Popular vitamin supplements taken by millions of people in the hope of improving their health may do no good and could increase the risk of a premature death, researchers report today.
They warn healthy people who take antioxidant supplements, including vitamins A and E, to try to keep diseases such as cancer at bay that they are interfering with their natural body defences and may be increasing their risk of an early death by up to 16 per cent.
Researchers at Copenhagen University carried out a review of 67 studies on 230,000 healthy people and found "no convincing evidence" that any of the antioxidants helped to prolong life expectancy. But some "increased mortality".
About 12 million Britons supplement their diets with vitamins and the industry is worth �330 million. But little research has been done on the long-term health implications.
The Department of Health said yesterday that people should try to get the vitamins they need by eating a balanced diet and advised care in taking large doses of supplements.
A spokesman said: "There is a need to exercise caution in the use of high doses of purified supplements of vitamins, including antioxidant vitamins, and minerals. Their impact on long-term health may not have been fully established and they cannot be assumed to be without risk.
"Anyone concerned about their diet should speak to their doctor or dietitian."
Antioxidants, including vitamins A, E, C and beta-carotene and selenium, are said to mop up compounds, called free radicals, which cause disease. It is this action that researchers believe may cause problems with the defence system.
The Danish research, released by the influential Cochrane Library, applied only to synthetic supplements and not to vitamins that occur naturally in vegetables and fruit.
It found that vitamin A supplements increased the risk of death in healthy people by 16 per cent. Taking beta-carotene was linked to a 7 per cent increased risk, while regular users of vitamin E supplements increased the risk of an early death by four per cent.
Although the review found no significant detrimental effect caused by vitamin C, it found no evidence that it helped ward off disease. Millions take it in the hope of avoiding a common cold.
Goran Bjelakovic, who led the review, said: "We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases.
"If anything, people in trial groups given the antioxidants beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality."
But Patrick Holford, a nutritionist who has formulated supplements for the company Biocare, said: "Antioxidants are not meant to be magic bullets and should not be expected to undo a lifetime of unhealthy habits.
"When used properly, in combination with a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking, antioxidant supplements can play an important role in maintaining and promoting overall health."
A spokesman for the Health Supplements Information Service said: "People should get all the vitamins and minerals they need from their diet, but for the millions who are not able to do that, vitamins can be a useful supplement and they should not stop taking them."
However, Catherine Collins, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "This study is deeply worrying and shows that there should be more regulation for vitamins and minerals.
"The public can buy vitamins as easily as sweets. They should be treated in the same way as paracetamol with maximum limits on the dosage."
Perhaps if you are going to post this review you should post information about the people or organizations that did the study. Perhaps you should post the actual study so we can read and determine for ourselves if it is a significant piece of work.
Perhaps we should also find out what kind of vitamins these people took. Were there any consideration for quality and dosage? or were half of them on Centrum Silver and One A Day? Did these people take vitamins and continue to smoke and eat port every day? Were they chronically ill and trying to rely on vitamins to cure them? Did they exercise?
What were the criteria for selection and inclusion in their meta-analysis? Exactly what population groups were contained in this study?
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Arrow, this is all over our news today. It's headlines on TV and newspapers!
Boss gave a link to his source of the story. It may be possible to find more, with deeper digging.
However, when examining the study, a number of key points come to light. The study itself is a meta-analysis, which means that the results of several studies in related fields are combined using statistics to draw an overall conclusion. By their very nature, meta-analyses require a selection process to decide which studies to include in their review.
This meta-analysis only evaluated what are called randomised controlled trials, where patients are put in 2 monitored groups and given either a tablet or a dummy-pill. The study failed to include any of the vast body of long term observational studies that also exist, so the evidence base is very limited.
In addition, the researchers identified 748 studies that met their criteria but they excluded 681 of them, so their results are based on less than nine per cent of the available evidence. What’s more, they specifically excluded any trials in which no deaths were reported (405 articles). This raises the question, how one can properly evaluate whether a substance can prevent mortality when studies that demonstrate no harm are automatically excluded?
The authors also chose not to eliminate deaths due to other circumstances such as accidents, medical conditions and suicides. They chose instead to assume that all the deaths that occurred in any of the studies were attributable to the antioxidant supplements. This is particularly ironic since many of the studies involved groups of people with a variety of health issues, not just those who were healthy. In fact, if a true mortality risk were to have become apparent in any of the original studies, they would have been halted. Interestingly, none were.
In addition, the studies they did select covered a vast range of different nutrients, doses, populations, and durations. This makes it very difficult to effectively combine the evidence and draw proper conclusions. As the saying goes, it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Some of the studies also included extremely high doses of supplements, far in excess of the Tolerable Upper Limit specified by the Institute of Medicine and many used synthetic forms of nutrients. This may have significantly skewed the overall results. Higher Nature as a company make a concerted effort to use natural or True Food forms of nutrients, as they would be found in foods. We also make sure the levels of all our nutrients are safe by never exceeding the levels set out by the Food Standards Agency and consulting with our 2 medical doctors whenever we make a new product.
