No evidence? Really?
A friend has early stage macular degeneration and she IS on a pretty specific set of vitamins for it, per medical advice. The condition seems to be stable so either it’s working, or at least it’s doing no harm.
I don’t recall what the mix is, but when she had a minor gyn procedure a couple months ago they ordered her to stop taking the vitamins about 10 days beforehand - something to do with risk of bleeding. I think they were overcautious and knee-jerking; this same hospital also insisted her pre-op bloodwork HAD to be done THERE, and she had to get a hospital bracelet put on at that time and if she removed it they’d either have refused to do the procedure or insisted on delaying it while they redid the bloodwork the same day… so my trust in what they told her is rather impaired… but maybe there WAS a real reason. In any case, she was pretty pissed because she is not unreasonably a bit concerned over screwing around with her eyes (re the bracelet: I told her that’s why Staples sells clear packaging tape, but she left it on and had to deal with explaining to coworkers).
I do take a multivitamin when I remember, as I don’t always get enough fruit / veg and it may fill in the gaps. I take a calcium / vitamin D supplement as well, per medical advice; I don’t eat enough dietary calcium (though that’s changing lately) and I have been tested as having low vitamin D in the past (will have to ask the doc about a retest). I have taken iron supplements in the past as people with restless legs syndrome are advised to get their stored iron levels up to a slightly higher level than non-RLSers (my iron levels have since stabilized so I no longer do so).
I hadn’t seen those studies. Thanks for the links. At first glance they do seem to show benefits of vitD suplementation. However, 3 of the studies were of the elderly, one was of pregnant women, one was of young children, and one was one was inconclusive.
this thread has been discussing the benefits of supplementation to the general public. So, of the 3 studies that showed significant benefits to the general population; one showed vitD increased the effectiveness of some pain medication, and the other 2 showed a decrease in mortality and a benefit to respiration in individuals with insufficient levels of the vitamin to begin with.
As others have said, the efficacy of vitamins is not in question here. Certain groups will, undoubtedly, benefit from supplement of certain vitamins from time to time.
mc
I concur with mikecurtis and my statement of “no evidence” is indeed overstated. I’ll rephrase to little evidence of benefit to the general population, that being in the possible reduction of URI rates. Some possible benefit in an elderly population especially for elderly institutionalized women.
The meta-analysis of falls risk in the elderly in particular looks like a strong study. The study that showed “vitamin D(3) seems to decrease mortality in predominantly elderly women who are mainly in institutions and dependent care” with the risk of increased kidney stones if calcium is also taken is of possible note for that subpopulation. The impact on muscle strength in elderly individuals with documented vitamin D deficiency is immaterial to the question of “routine” even to a subpopulation.
Not sure why you think a smallish study looking at the possibility of adding vitamin D to vaginal progesterone as a treatment for unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion is a relevant citation.
Nor the one on vitamin D as a treatment adjunct for chronic pain, for which the evidence overallshows “no consistent pattern that vitamin D treatment was associated with greater efficacy than placebo in any chronic painful condition”
The small study on the impact of wintertime vitamin D on influenza A rates in children is interesting, and I look forward to seeing larger studies that may give more statistically significant results. Cochrane’s review re preschoolers at least “did not demonstrate benefit of vitamin D supplementation on the incidence of pneumonia or diarrhoea in children under five years” BUT using vitamin D as an adjunct in asthma management may in fact of use. And the review of possible impact on URI rates was very interesting.
That 2010 review regarding possible impacts on preventing cardiovascular events OTOH is pretty weak. The multiple other much more comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses have failed to find benefits. See here for a recent (2017) summary:
But again there is at least little reason to be concerned about vitamin D at standard supplement levels.
For those interested there are dozens more vitamin D randomized controlled trials listed here:
So the study found that if you took 0.8mg/d of folate combined with 0.4 mg/d of B12 there was an increased incidence of cancer? OK, that’s twice the RDA of folate, but it’s almost 200 times the RDA of B12. I see the RDA of B12 as 2.4 micrograms/d for people 14 years of age. Have I dropped a decimal place or two? Somebody seems off by a couple orders of magnitude.
My multi only has 500 micrograms of folate and 6 micrograms of B12.
My vitamin/mineral supplement strategy:
First, I assume that my diet is at least reasonably adequate, and that I am getting more-or-less all the vitamins and minerals I need.
But I have a bottle of vitamin/mineral supplement tablets, the kind that have 100% of just about everything. I take one half tablet a day, on the theory that this should cover any dietary deficiencies. So I’m certainly not taking megadoses (or even kilodoses) of anything.
Exception: On the specific advice of a doctor, I am taking some large pile of D3/Calcium supplement.
