Daily multivitamins -- is there any point?

[xylophone]

Just two simple questions !

I do not swallow "vitamins" or "supplements" but do eat normal, fresh, home cooked food.

Why am I still alive, fit, healthy at a post retirement age.

How much longer will I live if I take up this habit of supplementation ?

Oh were life that simple!!

Not even the best physician/doctor/scientist could give you an answer and if you would have asked your doctor at age 30 a similar question because of your dietary habits, as to how long you would live, he wouldn't have had a clue, except to say that you may live to the average age.

There are many people above retirement age who have smoked all of their lives and are still alive; similarly there are people your age who have never followed a healthy diet and who are still alive, fit and healthy; there are fit athletes who have never eaten anything but what they consider the "right things" who have died young; there are vegetarians and followers of strict diets who have also died young.

I have a friend who would counter your argument by the fact that he doesn't follow a particularly healthy diet, doesn't touch fish and never has done (as far as I know), doesn't eat fruit and certainly wouldn't get five helpings of vegetables a day, and on top of that he smokes a little and drinks sometimes to excess. To make up for this lifestyle he takes vitamin supplements.

He is past retirement age and plays singles tennis twice a week, often 20 games at a time and his last checkup fitness test showed that he had arteries consistent with someone at age 50 and absolutely no plaque in the main arteries to his heart. His BP averages around 128/80 and he has a resting pulse rate of 54.

If he followed your argument he could say it was all down to the vitamin supplements!!!

[infinity11]

Maybe i should start a thread: supplements that work.

I dont care for MML schemes and this stuff is expensive and unavailable in Thailand but if you are able to try BHIP's aio formula for a week or more, you might be sold.

Some supplements taken regularly can make a marked difference in health and well being.

Or if you can, get the equivalent in proper food intake.

[xylophone]

BTW - Vit C and colds - myth!

no it works well, just there is no money into in it, read Linus Pauling (2 Nobel prices)

Yet neither of his Nobel prizes was in medicine (they were in chemistry and peace).

There's not a shred of scientific evidence that vitamin C can do anything for the common cold - it's just wishful thinking.

He also claimed vitamin C could cure cancer. It can't. He was a deluded quack - one of the greatest.

Quote: "There's not a shred of scientific evidence that vitamin C can do anything for the common cold - it's just wishful thinking".

Why does everything have to be so black or white, either it works or it doesn't, and this is one of the main points of my "argument", because I believe there is middle ground and there are shreds of scientific evidence about vitamin C being beneficial, and I quote the following: –

Feb. 13, 2013 — "According to an updated Cochrane Review on vitamin C and the common cold, vitamin C seems to be particularly beneficial for people under heavy physical stress. In five randomized trials of participants with heavy short-term physical stress, vitamin C halved the incidence of the common cold. Three of the trials studied marathon runners, one studied Swiss school children in a skiing camp and one studied Canadian soldiers during a winter exercise. Furthermore, in a recent randomized trial carried out with adolescent competitive swimmers, vitamin C halved the duration of colds in males, although the vitamin had no effect on females.

Regular doses of vitamin C of one gram per day or higher have reduced the average duration of colds in adults by 8% and in children by 18%".

So, the evidence might not be overwhelming, but there is evidence of vitamin C being beneficial in some cases, and why can't this just be accepted. My stance has been that we do not know the full picture and that there are grey areas. And all the time that these grey areas exist, there is never a truly "black or white argument".

[AyG]

BTW - Vit C and colds - myth!

no it works well, just there is no money into in it, read Linus Pauling (2 Nobel prices)

Yet neither of his Nobel prizes was in medicine (they were in chemistry and peace).

There's not a shred of scientific evidence that vitamin C can do anything for the common cold - it's just wishful thinking.

He also claimed vitamin C could cure cancer. It can't. He was a deluded quack - one of the greatest.

Quote: "There's not a shred of scientific evidence that vitamin C can do anything for the common cold - it's just wishful thinking".

Why does everything have to be so black or white, either it works or it doesn't, and this is one of the main points of my "argument", because I believe there is middle ground and there are shreds of scientific evidence about vitamin C being beneficial, and I quote the following:

Feb. 13, 2013 "According to an updated Cochrane Review on vitamin C and the common cold, vitamin C seems to be particularly beneficial for people under heavy physical stress. In five randomized trials of participants with heavy short-term physical stress, vitamin C halved the incidence of the common cold. Three of the trials studied marathon runners, one studied Swiss school children in a skiing camp and one studied Canadian soldiers during a winter exercise. Furthermore, in a recent randomized trial carried out with adolescent competitive swimmers, vitamin C halved the duration of colds in males, although the vitamin had no effect on females.

