I have no intention of resuming the same old arguments here, but since new evidence is coming out all the time on the subject of vitamin supplements, I thought I would post the latest systematic review here for anyone interested.
Autier P., Boniol M., Pizot C., Mullie P. Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review.] The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, Early Online Publication, 6 December 2013
doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70165-7
This is a nice look at a couple of key issues: The complexities of separating cause and effect, the difference between association and causation, and the importance of the details, such as which specific populations may benefit from a supplement and which may not. The study looked at both observational research and clinical trials. In the observational studies, low Vitamin D levels were associated with a variety of illnesses, and higher levels were associated with better health. This was widely interpreted as suggesting raising Vitamin D levels might improve health and prevent disease.
However, when looking at studies in which Vitamin D was given to some patients and not others, it actually did not improve health or protect against disease for most people. It did reduce overall mortality a little in the elderly, especially women, possibly because of fewer fractures after falls, which is significant risk for death in this population but not so much in younger people.
So why did the observational studies differ from the experimental ones? Well, it appears that lower Vitamin D levels may be caused by illness rather than the other way around. People have lower levels when they are ill, but low levels don’t cause illness and higher levels don’t prevent it most of the time.
So there’s no simple answer as to whether a Vitamin D supplement will prevent illness in any specific indvidual. It seems reasonable it might in elderly people, and it seems pretty unlikely to do anything useful for anyone else. And while no significant risks have been seen yet with unecessary Vitamin D intake, these may appear as more research is done. And even if they don’t, one has to wodner about the billions of dollars spent on supplements that probably aren’t doing anything for most people. As always, life is complicated and full of uncertainty.
HERE] is a new story summarizing the paper for those without access to the Lancet.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread?
What is a vitamin?
From Vitamin - Wikipedia
A vitamin (US /ˈvaɪtəmɪn/ or UK /ˈvɪtəmɪn/) is an organic compound required by an organism as a vital nutrient in limited amounts. An organic chemical compound (or related set of compounds) is called a vitamin when it cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by an organism, and must be obtained from the diet. Thus, the term is conditional both on the circumstances and on the particular organism.Deficiencies:
Well-known human vitamin deficiencies involve thiamine (beriberi), niacin (pellagra), vitamin C (scurvy), and vitamin D (rickets). In much of the developed world, such deficiencies are rare; this is due to (1) an adequate supply of food and (2) the addition of vitamins and minerals to common foods, often called fortification. In addition to these classical vitamin deficiency diseases, some evidence has also suggested links between vitamin deficiency and a number of different disorders.Bold added by me. Side-effects:
In large doses, some vitamins have documented side-effects that tend to be more severe with a larger dosage. The likelihood of consuming too much of any vitamin from food is remote, but overdosing (vitamin poisoning) from vitamin supplementation does occur. At high enough dosages, some vitamins cause side-effects such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. When side-effects emerge, recovery is often accomplished by reducing the dosage. The doses of vitamins differ because individual tolerances can vary widely and appear to be related to age and state of health.Bold added by me. Should one take multivitamins/mineral (MVM) dietary supplements? From http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/MVMS-QuickFacts/
MVMs cannot take the place of eating a variety of foods that are important to a healthy diet. Foods provide more than vitamins and minerals. They also have fiber and other ingredients that may have positive health effects. But people who don't get enough vitamins and minerals from food alone, are on low-calorie diets, have a poor appetite, or avoid certain foods (such as strict vegetarians and vegans) might consider taking an MVM. Health care providers might also recommend MVMs to patients with certain medical problems.Can MVMs be harmful?
Taking a basic MVM is unlikely to pose any risks to health. But if you consume fortified foods and drinks (such as cereals or beverages with added vitamins and minerals) or take other dietary supplements, make sure that the MVM you take doesn't cause your intake of any vitamin or mineral to go above the upper safe levels. (Use the Online DRI tool to learn the upper safe level of each nutrient.) Pay particular attention to the amounts of vitamin A, beta-carotene (which the body can convert to vitamin A), and iron in the MVM.Bold added by me. Which kind of MVMS?
