Supplements: Matter of Opinion?

[Cessna152]

I have read that there are no reliable studies that support routine taking of multivitamins. Do you know if this is true?

Studies of the affect of supplements on, for example, human longevity would take a century or more to complete. In the mean time animal studies are the only viable option, and common test subjects like rodents are different from humans in some important ways.

That said, here is one test of a nutrient cocktail that extended the life of mice:

“A Complex Dietary Supplement Extends Longevity of Mice”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7878554_A_Complex_Dietary_Supplement_Extends_Longevity_of_Mice

 

[UtahSkier]

I thought the issue with calcium was that most of the calcium supplements sold aren't in the form our bodies can readily absorb.

Of course, as another poster stated, there's really no way to know if the supplement you're buying actually contains what it says it does.

I believe that to be true. I have had good success with Solgar's chelated multi-mineral. My indicator of success is an improved hardness of my fingernails. I can only hope there is a desired affect for my bone density.

I am trying to get a doctor to order a bone density test this summer.

 

[UtahSkier]

>> In the mean time animal studies are the only viable option,

I choose another option where possible. I read and research and try things. I read the negative studies to see if they apply to my situation and understanding.

There is no perfect knowledge, but I need workable solutions in the here and now.

So far, the primary reason to not take supplements are;
1. Quality control.
2. cost. ie "You are throwing away your money".

I weigh these negatives against the possible, positive outcomes.

 

[Montecfo]

I have literally eaten no vegetables for my entire life with the exception of salads. When I say no vegetables I am not really stretching the facts - I have tasted some and occasionally get a little bit in an egg roll or something but the total amount is so small as to be irrelevant to my life and health. I have tried to improve my diet but failed. I take magnesium which seems to prevent leg cramps at night and I take a multivitamin in the possibly misguided hope that it will make up somewhat for the lack of vegetables. I'm 71 and in apparently good health so go figure.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

George Burns, a lifelong cigar smoker, lived to be 100 and did not die of cancer. Apparently, smoking is healthy.

 

[OldShooter]

Studies of the affect of supplements on, for example, human longevity would take a century or more to complete. In the mean time animal studies are the only viable option, and common test subjects like rodents are different from humans in some important ways.

That said, here is one test of a nutrient cocktail that extended the life of mice:

“A Complex Dietary Supplement Extends Longevity of Mice”
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Dietary_Supplement_Extends_Longevity_of_Mice

In other words, you don't know of any either.

I would bet serious money that the manufacturers of multivitamins have funded multiple studies looking for something that would let them make scientifically grounded claims for their products. There is too much money at stake here for that to not have happened. Since apparently no results have been published, it is highly probable that no advantages have been found.

 

[RAE]

I do tons of research on NIH and other medical research sites before I take a supplement to make sure of proven benefits.

Yes, same here. I don't take a multivitamin, because there are things in most multivitamins that I don't want/don't need. However, I do take about 5 supplements, and they are things that I believe may be helpful in some way. Just to cite two examples: many people have a blood level of Vitamin D below 30 ng/mL, which is the minimum level used by most labs. When DW first had her Vit. D tested, she was at 18 ng/mL, which is way too low (and probably why the broken bone in her leg took months and months to even begin to start to heal). Another example is magnesium. Many of us don't get the magnesium we need from diet/water anymore, because the water we drink these days has very little magnesium (as opposed to spring water, for example). So I take a magnesium supplement to insure that I'm getting enough.

If we all lived like our hunter/gatherer ancestors, spent a lot of time each day out in the sun, and ate real food 100% of the time, then I would agree with you that supplements would probably not be necessary for the vast majority of us. But that's not reality - many of us work and live mostly indoors, the veggies we eat are often deficient in vitamins/minerals (because of the soil they're grown in, or the time between when they're harvested and when we actually consume them), we eat too much processed food that is devoid of most nutrients, etc..

I think you have to consider all of these things (and more) before you just reject all supplements as being useless. And by the way, I could cite a lot of studies (peer reviewed, published studies) that document the health benefits (in terms of reduced incidence of cancer, etc) of several supplements that I take. There are also studies, as folks have mentioned in this thread, that found the opposite. So, it's up to each one of us to do our research and make our own determination as to what is best for us.

 

[razztazz]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

George Burns, a lifelong cigar smoker, lived to be 100 and did not die of cancer. Apparently, smoking is healthy.

