Many people do not get enough of certain nutrients that their body needs through food, in part because they don't eat right. Not everyone eats citrus fruit, which is loaded with vitamin C and of course, vitamin D is in chemical form when added to milk, as though one took a supplement and for some that's not enough. Others don't drink milk at all. Those that are rarely in the sun and don't drink milk, are, as a rule, low on vitamin D. I could continue, but I'm sure you get the point. Be that as it may, in the developing world, the vitamins added to our foods are all chemicals, just like they are in supplements made in a lab by humans (ie the vitamin D added to milk) Exactly Mriana. Lot's of foods are fortified. Breakfast cereal for example is nothing but a multi vitamin in a bowl with milk. A slice of bread is is a multivitamin. Flour is enriched and or fortified with extra unnaturally occurring vitas and minerals. We all had this discussion before 2-3 years ago. Nothing's changed. New research comes out and goes. As far as getting more than one needs-I'm sure that happens alot with people who eat nothing but food. Yes, there have been stories of people's skin turning orange due to eating too many carrots, loaded with, I think, vitamin A. The treatment- stop eating so many carrots. Personally, I can't eat too many carrots. Tomatoes, maybe, but not carrots, and I've not met anyone who's eaten so many carrots that their skin turned orange, but still, the point is, if one eats too much of one food or lived on one food (like ramen noodles) they could get sick. Bottom line, too much of anything could be a bad thing.Yeah, isn’t that just like eating food? When I eat a large breakfast for example with eggs, potatoes, sausage, OJ and toast I’m getting lot’s of small doses of many vitamins. Isn’t that the same?What I believe MacGyver and I are saying is that the difference between taking supplements and getting all your vitamins from your food is simply that since you are probably already getting all you need from your food, the supplements are almost certainly bringing your total intake up to more than you need.
Nobody took a crack at my question? Is eating peanuts, or other foods that contain Vita E carcinogenic over long term?No one can answer that question precisely because that wasn't studied. For all the reasons that mckenzie and I discussed above you can not automatically carry over results from a supplement trial to foods and visa versa, however if someone were thinking about eating peanuts for the sole purpose of increasing their Vit E intake this study should make them think twice about the wisdom of that decision.
Nobody took a crack at my question? Is eating peanuts, or other foods that contain Vita E carcinogenic over long term?No one can answer that question precisely because that wasn't studied. For all the reasons that mckenzie and I discussed above you can not automatically carry over results from a supplement trial to foods and visa versa, however if someone were thinking about eating peanuts for the sole purpose of increasing their Vit E intake this study should make them think twice about the wisdom of that decision. What if they just like eating peanuts because of the taste?
What if they just like eating peanuts because of the taste?Wel then you just have to make a decision based on the available evidence and decide whether its worth continuing something you enjoy and accepting a possible small increase in your risk of prostate cancer. As an aside, I am not sure how old you are but nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. Over the age of 80 almost 90%of men have prostate cancer but the majority of them will die of something else without the cancer ever causing a real problem so in this particular example you may want to factor that into your decision as well. Life is complicated enough. That's why it makes sense to keep things as simple as possible by not adding unnecessary unknowns into the equation like supplements and vitamins.
What if they just like eating peanuts because of the taste?Wel then you just have to make a decision based on the available evidence and decide whether its worth continuing something you enjoy and accepting a possible small increase in your risk of prostate cancer. As an aside, I am not sure how old you are but nearly all men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough. Over the age of 80 almost 90%of men have prostate cancer but the majority of them will die of something else without the cancer ever causing a real problem so in this particular example you may want to factor that into your decision as well. Life is complicated enough. That's why it makes sense to keep things as simple as possible by not adding unnecessary unknowns into the equation like supplements and vitamins. I'm in the low 40s. Life isn't that complicated for me. I keep it real simple.