Also consider choosing an MVM designed for your age, sex, and other factors (like pregnancy). MVMs for men often contain little or no iron, for example. MVMs for seniors usually provide more calcium and vitamins D and B12 and less iron than MVMs for younger adults. Prenatal MVMs for pregnant women often provide vitamin A as beta-carotene.Is that all there is to it? My personal experience was/is daily basic MVMs after about 5 days invariably makes me heavy headed and hyperactive at which point, it is apparently prudent to stop taking it. OTOH, a tablet in about two weeks seems OK. Nocebo effect? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo
In medicine, a nocebo (Latin for "I shall harm") is a harmless substance that creates harmful effects in a patient who takes it. The nocebo effect is the negative reaction experienced by a patient who receives a nocebo.:lol:
This topic has been driven into the ground. Not interested in continuing.
Occam
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza and John H. White worked together in White's laboratory at McGill University investigating the molecular activities of vitamin D in human cells. They have uncovered aspects of the vitamin's role in cancer prevention and discovered, with their collaborators, that D regulates certain genes involved in cell responses to microbial invaders. Tavera-Mendoza is now a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School studying vitamin D and breast cancer. Having witnessed vitamin D's health-protecting actions firsthand in the lab, both authors take supplements during the parts of the year when sunlight is too weak in the northern cities where they reside to produce adequate amounts in skin. White takes 4,000 international units of D3 daily during those "vitamin D winter" months, and Tavera-Mendoza takes 1,000.
After reviewing multiple studies comparing vitamin D intake and the serum concentrations of 25D produced, Harvard School of Public Health researchers and others concluded last year that the current RDIs are inadequate. They suggested that no less than half of U.S. adults needed to consume at least 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily to raise their serum 25D concentrations to the minimum healthy level of 30 ng/ml.Toxic vitamin D overdose through supplementation is certainly possible, although it is generally seen when doses of 40,000 IU or more of D have been taken daily for an extended period. Sunshine-induced vitamin D toxicity has never been observed, however. To put this in perspective, an adult woman with white skin exposed to summer sun while wearing a bikini generates about 10,000 IU of vitamin D in 15 to 20 minutes. Longer exposures do not generate higher amounts of vitamin D, because UVB light also degrades the vitamin, preventing too much of it from building up in the skin.
GdB what you have basically posted here are lab studies and opinion. Not a bit of clinical evidence. Lots and lots of things do something in a test tube or a petri dish full of cells but not in the body. We are not a petri dish. Our bodies are so much more complex that a particular reaction which happens in a dish may not happen in our body at all or may even have the reverse effect. Its not uncommon for brilliant scientists who do this sort of work to come to faulty conclusions and make flawed recommendations (Linus Pauling is the only person to ever win two solo Nobel prizes but the wheels came off his caboose when it came to vitamin C) based on very weak evidence.
The issue with vitamin toxicity is an area where far too many scientists and physicians have blinders on. They work from the assumption that these things are safe until proven unsafe and use studies of short term toxicity to back up their conclusions. They conveniently forget about the fact that cancer for example can take decades to develop. While they are happy to promote the cancer prevention aspects of vitamins shown in a petri dish they overlook the possibility that those drugs might actually cause cancer. Those studies take decades to perform and no one seems to want to wait for the evidence but if you will refer back to the study I cited above about vitamin E and prostate cancer you will see there is good reason for us to heed this warning.
Well, I guess Mac you and I are wrong after all. Here’s an article from the Medical Journal of Australia] which conclusively shows the importance of Vitamin D and the dangers of eschewing supplements. With this quality of evidence available, I don’t know how we could ever have been skeptical.
