Slashdot Mirror
Multivitamin Researchers Say 'Case Is Closed' As Studies Find No Health Benefits
schwit1 sends this excerpt from CBS:
"'Enough' with the multivitamins already. That's the message from doctors behind three new studies and an editorial that tackled an oft-debated question in medicine: Do daily multivitamins make you healthier? After reviewing the available evidence and conducting new trials, the authors have come to a conclusion of 'no.' 'We believe that the case is closed — supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful,' concluded the authors of the editorial summarizing the new research papers, published Dec. 16 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 'These vitamins should not be used for chronic disease prevention. Enough is enough.' They went on to urge consumers to not 'waste' their money on multivitamins."
Not slashdot's fault, this time. The real conclusion is that multivitamins don't cure heart disease. But who takes them to cure heart disease?
My rock might be useless at keeping tigers away but it's useful for throwing at glass houses.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
In my opinion, the best way to make an informed choice about supplements is to have your doctor do blood work when you get a physical exam (which you should be doing yearly once you hit middle age). Labs can test for key things like iron, B vitamins, vitamin D, etc.
Your doctor can then ask you questions to help interpret the results. If your D is low, do you get a lot of sunlight or do you spend most of your time indoors? If your iron is low, do you feel tired or mostly energetic? What sorts of things do you eat?
Based on that personalized information, supplements or other dietary/lifestyle changes can improve your health, certainly far more than grabbing a random bottle of multivitamins at GNC.
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Vitamins don't work that way.
What happened to you is that you were tired, had a rest, and then were not tired any more.
Try this...
Try dedicating some Sundays, to cooking...do it for the week. I often cook 2-3 main dishes, maybe 2-3 sides...or one thing I like, is to grill a bunch of stuff, meats, veggies and just bag them. Then during the week, you can put them together in quick and interesting ways for lunches and dinners all week long.
Say you make up some hummus, and grill some veggies (eggplant, zucchini, onions, etc) and some chicken. A quick week night meal, is get some pita bread, spread on some hummus, and the veggies and chicken and there ya go. Next night, make a quick salad, throw in grilled, marinated veggies and whatever..etc. Doing stuff like that works well and make for easy throw together meals all week long (and lunches). I'd much rather do this than eat fast food, eat better, and with the money you save, treat yourself out every once in awhile to a finer dining experience, and get out and meet some girls. Do this...and then cook for them at your home, etc. All pluses!!
But I digress....cooking and eating this way cheaper and more nutritional, and hey..is kinda fun to spend a sunday with a couple of cocktails, throw on some tunes or some TV in the background and cook a bit.
One thing you might try too, is check the grocery store ads in your town, and see what's on sale and plan to cook around that. This way, you save money AND, most importantly, it keeps you from getting in a rut of cooking and eating the same thing day after day after day....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not all "vitamins" are equal. For one thing, Recommended Daily Allowances are set to prevent known diseases: e.g., if you don't have scurvy, establishment medicine says you must be getting enough vitamin C. Rarely is research done to discover an optimum level of supplementation. So studies that involve giving people the RDA or a little more aren't as dispositive as they might be.
Second, vitamins vary in quality. Cheapo supermarket multivitamins might have the same quantities listed on the label as something from a high-quality source like LEF, but they won't use the highest-quality sources, the most bio-available kinds, etc.
So my guess is that these "debunking" studies involved people taking Centrum multivitamins or whatever and they didn't see much in the way of results. I'd like to see a study done with LEF multivitamins, which I've taken for years and been happy with.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Says the man who has never heard of beans and rice?
Oh, yeah in those cases they are helpful. Or in cases where people's habits leave certain vitamins and minerals out. But never mind that. Just pay attention to my edgy new study and talk-show appearances.
As is frequently the case, the article is misleading and misinterpreting the scientists.
Also just like /. tends to do, the linked news article headline is sensationalized and exists just to get people to read the story.
