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. Yes, sorry. You were responding to my response to Occam so I got my lines crossed
It certainly didn't cure Pauling's prostate cancer like he claimed it would.Ok ok...we're getting out of orbit here. I don't know anything about Pauling. I don't want to. The point is just because that other guy works at the pauling Institute doesn't make him a fraud. I think I've made that point.
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.Well he can carry on the work then. If the work is crappy I would assume the Institute would have failed by now. No one can say what direction research is going to go when it is carried on from one person to the next. Even if they are allegedly hand picked. With all of your attendant prejudices in this matter..
Yes, and the facts quickly became apparent as to who was right and who was wrong.Regarding what...Tesla and Edison? I meant I'm sure that the scientists who worked in Tesla's and Edison's labs went on to pioneer fantastic research and science..regardless of Tesla's and Edison's idiosyncrasies.
That there isn't the need for the majority of Americans to take vitamins, and that doing so can, in fact, cause health problems.Then there isn't a need for people to follow the FDA Food Pyramids or RDAs etc.. There isn't a need to ever eat food. It isn't about needs, it's about options and lifestyles. You poo poo people who take vitamins solely based on your idea of how people should live their lives. You try to back up those ideas with sensationalism. The only thing you have shown is that people who take mega-doses of vitamins may be...may be susceptible to health issues. That's all you got.
Yes, sorry. You were responding to my response to Occam so I got my lines crossedIt's no problem. Things get waffly when we heat this thread up. :-) Here we go again. En garde! No seriously. I don't want to start this up again. Let's just bury it for now. Peace. :-)
(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.)I've read a good book on Shackleton's expedition. I know skin was falling off due to serious frostbite. I'm not aware of the expedition you are referring to though. There's lot's of them. I think Shackelton took the Russian ponies. They had to eat those too. Maybe there was dogs too. I can't remember. I'm not refuting your claim about the liver story outright here. I just like the Arctic Stories.
It certainly didn't cure Pauling's prostate cancer like he claimed it would.Ok ok...we're getting out of orbit here.No, because this is exactly the point of this thread: People who're claiming that vitamins are a cure for things like cancer are wrong. Fatally so.
I don't know anything about Pauling. I don't want to.Why not? Many of the people who champion the benefits of taking large doses of vitamins point to Pauling's claims as evidence. If the man who made the original claims was wrong, then their claims are likely to be wrong as well.
The point is just because that other guy works at the pauling Institute doesn't make him a fraud. I think I've made that point.So, if someone works for a church, are you going to automatically assume they're an atheist or a Christian?
Bad organizations don't fail overnight, it often takes decades. Should we conclude that religion is valid because people have been practicing it for thousands of years?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.Well he can carry on the work then. If the work is crappy I would assume the Institute would have failed by now.
No one can say what direction research is going to go when it is carried on from one person to the next. Even if they are allegedly hand picked. With all of your attendant prejudices in this matter..It doesn't work that way at any organization. If an organization is funding research into a given area, they're going to want to get results which re-enforce the views of that organization. Any research which fails to do so, is quietly swept under the rug. Some will resort to outright fraud, but I don't know if that's the case with Pauling or anyone connected to him. The US car companies had research going back to the '70s saying that people were concerned about gas mileage, but the people conducting the research knew the executives at the car companies weren't interested in that, so they never showed them the results.
But they were working for corporations, which demand that you turn a profit, and most of Tesla and Edison's quirks were not related to their fields, so people who worked for Tesla, for example, weren't necessarily going to share his views on eugenics, but they would most likely share his views on AC current. Pauling's Institute is attached to a university, they're not concerned about the work turning a profit, just finding evidence to support Pauling's claims.Yes, and the facts quickly became apparent as to who was right and who was wrong.Regarding what...Tesla and Edison? I meant I'm sure that the scientists who worked in Tesla's and Edison's labs went on to pioneer fantastic research and science..regardless of Tesla's and Edison's idiosyncrasies.
If that's what you think, then I suggest you reread the thread.That there isn't the need for the majority of Americans to take vitamins, and that doing so can, in fact, cause health problems.Then there isn't a need for people to follow the FDA Food Pyramids or RDAs etc.. There isn't a need to ever eat food. It isn't about needs, it's about options and lifestyles. You poo poo people who take vitamins solely based on your idea of how people should live their lives. You try to back up those ideas with sensationalism. The only thing you have shown is that people who take mega-doses of vitamins may be...may be susceptible to health issues. That's all you got.
