall harmful to the scientific and medical community.
People who search for the truth should never be called names, or subjected to ridicule. That is the ultimate goal of all science. The fact that people get it wrong is inconsequential, as long as they did their best to get it right. Shame, slashdot. Shame on you.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Dr. Dean Edell used to run down the latest research on his radio show. The terrible and ongoing failure of vitamins to offer any benefit as giant study after study started coming in became almost a running joke.
"We were in the 'Vitamin C' decade, then the 'Vitamin E' decade, and now the 'Vitamin D' decade", where that vitamin was the darling." Then the 10 year study with 100,000 nurses and doctors would come in, and it would offer zero benefits, and in some cases like Vitamin C with cancer, actually make things worse.
C did nothing for colds or cancer. E did nothing for hearts. I am taking D for heart reasons the past 2 years per doctor instruction. Will it help?
Dr. Dean Edell was uniquely positioned to criticize vitamins as he came from a family who were giant vitamin manufacturers. When he started his career he was big time into all that crap and other alternative stuff.
But the science inexorably crawled forward, slaying one thing after another, and he saw the light. He was an enormous friend to science and rationality and medical skepticism.
And he loses his radio show because nobody listens. Meanwhile a quack like Dr. Oz who promotes gigatons of nonsense that dopes go glassy-eyed over and tune in, has multiples hows on radio and TV.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What IS bad for you are la mayoría de pills, supplements, things in cans, fake 'diet' brownies and cookies, sugar, processed foods, vegetable oils except for olive, processed starches, and alta energy/low nutrition foods que conforman the bulk of the 'western diet'. Eat meat, quality fats, las frutas enteras and veg and steer clear of the alta rentabilidad, easy to produce artículos hechos de grains and processed starches.
You're kidding, right? Five very insightful paragraphs showing how hard research into nutrition is and how most 'nutritional facts' have no proper basis in science followed by a ridiculous list of different largely unsupported nutritional claims?
'[Processed foods are bad]'? Really?? What the fuck is 'processed food' even?
Next you're going to say that 'additives' and 'chemicals' are 'bad for you'.
Here's a citation:
Garland CF, French CB, Baggerly LL, Heaney RP. Vitamin D supplement doses and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the range associated with cancer prevention. Anticancer Res. February 2011;31:607-11.
Cancer prevention is correlated most closely with serum levels of 40 ng/mL or above (as is alleviation of depression), and to reach this level in 97.5% of the population, 9,600 IU/day was necessary. This is almost double the current UL. Of course, current recommendations for daily dosage is based off 20 ng/mL being 'sufficient', while most experts in the field now believe that 30 ng/mL should be the baseline for 'sufficient' and that most positive effects will be found at serum levels of 40 - 50 ng/mL.
Vitamin D toxicity is rare, and only occurs when serum 25(OH)D levels exceed 150 ng/mL. It has never been demonstrated at doses of less than 20,000 IU/d and generally requires greater than 40,000 IU/d. Most incidents have been due to accidental ingestion, such as from a milk supply that was accidentally fortified with vast amounts of D3.
In the end, supplementation needs to be based off serum 25(OH)D levels, which can be measured by a doctor. You may need more or less to reach 'ideal' levels, and it's impossible to say exactly how much without testing. The test is cheap and hopefully will become a standard part of a routine examination, considering that vitamin D affects at least 35 different systems in the body. Without the test, 2,000 IU/d will keep you under the UL (even though it should really be changed to reflect the science behind the toxicity), and will likely keep your levels above 30 ng/mL. Remember that most dairy products are fortified with D3 which should be considered a part of the total.
What I think is easily overlooked is the term "routine" in the following sentence: "Nutrition experts contend that all we need is what's typically found in a routine diet." Because routine is often defined as: "A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure."
I suppose if we are all trained dietitians/nutritionists that should be easy-peasy, but for the vast majority of us?
Let us not forget simple facts like salt is iodized because most people would be deficient otherwise. Foods are often fortified and enriched because we would become nutrient deficient otherwise.