Don’t you realize a lot of those “fortified foods" are loaded with chemicals? Have you ever lived on a vegetarian diet most or all your life, free of such contaminates that are exactly what you speak of? Vegetarian diets are totally different than chemical laden foods you speak of. Monsanto and other companies load up fortified foods with so many chemicals that it could actually kill you. GMOs are horrible and even worse than the chemicals they use to fortified foods and yet you talk about vitamins killing people? PLEASE!I'm not sure where your hostility to MacGyver comes from (perhaps a thread I missed?), but I have to say I think you're way off base here. I am a vegetarian myself (though not a vegan, as I do eat fish and eggs), but I don't see any connection between the ethical issues of vegetarianism, or the limited data on health effects, and the issues you're talking about. I would definitely recommend a great web site called The Skeptical Vegan], which debunks a lot of the mythology that seems to get caught up in the ethos of a vegetarian lifestyle. "Chemicals" is one of those nonsense words based on the naturalistic fallacy, used to imply something is bad for you because of how it is manufactured or where it comes from regardless of any actual evidence about health effects. It makes no sense to claim taking vitamin supplements is good for you and then rant about dangerous "chemicals" in foods because they are fortified with the same vitamins. The "chemicals" are the same in both cases, and the real question is whether they have meaningful health effects, good or bad, either eaten in food or taken as supplements. As for other substances, such as preservatives, coloring agents, etc, that are in processed foods, these too can't simply be assumed to be good or bad because they are "chemicals." Their health effects, if any, need to be evaluated through proper research like anything else. And just as the fact that eating fish may be associated with health effects in observational studies, yet this doesn't mean that taking one chemical out of fish and taking it as a supplement is good for you, likewise the fact that a diet with lots of fresh fruits and vegetables is associated with better health outcomes in observational studies doesn't automatically mean that processed foods are abd because of unnatural "chemicals" that are toxic. The health status of living organisms, and the influence of environmental factors such as diet on that, are incredibly complex, and simple statements about "good" and "bad" foods or supplements are almost never justified. As for GMO, sorry but despite a lot of research the hysterical fear out there about them isn't justified by real evidence. It's another example of the "natural=good, artificial=bad" BS that informs an awful lot of alternative medicine. There may very well be health risks associated with these foods, but there is virtually no reliable evidence of this, and the studies that are put forward to justify anti-GMO claims are often biased and scientifically worthless (e.g. a recent rat study] that got a lot of press). So if you are trying to make the argument that vitamin supplements are safe and healthy but that vitamin-fortified foods are unsafe because they are "loaded with chemicals," that makes no sense. And if you are saying we shouldn't talk about the possible risks of taking vitamin supplements because there are worse risks in processed foods, that also makes no sense because 1) the two are unrelated issues, and both MacGyver and I would absolutely recommend a diet emphasizing fresh fruits and vegetables and minimizing processed foods, though not likely for the reasons you cite, and 2) there isn't very good evidence to support your claims that the problem with these foods are GMOs or specific chemical toxins in them. It all seems a bit off the point anyway, which was simply a response to Occam's claim that vitamin supplements are reasonable because most people probably don't get adequate vitamin levels in their diets. MacGyver's point was that this is an assumption which isn't necessarily true, so it isn't really a justification for taking supplements. Nothing really to do with questions about GMOs, preservatives in foods, or antibiotics given to food animals (which, as an aside, I tend to agree is not an appropriate practice, though not for exactly the reasons you cite).
I'm not sure where your hostility to MacGyver comes from (perhaps a thread I missed?).I'm not sure either but I think in retrospect my analysis of her personal supplement choices may have come off a bit snarkey which was not my intent. If you took it that way Miriana it wasn't meant as a personal attack. I was only trying to point out that when it comes to nutrition, a lot of the ideas people accept as fact come from unreliable sources like mass media. If something is repeated enough it becomes fact even if its complete nonsense and that's what often happens with a lot of these concepts. The media grabs onto a study about mice and saccharine repeats it a hundred times and there you go.. In the mind of the public saccharine is a deadly cancer causing poison.
Speaking of Monsanto, did you hear about the wheat that they genetically modified to be immune to Roundup, another of their products? Well, supposedly they decided to shut down the program for this wheat, and supposedly destroyed all of it. Why? Dunno. But recently a farmer found this particualr wheat growing in his fields. Suddenly, some countries have become quite reticent to import our wheat. They must not realize that there is no known problem with genetically modified foods.
Speaking of Monsanto, did you hear about the wheat that they genetically modified to be immune to Roundup, another of their products? Well, supposedly they decided to shut down the program for this wheat, and supposedly destroyed all of it. Why? Dunno. But recently a farmer found this particular wheat growing in his fields. Suddenly, some countries have become quite reticent to import our wheat. They must not realize that there is no known problem with genetically modified foods.What I heard from a radio discussion between two scientists ( one was with Monsanto) was that the reason they stopped producing GMO wheat was apparently because of concern over this very response. While there are some Americans who are fearful of GMO's apparently other areas of the world like Asia and Europe have a much stronger anti-GMO lobby. As a result many GMO foods are banned in those countries. Since wheat is a huge U.S. export Monsanto had shut down the project so as not to contaminate the wheat gene pool which would potentially harm our exports. In this case some of the seed stock may have blown in the wind and contaminated fields or got mixed in with other stock and ended up out in the wild.
