> Nothing to do with supplements, that is nonsense but we're talking about very low levels of certain nutrients including vitamins and various minerals. I don'

> Nothing to do with supplements, that is nonsense but we're talking about very low levels of certain nutrients including vitamins and various minerals. I don't know how to interpret this. You're saying that supplements are nonsense but the deficiencies are real? So the deficiency causes mortality but from fixing the deficiency doesn't reduce mortality? > Low levels of vitamin D have been directly linked to increased death rates from cardiovascular conditions that doesn't mean the swallowing pills would help." Vitamin D deficiency is correlated with certain cardiovascular conditions. "Directly linked" doesn't really mean anything and is misleading because it could easily be interpreted to be causal which is definitely not established. If it were causal then supplements would fix it. > And so on and so on, eventually you can tie a lot of medical causes to poor diet, not getting enough X which causes or makes condition Y worse leading to death. This is the sort of statement that I don't think is supported by the science, but is so vague that it's difficult to meaningfully discuss. What is "a lot"? Is it some small fraction of a percentage? My understanding is that in the western world, vitamin deficiencies are fairly rare and clinical evidence doesn't indicate most conditions are clearly tied to deficiencies. Obviously what you eat will impact your health but the area is so complex that the contribution of minor deficiencies is basically impossible to separate from the noise. An implication of this is that recommendations of specific supplements or specific foods for correcting deficiencies are generally not scientific.