The Vitamin Myth - Why We Think We Need Supplements

[phaedo]

Read this on my Flipboard the other day and thought it worth posting:

The Vitamin Myth - Why We Think We Need Supplements

I'd particularly like to hear austinite's opinion on the article, since his stance is to the obvious contrary. The majority of science seems to suggest supplementing with vitamins is more harmful than helpful.

Cheers,
phaedo

[Brazensol]

One thing I noticed was it did not mention Linus Pauling's age; 93+. Not to shabby.

People tend to overdo things. If a little is good then a lot must be better. It's seems to be the American way of doing things (pehaps all or nothing is closer to the truth). Problem is is it's not always true (usually isn't true is closer to the truth). Moderation will go a long way in all things you do in your life.

Also, get a panel done and see if you are actually lacking in any areas and concentrate on improving those deficiencies.

That's my 2 cents worth anyway... lol.

[austinite]

I can't wait to read this. Major headache right now but I'll reply with thoughts later.

[basketballfan22]

Amazing read. I have read and heard about a lot of the information echoed in this article. I keep going from one extreme to the other (i.e. not taking any supplements to taking a shit ton). From what I have seen, the science certainly supports minimal supplementation. I wonder if I am similar to climate change deniers in that all of the evidence is right there; yet I still deny it. As a person who puts so much stock into science and knowledge, that is a bitter pill to swallow.

[basketballfan22]

I can't wait to read this. Major headache right now but I'll reply with thoughts later.

It's from those supplements.

[Brazensol]

Amazing read. I have read and heard about a lot of the information echoed in this article. I keep going from one extreme to the other (i.e. not taking any supplements to taking a shit ton). From what I have seen, the science certainly supports minimal supplementation. I wonder if I am similar to climate change deniers in that all of the evidence is right there; yet I still deny it. As a person who puts so much stock into science and knowledge, that is a bitter pill to swallow.

The climate is changing. Always has and always will. How much man contributes is the 64k question. When people start to scream we need immediate, drastic and costly (read new taxes) changes to "fix" something I tend to get a bit skeptical about the whole thing. Especially when it is special interest groups and politicians.

[Brazensol]

Sorry... this thread is probably blown all to hell now.

[kelkel]

It's from those supplements.

That's funny.

[Far from massive]

I am too lazy to read the post seen similar arguments hundreds of times.

My feeling is that for the general public on a well balanced diet there is no need for multivitamins. However for an athlete who is training hard and eating lots...particularly a poorly structured (from a health/longevity standpoint) high protein, low carb/low veg diet the addition of vitamins particularly water soluble B complex will yield great benefits.

I know from my own experience that when I supplement with B complex I can definitely see better gains/more energy/quicker recovery. This could be due to a placebo effect but I seriously doubt it as I have HepC and would love to avoid taking vitamins due to their loading of the liver.

[MajorPectorial]

I am too lazy to read the post seen similar arguments hundreds of times.

My feeling is that for the general public on a well balanced diet there is no need for multivitamins. However for an athlete who is training hard and eating lots...particularly a poorly structured (from a health/longevity standpoint) high protein, low carb/low veg diet the addition of vitamins particularly water soluble B complex will yield great benefits.

I know from my own experience that when I supplement with B complex I can definitely see better gains/more energy/quicker recovery. This could be due to a placebo effect but I seriously doubt it as I have HepC and would love to avoid taking vitamins due to their loading of the liver.

^^this ;-)^^^

And yeh. They'd have to categorize its use fullness dependent on the resources actually needed by eg. A sedentary with crap diet all the way to pro bb soooooooi many levels in-between its unreal.

[basketballfan22]

The climate is changing. Always has and always will. How much man contributes is the 64k question. When people start to scream we need immediate, drastic and costly (read new taxes) changes to "fix" something I tend to get a bit skeptical about the whole thing. Especially when it is special interest groups and politicians.