Well, since this wheat has an apparent survival advantage over other strains, it or its hybrids may be in our bread of the future. I think that I heard that some weeds growing nearby have already picked up a resistance to Roundup, also. Not sure if they got this from the genetically modified wheat or if they developed the resistance the old fashioned way. But not to worry, Monsanto, I expect can produce a more powerful form of Roundup, and if necessary, develop more genetic modifications in our food plants, to overcome the new and improved Roundup.
Although one might reasonably wonder at what point, genetic modifications could also modify the basic nutritional qualities of our foods. e.g., When does wheat become so modified, that it becomes just another weed? (But let’s not even consider other potential impacts of Super Roundup on our ecosystem. Why not? Because Monsanto is rich powerful and in control. And that is not likely to change, except to the extent that they may become richer, more powerful, and more in control.)
So if you are trying to make the argument that vitamin supplements are safe and healthy but that vitamin-fortified foods are unsafe because they are "loaded with chemicals," that makes no sense.No, I'm just saying that I don't see much difference between taking supplements and eating vitamin-fortified foods, addition of hormones to live stock, antibiotics given to livestock, etc. (period, nothing more, nothing less.) It seems to me the risks are about the same and people pick their poisons.
I'm not sure where your hostility to MacGyver comes from (perhaps a thread I missed?).I'm not sure either but I think in retrospect my analysis of her personal supplement choices may have come off a bit snarkey which was not my intent. If you took it that way Miriana it wasn't meant as a personal attack. I was only trying to point out that when it comes to nutrition, a lot of the ideas people accept as fact come from unreliable sources like mass media. If something is repeated enough it becomes fact even if its complete nonsense and that's what often happens with a lot of these concepts. The media grabs onto a study about mice and saccharine repeats it a hundred times and there you go.. In the mind of the public saccharine is a deadly cancer causing poison. I'm glad to hear that wasn't your intent. It did read, to me, like that, but I'm glad to hear you didn't mean it that way.
Well, since this wheat has an apparent survival advantage over other strains, it or its hybrids may be in our bread of the future. I think that I heard that some weeds growing nearby have already picked up a resistance to Roundup, also. Not sure if they got this from the genetically modified wheat or if they developed the resistance the old fashioned way. But not to worry, Monsanto, I expect can produce a more powerful form of Roundup, and if necessary, develop more genetic modifications in our food plants, to overcome the new and improved Roundup. Although one might reasonably wonder at what point, genetic modifications could also modify the basic nutritional qualities of our foods. e.g., When does wheat become so modified, that it becomes just another weed? (But let's not even consider other potential impacts of Super Roundup on our ecosystem. Why not? Because Monsanto is rich powerful and in control. And that is not likely to change, except to the extent that they may become richer, more powerful, and more in control.)More powerful weed killer and what do you (not you personally, but people in general) think this does to humans? Seems to me, the Roundup is more dangerous than supplements. I seriously doubt that the poison doesn't get into our foods, yet some people are less afraid of weed killers on/in their foods and more afraid of supplements- one is designed to kill and the other is not. I don't know, but it seems like a crazy mixed up world we live in. It just doesn't make any sense to me, that people aren't afraid of poisons, such as weed killers and pesticides, on/in their foods, but yet afraid of other things. What's wrong with this picture? Yeah, I know. Using such poisons is suppose to increase food harvests and get more "cha-ching!", but in the long run it seems to me this causes more harm than good, esp in matters of people's health. When I was growing up, all I had to do was go out to my grandmother's garden and just wash the dirt off the vegetable, which I often ate raw, without any care about herbicides and pesticides because my grandparents didn't use chemicals to grow their gardens and did very well. They used things like ladybugs and other natural stuff, as well as weeded by hand. It was all natural, without the use of poisons. Now, we can't even legally drink raw milk, which I grew up on also, for fear of TB or something like that. I don't know. I think the fears have changed greatly since I was a child and I'm not sure they are much different, except in what is fear and don't fear. Oh I did have to worry about copperheads in the garden, but other than that, there were no poisons in the garden.