Overall, it would seem that the negative results found by this review occurred because all the positive studies using safe levels of supplements were excluded. Consequently, the basis for exclusion has been heavily criticized. Dr Balz Frei, Director of the Linus Pauling Institute, one of the world’s leading institutes that studies the possible health value of vitamins and micronutrients, has said: “This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise.”
The authors appear to be using their study as a campaign for greater regulation of supplements, yet their study makes no references to any of the regulatory procedures already in place. New Posted by Holly Taylor on April 16, 2008 4:03 PM
Report this comment
Was the research into vitamins sponsored by a drug company. If it was, then of course they will find against vitamins/minerals. See a Naturopath for specific advice on supplementation. Posted by Christopher Menzies-Trull on April 16, 2008 4:02 PM
Just for the Record here's what some folks think about this study:
The 'number crunchers' in Denmark like so many epidemiologists who want to make headlines have collected up all the hundreds of 'studies' that have been done in past on vitamins, and come up with the wild idea that they can shorten your life. First question: how many of these hundreds of so-called trials were sponsored by drug companies with a vested interest in stopping people looking after their own health? Most of them I suspect. It is another example of the 'police state' trying to rule our lives.
Posted by luckytomm on April 16, 2008 4:09 PM
Report this comment
Antioxidants For Health?
(Re: Can vitamin pills increase the risk of early death?)
Antioxidants have long been recognised for their protective properties against damaging free radicals and the health problems they cause. Consequently, a recently published controversial study examining the effect of antioxidants on prevention of mortality has been the focus of much attention in the media, making the BBC Breakfast News and the front page of the Daily Telegraph. The authors of the study concluded that �there is no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention of mortality and that vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may in fact increase mortality�.
However, when examining the study, a number of key points come to light. The study itself is a meta-analysis, which means that the results of several studies in related fields are combined using statistics to draw an overall conclusion. By their very nature, meta-analyses require a selection process to decide which studies to include in their review.
This meta-analysis only evaluated what are called randomised controlled trials, where patients are put in 2 monitored groups and given either a tablet or a dummy-pill. The study failed to include any of the vast body of long term observational studies that also exist, so the evidence base is very limited.
In addition, the researchers identified 748 studies that met their criteria but they excluded 681 of them, so their results are based on less than nine per cent of the available evidence. What�s more, they specifically excluded any trials in which no deaths were reported (405 articles). This raises the question, how one can properly evaluate whether a substance can prevent mortality when studies that demonstrate no harm are automatically excluded?
The authors also chose not to eliminate deaths due to other circumstances such as accidents, medical conditions and suicides. They chose instead to assume that all the deaths that occurred in any of the studies were attributable to the antioxidant supplements. This is particularly ironic since many of the studies involved groups of people with a variety of health issues, not just those who were healthy. In fact, if a true mortality risk were to have become apparent in any of the original studies, they would have been halted. Interestingly, none were.
In addition, the studies they did select covered a vast range of different nutrients, doses, populations, and durations. This makes it very difficult to effectively combine the evidence and draw proper conclusions. As the saying goes, it�s like comparing apples to oranges.
Some of the studies also included extremely high doses of supplements, far in excess of the Tolerable Upper Limit specified by the Institute of Medicine and many used synthetic forms of nutrients. This may have significantly skewed the overall results. Higher Nature as a company make a concerted effort to use natural or True Food forms of nutrients, as they would be found in foods. We also make sure the levels of all our nutrients are safe by never exceeding the levels set out by the Food Standards Agency and consulting with our 2 medical doctors whenever we make a new product.
Overall, it would seem that the negative results found by this review occurred because all the positive studies using safe levels of supplements were excluded. Consequently, the basis for exclusion has been heavily criticized. Dr Balz Frei, Director of the Linus Pauling Institute, one of the world�s leading institutes that studies the possible health value of vitamins and micronutrients, has said: �This is a flawed analysis of flawed data, and it does little to help us understand the real health effects of antioxidants, whether beneficial or otherwise.�
The authors appear to be using their study as a campaign for greater regulation of supplements, yet their study makes no references to any of the regulatory procedures already in place. New
Posted by Holly Taylor on April 16, 2008 4:03 PM
Report this comment
Was the research into vitamins sponsored by a drug company. If it was, then of course they will find against vitamins/minerals. See a Naturopath for specific advice on supplementation.
Posted by Christopher Menzies-Trull on April 16, 2008 4:02 PM
Report this comment
Why do experts want to chip away at rights we have; can't they just say there are some peple that drnk to much eat too much and take the too much vit. A, K, etc, rather than grouping everyone into one lot ...if you aren't informed about the stuff you put in your mouth who should you whine to; the mirror sweetheart, the mirror.
Posted by Sandra Dianne Evans on April 16, 2008 3:57 PM
Report this comment
This study should detail exactly what types of ailments, if any, were common among the early death group. For all we know they could have died from causes uncorrelated to the vitamin usage.