I have not heard of this vitamin.
That’s not really an accurate statement. Different foods don’t just break down into their components. They can also affect how other foods are treated by the body.
For instance, iron absorption is improved by Vitamin C, but inhibited by calcium and oxalic acid.
Note that Vit. C is destroyed by heat.
So if you need iron, eat your spinach raw, add a squirt of lemon juice, and don’t put cheese on your salad.
But if you need to avoid iron, cook your spinach, and maybe add some cheese to it.
How about fiber for a start? It’s not magical, but if you try to put it into a pill, it’s not going to do what you need fiber to do.
You can’t synthesize something into a pill that you don’t know about, and science doesn’t know everything.
Take lycopene - it became well known in the mid-90s when research found that it seemed to help prostate cancer outcomes. But in the 70s it was considered poisonous. And now review of follow-up research is finding that there isn’t any solid evidence that it helps cancer.
The science of human nutrition is very new and very complex. I doubt we’ve scratched the surface of how our system reacts to food. I seriously doubt that we have a fraction of understanding of how such things as chewing and taste impact food absorption. Chewing releases saliva, which causes starches to break down, but what if swallowed saliva causes other processes to happen in the stomach or intestines? That’s something you will never get from a pill.
Science doesn’t know everything, but if you’re relying on a pill rather than on food to provide what you need, that means you’re relying on science to know everything, AND, you are relying on the supplement manufacturers to be honest… something that isn’t a given when they aren’t being required to prove that they even have what they say they have.
So help me out here. If I’m “low carbing” (around 30 a day) what vitamins and minerals might I start lacking in? I eat three cups of green vegetables, various types of meat, nuts, flax, and quite a bit of full fat dairy every day.
That’s really silly. You may as well say if you’re trying to eat a balanced diet, you’re relying on science to know everything. Where do you think people get ideas about what a balanced diet consists of?
People sometimes take supplementation because they are told they have a deficiency or have a good reason to believe they may be deficient in one or more nutrients. Same reasons one may change their diet. It doesn’t mean any of those people are relying on science to know everything.
Sounds like someone is relying on science.
Actually, it is put in pills and it does do what people need it to do.
Cite for that last part?
You can indeed get fiber from a pill, but you have to take a good number of them.
Not exactly the same thing. A person who believes that they can take a pill to get all of their nutritional needs filled is relying on science knowing not only every single micronutrient they need but at what levels and potentially in what combinations. Whereas, a person who follows the American Cancer Society’s recommendation to eat a wide variety of foods*, including a lot of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (because they’ve found that people who’ve followed this diet are less likely to get cancer and have better outcomes if they do get cancer) isn’t relying on science to know every single detail but to have found a broad trend that works.
*Ok, American Cancer Society isn’t saying that now (although I believe they did in the past) but Berkeley does: http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food/slideshow/14-keys-healthy-diet
I’m not arguing against people who take supplementation because they have been advised to do so. I’m not even arguing about taking a supplement if you think said supplement is going to be beneficial to you. Knock yourself out, I try different supplements for problems I have without talking to my doctor first if I hear it might help a problem I have
I am specifically arguing against the person who said
You’re damned right, Skippy. I believe in science and I was trained in how to do science.
I rely on it all the time (it’s definitely better than the alternative!)
But I recognize that we have a LONG way to go, especially in the areas of human biology
Yes, it will make you go to the bathroom
Do we have experimental proof that it reduces incidence of bowel cancer?
How about reducing cholesterol?
Controlling blood sugar levels?
Helping people lose weight?
Lycopene in news stories in the 90s: NewspaperArchive |lycopene historic newspaper articles including obituaries, births, marriages, divorces and arrests.
Lycopene in news stories in the 70s: NewspaperArchive |lycopene historic newspaper articles including obituaries, births, marriages, divorces and arrests.
(lots of duplicates in both of these)
I want to know about the guy who drank a half gallon of tomato juice every day - what happened? Did he just turn orange, or did something worse happen?
I am, however, too cheap to buy a subscription to the website to find out.
Did you know that they did a study where they loaded Lycopene into a shotgun and shot it at various animals? 100% fatal, every time. That Lycopene is dangerous stuff.
I can’t speak for Surreal, but I don’t think that’s what he meant to say. I think he was referring back to the first part of his statement:
if there’s something in natural foods that magically makes them healthy, whatever it is they contain could be extracted and put in pill form.
and wasn’t trying to claim that we could live on pills. But I could be wrong about his intent.
I’m not sure we have proof that fiber from any source does that.
It seems so.
The same.