(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.)I've read a good book on Shackleton's expedition. I know skin was falling off due to serious frostbite. I'm not aware of the expedition you are referring to though. There's lot's of them. I think Shackelton took the Russian ponies. They had to eat those too. Maybe there was dogs too. I can't remember. I'm not refuting your claim about the liver story outright here. I just like the Arctic Stories. It was the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.] The Guardian and Nature have been talking about it in their recent podcasts, as one of the Guardian's reporters is currently trapped on that ship in the Antarctic, he'd been down there to talk with people who were retracing the steps of the original expedition on the 100th anniversary. The NIH on vitamin A poisoning.]
The recommended daily allowance for vitamin A is 300-700 μg daily for children and approximately 700-900 μg daily for adults, amounts which can be provided by a normal diet. Higher doses of vitamin A can be toxic, leading to a constellation of signs and symptoms as well as liver injury, jaundice, enlargement of the liver and spleen, portal hypertension and cirrhosis.Those are just some of the problems associated with too much vitamin A.
(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.)Um... (feeling nausea as we speak) no thanks. Some, maybe many, vegetarians don't have the stomachs for that.
It certainly didn't cure Pauling's prostate cancer like he claimed it would.Ok ok...we're getting out of orbit here.No, because this is exactly the point of this thread: People who're claiming that vitamins are a cure for things like cancer are wrong. Fatally so. I don't think anyone here claimed that vitamins cure(s) anything. If anyone did, I think I missed it. I think, at most, at least one of us (moi for one) claimed it might prevent deficiencies, esp, as many articles have said, in vegans, vegetarians, and others who eat specific diets, as well as women in menopause, and other certain groups. Now maybe I missed Occam or Vyazma claiming more, but I don't think I have.
It certainly didn't cure Pauling's prostate cancer like he claimed it would.Ok ok...we're getting out of orbit here.No, because this is exactly the point of this thread: People who're claiming that vitamins are a cure for things like cancer are wrong. Fatally so. I don't think anyone here claimed that vitamins cure(s) anything. If anyone did, I think I missed it. I think, at most, at least one of us (moi for one) claimed it might prevent deficiencies, esp, as many articles have said, in vegans, vegetarians, and others who eat specific diets, as well as women in menopause, and other certain groups. Now maybe I missed Occam or Vyazma claiming more, but I don't think I have. No you didn't miss anything Mriana. I never claimed vitamins cure anything.
It certainly didn't cure Pauling's prostate cancer like he claimed it would.Ok ok...we're getting out of orbit here.No, because this is exactly the point of this thread: People who're claiming that vitamins are a cure for things like cancer are wrong. Fatally so. I don't think anyone here claimed that vitamins cure(s) anything. If anyone did, I think I missed it. I think, at most, at least one of us (moi for one) claimed it might prevent deficiencies, esp, as many articles have said, in vegans, vegetarians, and others who eat specific diets, as well as women in menopause, and other certain groups. Now maybe I missed Occam or Vyazma claiming more, but I don't think I have. No you didn't miss anything Mriana. I never claimed vitamins cure anything. I didn't think I had, because I've been following this thread since page 1.
The question of why people take vitamin supplements is a key one, and I think misunderstandings about that have caused some of the problems in this thread. MacGyver and I are arguing that the only appropriate reason to take a vitamin is if there is a specific reason supported by good scientific evidence. Examples would be things like taking folic acid prior to pregnancy to reduce neural tube defects, or providing supplemental vitamin A or iron to people in poor countries with recognized dietary deficiencies in these substances. The general use of vitamins to feel better, have more energy, as “insurance” against deficiencies for people with a typical first world diet, and so on are not supported by evidence, and in fact the evidence suggests no benefits and some risk of harm.
For the purposes of the general issue, it really doesn’t matter why any individual in this discussion takes vitamins, and I’m not going to make any assumptions about that question. However, there has been a fair bit of research on why people in general in developed nations do so, and mostly it is for reasons that I would argue aren’t justified.
THIS ARTICLE] provides a nice review of some of this research.