Here’s the abstract:
Abstract Objective: Vitamin D has been proposed to have beneficial effects in a wide range of contexts. We investigate the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency, caused by both aversion to sunlight and unwholesome diet, could also be a significant contributor to the triumph of good over evil in fantasy literature. Design: Data on the dietary habits, moral attributes and martial prowess of various inhabitants of Middle Earth were systematically extracted from J R R Tolkien’s novel The hobbit. Main outcome measures: Goodness and victoriousness of characters were scored with binary scales, and dietary intake and habitual sun exposure were used to calculate a vitamin D score (range, 0–4). Results: The vitamin D score was significantly higher among the good and victorious characters (mean, 3.4; SD, 0.5) than the evil and defeated ones (mean, 0.2; SD, 0.4; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Further work is needed to see if these pilot results can be extrapolated to other fantastic situations and whether randomised intervention trials need to be imagined.
Well, I guess Mac you and I are wrong after all. Here's an article from the Medical Journal of Australia] which conclusively shows the importance of Vitamin D and the dangers of eschewing supplements. With this quality of evidence available, I don't know how we could ever have been skeptical. Here's the abstract:LOL....LOL... ROFL. I need to post that in my exam rooms. Where did you find it?Abstract Objective: Vitamin D has been proposed to have beneficial effects in a wide range of contexts. We investigate the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency, caused by both aversion to sunlight and unwholesome diet, could also be a significant contributor to the triumph of good over evil in fantasy literature. Design: Data on the dietary habits, moral attributes and martial prowess of various inhabitants of Middle Earth were systematically extracted from J R R Tolkien’s novel The hobbit. Main outcome measures: Goodness and victoriousness of characters were scored with binary scales, and dietary intake and habitual sun exposure were used to calculate a vitamin D score (range, 0–4). Results: The vitamin D score was significantly higher among the good and victorious characters (mean, 3.4; SD, 0.5) than the evil and defeated ones (mean, 0.2; SD, 0.4; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Further work is needed to see if these pilot results can be extrapolated to other fantastic situations and whether randomised intervention trials need to be imagined.
It appeared in the Med J of Australia, and the link is in the previous post. Scientists with a sense of humor—who knew? 
I ran into a couple of articles today, and don’t know what to make of them. Possibly both of you, McKenzie and Macgyver can help me understand them. :lol:
Occam
From articles in Science Daily (just the beginning excerpts)
Vitamin E May Delay Decline in Mild-To-Moderate Alzheimer’’s Disease
Dec. 31, 2013 —— Difficulty with activities of daily living often affect Alzheimer’s patients,
which is estimated to affect as many as 5.1 million Americans. These issues are among the most
taxing burdens of the disease for caregivers, which total about 5.4 million family members and
friends. New research from the faculty of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai working with
Veterans Administration Medical Centers suggests that alpha tocepherol, fat-soluble Vitamin E
and antioxidant, may slow functional decline (problems with daily activities such as shopping,
preparing meals, planning, and traveling) in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease
and decrease caregiver burden.
Data from Oregon State University
Most Clinical Studies On Vitamins Flawed by Poor Methodology
Dec. 30, 2013 —— Most large, clinical trials of vitamin supplements, including some that have
concluded they are of no value or even harmful, have a flawed methodology that renders them
largely useless in determining the real value of these micronutrients, a new analysis suggests.
