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. From the New York Times: OPINION Don’t Take Your Vitamins PHILADELPHIA — LAST month, Katy Perry shared her secret to good health with her 37 million followers on Twitter. “I’m all about that supplement & vitamin LYFE!" the pop star wrote, posting a snapshot of herself holding up three large bags of pills. There is one disturbing fact about vitamins, however, that Katy didn’t mention. Derived from “vita," meaning life in Latin, vitamins are necessary to convert food into energy. When people don’t get enough vitamins, they suffer diseases like scurvy and rickets. The question isn’t whether people need vitamins. They do. The questions are how much do they need, and do they get enough in foods? Nutrition experts argue that people need only the recommended daily allowance — the amount of vitamins found in a routine diet. Vitamin manufacturers argue that a regular diet doesn’t contain enough vitamins, and that more is better. Most people assume that, at the very least, excess vitamins can’t do any harm. It turns out, however, that scientists have known for years that large quantities of supplemental vitamins can be quite harmful indeed. In a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 29,000 Finnish men, all smokers, had been given daily vitamin E, beta carotene, both or a placebo. The study found that those who had taken beta carotene for five to eight years were more likely to die from lung cancer or heart disease. Two years later the same journal published another study on vitamin supplements. In it, 18,000 people who were at an increased risk of lung cancer because of asbestos exposure or smoking received a combination of vitamin A and beta carotene, or a placebo. Investigators stopped the study when they found that the risk of death from lung cancer for those who took the vitamins was 46 percent higher. Then, in 2004, a review of 14 randomized trials for the Cochrane Database found that the supplemental vitamins A, C, E and beta carotene, and a mineral, selenium, taken to prevent intestinal cancers, actually increased mortality. Another review, published in 2005 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that in 19 trials of nearly 136,000 people, supplemental vitamin E increased mortality. Also that year, a study of people with vascular disease or diabetes found that vitamin E increased the risk of heart failure. And in 2011, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association tied vitamin E supplements to an increased risk of prostate cancer. Finally, last year, a Cochrane review found that “beta carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A." What explains this connection between supplemental vitamins and increased rates of cancer and mortality? The key word is antioxidants. Antioxidation vs. oxidation has been billed as a contest between good and evil. It takes place in cellular organelles called mitochondria, where the body converts food to energy — a process that requires oxygen (oxidation). One consequence of oxidation is the generation of atomic scavengers called free radicals (evil). Free radicals can damage DNA, cell membranes and the lining of arteries; not surprisingly, they’ve been linked to aging, cancer and heart disease. To neutralize free radicals, the body makes antioxidants (good). Antioxidants can also be found in fruits and vegetables, specifically in selenium, beta carotene and vitamins A, C and E. Some studies have shown that people who eat more fruits and vegetables have a lower incidence of cancer and heart disease and live longer. The logic is obvious. If fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants, and people who eat fruits and vegetables are healthier, then people who take supplemental antioxidants should also be healthier. It hasn’t worked out that way. The likely explanation is that free radicals aren’t as evil as advertised. (In fact, people need them to kill bacteria and eliminate new cancer cells.) And when people take large doses of antioxidants in the form of supplemental vitamins, the balance between free radical production and destruction might tip too much in one direction, causing an unnatural state where the immune system is less able to kill harmful invaders. Researchers call this the antioxidant paradox. Because studies of large doses of supplemental antioxidants haven’t clearly supported their use, respected organizations responsible for the public’s health do not recommend them for otherwise healthy people. So why don’t we know about this? Why haven’t Food and Drug Administration officials made sure we are aware of the dangers? The answer is, they can’t. In December 1972, concerned that people were consuming larger and larger quantities of vitamins, the F.D.A. announced a plan to regulate vitamin supplements containing more than 150 percent of the recommended daily allowance. Vitamin makers would now have to prove that these “megavitamins" were safe before selling them. Not surprisingly, the vitamin industry saw this as a threat, and set out to destroy the bill. In the end, it did far more than that. Industry executives recruited William Proxmire, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin, to introduce a bill preventing the F.D.A. from regulating megavitamins. On Aug. 14, 1974, the hearing began. Speaking in support of F.D.A. regulation was Marsha Cohen, a lawyer with the Consumers Union. Setting eight cantaloupes in front of her, she said, “You would need to eat eight cantaloupes — a good source of vitamin C — to take in barely 1,000 milligrams of vitamin C. But just these two little pills, easy to swallow, contain the same amount." She warned that if the legislation passed, “one tablet would contain as much vitamin C as all of these cantaloupes, or even twice, thrice or 20 times that amount. And there would be no protective satiety level." Ms. Cohen was pointing out the industry’s Achilles’ heel: ingesting large quantities of vitamins is unnatural, the opposite of what manufacturers were promoting. A little more than a month later, Mr. Proxmire’s bill passed by a vote of 81 to 10. In 1976, it became law. Decades later, Peter Barton Hutt, chief counsel to the F.D.A., wrote that “it was the most humiliating defeat" in the agency’s history. As a result, consumers don’t know that taking megavitamins could increase their risk of cancer and heart disease and shorten their lives; they don’t know that they have been suffering too much of a good thing for too long. Paul A. Offit is the chief of the infectious diseases division of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the author of the forthcoming book “Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine."