Regular doses of vitamin C of one gram per day or higher have reduced the average duration of colds in adults by 8% and in children by 18%".

So, the evidence might not be overwhelming, but there is evidence of vitamin C being beneficial in some cases, and why can't this just be accepted. My stance has been that we do not know the full picture and that there are grey areas. And all the time that these grey areas exist, there is never a truly "black or white argument".

Perhaps you'd care to provide a source from a serious, peer-reviewed scientific journal for your assertion that it's beneficial.

Something like "The above story is based on materials provided by Helsingin yliopisto (University of Helsinki), via AlphaGalileo." doesn't really cut the mustard.

[xylophone]

Quote: "There's not a shred of scientific evidence that vitamin C can do anything for the common cold - it's just wishful thinking".

Why does everything have to be so black or white, either it works or it doesn't, and this is one of the main points of my "argument", because I believe there is middle ground and there are shreds of scientific evidence about vitamin C being beneficial, and I quote the following:

Feb. 13, 2013 "According to an updated Cochrane Review on vitamin C and the common cold, vitamin C seems to be particularly beneficial for people under heavy physical stress. In five randomized trials of participants with heavy short-term physical stress, vitamin C halved the incidence of the common cold. Three of the trials studied marathon runners, one studied Swiss school children in a skiing camp and one studied Canadian soldiers during a winter exercise. Furthermore, in a recent randomized trial carried out with adolescent competitive swimmers, vitamin C halved the duration of colds in males, although the vitamin had no effect on females.

Regular doses of vitamin C of one gram per day or higher have reduced the average duration of colds in adults by 8% and in children by 18%".

So, the evidence might not be overwhelming, but there is evidence of vitamin C being beneficial in some cases, and why can't this just be accepted. My stance has been that we do not know the full picture and that there are grey areas. And all the time that these grey areas exist, there is never a truly "black or white argument".

Perhaps you'd care to provide a source from a serious, peer-reviewed scientific journal for your assertion that it's beneficial.

Something like "The above story is based on materials provided by Helsingin yliopisto (University of Helsinki), via AlphaGalileo." doesn't really cut the mustard.

Probably doesn't matter what is published, to the closed mind it just doesn't exist.

*A study by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2008 showed “high-dose injections of vitamin C reduced tumour weight and growth rate by about 50 percent in mouse models of brain, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers”.

*The most important EBM (Evidence Based Medicine) data base is the Cochrane Library. Had Griffin searched the Cochrane Library, he would have identified our systematic review on vitamin C and pneumonia. We found three prophylactic trials in which vitamin C prevented pneumonia and two trials in which vitamin C treatment was beneficial for pneumonia patients.

One of the two therapeutic trials was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with elderly patients with pneumonia or chronic bronchitis in the UK. In this trial, there were 5 deaths in the placebo group, but only 1 death in the vitamin C group. The abstract of the trial is available and I scanned the whole paper so that it is freely available at my home pages. This and the four other trials are discussed in our systematic review.

Thus, the peer-reviewed literature says that there is justification to test the effect of vitamin C on pneumonia patients.

The Cochrane Review Groups provide authors with methodological and editorial support to prepare Cochrane Reviews, and manage the editorial process, including peer review.

It's also lucky that the family in this news item didn't have a closed mind.... http://youtu.be/vTXSTGGRvKY

It's also a pity that the work of Dr F. R. Klenner wasn't investigated more fully at the time, but then no money in it!

Lastly, I will add that I was always of the opinion that anything to do with medicine/medical science needed to be fully tried and tested and the methodologies reviewed. However over the past few years that opinion and has waned somewhat, mostly because I have witnessed the "narrowmindedness" of my son (who is a doctor) and his views, and also because a good friend of mine, who is a doctor and a surgeon, has admitted that there is a lot of this refusal to accept that other "medicines/practices" just might have a place in today's world and should be more fully investigated.

He rails against the likes of "Big Pharma" for a lot of misinformation which has been given to doctors in recent times, and more importantly to the adverse information which has been withheld from them regarding several drugs. He has more of an open mind on subjects like this, and I applaud him for that.

[AyG]

Probably doesn't matter what is published, to the closed mind it just doesn't exist.

*A study by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2008 showed “high-dose injections of vitamin C reduced tumour weight and growth rate by about 50 percent in mouse models of brain, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers”.

