Vitamin Studies Spell Confusion for Patients

ABC News ^ | October 14, 2011 | Unknown

[decimon]

If it's Monday, it must be bad news about multivitamin day -- or was that Wednesday? No, Wednesday was good news about vitamin D, not so good news about vitamin E -- if you're confused, join the club.

The alphabet soup of vitamin studies making headlines in the last few weeks has left more than one head spinning, and most clinicians scrambling for answers.

As the dust begins to settle, physicians interviewed by MedPage Today and ABC News agreed on a bit of simple wisdom -- a healthy diet is more important than a fistful of supplements.

"I had already asked my patients to stop their vitamin supplements four to five years ago, with the exception of those with a deficiency of vitamin D, ... pregnant patients [who should get] folate and prenatal multivitamins, or those with cognitive impairment, when I would recommend a vitamin B complex," Albert Levy, MD, a primary care physician in New York, said in an email to MedPage Today and ABC News.

Whether patients heed the advice is another question, as recent research has shown that more take supplements now than ever before. More than half of Americans report taking a multivitamin or other dietary supplement, up from 40% just two decades ago.

[Osage Orange]

Sorry....I read back just now. Didn't realize you've already stated your education background.

I will agree with your statement here..."studies are bunk"..unless the person in question has read them.

I've got to the point if someone tells me they drink 10 glasses of carrot juice a day..and they have done it for years...and they just became as smart as algore now..and they are never sick. I'm all for it.

FWIW-

[exDemMom]

Taking excessive vitamin supplements has nothing to do with longevity. I already said this above, but I'll say it again:

Say it again if you like, but saying it a third time won't make it true.

Nor does denying it multiple times make it false. You might try reading some medical history and finding out for yourself exactly what the significant life-extending advances in medical science were.

As recently as three years ago, I read that infectious disease is responsible for more than half af all deaths. It is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, a major public health concern.

Estrogen seems to have a protective effect against heart disease... It has nothing to do with monthly loss of iron.

The reverse of your claims is well established.

Um...really? I suggest you Google "menopause and heart disease." You will be able to find at least one article that mentions the protective effect of estrogen on heart health. It's an association that's been known for decades.

Scientists are becoming more interested in these questions, which is good—but, given the amount of money in the vitamin industry, getting funding to do those studies may be problematic.

Your view that the "Vitamin industry" is so powerful that it makes medical research funding "problematic", while ignoring the multibillion dollar drug business is quaint, but charming.

I do not recall mentioning "power" here, nor would I have any reason to do so. This concept of "power" as you use it is alien to me.

What I'm talking about is economics. Drug companies devote a huge amount of time, effort, and money into drug development. They are quite willing to allow researchers to investigate their drugs. In my experience, having had a drug company representative urge me to contact him regarding a collaboration he wanted to develop because of where I did research, they welcome and financially support research. Because, to the drug companies, increasing the amount of research into their drugs increases the possibilities of finding new applications (thus, new markets) for their drugs, as well as speeding the lengthy approval process.

On the other hand, vitamin manufacturers aren't very eager to fund research, especially since they are quite aware that most of the research today does not support a bona ride need for routine trace nutrient supplementation. From an economic standpoint, funding such research is the last thing they want to do.

When you read articles claiming all these wonderful miraculous benefits from consuming excess trace nutrients, pay attention to who is funding the article. That should tell you a lot.

[exDemMom]

Are you saying...when you say "our", you mean American's?

Well, yes, I mean Americans and citizens of other first-world countries, where people can afford decent sanitation and basic health measures. I think most people have no idea just how miserable and disease-ridden much of the third world is.

[caveat emptor]

I'm busy and won't have much time for a few days but will make a few comments.

Nor does denying it multiple times make it false. [re longevity]

Your tu quoque argument doesn't work here. You're the one harping on the issue.

You might try reading some medical history and finding out for yourself exactly what the significant life-extending advances in medical science were.

Uh Oh. Your superciliousness is rearing it's ugly head (again). I could suggest a few books for you, but you seem so in thrall to the drug lobby (hereinafter, "Thralldom Theory") and so lacking in specifics that I won't bother. I will suggest that you take some advice from this guy. (first quote)

I suggest you Google "menopause and heart disease." You will be able to find at least one article that mentions the protective effect of estrogen on heart health.

Wow. Try googling "how many swallows make a spring", without quotes.

Your view that the "Vitamin industry" is so powerful that it makes medical research funding "problematic", while ignoring the multibillion dollar drug business is quaint, but charming.

I do not recall mentioning "power" here, nor would I have any reason to do so. This concept of "power" as you use it is alien to me.