Lois, that opinion article didn’t explain the difference between the two. It just said that people taking A, C, E, etc had an increase mortality, but didn’t relate it to the difference between vitamin fortified foods and taking a vitamin supplement. By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it’s the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat’s arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn’t seem like any difference to me.
Lois, that opinion article didn't explain the difference between the two. It just said that people taking A, C, E, etc had an increase mortality, but didn't relate it to the difference between vitamin fortified foods and taking a vitamin supplement. By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it's the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat's arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn't seem like any difference to me.The point of the original OP was "People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death." so I think Lois' post is certainly appropriate for the topic. I am not sure I would call it an opinion piece either. It simply recaps a bit of the history of vitamins in this country and refers to a couple of sentinel articles concerning vitamin research that address the OP's statement.
Lois, that opinion article didn't explain the difference between the two. It just said that people taking A, C, E, etc had an increase mortality, but didn't relate it to the difference between vitamin fortified foods and taking a vitamin supplement. By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it's the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat's arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn't seem like any difference to me.The point of the original OP was "People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death." so I think Lois' post is certainly appropriate for the topic. I am not sure I would call it an opinion piece either. It simply recaps a bit of the history of vitamins in this country and refers to a couple of sentinel articles concerning vitamin research that address the OP's statement. However, the article Lois copied and pasted does say "Opinion".
In total, I think the the piece suggested that MEGA-doses of the vitamins were unsafe (and that this is probably because too much antioxidants is not a good thing). AFAIK, vitamins that are added to foods are not extraordinarily high amounts.
Lois, that opinion article didn't explain the difference between the two. It just said that people taking A, C, E, etc had an increase mortality, but didn't relate it to the difference between vitamin fortified foods and taking a vitamin supplement. By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it's the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat's arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn't seem like any difference to me.Well, a professional would have to look at the studies, but, presumably, all of the participants were eating fortified foods, but only the ones also taking supplements had the higher mortality rates, so the supplements must be doing something worse than the fortified foods are doing. I have to admit that I was one of the people who figured a vitamin pill would make up for not eating 3 squares a day. I certainly wasn't eating 3 or 4 servings of vegetables every day. I never took megadoses and wasn't all that good at even taking an ordinary MDR vitamin pill every day, so maybe for once my recalcitrance did me some good! Lois
Mriana-By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it’s the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat’s arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn't seem like any difference to me.That's exactly what it is. As a truck driver I delivered 35 to 55 gallon fiber and steel drums of the stuff to a handful of large, easily recognized food processors/manufacturers. Usually 35 gallon fiber drums, filled with a plastic bag that is filled with powders and clearly labeled what chemical it is on the outside of the barrel along with it's trade name, and usually it's vitamin name. From, the loading dock it goes right to the lab for a quick double check, and then right to the line. Vitamins. They're in our foods, both enriched and purely natural and they're in our vitamins. If certain amounts of some chemical causes cancer your getting it one way or the other. So the next time someone dies of cancer and everyone says: "Gee, he lived a healthy life no drugs, no junk food, no smoking, didn't ever go to the doctor." The guy probably ate too much kale or peanuts or salmon. The fortification of our food in the US and other developed nations probably has reduced the amount of disease, underdeveloped children etc to such an extent that it probably far outweighs any possible risks from cancer. All the children and mothers in ghettos and rural poverty in our nation. It's probably cereal, milk and some processed dinner foods keeping them from rickets or other diseases. All the italicized parts are just my conjecture.