This article assumes that we are deluded enough to think that we can pop a vitamin pill in our mouth, wash it down with a glass of Absolut and puff away a pack of Marlboro Reds and believe that we are fit enough to swim the English Channel.
To the contrary, we find ourselves eating more and more fried or processed foods that have lost all of their vital nutrients. These are the cases where vitamin supplements are essential.
Posted by Philadelphian on April 16, 2008 3:21 PM
Report this comment
"the balance we require is the balance of vitamins and minerals within the food we eat." James MSc
What balance would that be James? I live on crisps, coke and mcdonalds. Balance of vitamins required? Nil.
Your analysis is remarkably unscientific for a Msc holder James.
The old chesnut of the "balanced diet" is a load of tosh. Remember the food group "Dairy products"? I wonder who added that group and why? Something to do with supporting the dairy industry no doubt.
Our ancestors didnt grow up on dairy products or eating refined grains like we do. They only had access to wholegrains and uncontaminated organic meats, fruits and veggies.
Posted by Sir Christophe Silk OBE on April 16, 2008 3:17 PM
Report this comment
This "research" reminds me, particularly, of two cases I have come across:
Two students, on the look out for a research grant, searched (almost dandomly)for anything that had not yet been "proved", found something with sensationalist overtones, and, with easily bent statistics, "proved" it, with the help of the grant.
The other (almost more sinister) was of a small politically militant group who worked out that a certain type of medication was extremely expensive. It benefitted only the rich. With rather crude maths they worked out that debunking this treatment, there would be available $X more for cheap medicines for the Third World, and they carried out a slanted study to undermine confidence in the product.
Even if funds were so easily deviated the use of false research is unethical.
Posted by Edward Pearson on April 16, 2008 3:04 PM
Report this comment
Since there is no way of actually knowing when a person would have died anyway, these comparison studies are ridiculous.
Posted by Doug on April 16, 2008 2:42 PM
Report this comment
I have never ever taken dietary supplements.
But, I have smoked twenty-a-day for the last sixty-five years, and I'm still fit and active despite all the zealous profit-seeking doom-mongers.
The biggest danger comes from our lawmakers reading this rubbish without question, and creating yet more unnecessary laws.
Posted by Tony Collins on April 16, 2008 2:36 PM
Report this comment
Did anyone spot the contradiction in this report? Here it is...
"no convincing evidence" that any of the antioxidants helped to prolong life expectancy".
"little research has been done on the long-term health implications"
Question: So if little research has been done, long-term, how can we conclude what the effect of vitamins are long-term?
Answer: We cant.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Posted by Sir Christophe Kilroy Silk on April 16, 2008 2:29 PM
Report this comment
Sixteen per cent of what, precisely?
116% of sweet FA (and sweet FA is, I rather think, what we are considering here) is still pretty much sweet FA, no matter which way you look at it (take passive smoking, for example).
Hardly a day goes by without a fresh example of this alarmist cr*p. It strikes me there are a lot of people out there masquerading as respectable scientists who need to get proper jobs.
Posted by David Walker on April 16, 2008 2:24 PM
Report this comment
It's a shame that the Daily Telegraph falls well below its usual high standards of reporting on this matter when it publishes a biased extract from a much flawed piece of 'research' as a banner headline on the front page, but manages to hide a story from a drug giant that kills its patients in the interests of research on the bottom of page 14. Shame on you for being taken in by the drug cartels!
Posted by Tom Moses on April 16, 2008 2:21 PM
Report this comment
Isn't it funny how they do not list the dosage that these people with the shortened life expectancy took. Maybe they were taking way too much. Or maybe they also smoked 15 packs of cigarettes a day or were grossly obese. One cannot make a judgment call on vitamins without knowing all the parameters of the study.
Posted by Kerri S. on April 16, 2008 2:18 PM
Report this comment
Many of the people who take vitamin supplements do so because they KNOW that they and/or their lifestyle are unhealthy. That has to be skewing the results!
Nevertheless I don't think I would go to "a spokesman for the Health Supplements Information Service" for advice on whether or not to take them: never ask a barber...
Posted by Rosemary on April 16, 2008 2:11 PM
Report this comment
What is it with the Telegraph lately? Nearly every day you come up with a new Health Scare story. Everyday things will kill us if we either start using them or stop using them. As my seventy-fifth year approaches I find it more and more difficult to take this nonsense seriously. Please leave the rubbish stories to the red-tops.
Posted by Richard Birkbeck on April 16, 2008 1:37 PM
Report this comment
After a bit of research on the internet it appears that there may be some fundamental errors in the report.
link
It appears that this report has been around for a couple of months already and it is interesting that the press are only just now picking up on it. To paraphrase some of the key points which suggest it may be quite flawed:-
1. Two large studies that fit the criteria used by the Danish scientists were excluded. These studies were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in the USA and The Lancet. If they had been included none of the reported effects in mortality would be significant.
2. The mean duration of the selected trials was 2.7 years - are we really saying that these things are going to kill you in less than three years?
3. Most trials used included other dietry supplements and pharmaceutical drugs which could all interfere or mask the effects that can be attributed to the antioxidents.