They used things like ladybugs and other natural stuff, as well as weeded by hand. It was all natural, without the use of poisons. Now, we can't even legally drink raw milk, which I grew up on also, for fear of TB or something like that. I don't know. I think the fears have changed greatly since I was a child and I'm not sure they are much different, except in what is fear and don't fear. Oh I did have to worry about copperheads in the garden, but other than that, there were no poisons in the garden.On the other hand, I know people who bathed their veggie gardens and fruit trees with pesticides so they could get 'perfect' fruit. They believed that since the recommended amount left some of the foods with insect damage, if they ramped up the dose, they would get more perfect foods. A farm would never do that. They have a set amount of spray to use, and set times to use it, which the home gardener may not necessarily follow. As for the 'raw milk' issue, it is because we know more about the dangers of raw milk today, which is why we Pasteurize. The reason Odwalla ended up with their E. coli O157:H7, causing several deaths of children, and many more illnesses, was because their juice was 'natural' without pasteurization. They now pasteurize their juices.
They used things like ladybugs and other natural stuff, as well as weeded by hand. It was all natural, without the use of poisons. Now, we can't even legally drink raw milk, which I grew up on also, for fear of TB or something like that. I don't know. I think the fears have changed greatly since I was a child and I'm not sure they are much different, except in what is fear and don't fear. Oh I did have to worry about copperheads in the garden, but other than that, there were no poisons in the garden.On the other hand, I know people who bathed their veggie gardens and fruit trees with pesticides so they could get 'perfect' fruit. They believed that since the recommended amount left some of the foods with insect damage, if they ramped up the dose, they would get more perfect foods. A farm would never do that. They have a set amount of spray to use, and set times to use it, which the home gardener may not necessarily follow. As for the 'raw milk' issue, it is because we know more about the dangers of raw milk today, which is why we Pasteurize. The reason Odwalla ended up with their E. coli O157:H7, causing several deaths of children, and many more illnesses, was because their juice was 'natural' without pasteurization. They now pasteurize their juices. OK so I guess I was just lucky or my grandfather knew how to handle raw milk or something. He had a process of cleaning the cow's utters before he milked her and then he'd either make butter or put it in the fridge right away. Whatever the case, I didn't grow up with as much stuff in the food my grandparents fed me off their land and I spent most summers, all summer long with them. My grandmother also canned a lot of it too, so we'd eat it when we saw them on winter holidays too. So it was either "luck" or they knew what they were doing. I go with the second thought- they knew what they were doing, but then again, cow manure "made good fertilizer" too. So I should have gotten E. Coli, but somehow didn't. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious how some people got sick from it and some didn't. Why some people got ergot poisoning and some didn't. etc etc etc Maybe it's all in how it was handled and knowledge of what to look for or something. My grandparents must of knew something or I'd be dead, but I can't tell you their secret, because I don't know it and they never told me, before they died. My grandmother was 94 when she died and my grandfather killed himself at 75, so it's hard to say.
I haven't seen anuoye here use the word chemicals in a bad connotation for the most part. I referred to chemicals as the artificially added vitamins in cereal, bread and milk. Also to the substances in multi-vitamins which I take because I think they are beneficial.McKenzieVMD-“Chemicals" is one of those nonsense words based on the naturalistic fallacy, used to imply something is bad for you because of how it is manufactured or where it comes from regardless of any actual evidence about health effects.
It makes no sense to claim taking vitamin supplements is good for you and then rant about dangerous “chemicals" in foods because they are fortified with the same vitamins.I didn't see that rant anywhere. People may have ranted about pesticides or Hormones or GMFs. I didn't see anyone rant about fortified foods.
The “chemicals" are the same in both cases, and the real question is whether they have meaningful health effects, good or bad, either eaten in food or taken as supplements.Well, I would give Kellogs or General Mills a call and ask them. Do you really think they would waste millions and millions of dollars adding supplemental chemical fortifications to their products like cereal and GP Flour for decades and decades now if they thought it didn't have a benefit? I just ate a bowl of cereal with milk. Both the cereal and the milk were artificially fortified with nutrients. Should I quit those too? It's the same thing as multi-supplements, I agree. Should I follow your path McKenzie and give up meat too. Live the lifestyle you want me to live? Given the lack of any exclusivity on either side of this argument,I would say it seems you're more interested in telling people how to live, than any real interest in health or well being. Edit: Or some are just too overzealous at debunking things they don't understand, or don't like for whatever reason.