The climate is changing at a MUCH faster rate than before, but I don't want to get into this topic. I have had this debate too many times, and it is practically pointless to discuss it with people that don't acknowledge the major effect we humans have. Science has clearly shown it regardless of special interest groups and politicians. I should never have brought it up, but I was trying to paint an analogy of the "predicament" that I find myself in.

[basketballfan22]

Back on topic, those are great points brought up; and they are ones that I have brought up and heard from others too (e.g. gb). I guess what I find frustrating is that with all of these studies that keep coming out, you would think there would be several that analyze the data based on particular lifestyles. They were able to investigate vitamins for cancer patients, so I don't see why they can't extend that to bodybuilders. Now personally I don't identify as a bodybuilder, mainly because I have high standards; and if one isn't competing at a high and professional level, then I don't really see him/her as a "bodybuilder" per se. Many people still label me one though. Anyway, they should investigate this based on activity and dietary level. Because I eat very healthily (with the exception of a high protein intake) and am working out very hard in the gym, what are MY needs?!? I would love it if they would tailor these studies to specific groups of people, mainly people like us on this forum.

Having said all that, I don't think we can simply discredit all of the science and studies; and say that we "bodybuilders" need supplements. There isn't much data and science supporting that claim either, and it seems like a lot those claims are simply based off of "bro science."

[basketballfan22]

Austinite knows his shit, so I would love to hear his response(s).

[austinite]

Nutrition experts contend that all we need is what's typically found in a routine diet. Industry representatives, backed by a fascinating history, argue that foods don't contain enough, and we need supplements. Fortunately, many excellent studies have now resolved the issue.

No they don't. They say that food can't get you to optimal levels. True. It's impossible with food alone. Doesn't mean you're not healthy, just means you can do better than just food.

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.

JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women: Â The Iowa Women's Health Study

1. 38,772 older women in the Iowa. I'm sure they paid attention to details of 38,722 women. I'm laughing right now.
2. Average age 61.6 in the year 1986.
3. Supplement use was self-reported. I can't stop laughing, someone please, stop the madness. Study debunked here, but I'll entertain.
4. Through December 31, 2008, a total of 15 594 deaths. No detail? Maybe most were (2008-1986) + 61 = 83 yrs old at death.
5. Who supplements iron unless you suffer iron anemia?
6. Vitamin B6 has been proven for health benefits, even at high doses. Magnesium won't kill you either. Silly students.
7. Zinc? Oh no, how much did they take daily? Nevermind! They refuse to give us dosages. LOL! too cute.

Garbage study. Not even a study. Random and irrelevant observations gathered via electronic communication with 38,722 older broads.

In 1931, Linus Pauling published a paper in the Journal of the American Chemical Society titled "The Nature of the Chemical Bond." Before publication, chemists knew of two types of chemical bonds: ionic, where one atom gives up an electron to another; and covalent, where atoms share electrons. Pauling argued that it wasn't that simple -- electron sharing was somewhere between ionic and covalent. Pauling's idea revolutionized the field, marrying quantum physics with chemistry. His concept was so revolutionary in fact that when the journal editor received the manuscript, he couldn't find anyone qualified to review it. When Albert Einstein was asked what he thought of Pauling's work, he shrugged his shoulders. "It was too complicated for me," he said.


For this single paper, Pauling received the Langmuir Prize as the most outstanding young chemist in the United States, became the youngest person elected to the National Academy of Sciences, was made a full professor at Caltech, and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. He was 30 years old.

That's a wonderful story, and you tell it so well!

In 1949, Pauling published a paper in Science titled "Sickle Cell Anemia, a Molecular Disease." At the time, scientists knew that hemoglobin (the protein in blood that transports oxygen) crystallized in the veins of people with sickle-cell anemia, causing joint pain, blood clots, and death. But they didn't know why. Pauling was the first to show that sickle hemoglobin had a slightly different electrical charge -- a quality that dramatically affected how the hemoglobin reacted with oxygen. His finding gave birth to the field of molecular biology.