One reference was listed:
Alexander Michels, Balz Frei. Myths, Artifacts, and Fatal Flaws: Identifying Limitations
and Opportunities in Vitamin C Research. Nutrients, 2013; 5 (12): 5161 DOI:
10.3390/nu5125161
I ran into a couple of articles today, and don't know what to make of them. Possibly both of you, McKenzie and Macgyver can help me understand them. :lol: Occam === From articles in Science Daily (just the beginning excerpts) === Vitamin E May Delay Decline in Mild-To-Moderate Alzheimer’’s Disease Dec. 31, 2013 —— Difficulty with activities of daily living often affect Alzheimer's patients, which is estimated to affect as many as 5.1 million Americans. These issues are among the most taxing burdens of the disease for caregivers, which total about 5.4 million family members and friends. New research from the faculty of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai working with Veterans Administration Medical Centers suggests that alpha tocepherol, fat-soluble Vitamin E and antioxidant, may slow functional decline (problems with daily activities such as shopping, preparing meals, planning, and traveling) in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and decrease caregiver burden. === Data from Oregon State University Most Clinical Studies On Vitamins Flawed by Poor Methodology Dec. 30, 2013 —— Most large, clinical trials of vitamin supplements, including some that have concluded they are of no value or even harmful, have a flawed methodology that renders them largely useless in determining the real value of these micronutrients, a new analysis suggests. One reference was listed: Alexander Michels, Balz Frei. Myths, Artifacts, and Fatal Flaws: Identifying Limitations and Opportunities in Vitamin C Research. Nutrients, 2013; 5 (12): 5161 DOI: 10.3390/nu5125161Balz Frei]
Balz Frei, Ph.D. Director and Endowed Chair, Linus Pauling Institute Joan H. Facey Linus Pauling Institute Professor Distinguished Professor, Department of Biochemistry and BiophysicsI'd consider his research suspect, given that Pauling was a bit of a nutter when it came to vitamins.
Balz Frei I'd consider his research suspect, given that Pauling was a bit of a nutter when it came to vitamins.Why? Is he Linus Pauling using that Balz Frei name as a pseudonym? I know nothing of Linus Pauling. Why is he considered a "nutter" when it comes to vitamins? Does that mean a scientist working under a Ford Foundation Grant or Ford Institute is suspect too because Ford was a bit of a nutter? Most people regard other scientists research suspect when they don't agree with it. Did they ever have a scientist who can disprove that ingesting a multi-vitamin does NOT introduce vitamins into the human body? Now it's your turn Tucker. You can retort with the fact that eating 10,000 mgs of vitamin...fill in in the blank...causes cancer.
I ran into a couple of articles today, and don't know what to make of them. Possibly both of you, McKenzie and Macgyver can help me understand them. :lol: Occam === From articles in Science Daily (just the beginning excerpts) === Vitamin E May Delay Decline in Mild-To-Moderate Alzheimer’’s Disease Dec. 31, 2013 —— Difficulty with activities of daily living often affect Alzheimer's patients, which is estimated to affect as many as 5.1 million Americans. These issues are among the most taxing burdens of the disease for caregivers, which total about 5.4 million family members and friends. New research from the faculty of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai working with Veterans Administration Medical Centers suggests that alpha tocepherol, fat-soluble Vitamin E and antioxidant, may slow functional decline (problems with daily activities such as shopping, preparing meals, planning, and traveling) in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and decrease caregiver burden. === Data from Oregon State University Most Clinical Studies On Vitamins Flawed by Poor Methodology Dec. 30, 2013 —— Most large, clinical trials of vitamin supplements, including some that have concluded they are of no value or even harmful, have a flawed methodology that renders them largely useless in determining the real value of these micronutrients, a new analysis suggests. One reference was listed: Alexander Michels, Balz Frei. Myths, Artifacts, and Fatal Flaws: Identifying Limitations and Opportunities in Vitamin C Research. Nutrients, 2013; 5 (12): 5161 DOI: 10.3390/nu5125161I'll be happy to help you understand them. The first study you quote involved only a few hundred patients and showed a marginal benefit for Alzheimer's patients who took large doses of vitamin E so the results are very preliminary. When combined with the far bigger ( tens of thousands of patients on several continents at multiple institutions) study that I referenced and linked earlier in this thread pointing to a causal relationship between moderate vitamin E intake and prostate cancer it solidifies what I have been saying all along. Vitamins are drugs. They are biologically active compounds and must be treated with the same caution as any other drug. While they have beneficial effects in some limited circumstances they also have potential side effects. Therefor no one should take a vitamin supplement without a specific need just as no one should take a cholesterol or blood pressure med without a specific need. The second item you site comes with no link and I can not examine it but it sounds like an opinion piece rather than a study and if coldheart's info is correct and this person is connected to an organization linked to Linus Pauling then his opinion is suspect. If you have a link to the info please post it here.