I'm with you, VYAZMA, on this one. It would seem anyone capable of reason could see this one, yet we are the ones being accused of not using reason. Interesting and seems more like group think, diverting us from seeing this capsule being opened and poured into our food. "Hey, Suga'Ray, look over there at the catnip mouse while I pour this capsule of (fill in the blank) into your food and mix it together." We're not advocating mega-doses of supplements, but we are saying there isn't much difference between supplements and vitamin fortified foods. Before the vitamins were poured into milk, cereals, etc, there were more cases of rickettes, anemia, etc., and at the same time, other things get "poured" into meats, but at the same time, not everyone eats such foods, leaning more towards other things that aren't fortified, including and esp vegans.Mriana-By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it’s the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat’s arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn't seem like any difference to me.That's exactly what it is. As a truck driver I delivered 35 to 55 gallon fiber and steel drums of the stuff to a handful of large, easily recognized food processors/manufacturers. Usually 35 gallon fiber drums, filled with a plastic bag that is filled with powders and clearly labeled what chemical it is on the outside of the barrel along with it's trade name, and usually it's vitamin name. From, the loading dock it goes right to the lab for a quick double check, and then right to the line. Vitamins. They're in our foods, both enriched and purely natural and they're in our vitamins. If certain amounts of some chemical causes cancer your getting it one way or the other. So the next time someone dies of cancer and everyone says: "Gee, he lived a healthy life no drugs, no junk food, no smoking, didn't ever go to the doctor." The guy probably ate too much kale or peanuts or salmon. The fortification of our food in the US and other developed nations probably has reduced the amount of disease, underdeveloped children etc to such an extent that it probably far outweighs any possible risks from cancer. All the children and mothers in ghettos and rural poverty in our nation. It's probably cereal, milk and some processed dinner foods keeping them from rickets or other diseases. All the italicized parts are just my conjecture.
While clearly science has an understanding of carcinogenic dosimeter rates in regards to contracting the disease, it isn’t anything closely resembling an exact science.
In fact I think they have radiation more standardized than they do chemicals in regards to dosimeter ratings regarding cancer affliction.
They also know that carcinogenic affliction from chemicals is usually from long term exposure either chronic or sporadically through time.
Exposure to what amounts is less well known…Certainly more is worse, I won’t dispute that.
But what percentage of “more” is worse? Especially when there is no baseline to bounce percentage factors off of?
There is no baseline for Vitamin E being carcinogenic is there? A minimum dose? No I doubt it.
So I repeat it again…who’s to say people aren’t getting cancer from the “natural” vitamin E they have been moderately consuming their whole lives through
unfortified, “natural” foods?
The counter to this again is that, “Well then reason should tell you to eat just the bare essential amount of Vitamin E. Why would you take more?”
Me personally, I don’t see the risk. First off, I don’t know what my baseline Vitamin E intake is before I take a multi-vitamin. Let’s say it is 100% RDI before my multi.
So then I take a multi-vitamin, effectively doubling my RDI%. That’s still nowhere close to 400 IUs of Vitamin E as was cited in this study.
So if the study is attempting to create a baseline of Vitamin E toxicology, I’m still nowhere near it with my multi-vitamin.
One more thing…that’s if Viatmin E is even carcinogenic in the first place. Did they prove that Vitamin E was carcinogenic?
I can’t keep repeating myself here. I have made my points and Mriana and Vyazma, the two of you keep missing them entirely. Macgyver out.
Edit: Incorrectly singled out Lois when I meant Mriana
MacGyver-The point of the original OP was “People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death.What point am I missing? I think you meant Mriana-not Lois. Lois is in your camp. What point? Dramatically increased chance of death? We all have a 100% dramatic chance of death. Death from what? Dramatically increased? Really? Please tell me what point I'm missing McGyver. If I am, I want to try to address my inattention please. Thanks. Sincerely.
Mckenzie-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.I do appreciate reasoned and reasonable critiques of beliefs I hold. I haven't seen any truly reasonable critiques. All I have seen is yet another article extolling or castigating the food or drugs people use. Then it was revealed that the "guinea pigs" were given high doses of Vitamin E. Effectively poisoning them. What does that have to do with me? And my mild multi vitamins? Nobody has yet touched upon my musings about a baseline carcinogenic dosimeter rate for vita E....
Vyazma,
I agree that you don’t seem to be seeing the actual argument MacGyver and I are putting forward. It isn’t that you’re an idiot, that we know what’s good for you better than you, that vitamins are poisons and vitamin-fortified foods are good for you, or that Vitamin E is inherently carcinogenic. All of those are things you seems to be reading into what we’re saying which I don’t honestly believe are there. So I’ll try to make the basic point once more.
- Most people get the minimum requirement of essential nutrients through their ordinary diet, even if it isn’t an especially healthy diet. There is very little evidence that there is a deficiency that a supplement might fix.
- Supplements are therefor probably unnecessary and have no benefits for most people. You’ve said in this thread that even if they have some risk down the road, “At least I’m healthy now.” The point is, there is no good reason to think the supplements contribute anything to your health.
- There is some evidence to support the idea that not only is more not better, more might even be worse. Of course, there is a dose-response relationship, so mega-doses probably carry more risk than smaller doses. If the amount of extra Vitamin Whatever you get is truly small, it likely has no effect on you for good or ill. However, the bottom line is that you seem to think it is helpful and probably not harmful, when the evidence suggests it is probably neither but could just as easily be harmful as beneficial.