Sickle cell is hereditary. Keep stem cell research alive!

The turning point came in March 1966, when Pauling was 65 years old. He had just received the Carl Neuberg Medal. "During a talk in New York City," recalled Pauling, "I mentioned how much pleasure I took in reading about the discoveries made by scientists in their various investigations of the nature of the world, and stated that I hoped I could live another twenty-five years in order to continue to have this pleasure. On my return to California I received a letter from a biochemist, Irwin Stone, who had been at the talk. He wrote that if I followed his recommendation of taking 3,000 milligrams of vitamin C, I would live not only 25 years longer, but probably more." Stone, who referred to himself as Dr. Stone, had spent two years studying chemistry in college. Later, he received an honorary degree from the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic and a "PhD" from Donsbach University, a non-accredited correspondence school in Southern California.


Pauling followed Stone's advice. "I began to feel livelier and healthier," he said. "In particular, the severe colds I had suffered several times a year all my life no longer occurred. After a few years, I increased my intake of vitamin C to ten times, then twenty times, and then three hundred times the RDA: now 18,000 milligrams per day."


From that day forward, people would remember Linus Pauling for one thing: vitamin C.


In 1970, Pauling published Vitamin C and the Common Cold, urging the public to take 3,000 milligrams of vitamin C every day (about 50 times the recommended daily allowance). Pauling believed that the common cold would soon be a historical footnote. "It will take decades to eradicate the common cold completely," he wrote, "but it can, I believe, be controlled entirely in the United States and some other countries within a few years. I look forward to witnessing this step toward a better world." Pauling's book became an instant best seller. Paperback versions were printed in 1971 and 1973, and an expanded edition titled Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, published three years later, promised to ward off a predicted swine flu pandemic. Sales of vitamin C doubled, tripled, and quadrupled. Drugstores couldn't keep up with demand. By the mid-1970s, 50 million Americans were following Pauling's advice. Vitamin manufacturers called it "the Linus Pauling effect."


Scientists weren't as enthusiastic. On December 14, 1942, about thirty years before Pauling published his first book, Donald Cowan, Harold Diehl, and Abe Baker, from the University of Minnesota, published a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association titled "Vitamins for the Prevention of Colds." The authors concluded, "Under the conditions of this controlled study, in which 980 colds were treated . . . there is no indication that vitamin C alone, an antihistamine alone, or vitamin C plus an antihistamine have any important effect on the duration or severity of infections of the upper respiratory tract."

You the man, Dr. Pauling! My kind of doses right there! I'm so happy to see you announce the actual doses you took, unlike the ding dong author who failed to tell us they only used 2 grams in 1942 to gather their finding. doh!

This guy is stuck on Pauling for the majority of the article, citing a bunch of studies that I could not find. Most intelligent authors give credit to originators at the end of an article, and provide reference tags throughout the article. Anyway, let's get passed Pauling... Hey.. I can cite 100's of studies to the benefits of high doses of Vitamin C.

In 2004, researchers from the University of Copenhagen reviewed fourteen randomized trials involving more than 170,000 people who took vitamins A, C, E, and beta-carotene to see whether antioxidants could prevent intestinal cancers. Again, antioxidants didn't live up to the hype. The authors concluded, "We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality." When these same researchers evaluated the seven best studies, they found that death rates were 6 percent higher in those taking vitamins.

For the love of Arginine, stop with madness. More than 170,000 people? Give me the real number please! lol. I want to see that payroll! Must have hired an army.

On October 10, 2011, researchers from the University of Minnesota evaluated 39,000 older women and found that those who took supplemental multivitamins, magnesium, zinc, copper, and iron died at rates higher than those who didn't. They concluded, "Based on existing evidence, we see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements."

Uh.... Maybe your supplements caused amnesia, you mentioned this in the beginning of the article. You twisted your words to make it sounds like another study. Shame on you. And it was 38,722.