Speaking of Kellogg’s, did you know that J H Kellogg, physician of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and co-creator of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, advocated having only 2 plain meals a day, as he asserted that this would decrease sexual impulses. He believed that masturbation had worse effects on society than wars, famine or plagues. He advocated circumcision of young boys without anesthesia, and the application of carbolic acid to the clitoris of young girls as methods to inhibit masturbatory impulses.
Now, if someone can bring this tangential thought, back into the realm of the topic of this thread, I applaud your creativity.
Vyazma, Mckenzies remarks were in response to Mirianas post (Posted: 10 June 2013 07:13 PM) that did indeed use the word chemical in that fashion and rant about it. Kellogs and General Mills would certainly put vitamins and supplements in their food without good evidence that there was a benefit since their main goal is to increase sales. Lots and lots of food companies do far worse putting complete non-sense additives in their foods because the public has been convinced that they are beneficial ( antioxidants for example). To clarify once again though, neither mckenzie nor I are saying your should avoid vitamins altogether. A certain amount of these substances is essential for good health. What we are both saying I believe is that no one should be going out of their way to take extra since many of the food items we eat have plenty of these substances in them either naturally or through additives. Taking more does little good as far as we know and could potentially be harmful. Neither of us is telling you how to live. We may be suggesting a better wa for you to evaluate the choices you make but you are free to do whatever you please.I haven't seen anuoye here use the word chemicals in a bad connotation for the most part. I referred to chemicals as the artificially added vitamins in cereal, bread and milk. Also to the substances in multi-vitamins which I take because I think they are beneficial.McKenzieVMD-“Chemicals" is one of those nonsense words based on the naturalistic fallacy, used to imply something is bad for you because of how it is manufactured or where it comes from regardless of any actual evidence about health effects.It makes no sense to claim taking vitamin supplements is good for you and then rant about dangerous “chemicals" in foods because they are fortified with the same vitamins.I didn't see that rant anywhere. People may have ranted about pesticides or Hormones or GMFs. I didn't see anyone rant about fortified foods.The “chemicals" are the same in both cases, and the real question is whether they have meaningful health effects, good or bad, either eaten in food or taken as supplements.Well, I would give Kellogs or General Mills a call and ask them. Do you really think they would waste millions and millions of dollars adding supplemental chemical fortifications to their products like cereal and GP Flour for decades and decades now if they thought it didn't have a benefit? I just ate a bowl of cereal with milk. Both the cereal and the milk were artificially fortified with nutrients. Should I quit those too? It's the same thing as multi-supplements, I agree. Should I follow your path McKenzie and give up meat too. Live the lifestyle you want me to live? Given the lack of any exclusivity on either side of this argument,I would say it seems you're more interested in telling people how to live, than any real interest in health or well being. Edit: Or some are just too overzealous at debunking things they don't understand, or don't like for whatever reason.
Given the lack of any exclusivity on either side of this argument,I would say it seems you’re more interested in telling people how to live, than any real interest in health or well being. Edit: Or some are just too overzealous at debunking things they don’t understand, or don’t like for whatever reason.I really don't understand the tone of hostility here. As MacGyver said, you can eat whatever you like and I honestly don't care. The subject of the thread is whether or not there is reasonable evidence to support the use of vitamin supplements and what are the relative risks and benefits. Having an opinion on that subject, and providing evidence to support that opinion, isn't telling you how to live or debunking something I don't like or understand. If you don't appreciate reasoned and reasonable critique of beliefs you happen to hold, then I think you're in the wrong forum.
People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death.]I take a multivitamin. When the FDA tells me they are unsafe, I'll stop taking them. The FDA will never tell you they're unsafe, even if they are, because they can't. In the 1970s the FDA wanted to control vitamins. There was such an outcry from vitamin manufacturers, alternative medicine nuts and individual comspiracy theorists regarding government control of vitamins (the bad old government was going to confiscate your vitamins!) that they managed to get a bill passed keeping the FDA from giving out any information about vitamins. So don't wait around waiting for a warning from the FDA. Even if it were shown, unequivocally, that vitamins were killing people, legally, the FDA would not be able to tell you. This is the kind of thing that happens when alternative medicine nuts, manufacturers and individual conspiracy theorists get together and wield power over Congress. LoisIn October 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. These findings weren't new. Seven previous studies had already shown that, for certain groups, some vitamins increased the risk of cancer and heart disease, and shortened lives.Much more at the link. In short, unless you're taking vitamins for a few specific conditions, you're screwing yourself. Possibly fatally.