Gee willikers, Ms. Science. And I thought you were relatively fluent in English. Sorry, I'll try again, with an update.

Your view that the "Vitamin industry" is so powerful that it spends money and makes medical research funding "problematic", while ignoring the close to half trillion dollar drug business is quaint but charming. Sales of Lipitor alone were over 12 billion dollars in 2008.

As recently as three years ago, I read that infectious disease is responsible for more than half af [sic] all deaths.

You're kidding. The most frequent 7 causes of death in the US in 2007 comprised just over 70% of the total.

When you read articles claiming all these wonderful miraculous benefits from consuming excess trace nutrients

There you go again.

What I'm talking about is economics.....pay attention to who is funding the article.

Right. See Thralldom Theory above.

Don't call me, I'll call you.

[goodnesswins]

"It is impossible to put numerical values on what constitutes "adequate" or "excessive" trace nutrient intake. Like calorie intake, these are very individual."

Well...gee....isn't that what I have been saying? People are different....some may need MORE vitamins/supplements than others....It is NOT like "oxygen."

[exDemMom]

Your tu quoque argument doesn't work here. You're the one harping on the issue.

Harping? All I'm doing is trying to point out what is actually fairly common knowledge, and very easy to verify: that control of infectious disease is the biggest factor in history in increasing our lifespans (that is, those of us who live in first-world countries) to what they are today.

You are the one who keeps insisting despite all evidence that popping unnatural quantities of trace nutrients is what leads us to live longer than our ancestors. Not only is that untrue, it begs a glaringly obvious question: if popping pills causes people to live longer, then why don't we see people who don't consume excessive quantities of trace nutrients dropping off like flies at age thirty or so?

You might try reading some medical history and finding out for yourself exactly what the significant life-extending advances in medical science were.

Uh Oh. Your superciliousness is rearing it's ugly head (again). I could suggest a few books for you, but you seem so in thrall to the drug lobby (hereinafter, "Thralldom Theory") and so lacking in specifics that I won't bother. I will suggest that you take some advice from this guy. (first quote)

No, I'm hardly being "supercilious" here. I'm actually sharing how you can verify/learn for yourself the things which I have said here. I *always* try to verify everything I post before I post it, using information derived from peer-reviewed research. And if I can't verify, I say so. I also either provide links, or explain how to find the info (which I have done here).

Also, I'm not sure if you realize just how illogical your assumption is. I'm here, telling people to be careful about taking quantities of certain chemicals that are in excess of what is naturally available from food; the notion that I'm somehow a hack for the drug industry--another promoter of consuming not only unnatural quantities of chemicals, but, often, chemicals that are not even naturally present in food--is ludicrous.

I do not recall mentioning "power" here, nor would I have any reason to do so. This concept of "power" as you use it is alien to me.

Gee willikers, Ms. Science. And I thought you were relatively fluent in English. Sorry, I'll try again, with an update.

You use the word "power" in much the same way that leftist nut cakes (or the OWS tantrum throwers) use it. In that context, the concept is utterly foreign to me. I simply do not think that way.

As recently as three years ago, I read that infectious disease is responsible for more than half af [sic] all deaths.

You're kidding. The most frequent 7 causes of death in the US in 2007 comprised just over 70% of the total.

Hmm... Looking back over what I wrote, I see that I indeed made a typo (blame the iPad and its odd spell checker for that), but I do not see where I said anything about the 50% death rate due to infectious disease being in the US. Even though we are fortunate enough to have the resources to more or less control infectious disease, it is still one of the largest public health concerns, even in the US.

Of course, by this point, I do not expect you to display much interest in actually looking up anything for yourself from reputable (i.e. peer-reviewed, vetted studies). Your loyalty to the multi-billion dollar vitamin industry has more of the flavor of an adherence to a religious belief than of a desire for healthy living.

[caveat emptor]

Continuing from my comment (#44)

Harping?

Look it up if you don't know what it means.

I *always* try to verify everything I post before I post it, using information derived from peer-reviewed research.

Your Talisman - peer-reviewed research - which you cling to, chanting its name like some primitive medicine man in a trance.

And if I can't verify, I say so. I also either provide links, or explain how to find the info (which I have done here).

Laughable. In your posts to me you made bald assertions with no links. In one case you did "explain" how I could find something on Google about an issue that we had exchanged comments on. Brilliant.

...the notion that I'm somehow a hack for the drug industry...

I may have overestimated your fluency in English.

No, I'm hardly being "supercilious" here. I'm actually sharing how you can verify/learn for yourself the things which I have said here.