How could this be? Given that free radicals clearly damage cells -- and given that people who eat diets rich in substances that neutralize free radicals are healthier -- why did studies of supplemental antioxidants show they were harmful? The most likely explanation is that free radicals aren't as evil as advertised. Although it's clear that free radicals can damage DNA and disrupt cell membranes, that's not always a bad thing. People need free radicals to kill bacteria and eliminate new cancer cells. But when people take large doses of antioxidants, the balance between free radical production and destruction might tip too much in one direction, causing an unnatural state in which the immune system is less able to kill harmful invaders. Researchers have called this "the antioxidant paradox." Whatever the reason, the data are clear: high doses of vitamins and supplements increase the risk of heart disease and cancer; for this reason, not a single national or international organization responsible for the public's health recommends them.


In May 1980, during an interview at Oregon State University, Linus Pauling was asked, "Does vitamin C have any side effects on long-term use of, let's say, gram quantities?" Pauling's answer was quick and decisive. "No," he replied.


Seven months later, his wife was dead of stomach cancer. In 1994, Linus Pauling died of prostate cancer.

Far more evidence that free radicals can do damage. That's not questionable. Free radicals do FAR MORE damage that disrupt cell membranes and damage DNA, but glad you don't think that matters...

You want to rely solely on our bodies to kill cancer cells? I don't. There is such as thing as "Overpowering the immune system". You want to kill cancer cells, use an Eukaryotic elongation factor-2 kinase (EEF2K) inhibitor.

Maybe... just maybe... you could actually do some research on your own, instead of writing an entire article comprised of 42 paragraphs, where only one contains your actual thoughts.

There will always be free radicals. You don't need any sort of balancing. That's just asinine. I have a lot more to say but I just can't deal with it right now.

[MajorPectorial]

No they don't. They say that food can't get you to optimal levels. True. It's impossible with food alone. Doesn't mean you're not healthy, just means you can do better than just food.

JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women: Â The Iowa Women's Health Study

1. 38,772 older women in the Iowa. I'm sure they paid attention to details of 38,722 women. I'm laughing right now.
2. Average age 61.6 in the year 1986.
3. Supplement use was self-reported. I can't stop laughing, someone please, stop the madness. Study debunked here, but I'll entertain.
4. Through December 31, 2008, a total of 15 594 deaths. No detail? Maybe most were (2008-1986) + 61 = 83 yrs old at death.
5. Who supplements iron unless you suffer iron anemia?
6. Vitamin B6 has been proven for health benefits, even at high doses. Magnesium won't kill you either. Silly students.
7. Zinc? Oh no, how much did they take daily? Nevermind! They refuse to give us dosages. LOL! too cute.

Garbage study. Not even a study. Random and irrelevant observations gathered via electronic communication with 38,722 older broads.

That's a wonderful story, and you tell it so well!

Sickle cell is hereditary. Keep stem cell research alive!

You the man, Dr. Pauling! My kind of doses right there! I'm so happy to see you announce the actual doses you took, unlike the ding dong author who failed to tell us they only used 2 grams in 1942 to gather their finding. doh!

This guy is stuck on Pauling for the majority of the article, citing a bunch of studies that I could not find. Most intelligent authors give credit to originators at the end of an article, and provide reference tags throughout the article. Anyway, let's get passed Pauling... Hey.. I can cite 100's of studies to the benefits of high doses of Vitamin C.

For the love of Arginine, stop with madness. More than 170,000 people? Give me the real number please! lol. I want to see that payroll! Must have hired an army.

Uh.... Maybe your supplements caused amnesia, you mentioned this in the beginning of the article. You twisted your words to make it sounds like another study. Shame on you. And it was 38,722.

Far more evidence that free radicals can do damage. That's not questionable. Free radicals do FAR MORE damage that disrupt cell membranes and damage DNA, but glad you don't think that matters...

You want to rely solely on our bodies to kill cancer cells? I don't. There is such as thing as "Overpowering the immune system". You want to kill cancer cells, use an Eukaryotic elongation factor-2 kinase (EEF2K) inhibitor.