It's not an anecdote. It's a data point. Or, it is an anecdote and a data point. One does not discount the other.

"Apparently smoking is healthy," is not a conclusion driven by the data. Or anecdote. It might call into question the extent or predictability of tobacco's deleterious effects, but that's all.

NOTE: G Burns actually had a multi bypass at age 79 without which he wouldn't have lived to 100.

 

[Cessna152]

In other words, you don't know of any either.

I would bet serious money that the manufacturers of multivitamins have funded multiple studies looking for something that would let them make scientifically grounded claims for their products. There is too much money at stake here for that to not have happened. Since apparently no results have been published, it is highly probable that no advantages have been found.

I've seen your claim of greed or self-interest getting in the way of truth on just about every group involved (my own summaries of what I've seen on the Internet):

• "Pharmaceutical companies trash-talk supplements because they compete with their expensive drugs."
• "Doctors trash-talk supplements because they act as shills for pharmaceutical drugs. Opiods, anyone?"
• "Supplement manufacturers make bogus claims or fund slanted studies to line their pockets. Billions in sales are at stake."
• "People consume supplements as a cheap but dangerous and ineffective way to avoid or cure health problems that could be addressed with expensive (but effective) medical procedures and pharmaceutical drugs. Basically they are greedy, lazy, and ignorant patients."

 

[UtahSkier]

>> I would bet serious money that the manufacturers of multivitamins have funded multiple studies looking for something that would let them make scientifically grounded claims for their products

Interesting bet. There are no patent protections for multivitamins or supplements like VitD. So, you would spend serious money helping someone else make scientifically grounded claims. The manufacturers would never recover their expense.

A drug company spends billions on R&D and clinical studies. Once approved, the company has a patent protected monopoly for 15-17 years. Everyone is complaining about high drug prices.

No one is complaining about high supplement prices.

 

[samclem]

I take a mutivitamin and a few other supplements. There's some good research on what humans need for optimal health, or even just to avoid an identified deficiency, and it would take more research than I'm willing to do to assure it is all present in my normal diet. A multivitamin costs less than a dime per day, add some other bits and I might be up to 20 cents. That seems pretty cheap to me.


Over the period of our evolution, humans have developed some very specific nutritional requirements (largely because we lost the ability to synthesize some things that most other animals can still make on their own--Vitamin C is a good example). A mouse or a horse can get along just fine on a very simple diet, humans are quite different.


Regarding "eating a natural diet:" That's a fine thing. But over the vast majority of human existence, we've had an expected lifespan of about 30-35 years, 40 YO was very exceptional. There has been no evolutionary pressure to live longer than that, which is why we get so many diseases in old age (most cancers, cardiovascular disease, lots of debilitating joint diseases, general senescence, etc). It is entirely "unnatural" for a member of our species to live to be 70-80 YO. If we want to do that, and we want to remain healthy in those later years, we need to recognize that we've gone well beyond the "natural" limits or our biology, and I'm welcoming any assistance from nutritional science in that regard.

 

[UtahSkier]

And what is a supplement after all?

A few posts earlier, I referred to green tea as a supplement. It is a food like item that I consumed specifically to get the alleged benefits from the anti-oxidants contained in tea.

And right now, I am consuming a 1/4 bar of vitamin 100% dark chocolate... a supplement I take nearly every day.

But, I know what some of you are thinking. "But Mr Skier, there are no major mass studies proving the health benefits of consuming 100% dark chocolate!" And that claim would be correct.

But, there is enough evidence around that the various polyphenols and anti-oxidants contained within 100% dark Chocolate might have a positive, long term effect on my health.

And animal studies are worthless. The dark chocolate I enjoy will kill my dogs.

So, I will continue risking the unknown and throwing my money away consuming Vitamin 100% dark chocolate (absolutely no sugar... that stuff will kill you).

For those who are inclined to consume supplements, I highly recommend Ghirardelli's 100% premium baking chocolate.

 

[UtahSkier]

And one more issue about natural food versus supplements.

Back when I first became interesting in better health through nutrition, I used to consume the "healthiest" food available... Orange juice.

Well, I now know that OJ is among the unhealthiest foods I ever consumed. The amount of sugar (specifically fructose) is a danger to everyone.

When I feel the need for vitamin C, I skip the sugar timebomb known as "Fresh Squeezed, not from concentrate, OJ" and go directly to a sugar free Vit C tablet.