The scientists talk about three specific things: (1) Preventing chronic disease, including heart disease and cancer, (2) preventing cognitive decline in seniors, and (3) high-dose pills to prevent subsequent events after a confirmed heart attack.
For those three specific things, multiple studies show they do not provide statistically significant benefits. They found that high doses of specific nutrients could slightly increase the risk of certain cancers in people pre-disposed to them, which is why they recommended against the multivitamins for those in good health.
Note that also in TFA they agree that there are some health benefits in specific cases. These include vitamin D in the elderly for bone strength, iron and folic acid for pregnant and nursing mothers (and in unrelated studies elsewhere, also in men wanting children), those with poor nutrition, and for other specific situations.
Note that the studies do not say multivitamins are worthless, nor does it address any other health areas except those three. That is just the headline sensationalism.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
If you buy things that are on sale and in season, you can easily make meals that are in the $4 per meal and much better for you than McD's.
Hell, buy a bag of dried beans, onion, meat, etc....make a pot of chili that you can eat on for 5+ meals and it is in that range.
Make a big salad, and grill some chicken that was on sale...you can get several meals out of that for that price range, and is much healthier for you.
And no, it doesn't go bad in a day or two. Buy what's on sale each week and work from there.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There's being lazy and then there's the weeks where I work 12-16 hours a day.
You mean the same pharma fucks who produce all of those vitamins? It's in their best interest for you to continue buying and taking massive amounts of anti-oxidants. Those are the same anti-oxidants that neutralize the process of the immune system oxidizing dangerous cells, such as cancer.
There is no such thing as equal availability of food in the US. Please read up on the Supermarket Gap and how it affects the diets of the urban poor and minority areas:
Studies show that cost is the most significant predictor of dietary choices, so healthy eating is especially difficult for the poor, for whom healthier foods are generally unaffordable.[4] Meanwhile, supermarkets generally provide food at cheaper prices than the bodegas and pharmacies that service inner-city areas. A study that compared supermarkets, neighborhood groceries, convenience stores, and health food stores in San Diego, California found that supermarkets had twice the average number of 'heart-healthy' foods compared to neighborhood grocery stores and four times the average number of such foods compared to convenience stores.[5] In many American cities, an urban grocery gap has caused a lack of access to healthy foods, high prices for the healthy foods that are available, and the health problems that result from an unhealthy diet.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"Wow....where do you live where junk food is cheaper than healthy, home cooked veggies, etc?"
the united states.
A meal of fresh fruits and veggies plus protien = $4.50
A meal of Ramen noodles = $0.39
A meal of a hot dog cut up in the mac and cheese = $1.20
nearly 40% of Americans cant even afford the luxury meal of the hot dog in mac and cheese.
I am guessing you have zero idea as to what reality is for the bulk of the population, over 50% of your fellow Americans can not afford to eat healthy and a balanced diet.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
> I mean, it's like studying the efficacy of a smallpox vaccine on a population that is never exposed to smallpox
> it might be valid science, but who cares?
Uggg. Did you stop to think even a *little* bit about your line of argument? Here, let me demonstrate how bad it is
There is ample evidence that cyclophosphamide can cure cancer. In people without cancer, obviously it doesn't cure their cancer.
There is also ample evidence that it causes acute myeloid leukaemia, bladder cancer, hemorrhagic cystitis, and permanent infertility.
So, on the off chance that you might have cancer, should you take cyclophosphamide in the preventative role?
What, you don't think that's a good idea? Huh.
There is evidence that taking vitamins is good for people with vitamin deficiencies. In people without vitamin deficiencies, it does nothing.
There is some evidence that taking vitamins causes several health problems, including increasing risk of cancer in certain cases.
But in this case, you dismiss the outcome. Clearly the logic states that healthy people should not take multivitamins for the same reason that healthy people shouldn't take cyclophosphamide. Either that, or you need to go out and take some cyclophosphamide, just in case. Right?
Salt is iodized.
Folic acid is added to bread, cereals, flour, etc.