Maybe... just maybe... you could actually do some research on your own, instead of writing an entire article comprised of 42 paragraphs, where only one contains your actual thoughts.

There will always be free radicals. You don't need any sort of balancing. That's just asinine. I have a lot more to say but I just can't deal with it right now.

1-0 to austinite lolz
Oh. And
1-0 to supplements

[phaedo]

Garbage study. Not even a study. Random and irrelevant observations gathered via electronic communication with 38,722 older broads.

Hahahaha!!! ... you make me laugh.

Thanks for all the good discussion. I'll side with austinite, as it seems my quality of life has greatly improved through supplementation. And I'm kinda a pragmatist - if it works, more power to you.

[basketballfan22]

No they don't. They say that food can't get you to optimal levels. True. It's impossible with food alone. Doesn't mean you're not healthy, just means you can do better than just food.



JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women: Â The Iowa Women's Health Study

1. 38,772 older women in the Iowa. I'm sure they paid attention to details of 38,722 women. I'm laughing right now.
2. Average age 61.6 in the year 1986.
3. Supplement use was self-reported. I can't stop laughing, someone please, stop the madness. Study debunked here, but I'll entertain.
4. Through December 31, 2008, a total of 15 594 deaths. No detail? Maybe most were (2008-1986) + 61 = 83 yrs old at death.
5. Who supplements iron unless you suffer iron anemia?
6. Vitamin B6 has been proven for health benefits, even at high doses. Magnesium won't kill you either. Silly students.
7. Zinc? Oh no, how much did they take daily? Nevermind! They refuse to give us dosages. LOL! too cute.

Garbage study. Not even a study. Random and irrelevant observations gathered via electronic communication with 38,722 older broads.


That's a wonderful story, and you tell it so well!



Sickle cell is hereditary. Keep stem cell research alive!




You the man, Dr. Pauling! My kind of doses right there! I'm so happy to see you announce the actual doses you took, unlike the ding dong author who failed to tell us they only used 2 grams in 1942 to gather their finding. doh!

This guy is stuck on Pauling for the majority of the article, citing a bunch of studies that I could not find. Most intelligent authors give credit to originators at the end of an article, and provide reference tags throughout the article. Anyway, let's get passed Pauling... Hey.. I can cite 100's of studies to the benefits of high doses of Vitamin C.



For the love of Arginine, stop with madness. More than 170,000 people? Give me the real number please! lol. I want to see that payroll! Must have hired an army.




Uh.... Maybe your supplements caused amnesia, you mentioned this in the beginning of the article. You twisted your words to make it sounds like another study. Shame on you. And it was 38,722.



Far more evidence that free radicals can do damage. That's not questionable. Free radicals do FAR MORE damage that disrupt cell membranes and damage DNA, but glad you don't think that matters...

You want to rely solely on our bodies to kill cancer cells? I don't. There is such as thing as "Overpowering the immune system". You want to kill cancer cells, use an Eukaryotic elongation factor-2 kinase (EEF2K) inhibitor.

Maybe... just maybe... you could actually do some research on your own, instead of writing an entire article comprised of 42 paragraphs, where only one contains your actual thoughts.

There will always be free radicals. You don't need any sort of balancing. That's just asinine. I have a lot more to say but I just can't deal with it right now.

Haha! Great response. I too found it annoying about the author's obsession with Pauling. On a side note, can people stop referencing Einstein? It is so annoying when someone mentions his name as a way to highlight the intelligence of another individual. Of course Einstein didn't understand Pauling's work, he was not a chemist! It is also annoying how random-ass quotes and sayings are attributed to Einstein in an attempt to validate them.

Anyway, I was trying to find articles from reputable sources (e.g. Johns Hopkins University) about vitamins and their health effects; and I couldn't really find any. I found a few that mentioned one should avoid high doses, but again they didn't narrow the study to people like us.