4. And finally, but just as importantly, the causes of death in the trials were not even considered!! These could include accidents or other causes that have nothing to do with diet or oxidative stress.
In short the whole report looks statistically very dubious even though the experts views above are from the Linus Pauling Institute which does have its own interest in promoting nutritional supplementation.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
This story comes up every six months or so, so it does not say anything new, other than to tell us that another researcher at another University has decided to write a dissertation on this subject. The truth is that in the same way as we need a balanced diet, the balance we require is the balance of vitamins and minerals within the food we eat. Taking pills can only disrupt that balance, and many unknown compounds found in our fruit and veg are probably responsible for helping our bodies utilize the vitamins. These are niot found in the supplements. As previous articles have pointed out, most pills are just sent straight through us, at best with no effect. As anyone who knows anything about vitamins will tell you, Vitamin A overdosing is possible, therefore taaking a supplement of A,C and E is foolish. We only absorb up to 200 mg of Vit C a day, so taking supplements of that is foolish too, unless you eat nothing that day, in which case it is also foolish. Too much Iron is bad for you, so supplements should not be taken. An imbaalance of vitamins and minerals can disrupt what we already have, to a negative effect. Like the pharmaceutical business, most of these vitamin supplements exist for one purpose in mind, to make money, and nothing else.Therefore, they should be monitored becaause the health benefits really are rather dubious.
Posted by James G Gripper (MSc, Nutrition, physical activity and public health) on April 16, 2008 11:40 AM
Report this comment
Research of this type is of no use. It is absurd to expect people in this busy age to have the time to prepare healthy meals. And how much food would you have to consume to obtain your recommended doses? Since our lifestyle is so sedendary, we would all be obese if we ate the food necessary for our nutritional needs.
Our modern lifestyle dictates that we eat packaged or take-out food and that we eat as little as possible so as not to gain too much weight. So, if the supplements industry can provide the rest of our nutritional needs, they've won me as a loyal customer until the day I die...whether it is premature or not.
Posted by Barry, Canberra, Australia on April 16, 2008 11:35 AM
Report this comment
It's all very well to publish articles like this, but what on earth do statements like 'increase the chance of an early death by 16%' mean in terms that we can relate to?
What's the deinition of an early death anyway.
Posted by Nigel on April 16, 2008 11:17 AM
Report this comment
The article screams "Scare Campaign".
Nameless scientists reviewing many other studies and making sweeping unspecific statements. This is then further clouded by misreporting and a misleading headline.
Shame on the Telegraph.
Posted by Ashley on April 16, 2008 11:15 AM
Report this comment
"Catherine Collins, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "This study is deeply worrying and shows that there should be more regulation for vitamins and minerals" - ".
It more interestingly demonstrates either how gullible or self-serving certain (un)professional bodies can become in their rush for public recognition.
Ms Collins could be better advised to review the study scientifically - thereby debunking it or at least qualifying it, rather than demonstrating her less than cool professionalism ?
Posted by John Bull on April 16, 2008 11:06 AM
Report this comment
Chemical drugs are safe and make drug companies very rich. So please stop taking vitamins because they are loosing profits. Chemical is "good" natural is "bad"
Posted by james colton on April 16, 2008 11:04 AM
Report this comment
"Yawn". Here we go again, yet another proclamation by 'Researchers', 'Experts', 'Campaigners', 'Studies show', 'Tests reveal' etc.
Do we believe these? I don't.
All these pontifications are funded or paid for by someone wanting to prove something for their own ends, and we all know that you can prove anything at all if you want to.
In my opinion it's prostitution of science.
Posted by Tony Collins on April 16, 2008 11:03 AM
Report this comment
Why is the DT turning into the Daily Mail?
Health scare this; health scare that masquerading as front page NEWS?
I have been a reader of the DT for over 30 years but I am seriously considering changing.
This week you had as front page 'news' the scare story about breast cancer that you featured (on the front page) not three weeks ago.
"Drink a glass of wine and it's YOUR fault if you develop breast cancer" was the gist.
Leave this guilt inducing scare stories to the rags that already do it so well and please return to being a proper newspaper and not a conduit for Nu Labour propoganda.
Posted by Madeleine on April 16, 2008 10:57 AM
Report this comment
All the claims of "Up to" small percentage changes,and "could" increase the risk, or "may" do this , that or the other, remain meaningless gobbledegook.
On the face of it this published report on a seemingly dubious 'study' can be taken with a pinch of salt - not too much mind you, as this "Is known by the surgeon-general to have potential harmful effects" etc etc .
'Research' papers based on other people's studies must always be treated with suspicion, as should all statistical analysis.
Statistics is a branch of mathematics, more akin to politicians and accountants than medicine.
Medical people frequently publishing statistical papers should be suspected more of narcissism than medical scientific expertise.
For newspapers to reproduce silly publications before proper peer-review is simply scaremongering - something newspapers are quite expert at.
No doubt this same 'review' could 'clearly demonstrate' that elderly people more frequently die from natural causes than do teenagers !