Why, thankee marm! (doffs hat, makes a leg, then slowly backs away before rising and leaving ).

...but I do not see where I said anything about the 50% death rate due to infectious disease being in the US.

No? Well, yes, I mean Americans and citizens of other first-world countries,.

Of course, by this point, I do not expect you to display much interest in actually looking up anything for yourself

Then you should be able to resist further didactic impulses.

[exDemMom]

*sigh*

I’ve learned a long time ago that people pick up all sorts of health-related nonsense and latch onto it like a religious belief.

All I do is attempt to spread the facts, the most reliable we have, which are those learned through actual controlled research, published in peer-review journals. If you choose to reject that in favor of... I dunno where much of that stuff floating out there comes from, but whatever... there is not much I or anyone else can do about that.

When I told how you can verify what I said through Google (and by being selective about the “hits” you look at, such as choosing to look at Mayo Clinic instead of some vitamin manufacturer), that goes for EVERYTHING I have said. In fact, even when I’m sure of the facts I’m saying, I still Google them to double check. If you doubt ANYTHING I have said in any post—Google is a quick way to check it.

While you’re trying to look for discrepancies in what I said, let me point out that I was being very clear when I said “our” lifespans (as in, the lifespans of anyone who is likely to read this, which would be a citizen of a first-world country, most likely the US), and when I said that I read that the leading cause of death (up to 3 years ago) is still infectious disease, where I used no adjective to specify any particular group.

Finally, let me point out that I did not initiate any posts to you. All of my posts have been responses to yours.

You must work for a vitamin company...otherwise, you wouldn’t be so threatened by the idea that people should try to eat healthy diets instead of popping handfuls of pills in an attempt to compensate for poor nutrition and lack of fitness. After all, Big Vitamin is a multi-billion dollar industry...

[caveat emptor]

*sigh* blah blah blah blah

Phew.

"Finally, let me point out that I did not initiate any posts to you. All of my posts have been responses to yours."

Well, firstly, it wasn't finally. You had to sling more mud before you could finally sign off.

You seem distraught and delusional - so verbose, prattling on and on, sometimes incomprehensibly.

What could anyone make of this gibberish?

"While you’re trying to look for discrepancies in what I said, let me point out that I was being very clear when I said “our” lifespans (as in, the lifespans of anyone who is likely to read this, which would be a citizen of a first-world country, most likely the US), and when I said that I read that the leading cause of death (up to 3 years ago) is still infectious disease, where I used no adjective to specify any particular group."

Pffft.

[exDemMom]

You seem distraught and delusional - so verbose, prattling on and on, sometimes incomprehensibly.

What could anyone make of this gibberish?

Oh, I'm holding back, here, keeping in mind who my audience is. You should see when I'm in full scientific mode--then, I become incredibly verbose and incomprehensible (except to other scientists). It is a real challenge to write comprehensibly for non-scientists.

[caveat emptor]

CE said: You seem distraught and delusional - so verbose, prattling on and on, sometimes incomprehensibly.... What could anyone make of this gibberish?

eDM replied: Oh, I'm holding back, here, keeping in mind who my audience is. You should see when I'm in full scientific mode--then, I become incredibly verbose and incomprehensible (except to other scientists).

Woe is me. I should have listened to you from the beginning.

[exDemMom]

I know you were trying to gratuitously insult me with your claim of my incomprehensible gibberish style of writing. But I'm a scientist, and I was taught to write like this. In the linked study, it was shown that people get adequate nutrition from their diets.

The real issue here is not my style of writing--rather, it's that you don't like what I'm saying.

Honestly, I really don't care if you want to waste your money and possibly compromise your health popping large quantities of pills. That really is your decision. My main goal is to try to increase scientific knowledge. Often (as in your case) this runs right up against people's highly cherished beliefs.

[caveat emptor]

I know you were trying to gratuitously insult me.

Nope. You're the slur-monger in these exchanges.

Honestly, I really don't care if you want to waste your money and possibly compromise your health popping large quantities of pills. That really is your decision. My main goal is to try to increase scientific knowledge. Often (as in your case) this runs right up against people's highly cherished beliefs.

Not bad. Those four lines are an improvement over your usual prolixity, but show no change in the other traits of your pose as Science Czar for FR.

[exDemMom]

Nope. You're the slur-monger in these exchanges.

No, I do not go around insulting people. Nor have I done so here.

Not bad. Those four lines are an improvement over your usual prolixity, but show no change in the other traits of your pose as Science Czar for FR.

I'm not trying to "pose" as anything. I'm just one of several PhDs who frequent FR.