Those who take supplements tend to be wealthier, better educated, and live generally healthier lifestyles than people who don’t (exercise more, don’t smoke, etc.). This confounds the issue of whether the supplements actually have any effect on health by themselves because their use is confounded by other health-related behaviors:
•49% of adults used a supplement of some kind in the prior 30 days: 54% of women, 43% of men. •Supplement use increased with age: 34% aged 20-39, 50% age 40-59, and 67% over age 60 •Non-Hispanic whites use more supplements (54%) than Non-Hispanic blacks (38%) or Hispanics (33%) •Supplement use is greater in “never" (51%) or “former" (59%) smokers compared to current smokers (30-36%) •Supplement use is much more common in those with health insurance (53%) than those without (31%) •Supplement use parallels reported exercise, from “low" (43%) to “moderate" (54%) to “high" (56%). •Supplement use was higher among those that reported “excellent" or “very good" health (55%) versus “good" (47%) or fair/poor (44%) So far this is as expected: supplement users tend to be wealthier and healthier than non-users. It’s the “healthy user" effect which shows up throughout epidemiological studies, confounding evaluations of outcomes. That is, we shouldn’t assume supplement use make you healthier, any more than assuming that supplement use makes you wealthier.The most common supplements taken are multivitamins, with the reason given generally being "to improve health."
•“to feel better" (41%) •“to improve your overall energy levels" (41%) •“to boost your immune system" (36%) •“digestive issues" (28%) •“lower cholesterol" (21%)So regardless of why any individual here takes supplements, it is still true that 1. The most common supplement by far is the multivitamin, 2. The most common reasons for taking multivitamins are to achieve vague, general improvements in health or to prevent disease, and 3. These reasons are generally not supported by the evidence. So as I've said many times before, no one is arguing that vitamins never have any appropriate use or that they are "bad." They are simply like any other substance one takes in with the intent of affecting one's health. They have potential benefits and potential risks which shouldn't be assumed or guessed at but should be determined by controlled scientific research. At present, there are some well-established benefits for some vitamins in some situations, some established risks for some in some situations, and a great deal of unknown territory between. Overall, it seems clear that most people aren't going to get the benefits they are expecting from the supplements they are taking based on the studies of what people take and why and the evidence concerning these uses of vitamin supplements.
2. The most common reasons for taking multivitamins are to achieve vague, general improvements in health or to prevent disease, andCould we describe eating food with this too? Yes. Mostly. Obviously multi-vitamins don't contain sugar, carbs, salt, fiber, proteins and fats, which are also needed to achieve vague, general improvements in health or to prevent disease.
2. The most common reasons for taking multivitamins are to achieve vague, general improvements in health or to prevent disease, andCould we describe eating food with this too? Yes. Mostly. Obviously multi-vitamins don't contain sugar, carbs, salt, fiber, proteins and fats, which are also needed to achieve vague, general improvements in health or to prevent disease. As Mckenzie and I have already pointed out, if one refrains from taking vitamin supplements it seems to have no harmful effect on ones health. The same could not be said if one refrains from eating. So there is good evidence that the intake of food is necessary for life and health whereas the intake of vitamin supplements appears not to be. Food is not an altogether useless analogy though. While food is essential for good health, if one consumes too much fat or carbohydrate or protein it can result in harmful effects (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and kidney disease respectively) just as the unnecessary consumption of extra vitamins can lead to disease ( prostate cancer and lung cancer to name just two).
Some additional analysis] of the new Vitamin E study Occam referred to:
over a little more than two years, high-dose vitamin E slowed the decline of people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s by about six months on average. Vitamin E did not delay cognitive or memory deterioration, however. Instead, it seemed to temporarily protect something many patients consider especially valuable: their ability to perform daily activities like putting on clothes and feeding themselves. “Is it really going to dramatically alter the lives of Alzheimer’s patients? That’s unclear," said Dr. Scott Small, director of Columbia University’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “But it might improve patients’ ability to bathe themselves and dress themselves." in this study, high-dose vitamin E appeared safe. Many doctors had stopped suggesting it to Alzheimer’s patients after a 2005 analysis suggested that high doses could increase the risk of mortality. That analysis looked at vitamin E’s effect on patients with various diseases, not just Alzheimer’s. Still, experts, including the authors, said the new study did not mean that high-dose vitamin E should be taken by everyone with dementia or everyone hoping to prevent it. The study found benefit only in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s, a result that echoes research in 1997 showing that vitamin E could delay functional decline for about seven months in people with moderately severe Alzheimer’s. But other studies have found that vitamin E failed to delay dementia in people without symptoms or with mild cognitive impairment, which may precede Alzheimer’s. Dr. Denis Evans, a professor of internal medicine at Rush University, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study, cautioned against extrapolating the results to anyone without mild to moderate Alzheimer’s. “Does this mean that all of us who don’t want to develop Alzheimer’s should rush out and purchase a bottle of vitamin E?" he said. “Oh, please