 

[6miths]

Or one could eat an orange, tomatoes, strawberries, peppers, limes, peas, grapefruit, broccoli, mango, asparagus and countless other things and get all the benefits that go with those foods. But yes definitely better to 'just take a pill'. Maybe wash it down with some Kool-Aid. Apologies there I go again.
P.S. And having an 8 ounce glass of freshly squeezed high pulp OJ once in a while isn't the end of the world - drinking the carton or making it Tang is a potential problem.

 

[OldShooter]

I've seen your claim of greed or self-interest getting in the way of truth on just about every group involved (my own summaries of what I've seen on the Internet):

• "Pharmaceutical companies trash-talk supplements because they compete with their expensive drugs."
• "Doctors trash-talk supplements because they act as shills for pharmaceutical drugs. Opiods, anyone?"
• "Supplement manufacturers make bogus claims or fund slanted studies to line their pockets. Billions in sales are at stake."
• "People consume supplements as a cheap but dangerous and ineffective way to avoid or cure health problems that could be addressed with expensive (but effective) medical procedures and pharmaceutical drugs. Basically they are greedy, lazy, and ignorant patients."

Not sure what your point is. People can be expected to act in their own self-interest. In essence, that is the basis of capitalism. If you don't expect that and allow for it, you are living in a dream world.

As far as the pejorative "greed" I don't recall that I have used that word though certainly there are cases where it applies. We are seeing this most recently as the national spotlight has begun to shine on drug companies. But certainly the LIBOR rigging fell into that category too.

But back to my point: Do you think that manufacturers of multivitamins have not commissioned scientific studies? Do you think that if they had studies with negative results they would have publicized those results? I'm not at all sure what you're annoyed about.

 

[6miths]

Manufacturers of supplements and drugs definitely have funded studies (as have independent bodies). They definitely have withheld studies with negative (and harmful) effects. They have also suppressed results of studies that they were involved in funding but which were meant to be run by independent bodies. One of the goals of the Cochrane Collaboration was to have a 'trial registry' so that studies could not be 'buried'. Manufacturers have fought long and hard to keep 'their' trial data secret and only release that which presents a positive light. When trials are grouped by who funded/published them v outcome the results are pretty uniform in showing that those from manufacturers are more positive than those from independent bodies. There are many biases in the medical literature - some of them relatively innocent and others not nearly so.

Your use of the financial industry is a good analogy - many seed funds that are quietly killed off or merged while those that have acceptable returns are promoted. Greed may be good but it surely isn't great.

 

[LRDave]

Wow...I think we've found the new(latest) "Should I pay the mortgage off early or not?" topic....

 

[mamadogmamacat]

LOL, LRDave is the winner for best post on this thread.

All humor aside, the comments on blood tests for vitamin D are to my mind, the most important comments. I had a forward thinking endocrinologist for years (now retired) who recommended a vit D blood test back when i was 35. it was 28, way too low. For me, it takes 5000 IU of supplement daily to bring me to the high 40's consistently year to year.
i find this as the best way to improve both calcium uptake to my bones (i only obtain calcium from diet as i agree supplements are not absorbed well, even with taking vit D) as well as overall energy improvement

 

[davebarnes]

I take magnesium. One pill every other day.
My nightly leg cramps have been reduced by 90%.
I am willing to "blow that dough".

 

[MRG]

I do take niacin, 1500mg daily. An ENT suggested to take it, he didn't think my inner ear was self leveling properly. My dizziness is much better for it. He did say there was a prescription to do the same thing but niacin worked almost as well. He is a DO.

 

[Cessna152]

Not sure what your point is.

Two points:
(1) Determination of validity of a claim based on the claimer's motivation is a logical fallacy ("appeal to motive".)

People can be expected to act in their own self-interest. In essence, that is the basis of capitalism. If you don't expect that and allow for it, you are living in a dream world.

[2] Applying "appeal to motive" to only supplement makers and not to, for example, doctors, is a case of employing special pleading.

The scientific method is one mechanism that was designed bypass the quagmire of examining motivations. Run tests to replicate the claims.

As far as the pejorative "greed" I don't recall that I have used that word though certainly there are cases where it applies. We are seeing this most recently as the national spotlight has begun to shine on drug companies. But certainly the LIBOR rigging fell into that category too.

But back to my point: Do you think that manufacturers of multivitamins have not commissioned scientific studies? Do you think that if they had studies with negative results they would have publicized those results? I'm not at all sure what you're annoyed about.