It’s worked on rodents. I didn’t look long enough to see if there were experiments looking for weight loss with supplemental fiber for weight loss on humans.
How about you pick one?
If you don’t even know what I’m arguing against, why are you arguing with me?
Also, he said:
Sounds to me like he’s arguing that you should be able to get food in a pill.
WebMD (Weight Loss & Diet Plans - Find healthy diet plans and helpful weight loss tools)
Which gets back to my basic thesis
Science doesn’t know everything. There’s still a lot of research to be done.
I will give you these, even though single studies are not as conclusive as meta-analysis of multiple studies.
It’s worth noting on this general subject that studies on pills have fewer variables than studies on diet, as it’s MUCH easier to get people to take a pill daily than to change what they eat, and the pill is much less complex.
Thus, it’s a little more clear cut whether a supplement will help than a diet change. That doesn’t mean that supplements are better, just that they provide more reliable data.
Jeez dude, how fricken lazy do you have to be to not even be bothered to click on a link and scan a page. It’s not like what I referred to is that hard to find on the pages.
So here:
From the 90s, the first page
Both of those lines showed up at least twice.*
From the 70s first page
This showed up in three separate articles on what I saw*
- When I say they showed up multiple times, I’m not saying that seeing this multiple times reinforces it’s impact, I’m saying that anyone* who took the time to bring up the link* would not have had a problem finding these quotes.
Results seem to change because this time I didn’t see the guy who drank 1/2 gallon of tomato juice every day until the second page this time around
:rolleyes:
What Surreal posted that you responded to regarding relying on science to know everything:
How about some specifics?What are these magical things in vegetables that can’t be synthesized into a pill?
The first part of your response:
*How about fiber for a start? It’s not magical, but if you try to put it into a pill, it’s not going to do what you need fiber to do.
You can’t synthesize something into a pill that you don’t know about, and science doesn’t know everything.*
Cite? What is your evidence that fiber in pill form will not do what it does for you when in food?
No! Not even close. You asked for “experimental proof” that fiber supplements can reduce colon cancer, implying that there is this level of proof for fiber in food. You link to a WebMD article which talks of studies that find no evidence, yet cherry pick one that “shows a link” and they also ate a lower fat diet. The very next sentence that you omitted from posting is:
Still, no one can say for sure whether fiber helps prevent colorectal cancer
If there ever is enough evidence, then guess what else is fiber? Yeah, the stuff that comes in pills.
Huh? It seems like you’re admitting your WebMD article didn’t show what you wanted it to.
Then are you going to retract this statement?:
How about fiber for a start? It’s not magical, but if you try to put it into a pill, it’s not going to do what you need fiber to do.
What the fuck? You made a claim, it’s not my job to find your cite for you.
Then why couldn’t you find it?
What you said:
Take lycopene - it became well known in the mid-90s when research found that it seemed to help prostate cancer outcomes. But in the 70s it was considered poisonous.
You speak of research finding it to help in the 90s, but it was considered poisonous in the 70s. You find some article that you don’t link to, where “someone” claims that the amount of lycopene found in a half gallon of tomato juice taken every day for years will… do something as evidence of lycopene being considered a poison in the 70s? You for some reason don’t finish with the quote either. Finding “someone” making a claim in the 70s doesn’t back up YOUR claim about what lycopene was considered in the 70s. Also, lots of things are poisonous at mega doses, but aren’t labeled “poisons.”
x-ray vision, let’s get down to the core issue.
Do you really think that science knows everything there is to know?
The other day I looked at the RDA on my bran flakes, 100% of needed iron.
Looked at Raisin Bran this morning, only 25%
I still dont understand why my levels would be chronically low. I am pretty sure I get plenty of iron thru the foods I eat each day-maybe the doctor thinks I eat crap all day. IDK.
She probably thinks I am a hypochondriac any way so I’ll see if she asks me about the iron levels.
I’ll try to stumble over a few words when I am there too. I really thought the B-12 was helping my brain…
They may not be. In the OP you wrote that your doc says you have slight anemia and your doc wants you to supplement with iron. That’s a good way to possibly fix the situation because low iron levels can cause anemia, but anemia is not synonymous with “low iron.” Anemia is a lack of healthy red blood cells or hemoglobin and that can be caused by more than iron deficiency.
It’s possible you are consuming iron at levels that would be sufficient for most people and your body isn’t doing a good job at absorbing it into your blood stream. Sometimes it’s something like an intestinal disorder and sometimes just genetics. Sometimes anemia isn’t related to iron consumption or absorption at all. Even so, be aware that the iron supplemented in cereals is non-heme iron which isn’t absorbed as well as the heme-iron found in clams and oysters, organ meats, beef, pork and other foods.