don’t." “What we hoped was that memantine would have benefit, vitamin E would have benefit, and combined it would have double the effect," Dr. Dysken said. That did not happen. Only vitamin E showed a statistically significant effect. Memantine was no better than the placebo at preventing decline, and, inexplicably, the combination of memantine and vitamin E did not work either. There were other confusing results. While vitamin E helped people retain their ability to perform daily functions longer, it did not significantly slow their cognitive decline, the defining feature of Alzheimer’s. “That they found differences in functional measures and not the cognitive measure gives you pause," Dr. Petersen said. Most experts say a truly effective Alzheimer’s treatment will improve both function and cognition. The new study also underscores the complexity of Alzheimer’s. Experts could not explain why vitamin E would work in fully developed Alzheimer’s, for example, but not earlier. In many conditions, treatments ease symptoms at the early stages but lose effectiveness as diseases strengthen.The mixed nature of the results is a bit concerning. If it is truly improving the disease state and the brain function in these patients, why would they show a small improvement in ability to perform daily activities but no change in their cognitive function? And if Vitamin E was helpful, why was the Vitamin E and the memantine in combination not helpful? This may reflect some unknown feature of the other supplement that interferes with the benefits of Vitamin E. Or, it may mean the apparent improvement in one measure of effect, without improvement in the other measures, is spurious. Given previous research finding no benefit from Vitamin E, this is one of those studies which suggests additional research is warranted but which needs to be replicated to confirm the effect is real. It's also encouraging no harm was seen over a relatively long followup period. However, these were very sick people with multiple diseases, and nearly half the patients died during the course of the study. It might be that in healthier populations the risks of Vitamin E would be more important. As always, science is really interesting and really complex! :-)
As Mckenzie and I have already pointed out, if one refrains from taking vitamin supplements it seems to have no harmful effect on ones health. The same could not be said if one refrains from eating. So there is good evidence that the intake of food is necessary for life and health whereas the intake of vitamin supplements appears not to be.You and McKenzie have already made those points. They have been refuted. If you keep repeating them it doesn't make them true. It's quite obvious that an individual can take a look at his or her food diet and supplement it with vitamins accordingly. After all, the Government supplements a whole host of foods with vitamin additives under the same premise.
You and McKenzie have already made those points. They have been refuted. If you keep repeating them it doesn't make them true. It's quite obvious that an individual can take a look at his or her food diet and supplement it with vitamins accordingly.No. You have disagreed with our points but you have not refuted them. What part of my previous statement is not true?
You and McKenzie have already made those points. They have been refuted. If you keep repeating them it doesn't make them true. It's quite obvious that an individual can take a look at his or her food diet and supplement it with vitamins accordingly.No. You have disagreed with our points but you have not refuted them. What part of my previous statement is not true? People can eat food and take vitamin supplements together as part of a balanced diet. You're stating that if people eat food(you haven't described what "food" is) they are receiving a balanced diet according to the USDA and FDA recommendations for a healthy diet. The fact is that millions of people do not receive a balanced diet according to the recommendations of The FDA and USDA. The Food Pyramid is a good example. Plus there are RDAs One way to counter this is through vitamin supplementation. The FDA has a list of RDAs, IAs, and Daily values one should consume in a normal 2000 calorie diet. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064928.htm If one sees through labeling on the food that their diet doesn't contain all of the FDAs recommended levels then it would be sensible to supplement it with a multi-vitamin if one wished. Or if one chose that for their children. It's really that simple MacGeyver.
Its not that simple Vyazma. I never stated that “if people eat food they are receiving a balanced diet according to the USDA”. What mackenzie and I have been saying all along and what the majority of studies support is that if a person consumes the “average American diet” vitamin supplementation offers no proven benefits unless they fit into one of a handful of special cases.
The RDA is just a rough guideline and the FDA does not make any recommendation that average person supplement their diet with vitamins in most cases.
I think its a mistake to assume that if you do a calculation of your vitamin intake and use the RDA you should then take a supplement if your calculated intake doesn’t meet the RDA. Clearly many of the people in these studies would come up deficient by those calculations and yet the ones who take vitamins are no healthier by any measure than the ones who dont. Either the RDA’s are calculated in such a way to include a large safety margin, our methods for determining the vitamin content of our foods is inaccurate, or our view of vitamins is to simplistic
What’s the percentage of recommended daily intakes of vitamins and minerals in an “average daily diet”?
What's the percentage of recommended daily intakes of vitamins and minerals in an "average daily diet"?I don't know nor does it really matter. The question is whether adding to that intake with additional vitamin supplements will improve that persons health and the answer seems to be no. Your attempts to quantify it and turn it into a mathematical equation which can be solved by balancing one side (intake) to equal the other (requirements) doesn't work for the reasons I stated above.