Remember - "Regulation" equals more specialised packaging, equals much higher cost, equals a higher take for the Taxman, and very much less ease of use for the patient.
Does anyone remember how simple it used to be to prepare daily doses of paracetamol tablets from a 500 bottle, and how cheap ?
Now our arthritic fingers have to fight tooth and nail to get through the 'specialised packaging' - damaging both the contents and our finger-ends in the process !
Thank you all the do-gooder interfering bureaucrats - now push off and let me get on with separating a weeks worth of prescribed medications from their impervious wrappers , all of which only adds value to the bill for the NHS to pay, and volume for the landfill sites to dispose of.
Take your silly statistics and place them out of the sunshiny locations !
Posted by John Bull on April 16, 2008 10:56 AM
Report this comment
If what the scientists say was true, I should have been dead long time ago.... However, as a nutritional therapist I do know what I am doing and I treat supplements with 'respect'. Vitamins and minerals in excess doses can be toxic and dangerous. Hence, as Principal of BCNH - UK College of Nutrition & Health, I am against supplements being available to general public who may not be aware of potential side effects and safe doses.
In our view, vitamins (and other nutrients such as herbs) should be prescribed by fully qualified health professionals, such as nutritional therapists and herbalists, whom having had an extensive consultation with a client will a) ensure that clients are not overdosing on any nutrients b) check for any drug-nutrient interactions and c) ensure that all nutrients are in synergy and e) ensure they follow a healthy diet and lifestyle.
As for vitamins increasing mortality, I have not seen the review, so I am not sure what other factors may have been involved in the mortality rates of the specified groups and individuals.
Posted by breda gajsek on April 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Report this comment
If someone was taking Vitamin A supplements for say, ten years,and then stopped because of the research that seems to indicate those who take Vit A supplements have a 16% risk of premature death, would the negative effects stop immediately or is the damage already irreversible?
Posted by Question Mark on April 16, 2008 10:51 AM
Report this comment
Haha, they always say, "in combination with healthy diet and exercise". Heck, if we were doing all that, we wouldn't even look at vitamins. Minutes after the ink is dry on a "study" of 10 people eating loads of a particular veg, so-called nutritionists are peddling "extract of magic bullet". Then you find out these pills contain only random amounts of the snake oil du jour.
Posted by Skeptic Hawke on April 16, 2008 10:50 AM
Report this comment
1. There's no original research reported here. All the information reported was already published.
2. If the statement "vitamin A supplements (How much? Any amount?) increased the risk of death in healthy people by 16 per cent" (not 15% or 17%!) is an example of one of their conclusions then the general public should relax and await a possible demolition job on this study.
We've known for decades that fat soluble vitamins such as A and D are dangerous in large amounts though it's always been assumed that vitamin E cannot be absorbed in sufficient amounts to cause problems. However their statement begs so many questions that it's difficult to know where to start.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Last edited by Arrowwind09; 04-16-2008 at 08:43 AM.
And some more. Some very intelligent questions in these comments. I suspect this study is going to be ripped to shreds!
Posted by Alex Duggan on April 16, 2008 12:47 PM
Report this comment
j.Martin on April 16, 2008 9:40 AM
Try Indian Tonic Water ( as in Gin & Tonics )- its an oldie but often works. ( It's said to be the quinine which affects the cramps ).
With the Gin component it also enhances the "Feelgood Factor" if you don't overdo it :-)
Posted by John Bull on April 16, 2008 12:45 PM
Report this comment
What level of research, no matter how well conducted, could ever identify "increased mortality" through taking supplements, as opposed to all the other influencing factors in lifestyle?
Why is it relevant in this article to mention that �330 million is spent annually on supplements when the sum spent on allopathic medication dwarfs this figure, even though LITTLE RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE ON THE LONG-TERM HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF THESE MEDICINES?
Whilst I agree that people should try to get the vitamins they need by eating a balanced diet, many feel the need to supplement their diet because they are aware that we can no longer obtain the important minerals and vitamins we need because of depleted soils due to intensive farming practices. The methods of food storage and treatment to promote longevity on supermarket shelves, such as irradiation and harvesting of unripe products, add to the likelihood that the consumer is vastly short-changed on the vitamins and minerals front.
The reference to "interfering with ... natural body defences" I find laughable against a background of ever increasing vaccination which ensures that the the greater part of the body's defences are bypassed each and every time we undergo such treatment.
We still live in a country where each person is able to make a choice regarding whether they supplement or not but such choices should only be made with regard to accurate information and there is no need for any regulation of supplements, even though this is ideally what the pharmaceutical companies would love to see because they could then profit from treating an ever sicker population.
Posted by Peter Walton on April 16, 2008 12:38 PM
Report this comment
I look forward to next week's research disputing this not because I necessarily agree or disagree. As my grandfather (who died aged 92) -"all things in moderation".Overdosing on any vitamin/herbal medicine is detrimental- keep to the Recommended Daily amount
Posted by Arnold Robins on April 16, 2008 12:32 PM
Report this comment
There are methods of finding out exactly what the body is lacking, either with blood tests or with a non invasive, scientific based metabolic scanner, the CRSprevent or CRSmed, developed in Germany by a team of medical doctors and micro biologists. With the result, you can either change your diet to suit your body needs and maybe take just the supplements your body needs to balance you cell metabolism. This will help the body to help itself and to support a healthy lifestyle.