MacGeyver, when you have time I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a list of all the Credible Scientists in the world.
That way I can know what to follow when I want to keep up with the cutting edge of science.
Thanks buddy.
Balz Frei I'd consider his research suspect, given that Pauling was a bit of a nutter when it came to vitamins.Why? Is he Linus Pauling using that Balz Frei name as a pseudonym? I know nothing of Linus Pauling. Why is he considered a "nutter" when it comes to vitamins?Linus Pauling.] He claimed that taking massive doses of vitamin C would cure you of just about everything. He took something like 70,000 times the RDA of vitamin C and eventually died of prostate cancer.
Does that mean a scientist working under a Ford Foundation Grant or Ford Institute is suspect too because Ford was a bit of a nutter?If they were potentially handpicked by Ford or someone who was close friends with Ford, yes, I would consider their work to be suspect, especially if their research was in an area where Ford had his bizarre theories.
Most people regard other scientists research suspect when they don't agree with it.The thing about science is that its true if you agree with it or not. I have yet to see any studies which support any claims made by Pauling.
Did they ever have a scientist who can disprove that ingesting a multi-vitamin does NOT introduce vitamins into the human body?That's not the issue.
Now it's your turn Tucker. You can retort with the fact that eating 10,000 mgs of vitamin...fill in in the blank...causes cancer.That's how this thread started.
He took something like 70,000 times the RDA of vitamin C and eventually died of prostate cancer.No link could be proven between the Vitamin C and his prostate cancer as you probably know. Lot's of men die from prostate cancer who never took any vitamin C.
If they were potentially handpicked by Ford or someone who was close friends with Ford, yes, I would consider their work to be suspect, especially if their research was in an area where Ford had his bizarre theories.Was Balz Frei handpicked? And if he was does that make him automatically suspect? To you maybe..For all we know he is pioneering studies in bio-chemistry. But how would you know? You only saw that he works at the Linus Pauling Research Inst. Plus, I don't know anything about Linus Pauling. Maybe he was a genius who contributed to science. What else do you know about Balz Frei?
The thing about science is that its true if you agree with it or not. I have yet to see any studies which support any claims made by Pauling.Research. Not science. Research. History is replete with scientists who considered other scientists research garbage because they didn't agree with it. Replete with it. Scientists took up alongside Tesla and Edison. And work followed up after they were gone based on their ideas. Yet both of those scientists had crackpot ideas too. So you claim that Balz Frei was a handpicked nutter because he worked for the Pauling Inst. That's quite an extension of reason.
That's not the issue.What's the issue?
Vyazma you have yet to provide me with a link to the citation. My comment about Pauling is in line with the facts. he was a Brilliant chemist but when it cam to Vitamin C he got extremely sloppy with the science. His claims were not supported by good scientific studies they just became part of a fantasy belief system.
Please provide a link to the article you are quoting.
I will assume that your failure to address the rest of my post is an acknowledgment that you concede my other point.
Balz Frei I'd consider his research suspect, given that Pauling was a bit of a nutter when it came to vitamins.Why? Is he Linus Pauling using that Balz Frei name as a pseudonym? I know nothing of Linus Pauling. Why is he considered a "nutter" when it comes to vitamins?Linus Pauling.] He claimed that taking massive doses of vitamin C would cure you of just about everything. He took something like 70,000 times the RDA of vitamin C and eventually died of prostate cancer. Well of course if you take 70,000 times the amount of anything it would be hazardous to your health. I don't think Occam, Vyazma, myself, or anyone else on this board is that dumb. Even as a vegetarian, it would be stupid of me to take 20,000 or 70,000 IU calcium and/or vitamin D (not that it comes in that amount, but they often come in one pill now days). If this Linus Pauling took mega-doses of supplements, then he was a very stupid man.