I prefer to think of myself as analytical, rather than having a closed mind. Let's just look at the first of your references about vitamin C reducing tumour weight. An NIH description of the research (http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2008/niddk-04.htm) says:

"your body prevents blood levels of ascorbate from exceeding a narrow range"

In other words, however many oranges you eat a day, or however many vitamin C tablets you pop, the level of ascorbate in your body remains virtually constant. The active ingredient in the tablets is simply pissed away.

The scientists had to inject vitamin C to have an effect upon tumour weight.

And let's remember this research was done on immune-deficient mice, so the relevance to human beings is questionable.

The article also refers to previous studies:

"researchers reported no benefit for cancer patients taking high oral doses of vitamin C in two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials"

In short: the evidence simply isn't there.

[JSixpack]

A multivitamin tablet will just be digested in the stomach so I doubt any vitamins in the tablet will have any effect .

For some reason I was thinking that food is also digested in the stomach. If so, why would the vitamins in food have any effect? But then again maybe humans have more than one stomach, eh? Could well be true of some of our goats posting here. And the food goes to the other stomach! Got it!

More generally, Mark's Daily Apple had a great article responding to the "case closed" on taking multivitamins: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/are-supplements-useless/#more-46718

It's a much more informed, insightful, balanced response than any will post here. I'd recommend anyone interested in the subject read it.

[xylophone]

Probably doesn't matter what is published, to the closed mind it just doesn't exist.

*A study by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2008 showed “high-dose injections of vitamin C reduced tumour weight and growth rate by about 50 percent in mouse models of brain, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers”.

I prefer to think of myself as analytical, rather than having a closed mind. Let's just look at the first of your references about vitamin C reducing tumour weight. An NIH description of the research (http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2008/niddk-04.htm) says:

"your body prevents blood levels of ascorbate from exceeding a narrow range"

In other words, however many oranges you eat a day, or however many vitamin C tablets you pop, the level of ascorbate in your body remains virtually constant. The active ingredient in the tablets is simply pissed away.

The scientists had to inject vitamin C to have an effect upon tumour weight.

And let's remember this research was done on immune-deficient mice, so the relevance to human beings is questionable.

The article also refers to previous studies:

"researchers reported no benefit for cancer patients taking high oral doses of vitamin C in two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials"

In short: the evidence simply isn't there.

Apologies for the "closed mind" comment and I accept your description as being "analytical", much the same as I think I am.

Yes you are right, the scientists had to inject vitamin C, so having said that, one could argue that high doses of vitamin C if injected may be of use, so a conclusion could be that, extra vitamins can help, dependent upon the delivery method?. Certainly the Kiwi farmer benefited from intravenous vitamin C as he was given up for dead by the doctors/specialists!

I haven't noticed a comment on this yet......

One of the two therapeutic trials was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with elderly patients with pneumonia or chronic bronchitis in the UK. In this trial, there were 5 deaths in the placebo group, but only 1 death in the vitamin C group. The abstract of the trial is available and I scanned the whole paper so that it is freely available at my home pages. This and the four other trials are discussed in our systematic review.Thus, the peer-reviewed literature says that there is justification to test the effect of vitamin C on pneumonia patients.

And on the subject of multivitamin use, this seemed to be quite significant..........

"A study of women aged 50 to 79 years with invasive breast cancer found that those who used multivitamins were 30% less likely to have died from the disease, compared with non-users, over an average period of seven years (Wassertheil-Smoller, Breast Canc Res Treat 2013). Adjusting for factors such as age, race, and the use of other supplements did not substantially change this estimate".

Also your comment as regards "previous studies showing that researchers reported no benefits in taking high oral doses of vitamin C", well that could be the case in literally thousands of studies of anything, because new studies are done even though previous ones exist. As you know it is always good to challenge the status quo.

Previous studies showed that margarine with its trans-fats was ok to eat; that the drug thalidomide was safe to take; that some of the Cox-2 inhibitor painkillers were safe to take and so on.

I have a great deal of faith in the medical profession, however anything that challenges strictly controlled views is dismissed out of hand, and as a couple of the incidences above show, they don't always get it right.

[Sheryl]

There are at present no valid studies showing a benefit from Vit C supplementation on either respiratory infections or cancer.

Remember that correllation does not prove causation.

there is however conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of zinc in reducing the duration and severity of respiratory infections.

[xylophone]

There are at present no valid studies showing a benefit from Vit C supplementation on either respiratory infections or cancer.

Remember that correllation does not prove causation.

there is however conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of zinc in reducing the duration and severity of respiratory infections.

Quote: "correlation does not prove causation".

In the same context, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false.