I know of only a couple cases where OTC supplement makers have commissioned studies. They rarely do because the results aid their competition as much as themselves. I would not expect negative results to be published, but agreements between the sponsor (supplement maker) and the investigators (e.g. university researchers) have been written that allow the investigators freedom to publish whatever they see fit. (Here is one example I know of an open-label study of a supplement I had considered suggesting to a relative who had a stroke: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00719953 and abstract on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22432687)

Since you're wondering, use of logical fallacies on important subjects annoys me. I had to suppress myself when the poster claiming to be a doctor employed argument from authority - if I wrote what came to mind I'd probably be banned for "extreme belligerence" since this is allegedly a "clean" forum. He also couldn't be bothered to look further into the supplement at fault in his anecdote, thus throwing away useful information (my understanding is that the FDA has an Adverse Event Reporting system for just this sort of thing.)

 

[OldShooter]

Two points:
(1) Determination of validity of a claim based on the claimer's motivation is a logical fallacy ("appeal to motive".)
[2] Applying "appeal to motive" to only supplement makers and not to, for example, doctors, is a case of employing special pleading.

The scientific method is one mechanism that was designed bypass the quagmire of examining motivations. Run tests to replicate the claims.
I know of only a couple cases where OTC supplement makers have commissioned studies. They rarely do because the results aid their competition as much as themselves. I would not expect negative results to be published, but agreements between the sponsor (supplement maker) and the investigators (e.g. university researchers) have been written that allow the investigators freedom to publish whatever they see fit. (Here is one example I know of an open-label study of a supplement I had considered suggesting to a relative who had a stroke: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00719953 and abstract on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22432687)

Since you're wondering, use of logical fallacies on important subjects annoys me. I had to suppress myself when the poster claiming to be a doctor employed argument from authority - if I wrote what came to mind I'd probably be banned for "extreme belligerence" since this is allegedly a "clean" forum. He also couldn't be bothered to look further into the supplement at fault in his anecdote, thus throwing away useful information (my understanding is that the FDA has an Adverse Event Reporting system for just this sort of thing.)

Wow. I won't waste any more time trying to discuss this with you. More dust and chaff than I am interested in dealing with and any attempt will certainly produce more. Have a good evening.

 

[Winemaker]

I have literally eaten no vegetables for my entire life with the exception of salads. When I say no vegetables I am not really stretching the facts - I have tasted some and occasionally get a little bit in an egg roll or something but the total amount is so small as to be irrelevant to my life and health. I have tried to improve my diet but failed. I take magnesium which seems to prevent leg cramps at night and I take a multivitamin in the possibly misguided hope that it will make up somewhat for the lack of vegetables. I'm 71 and in apparently good health so go figure.

I'm in the other camp; I can't stand fresh or canned fruit. I'll eat anything made from it, especially wine , but never fresh. I have two apple trees but use them in cooking.

 

[joeea]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I like that!

 

[tmm99]

I do take niacin, 1500mg daily. An ENT suggested to take it, he didn't think my inner ear was self leveling properly. My dizziness is much better for it. He did say there was a prescription to do the same thing but niacin worked almost as well. He is a DO.

Wow! I had no idea :-o

 

[Rianne]

Two points:
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00719953 and abstract on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22432687)

"METHODS:

Thirty participants received three capsules of the nutritional supplement per day for 12 weeks in an open label study. Efficacy and safety measures, assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 12 weeks of treatment, included cognitive evaluation using a computerized cognitive assessment tool, vital signs measurements, and physical examination."

30 participants, 26 completed the study because 4 had adverse side effects. 13% had adverse side effects. When results of studies state %'s of positive or negative results, I often wonder how many people were in the study. If 100,000 people were in that study and 13,000 people had adverse side effects...I'd be concerned. My takeaway, what works for you may not work for me. Every body is different, genes, DNA, bodily functions and activities.

My DH can remember the names of actors in a movie, people he just met, names of old movies, every frick'in baseball player in the Cardinal's baseball team since he was a boy (50 years). He takes no supplements. Does that mean supplements have no effect on memory?
My point the benefits of supplements are a matter of opinion. That opinion depends on your specific experience with the supplement. I personally do not have faith in supplements b/c 1. They are not regulated. 2. We do not know what they put in supplements. Similar to food labeling "all natural" on the processed food label.