Posted by Isa Leitch on April 16, 2008 12:26 PM
Report this comment
Reading the comments I'm struck by how many people suspect that this report is just a ploy by pharmacutical companies, it cannot be trusted, etc. etc.
Yet many of those same people will happily take all manner of pills just because some smooth-talking bloke on the TV (who is often VERY well paid by the supplements industry) says so.
Very strange.
Posted by Chris K on April 16, 2008 12:24 PM
Report this comment
The figures they're getting on the early deaths probably have more to do with the fact that people who are developing serious medical problems will begin taking more vitamins to ward off symptoms and further illness. It is irresponsible for them to wave around numbers so loosely, without defining the sources for them all. Not good science.
Posted by Marie Zarankevich on April 16, 2008 12:23 PM
Report this comment
in related shocking news people with unhealthy eating habits (who also happen to take vitamins to try and compensate) have an increased risk of early death.
what news bunny picked this up from the wire...
Posted by Jack on April 16, 2008 12:22 PM
Report this comment
The last study on artifical vitamins and minerals I read gave proof positive that the human body rejects
approx. 97% of them so basically a waste of money. So how does this tally with the 'findings' of this article please? The couple of percent
we absorb must be pretty potent to possibly cause so much damage!
Posted by Kim Page on April 16, 2008 12:12 PM
Report this comment
"...review of 67 studies on 230,000 healthy
people..."
So, what were the criteria for selecting the
specific 67 studies for this meta analysis?
What were the criteria for "healthy?"
Maybe the criteria were simply self-fulfilling.
The article doesn't speak to the premises of the
individual and meta studies.
Posted by Geoff on April 16, 2008 11:56 AM
Report this comment
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Last edited by Arrowwind09; 04-16-2008 at 08:44 AM.
Really this is likely to go on forever but these comments do reflect IMHO some very good questions.
Posted by Chris K on April 16, 2008 7:58 AM
Report this comment
'Researchers at Copenhagen University carried out a review of 67 studies on 230,000 healthy people and found "no convincing evidence"'
So they read a bunch of other peoples' work and found no evidence. Maybe they should do their own research and come up with something more conclusive than "no convincing evidence".
Were these "researchers" first year undergraduates perchance?
Posted by Alex on April 16, 2008 7:55 AM
Report this comment
Just about all the research that makes its way into the media has dubious funding. Even if there is truth in this (which on some levels I strongly doubt), there are far, far more worrying chemicals in the food chain. What about MSG & ASPARTAME - why don't you tell the REAL story of those disgusting additive? What about fructose syrup that causes obesity and in in almost all processed foods and drinks? And, this talks about affecting the natural defence system - what an earth do you think pharmaceutical 'drugs' do? Do you think chemotheraphy & cancer drugs actually cures cancer? They do not! They just block its progress because 'they' don't want to eliminate the mold and acid from the body (who funded this research, I have to wonder).
Posted by edi on April 16, 2008 7:55 AM
Report this comment
Of course you could just argue that the people most likely to believe they need vitamins are those who are not so healthy in the first place and would probably die earlier anyway.
Posted by Adam on April 16, 2008 7:54 AM
Report this comment
What do you mean, 'increased the risk of death'? Your risk of death is 100%, same as it's always been!
Posted by Christa on April 16, 2008 7:39 AM
Report this comment
It's not rocket science. Humans have been getting by for literally millions of years in one form or another. We still have many tribes in parts of the world who just live on sago and river water who still live a relatively long life.
To me it's common sense that flooding your body with vitamins and minerals, those found in a regular moderated diet, can only be detrimental. Just like these micro biotic yogurts. The delicate balance of our physical make up, right down to the little microbes and organisms that live within us has taken all those years to evolve into a symbioticically stable relationship. Taking supplements can only put that out of balance.
Still, the drug companies have done well out of it. Seen the price of their shares or been privy to their shareholders dividends recently?
When are humans going to realise that we live and die, it's inescapable? Time is better spent understanding and preparing, than on pills and potions.
Posted by K.Evans on April 16, 2008 7:17 AM
Report this comment
"When used properly, in combination with a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking, antioxidant supplements can play an important role in maintaining and promoting overall health."
Wow. Mr Holford. What "important role", sir? I say if one sticks to "a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables", gets "plenty of exercise" and doesn't smoke, they don't need your pills, thank you!
Posted by Tomasz Stramel on April 16, 2008 7:14 AM
Report this comment
This article is a textbook case in misleading reporting. What it boils down to is that if you have a proper diet, some moderate use of some supplements can be beneficial. Perfectly reasonable. Overdo it? It can be counterproductive. Isn't that amazing?