- The bottom line is that the current evidence suggests multivitamin supplements are useless for most people and might carry some risk proportional to dose. Knowing that, everyone is free to do whatever they like. It just sees like the more accurate the information behind our decisions is, the better those decisions are likely to be in achieving our goals. I once took multivitamins because I believed that they would compensate for any deficiencies in my diet. I stopped once I became convinced that the evidence didn’t support that idea. You can do whatever you like.
Lois, that opinion article didn't explain the difference between the two. It just said that people taking A, C, E, etc had an increase mortality, but didn't relate it to the difference between vitamin fortified foods and taking a vitamin supplement. By all rights, people should be dying from vitamin fortified foods too, because, from what I can tell, it's the same thing, just put in our foods, sort of like me taking my 14 y.o. cat's arthritis medication, opening the capsule, and pouring the powder inside it into his can cat food. Doesn't seem like any difference to me.The point of the original OP was "People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death." so I think Lois' post is certainly appropriate for the topic. I am not sure I would call it an opinion piece either. It simply recaps a bit of the history of vitamins in this country and refers to a couple of sentinel articles concerning vitamin research that address the OP's statement. However, the article Lois copied and pasted does say "Opinion". Yes it did, but it isn't really an opinion piece. Articles can land anyplace there's space for themin a newspaper. Sometimes where they land can be misleading, as in this case. (I worked in newsrooms for many years.)
Vyazma, I agree that you don't seem to be seeing the actual argument MacGyver and I are putting forward. It isn't that you're an idiot, that we know what's good for you better than you, that vitamins are poisons and vitamin-fortified foods are good for you, or that Vitamin E is inherently carcinogenic. All of those are things you seems to be reading into what we're saying....Yes, I've seen that point. I've seen that argument on the preceding pages. Clearly. Just because I don't subscribe to it doesn't mean I haven't seen it or understood it. I would think my rebuttals are mainly counter point to your arguments...which shows I have understood your main argument. I think this transcends what we want to consider as evidence. It's about lifestyle and how we view apparent or presumed risks towards mortality. It's about what each individual wants to put in their body. You're on a crusade to extinguish what you see as societal errors or whatever. You've got your elaborate phrases about "evidence seems to suggest..." You flat out ignore the facts. It's evidence in your statement about how "even a poor diet ensures all the vitamins and nutrients someone would need."(paraphrase) How ridiculous. Does that include developing children? Does that take into consideration the fact that that poor diet contains the very same artificially fortified foods that contain the supplements you rail against? Are you sure you're even certain you believe the body needs vitamins and minerals? What do I think would happen to me if I stopped taking my multi-vitamin tomorrow? Nothing. I get off vitamins for months at a time. Been off of them for years in the past. I'd like to think they are doing me good, but I can't be certain. Maybe my nails grow a little faster. I never get sick. But who knows...maybe they are doing nothing for me. But somehow I doubt that. Seeing as how Vitamins A B C D E K Iron, Iodine, etc etc are all things we need. That's a fact. That we know is a fact! Wow, a little chewable pill that has that stuff in it. Just like cereal or flour or Juice. Whoopie...
People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death.]Let's revisit this goofy lead in to this thread while we're at it. Title...Whoaa Lay Off the Vitamins! Screwing yourself. Possibly fatally. Risk of Death. Sounds like typical hyped up BS to me. Then come to find out it's not just any vitamins. It's people who have taken over 1000% the daily RDI. I could do a thread about how people who eat 1000% of the normal ration of chocolate are going to get diabetes and die too. But I don't care. Let 'em eat their chocolate. I've never seen people with such an axe to grind as you whacky anti-alt medders. Christ!In 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.
Hey Vyazma, I figure everyone has to be missionaries for some religion. Since they are atheists, they’re stuck with finding something else, and vitamins are as good as anything. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Occam
Come on, of course we're all going to die sometime, but do you really not care if it's today or 30 years from now? Do you also blow through red lights and walk out into traffic with abandon, taking the position that you're going to die one day anyway? Do you have any children under your care? I fervently hope not for their sake. LoisMacGyver-The point of the original OP was “People taking vitamin supplements can have a dramatically increased risk of death.What point am I missing? I think you meant Mriana-not Lois. Lois is in your camp. What point? Dramatically increased chance of death? We all have a 100% dramatic chance of death. Death from what? Dramatically increased? Really? Please tell me what point I'm missing McGyver. If I am, I want to try to address my inattention please. Thanks. Sincerely.
Are cigarettes an oxidant? Should smokers consider taking antioxidants, if they refuse to quit smoking? Are there studies of the effects of taking high doses of antioxidants that take into account whether subjects are smokers? Should we have vitamin fortified cigarettes? (The last question was just for fun.)