It also ignores niches within groups, such as this tidbit from WebMD: "... researchers found the most effect on people who were in extreme conditions, such as marathon runners. In this group, taking vitamin C cut their risk of catching a cold in half." Perhaps stressing the importance of exercise to achieve more optimal well-being. The NLM suggests people living in very cold temperatures also stand to benefit from vitamin C supplements, and I imagine that marathon running in a cold environment... better take some C!
Unfortunately, the studies, in general, are far from conclusive and in many cases present conflicting conclusions. Many studies also appear to ignore synergies between vitamins/minerals -- that groups often aid proper absorption and misgroupings can cause malabsorption or even leeching. For instance, I'd be interested in a study that compares EmergenC to 1 gram 'plain' vitamin C, because I'd imagine EmergenC is going to be more effective. Or maybe eating an orange or some fruit/veg with a certain amount of C VS just that amount of C by itself.
Like my momma always said, "where you going to find [insert practically any single vitamin/mineral] all by itself in nature that we actually eat?!" Even sea salt has lots of trace minerals! She was all about eating right FIRST and using supplements sparingly as backup (like Vit D in the winter months, to compensate for less sun on the skin). That's a great plan, IMO, but I doubt most people routinely do that.
Enlightenment is the elimination of that which is unnecessary.
One of the biggest problems with vitamin supplements is that neither the takers nor the manufacturers (nor doctors prescribing supplements) pay any attention to absorption pathways. They also tend to ignore variants, which is a problem with a broader category of nutrients than just vitamins. There is a pretty decent scientific basis for the idea that good levels of vitamins are healthy, but supplements are usually taken in ways that are likely to make things worse rather than better through crowding out other essential vitamins and minerals that get absorbed through the same pathway.
Take zinc. It was found that zinc can denature viruses, so a viral sore throat can have its symptoms somewhat alleviated by zinc lozenges. But zinc is absorbed through the same pathway as copper, and the sort of large doses of zinc that people are taking for cold remedies is probably crowding out reasonable levels of copper absorption. And guess what copper's critical for? White blood cells and your immune system, the functions that can really do something about colds. Usually there's some bit of news, that the media gets wrong, then the general public gets even more wrong, and what the average consumer does in respect to a new scientific development ends up being completely counter-productive. Thus the news that zinc can denature viruses on contact turned into people taking zinc supplement pills with ads on the side of the bottle about taking them for colds. But pillsâ"as opposed to lozengesâ"do not result in significant concentrations of zinc where the virus is, and then they end up weakening the immune system by crowding out copper absorption.
Vitamin E is another excellent example. "Vitamin E" is 8 different vitamins that serve very different roles in the body. But they are absorbed through the same pathway and are highly subject to crowding-out. Basically, due to a terminology problem that the 8 distinct vitamins got lumped together as "Vitamin E," people who take vitamin E supplements end up deficient in 7 essential vitamins, unless they're taking reasonable doses of multitocopherol supplements, which isn't what much of anybody takes.
This tendancy to lump things together has lead to another super popular modern marketing disaster, Omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 is not a type of fatty acid, it's a class of fatty acids encompassing many different molecules. It turns out that only the fish-derived versions demonstrate any of the health benefits, but basically every food in the grocery store touting "Omega 3" all over the label is using plant sources, where they might as well be adding a gram of canola oil or corn oil for all the health benefits you'll be getting. Everything touting the helath benefits of flax seeds have no scientific basis, the the science is quite clear that the Omega 3 fatty acids in flax do not exhibit any of the hormone-like beneficial properties such as reducing inflammation that the fish Omega 3 fatty acids have.
I strongly suspect that in the long-term it will turn out that taking appropriate supplements is a very good idea for health, but right now, the science hasn't explored the area thoroughly enough to make solid recommendations given the complexity of the subject, and what little we do know has very little effect on what manufactures make and advertise and what consumers actually take. Which probably leads to the negative outcomes.
If you want to try to figure out, based on what we know, what the best guesses might be about what supplements to actually take, try reading up on the work of Bruce Ames and Andrew Weil. They don't have easy answers, but Bruce Ames did brilliant research, and Andrew Weil makes practical best-guess recommendations based upon the current state of the science.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?