Posted by James Loftus on April 16, 2008 6:53 AM
Report this comment
The first thing to say is - don't worry! There will be another report along soon contradicting this one. If I had believed all the food and medical scare stories that I have read over the last 60 years I would have been bouncing all over the place eating or not eating various foods and taking or not taking different pills and potions, changing on almost a daily basis.
One of the most useful pieces of advice I was ever given was "Moderation in everything, including moderation" So now I'm off for a light breakfast and my daily multivitamin and mineral tablet!
Posted by Philip on April 16, 2008 6:52 AM
Report this comment
I wonder if this research was funded by the pharmaceutical industry?
Posted by G Anderton on April 16, 2008 6:02 AM
Report this comment
if we listened to research about whats bad for us we wouldnt be able to eat anything, drink anything, or even simply exhist breathing the polluted air is bad for us, i think more energy should be put into stopping the food industry playing about with our food and cross breeding out all the vitamins in our food in favour of longevity and appearance then we wouldnt need to take suppliments or eat so much fruit and vegetables. for example i bought a punnet of strawberrys from a popular supermarket which were quite large in size and i read the label and found that to get 1 of my 5 a day i think it said i had to eat 10 strawberrys and found there wasnt even 10 in the full punnet, am i supposed to spend the full day preparing and eating my fruit and veg and eat nothing but???
Posted by craig on April 16, 2008 5:58 AM
Report this comment
I regret to say it; but there is a good argument for warning messages, or even regulation, governing vitamins and trace element food supplements. There are two reasons: firstly, the sellers of these are making and unsubstantiated claims about their effect on health; and secondly, as this article points out, there may cause actual harm.
.....
If there is an element of truth in this report.....what about the modifying of "natural" foods at source e.g. Genetically Modified Foods ?? Which must by their nature increase 'artificially' various aspects of natural food.
Posted by pedro smith on April 16, 2008 5:34 AM
Report this comment
Some years ago I read that certain cancers were
more prevelent in areas of the globe that had low
selenium deposits in the soil and that when UK
switched more towards European wheat rather
than American wheat, our diet was deficient in
selenium.
I believe Finland was so concerned about their
low levels of selenium that it was added to their
national fertilizer.
So if we are all taking too many antioxidants and
vitamins, what about all the products with added
vitamins and of course the good old cuppa tea.
Posted by Baz C. on April 16, 2008 5:28 AM
Report this comment
Posted by jake on April 16, 2008 1:25 PM
Report this comment
Isn't this the study that excluded 430 relevant
studies from it's research on longevity because
nobody died during them?
Modern medicine is all about making money
from expensive drugs. Anything that reduces the
need for expensive drugs is under fire from the
vested interests. drug companies even create
new markets by encouraging poor healthcare and
diet.
Posted by Thalia on April 16, 2008 1:03 PM
Report this comment
I am 73 old, and when I came to live in Cambridgshire in 1990, I decided to have a wellman examination privete, The Lady Dr amonst other things, told me to take vit C, as
Calcium Ascorbate, and 800 iu of Vit E.I have not missed a Day, and I Feel fine, And I had Problems when I first went to see her, and she put me right, She was not An alternative
Medicine Docter, I wonder if the people on the Trials had been taken them as long as Ive Been, Thank You,
They can Speak to me Any time.
Posted by Mr Terence Bishop on April 16, 2008 12:50 PM
Report this comment
James G Gripper (MSc, Nutrition, physical activity and public health)
Sloppy reporting here - there is no statement of the absolute risk. The study shows that vitimins increase risk of mortality by 16%, but from what to what? From 1 in a billion to 1.16 in a billion? We need to know the absolute risk as well as the relative risk.
This is basic science journalism - if the press release doesn't give the absolute risk, then it should be the *first* question a reporter asks the scientists. I suggest those involved read the Royal Society guidelines for reporting risk .
If it is not safe to take natural vitamins to aid our health, in fear they alter our defence system. Is it safe to take man made products which do the same?
Posted by Lorr on April 16, 2008 8:54 AM
Report this comment
Hi,
I disagree vitamin A and D can be toxic therefore vitamin C and E is a matter of discussion. The study mentioned did not take the combination of vitamins and smorebrot in question. Linus Carl Pauling proposed the theory high dose vitamin C as a cure for cancer. High dose vitamin C is medically interesting. The two antioxidants vitamin C for the waterier part and E for the fatty part to mope up free radicals have a protective function.
Regards Dr. Terence Hale
Posted by Terence Hale on April 16, 2008 8:45 AM
Report this comment
.....
I should hope that Mr. Holford is correct. ".....with a healthy diet full of fruit and vegetables, getting plenty of exercise and not smoking,..."
Given the above habits, exactly what do the supplements do?
Posted by W. David Bowden on April 16, 2008 8:40 AM
Report this comment
I don't really understand how exactly the same compound can shorten your life in pill-form, but be beneficial if it 'occurs naturally'. Perhaps it needs to have the blessing of Gaia or something. Not that we should ever allow marginal statistics to dictate what we swallow, whether it's hamburgers or vitamins.