The Internet has allowed anyone to research whatever they want, and there is much on the Internet as regards vitamin supplementation and vitamin C, and some of it appears to be "valid" with peer reviews and using standard procedures such as randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials, and published in reputable medical publications.

From my perspective, as long as the following holds true, then I will continue to take vitamin supplementation: –

* is it true that the food pyramid for a "balanced diet" has altered over the years? YES

* is it true that food can contain more potentially harmful chemicals than at any time in the past? YES

* is it true that some foods can be genetically altered with genes from another species, or to allow ingestion of a poison such as glyphosate? YES

* does alcohol affect the absorption of some vitamins in the human body? YES

* can some medications affect the absorption of vitamins in the human body? YES

*are more antibiotics/antifungals/anti-parasitic and hormone drugs now used on the livestock that we eat than ever before? YES

*are some foods supplemented with added vitamins and minerals, and many in "first world" countries? YES

*has the medical profession ever supported the use of drugs and research which has proven to be dangerous, if not deadly to the human body? YES

That's why I use vitamin supplementation.

So having stated my reasons for my vitamin supplementation I am bowing out of this thread, and may I wish all of the posters a Happy Christmas and a Prosperous and Healthy New Year (vitamin supplementation or not!).

[wilcopops]

BTW - Vit C and colds - myth!

no it works well, just there is no money into in it, read Linus Pauling (2 Nobel prices)

Oh dear!!!!! This is a perfect example of how people get it wrong when talking about medicine.

Firstly it shows that it is not the PERSON but the facts that speak. Linus Pauling's ideas on massive doses have been completely discredited over and over again.

Secondly it shows how even brilliant brains can losebit at times.... Usually with age.

Thirdly it shows how uncritical people are of their sources.....they find one or two things that support they "feeling" and think that is an argument.

Sorry but of all the examples you could have chosen LP is possibly thebworstnof the lot!

[wilcopops]

Quote Sceptict11: "Pleased to learn your views are based on medical and scientific facts.What , exactly , are these "medical and scientific" facts?"

The following should be enough to keep you going and much more available if you care to look...........

Proton Pump Inhibitors.

*High doses and long-term use (1 year or longer) may increase the risk of osteoporosis-related fractures of the hip, wrist, or spine. Therefore, it is important to use the lowest doses and shortest duration of treatment necessary for the condition being treated.

*Fracture risk. The FDA decided in 2010 that there was enough evidence of fracture risk to warrant a warning about it. Calcium is absorbed in the small intestine, not the stomach. But low stomach acid levels can have downstream effects, especially in the duodenum, and some research shows that one of them could be reduced absorption of calcium.. Harvard medical school

*Iron and B₁₂ deficiency. Stomach acid helps render the iron and vitamin B₁₂ from food into forms that are readily absorbed. So there was worry that an unintended consequence of PPIs would be deficiencies of this vitamin and mineral because of lower stomach acid levels. But research has shown that if there is any effect, it's mild. Harvard medical school

*In March 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration notified healthcare professionals and the public that PPI drugs may cause low serum magnesium levels (hypomagnesemia) if taken for prolonged periods of time - in most cases, longer than one year.^[7

*Long-term PPI therapy also interferes with zinc absorption and zinc body stores. Gastroenterology research.

Alcohol use inhibits absorption of nutrients.

*Not only is alcohol devoid of proteins, minerals, and vitamins, it actually inhibits the absorption and usage of vital nutrients such as thiamin (vitamin B1), vitamin B12, folic acid, and zinc. University Counseling Center University of Notre Dame.

*Alcohol impairs nutrient absorption by damaging the cells lining the stomach and intestines and disabling transport of some nutrients into the blood (3). In addition, nutritional deficiencies themselves may lead to further absorption problems. For example, folate deficiency alters the cells lining the small intestine, which in turn impairs absorption of water and nutrients including glucose, sodium, and additional folate (3).

Even if nutrients are digested and absorbed, alcohol can prevent them from being fully utilized by altering their transport, storage, and excretion. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

*Calcium is an essential nutrient for healthy bones, and alcohol is its enemy. "Alcohol has multiple effects on calcium," says Primal Kaur, MD, an osteoporosis specialist at Temple University Health System in Philadelphia. "The bones deteriorate because not enough calcium is getting into bones -- and the body is leaching it away from bones."

Statins.

*Some statins can interact with vitamin B-3, or niacin, in your body. Statin drugs within your system may also interact with vitamin E. Statin medications may also interact with vitamin D. University of Maryland Medical Center

*By interfering with the synthesis of CoQ10, statins starve muscle cells of a key cofactor in the production of energy and other tissues and organs of a powerful antioxidant that protects the body from free radicals and harmful oxidative stress, explains Dr. Michael Scott, N.D., M.S.A., PinnacleCares specialist in complimentary and integrative medicine.