He took something like 70,000 times the RDA of vitamin C and eventually died of prostate cancer.No link could be proven between the Vitamin C and his prostate cancer as you probably know. Lot's of men die from prostate cancer who never took any vitamin C.It certainly didn't cure Pauling's prostate cancer like he claimed it would.
If you head up a research institute, or any large organization, you're handpicked for the job, they don't accept people who just walk in off the street, they want someone who is not only qualified, but who will also follow along in the guiding principles of the organization. And I've already given you the link to the wikipedia article on Pauling, so by this point, if you know nothing about the man (and he did win a Nobel Prize), its on you.If they were potentially handpicked by Ford or someone who was close friends with Ford, yes, I would consider their work to be suspect, especially if their research was in an area where Ford had his bizarre theories.Was Balz Frei handpicked? And if he was does that make him automatically suspect? To you maybe..For all we know he is pioneering studies in bio-chemistry. But how would you know? You only saw that he works at the Linus Pauling Research Inst. Plus, I don't know anything about Linus Pauling. Maybe he was a genius who contributed to science. What else do you know about Balz Frei?
Yes, and the facts quickly became apparent as to who was right and who was wrong.The thing about science is that its true if you agree with it or not. I have yet to see any studies which support any claims made by Pauling.Research. Not science. Research. History is replete with scientists who considered other scientists research garbage because they didn't agree with it. Replete with it. Scientists took up alongside Tesla and Edison. And work followed up after they were gone based on their ideas. Yet both of those scientists had crackpot ideas too..
So you claim that Balz Frei was a handpicked nutter because he worked for the Pauling Inst. That's quite an extension of reason.No more so than saying that a politician who labels himself a Democrat is going to vote in favor of Democratic policies most of the time, or that someone who works for an automotive company is going to be in favor of cars produced by that company.
That there isn't the need for the majority of Americans to take vitamins, and that doing so can, in fact, cause health problems.That's not the issue.What's the issue?
Vyazma you have yet to provide me with a link to the citation. My comment about Pauling is in line with the facts. he was a Brilliant chemist but when it cam to Vitamin C he got extremely sloppy with the science. His claims were not supported by good scientific studies they just became part of a fantasy belief system. Please provide a link to the article you are quoting. I will assume that your failure to address the rest of my post is an acknowledgment that you concede my other point.What citation..That's Occam's I believe.
Balz Frei I'd consider his research suspect, given that Pauling was a bit of a nutter when it came to vitamins.Why? Is he Linus Pauling using that Balz Frei name as a pseudonym? I know nothing of Linus Pauling. Why is he considered a "nutter" when it comes to vitamins?Linus Pauling.] He claimed that taking massive doses of vitamin C would cure you of just about everything. He took something like 70,000 times the RDA of vitamin C and eventually died of prostate cancer. Well of course if you take 70,000 times the amount of anything it would be hazardous to your health. I don't think Occam, Vyazma, myself, or anyone else on this board is that dumb. Even as a vegetarian, it would be stupid of me to take 20,000 or 70,000 IU calcium and/or vitamin D (not that it comes in that amount, but they often come in one pill now days). If this Linus Pauling took mega-doses of supplements, then he was a very stupid man.He only took vitamin C at such high doses, which isn't automatically dangerous. Your body absorbs only a small amount of it at one time and then excretes the rest out. Depending upon how he took the doses (all at once or staggered throughout the day), he might have suffered little more than diarrhea. Its not like vitamin A which can be toxic at high enough doses. (If you want a real horror story, read the accounts of the Antarctic expedition where they were forced to eat their sled dogs and the vitamin A in the dog livers caused the skin to fall off the explorers and killed at least one of them.)