I'm just waiting for the health study proving that consumption of too many health studies increases the risk of mental illness.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Last edited by Arrowwind09; 04-16-2008 at 08:44 AM.
That study done on antioxidants/vitamins was flawed. It was so badly flawed that it stunk. The guy who led the study should be locked up in a mental ward.
This information and FLAWED STUDY is already posted here under another thread, a couple weeks back. Scorpiotiger and I debated it, and here is the conclusion. If this study was even half true, I'd be dead a long time ago, so you do the math...
Yes, Boss. And it needs to be debated! It's fodder like this that gets used to rationalize the procurement of supplements by non-licensed people to become an illegal act.
We should be in protest and debate until the study is fully discredited in the minds of all.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
This study, which was funded by Life Extension Foundation, showed that supplements generally don't extend life. The only thing that did extend life was a calorie restricted diet. You have to admire LEF for publishing the study since they are in the supplement business. I sent the link to Bill Sardi and he said that supplements do not extend life but improve the quality of life. Sardi said that only resveratrol and Vit C extended life.
The Effects of Nutritional Supplements upon the Life Spans of Mice
March 28, 2004
How Much Can Nutritional Supplements Extend the Average and Maximum Survival Curves in Mice?. On October 15, 2002, Dr. Xi Zhao-Wilson and Dr. Stephen Spindler presented the results of a study of the life spans of mice given different nutritional supplements vs. their life spans on normal mouse chow and with caloric restriction (Presentation- Anti-Aging Drug Discovery Development Summit, Oct. 15, 2002, Presented by- Dr. Xi Zhao-Wilson, Dr. Stephen Spindler). The figures below show the results of their experiments.
It's hard to read the legends that go with these curves but in the left-hand chart,
The pink curve seems to be Coenzyme Q-10, alpha-lipoic acid, aminoguanidine(?), and pregnenolone.
The green curve is melatonin.
The aqua curve is aminoguanidine.
The red curve is aminoguanidine and alpha-lipoic acid.
The blue curve is melatonin and pregnenolone.
The black curve is the control arm.
In the right-hand chart,
The aqua curve is alpha-lipoic acid.
The blue curve is co-enzyme Q-10
The pink curve is alpha-lipoic acid, lycopene, acetyl-l-carnitine, and vitamin E.
The red curve is co-Q10, alpha-lipoic acid, acetyl-l-carnitine, and NADH.
The black curve is the control arm
The dark-purple curve represents the caloric-restricted mice.
The general conclusion that Dr. Splindler reaches is that supplements only shorten the average life spans of mice. (Can you imagine how this news was rceived by the Life Extension Foundation, which sponsored this study? The LEF derives its revenue primarily from the sale of supplements.) This is particularly true of coenzyme Q-10 (the blue curve in the right-hand chart and one constituent in the pink curve in the left-hand chart). But there are a couple of interesting points to be observed. The control group dies off by 42 months. This is phenomenally long for ordinarry fully-fed mice. In his 2000 book, "Beyond the 120-Year Diet", Dr. Roy Walford's challenge to life extension techniques other than caloric restriction is: "Show me the 45-month-old mice." (Most fully fed mice don't live longer than 38 months.) But in this study, the normally fed mice live a maximum of 42 months, and the supplemented mice live 45 months. In human terms, this would correspond to another 7.5 years of life. Clearly, alpha-lipoic acid, acetyl-l-carnitine, and NADH are potent life extenders. Co-enzyme Q-10 has a "dark side". A new synthetic analog is available that supposedly doesn't have this flip side.
Of course, these supplements aren't as effective as caloric restriction, but one wonders what the right combination of alpha-lipoic acid, acetyl-l-carnitine, melatonin, NADH, and pregnenolene would do. Are there combinations that could push this to 48 months? That would represent another 15 years in human terms!
Certainly, none of these supplements offer dramatic improvements in life span. Some of the tricks for avoiding cancer, heart disease, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, etc., may help improve one's ability to dodge the degenerative disease that take many of us away earlier than others.
Effects of Exercise and of the Eradication of the Major Degenerative Diseases Upon the Average Human Life Span
The left-hand chart shows the dramatic effect of exercise upon the average (though not the maximum) life span of mice. Note that these mice live for the more-customary 38 months as opposed to the 42 months shown above. The caloric restricted mice are shown living to about 48 months although they actually have lived to a maximum of 60 months (150 years in human terms).
The right-hand chart shows that conquering several major diseases would bring the average age of death for a 50-year-old to about 97, adding 16 years to the average life span. Caloric restristion would bring the average age of death to something like 116, corresponding to the age of 81 today.
Of course, various self-destructive behaviors enter into today's average life span, such as excess weight, less than optimum eating patterns, failure to control blood sugar and blood pressure, failure to get periodic medical exams, lack of exercise, and a host of other preventable causes of death. These steps could add some additional years to the average life span.
__________________
For now we see through a glass, darkly.... 1st Corinthians 13:12
Last edited by Iggy Dalrymple; 04-16-2008 at 07:34 PM.
Reason: added link
Vitamin Pills And Mortality
.
Linear Mode