Vitamin fortification of food.

Food fortification was identified as the second strategy of four by the WHO and FAO to begin decreasing the incidence of nutrient deficiencies at the global level.^[2]

As outlined by the FAO, the most common fortified foods are:

• Cereals and cereal based products
• Milk and Milk products
• Fats and oils
• Accessory food items
• Tea and other beverages
• Infant formulas^[3]

I am in awe of your simplicity and naivety!

[FBN]

The post from Xylophone above quotes evidence based medical research and is, for purposes of this discussion, the valid state of affairs at this time.

Subjective opinions and flames really has no place here; keep it civil please, its only vitamins...

[wilcopops]

The post from Xylophone above quotes evidence based medical research and is, for purposes of this discussion, the valid state of affairs at this time.

Subjective opinions and flames really has no place here; keep it civil please, its only vitamins...

I'm sorry to say his post does NOT contain valid medical research that is relevant to this thread, in fact it is misused and misunderstood. Time today does not permit a full discourse on these citations; it is VERY unfortunate that people seem unable to be truly critical of the references they choose. Simply because something is on Google doesn't mean it is correct. I am pointing out that the selection of citatioins is naive in the extreme and typifies the lack of ability of people to differentiate between scientific evidence and pseudoscientific BS and outdated unsupported trials. Furthermore yet again we see blind acceptance of authority as evidence, which of course it is not.

I actually think the above post is very inappropriate as it clearly shows that the poster hasn't checked the citations before making them post.

Edited December 25, 2013 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

The post from Xylophone above quotes evidence based medical research and is, for purposes of this discussion, the valid state of affairs at this time.

Subjective opinions and flames really has no place here; keep it civil please, its only vitamins...

Only vitamins? I have to say that I don't think you are in touch with matters either on this thread or vitamins themselves. The misuse of vitamins can be extremely hazardous in some cases, and people like Linus Pauling are advocating massive doses.

As I said earlier I don't think you've even bothered to check before claiming some citations were "scientific" or relevant especially in connection with the OP and the exporession "only vitamins" would suggest you have given very little thought on the subject at all.

Edited December 25, 2013 by wilcopops

[Sheryl]

You seem to have missed the "keep it civil" admonition.

If you cannot make your points in a calm and pleasant manner, please don't bother making them at all.

[h90]

The post from Xylophone above quotes evidence based medical research and is, for purposes of this discussion, the valid state of affairs at this time.

Subjective opinions and flames really has no place here; keep it civil please, its only vitamins...

Only vitamins? I have to say that I don't think you are in touch with matters either on this thread or vitamins themselves. The misuse of vitamins can be extremely hazardous in some cases, and people like Linus Pauling are advocating massive doses.

As I said earlier I don't think you've even bothered to check before claiming some citations were "scientific" or relevant especially in connection with the OP and the exporession "only vitamins" would suggest you have given very little thought on the subject at all.

And how many people died or got sick from massive doses of the extremely hazardous Vitamin C that Linus Pauling suggests?

[AyG]

And how many people died or got sick from massive doses of the extremely hazardous Vitamin C that Linus Pauling suggests?

None, because the body simply eliminates it in urine.

Large doses of A & D vitamins, however, are incontrovertibly dangerous, and people have died from taking them to excess.

[CaptHaddock]

It seems rather straightforward to me. If you suspect that you might be deficient in some vitamin, get tested for it and take supplements if necessary to correct it. The rest is just folk medicine.

[wilcopops]

The post from Xylophone above quotes evidence based medical research and is, for purposes of this discussion, the valid state of affairs at this time.

Subjective opinions and flames really has no place here; keep it civil please, its only vitamins...

Only vitamins? I have to say that I don't think you are in touch with matters either on this thread or vitamins themselves. The misuse of vitamins can be extremely hazardous in some cases, and people like Linus Pauling are advocating massive doses.

As I said earlier I don't think you've even bothered to check before claiming some citations were "scientific" or relevant especially in connection with the OP and the exporession "only vitamins" would suggest you have given very little thought on the subject at all.

And how many people died or got sick from massive doses of the extremely hazardous Vitamin C that Linus Pauling suggests?

Kind of missed the point there?......Linus Pauling's claims have been shown to be incorrect - the fact that vit C is relatively safe does not alter in any way the fact that to cite him as justification for taking vitamins supplements is quite erroneous.