5 ms·

>However, a comprehensive medical history—assessing dozens of physical and mental illnesses—revealed zero actual health differences between people who did or di

>However, a comprehensive medical history—assessing dozens of physical and mental illnesses—revealed zero actual health differences between people who did or did not take multivitamins. I can't trust a society (or medical/scientific community) that can only express health as the lack of critical illness to make me optimally "healthy" (operation and expression). To illustrate the point for many diseases/issues they are progressions and spectrum -- like Osteoporosis -- such that sure maybe the humble multivitamin (and minerals?) didn't cure it for life, but maybe it made it more manageable in the final 10-15 yrs?

arcticbull 6y ago
Thing is, you're looking at this backwards, from a position of "doing something must be better than doing nothing." Frequently, it's not. The onus here should be on the multivitamin to prove that it is effective, not for study authors to prove that it does nothing. If you actually dig around you won't find studies that show multivitamins are effective at anything for your average westerner -- or anyone who isn't clinically malnourished for that matter. That's not to say that - in certain cases, when you're lacking a specific vitamin - it won't help manage a specific condition, but scattershot "essence of food" has very little data to support it's efficacy. More vitamin doesn't mean better health. Water soluble vitamins saturate in your body, and the excess is excreted in urine. Fat soluble vitamins, however, build up, and taking more than you need may lead to various kinds of poisoning (particularly A, D, B3 and B6 [3]). Generally speaking if you're not eating 100% of your meals at McDonalds, you're getting all the vitamins you need from your diet and more vitamins is at best neutral and at absolute worst fatal. Here's a study from 2011 that shows no decrease in all cause mortality, no decrease in cancer risk [1]. Here's one that shows all cause mortality was 5% higher in multivitamin takers [2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105257/ [2] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis
- doublekill 6y ago
  So what about: > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly 10% of all Americans have a nutritional deficiency. And what about very low, but non-deficient levels? It very much depends how the study is designed: in this case they do not measure quality of life or disease progression, but clinical outcome. That is what OP was alluding to: if you are going to only look at clinical outcome and completely tar "effectiveness" with that, then that is a very one-sided view of health and well-being. Osteoporose patients are at increased risk of vitamin K deficiency. Just because multivitamins are not effective at taking us to Mars, are you really going to recommend patients to spend their vitamin money on fresh fruits?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Right, sure, that aligns with what I suggested. That if you have a nutritional deficiency, they may be useful, but 86% of Americans take vitamins or some other nutritional supplements, but only 20-something percent of them have been diagnosed with any kind of condition indicating they may need them. The analysis needs to come from the other direction: take one vitamin, and prove it does something. Don't load people up with 20 vitamins and hope. Here's a great breakdown of the state of common supplements and whether they do anything at all that I found here, actually, a while back [1] I put the onus on you: tell me why I should be putting this into my body. Explain what benefit it would provide me. Rather than saying "well, if you have low but not deficient levels of some vitamins supplementation may do something" -- that's not how medical science works :) I mean, eating lots of things may do something, but the burden of proof is higher. [1] https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-scientific-evidence-for-nutritional-supplements-vizsweet/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-...
    - doublekill 6y ago
      90 percent of the restaurant is eating, but just 20 percent of those are still hungry :). They can stop eating and return next week when they are starving. For me it is proof enough that my wise mother told me take my vitamins, but more scientific: you have a vector of essential vitamins and minerals. There are thresholds for deficiency. There are optimal levels. Aim for optimal levels, and do not overdo it. Supplements can help with that, and easier and cheaper than a diet which includes all necessities. Low levels are suboptimal for you. Makes sense?

arcticbull 6y ago

Thing is, you're looking at this backwards, from a position of "doing something must be better than doing nothing." Frequently, it's not. The onus here should be on the multivitamin to prove that it is effective, not for study authors to prove that it does nothing. If you actually dig around you won't find studies that show multivitamins are effective at anything for your average westerner -- or anyone who isn't clinically malnourished for that matter. That's not to say that - in certain cases, when you're lacking a specific vitamin - it won't help manage a specific condition, but scattershot "essence of food" has very little data to support it's efficacy. More vitamin doesn't mean better health. Water soluble vitamins saturate in your body, and the excess is excreted in urine. Fat soluble vitamins, however, build up, and taking more than you need may lead to various kinds of poisoning (particularly A, D, B3 and B6 [3]). Generally speaking if you're not eating 100% of your meals at McDonalds, you're getting all the vitamins you need from your diet and more vitamins is at best neutral and at absolute worst fatal. Here's a study from 2011 that shows no decrease in all cause mortality, no decrease in cancer risk [1]. Here's one that shows all cause mortality was 5% higher in multivitamin takers [2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105257/ [2] https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699 https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/152/2/149/87699 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis

doublekill 6y ago
So what about: > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly 10% of all Americans have a nutritional deficiency. And what about very low, but non-deficient levels? It very much depends how the study is designed: in this case they do not measure quality of life or disease progression, but clinical outcome. That is what OP was alluding to: if you are going to only look at clinical outcome and completely tar "effectiveness" with that, then that is a very one-sided view of health and well-being. Osteoporose patients are at increased risk of vitamin K deficiency. Just because multivitamins are not effective at taking us to Mars, are you really going to recommend patients to spend their vitamin money on fresh fruits?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Right, sure, that aligns with what I suggested. That if you have a nutritional deficiency, they may be useful, but 86% of Americans take vitamins or some other nutritional supplements, but only 20-something percent of them have been diagnosed with any kind of condition indicating they may need them. The analysis needs to come from the other direction: take one vitamin, and prove it does something. Don't load people up with 20 vitamins and hope. Here's a great breakdown of the state of common supplements and whether they do anything at all that I found here, actually, a while back [1] I put the onus on you: tell me why I should be putting this into my body. Explain what benefit it would provide me. Rather than saying "well, if you have low but not deficient levels of some vitamins supplementation may do something" -- that's not how medical science works :) I mean, eating lots of things may do something, but the burden of proof is higher. [1] https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-scientific-evidence-for-nutritional-supplements-vizsweet/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-...
  - doublekill 6y ago
    90 percent of the restaurant is eating, but just 20 percent of those are still hungry :). They can stop eating and return next week when they are starving. For me it is proof enough that my wise mother told me take my vitamins, but more scientific: you have a vector of essential vitamins and minerals. There are thresholds for deficiency. There are optimal levels. Aim for optimal levels, and do not overdo it. Supplements can help with that, and easier and cheaper than a diet which includes all necessities. Low levels are suboptimal for you. Makes sense?