Vitamin C is added to juice, along with most other things marketed to kids.
Niacin is added to bread.
Vitamin D and calcium are added to milk and other dairy products.
Cereals (especially sugary ones marketed to kids) are usually fortified with a dozen vitamins and minerals.
You probably won't end up with a vitamin deficiency from eating junk food so long as you don't eat the same few junk foods exclusively. What you'll end up with is a diet with way too much of the wrong stuff.
There is ample evidence that cyclophosphamide can cure cancer
You, sir, are AN IDIOT.
Cyclophosphamide doesn't CURE anything, period.
Not true. Cyclophosphamide is used (as part of a treatment protocol) for acute lymphocytic leukemia. Childhood ALL has cure rates of ~ 95%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_lymphocytic_leukemia#Treatment
And here was I thinking that people on slashdot would know that (to date) the only thing that 'cures' you of cancer (and, I might add, a variety of other spectacularly nasty diseases) is death.
Not true. There are curable cancers. There was a small number of them, and the number is growing. The calculation of the cure rate depends on how you define cancer, early-stage cancer, and pre-cancer. But among the major cancers, early stage colon cancer is curable.
The usual definition of "cure" for cancer is that it will not return in your lifetime. If you're 75 years old, and the cancer won't come back for 20 years, and you die of something else, most people define that as cure. If you're male, you probably have prostate cancer, and that probably won't kill you either in your lifetime.
What is it about the Internet that makes people say, "You're an IDIOT!" when they hear something they don't agree with? Even when the person you're calling an idiot knows more about the subject than you do?
This study was done on people with "no nutritional deficiencies". Yet vitamins are intended as supplements for people with nutritional deficiencies. As such, this study doesn't really show what it appears to be showing.
Vitamin deficiency diseases are generally third-world diseases. The population of the U.S. has very little vitamin deficiency. It's not as if doctors see scurvey or rickets when they go out into the community.
When Americans do have vitamin deficiency, it's usually because of a disease, hereditary or acquired. For example, alcoholics get vitamin B deficiency.
The New England Journal of Medicine had a case of rickets a few years ago, and the patient was a mentally retarded child who ate a diet entirely of Pop-Tarts.
Here's another one http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm1205540 -- from the Ukraine. "In addition to a diet poor in vitamin D and calcium, the patient had a history of biliary dyskinesia, which may have contributed to poor absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamin D."
Here's another one http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp1113996 Autoimmune gastritis (pernicious anemia) is the most common cause of severe [vitamin B12] deficiency.
One major cause of vitamin deficiency is people on fad diets. The macrobiotic diet was one of the worst for that. Sometimes people couldn't follow the macrobiotic diet themselves, but they had an infant that they kept on a "strict" macrobiotic diet (by feeding them not much more than brown rice), and in a few cases the child died.
There are some stupid articles, like this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310306 that simply measured vitamin D blood levels, without consideration of whether they actually had clinical disease that made any difference to the patient's health. (It's like finding an elevated PSA or a lung spot that will never develop into cancer.) If you don't know how to read a journal article, you might misinterpret this to mean that there was a lot of vitamin D deficiency. But I can't find any studies that show clinical vitamin deficiency in Americans without specific diseases, since America was industrialized during WWII.
Here's an article by people who do understand the complexity of the problem http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp1009570 and here's what they say:
Randomized, controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation have addressed its effects on skeletal outcomes, but most of these trials involved supplementation with both vitamin D and calcium, making it impossible to separate out the effects attributable specifically to vitamin D.
I just spent half an hour trying to find an article in a peer-reviewed journal that describes vitamin deficiency in a population in the U.S. where the deficiency isn't the result of a serious disease, and I can't find one.
The only time Americans need vitamin supplements is when they're diagnosed with a specific disease that causes a specific deficiency. In that case, they should get treated with vitamins under the supervision of an MD. You have to find out the cause of the deficiency and treat it. Otherwise you could die. This isn't the kind of thing you can self-treat with Google searches.