Do supplements make us healthier? The science says no!
Here is a great article by Dr. Scally on a recent study to determine if supplements decrease mortality in women:
Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Women In the United States, the use of dietary supplements has increased substantially during the past several decades, reaching approximately one-half of adults in 2000, with annual sales of more than $20 billion. Sixty-six percent of women participating in the Iowa Women's Health Study used at least 1 dietary supplement daily in 1986 at an average age of 62 years; in 2004, the proportion increased to 85%. Moreover, 27% of women reported using 4 or more supplemental products in 2004. At the population level, dietary supplements contributed substantially to the total intake of several nutrients, particularly in elderly individuals.
Supplemental nutrient intake clearly is beneficial in deficiency conditions. However, in well-nourished populations, supplements often are intended to yield benefit by preventing chronic diseases. Results of epidemiologic studies assessing supplement use and total mortality risk have been inconsistent. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), concentrating mainly on calcium and vitamins B, C, D, and E, have not shown beneficial effects of dietary supplements on total mortality rate; in contrast, some have suggested the possibility of harm. Meta-analyses concur in finding no decreased risk and potential harm. Supplements are widely used, and further studies regarding their health effects are needed. Also, little is known about the long-term effects of multivitamin use and less commonly used supplements, such as iron and other minerals.
The aim of the present study was to assess the relationship between supplement use and total mortality rate in older women in the Iowa Women's Health Study. Their hypothesis, based on the findings of a previous study, was that the use of dietary supplements would not be associated with a reduced rate of total mortality.
In agreement with the hypothesis, most of the supplements studied were not associated with a reduced total mortality rate in older women. In contrast, they found that several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements, including multivitamins, vitamins B6, and folic acid, as well as minerals iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper, were associated with a higher risk of total mortality. Of particular concern, supplemental iron was strongly and dose dependently associated with increased total mortality risk. Also, the association was consistent across shorter intervals, strengthened with multiple use reports and with increasing age at reported use. Supplemental calcium was consistently inversely related to total mortality rate; however, no clear dose-response relationship was observed.
Background Although dietary supplements are commonly taken to prevent chronic disease, the long-term health consequences of many compounds are unknown.
Methods We assessed the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in relation to total mortality in 38 772 older women in the Iowa Women's Health Study; mean age was 61.6 years at baseline in 1986. Supplement use was self-reported in 1986, 1997, and 2004. Through December 31, 2008, a total of 15 594 deaths (40.2%) were identified through the State Health Registry of Iowa and the National Death Index.
Results In multivariable adjusted proportional hazards regression models, the use of multivitamins (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; absolute risk increase, 2.4%), vitamin B6 (1.10; 1.01-1.21; 4.1%), folic acid (1.15; 1.00-1.32; 5.9%), iron (1.10; 1.03-1.17; 3.9%), magnesium (1.08; 1.01-1.15; 3.6%), zinc (1.08; 1.01-1.15; 3.0%), and copper (1.45; 1.20-1.75; 18.0%) were associated with increased risk of total mortality when compared with corresponding nonuse. Use of calcium was inversely related (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94; absolute risk reduction, 3.8%). Findings for iron and calcium were replicated in separate, shorter-term analyses (10-year, 6-year, and 4-year follow-up), each with approximately 15% of the original participants having died, starting in 1986, 1997, and 2004.
Conclusions In older women, several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements may be associated with increased total mortality risk; this association is strongest with supplemental iron. In contrast to the findings of many studies, calcium is associated with decreased risk.
true, but would temper that with burgeoning studies that vitamin d supplementation may be quite beneficial,( although mostly through metaanalysis) and in the infant population of the poor and lower middle class, supplementation may save lives ( especially vit A)
For the most part, it points to healthy eating as the best form of lifestyle modification ( with the exception of vitamin d where you have to drink 22 glasses of milk to get the vitamin d you can get from being in the sun a couple of hours.)
Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks
Agreed, I am unaware of any reputable health organization that takes the position that we can't get all of our nutrients from food sources, w the exception of vit D.
But, I do see a lot of quack organizations take that stance, as well as those that stand to profit from the sale of supplements.
Agreed, I am unaware of any reputable health organization that takes the position that we can't get all of our nutrients from food sources, w the exception of vit D.
But, I do see a lot of quack organizations take that stance, as well as those that stand to profit from the sale of supplements.
exactly, the ones who promote supplements most heavily have vested interest in hawking their wares.
Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks
Did this study take into account BMI, Cholesterol etc.? I think if you compare a healthy person who doesn't take supplements to an unhealthy one that does, then the basis of the whole study is useless. I'm just sayin I see fat people in vitamin shoppe all the time, and regardless of what they take their life expectancy is less than someone with a healthier lifestyle.
Agreed, I am unaware of any reputable health organization that takes the position that we can't get all of our nutrients from food sources, w the exception of vit D.
But, I do see a lot of quack organizations take that stance, as well as those that stand to profit from the sale of supplements.
Are you saying the Linus Pauling Institute is not "reputable"?
Did this study take into account BMI, Cholesterol etc.? I think if you compare a healthy person who doesn't take supplements to an unhealthy one that does, then the basis of the whole study is useless. I'm just sayin I see fat people in vitamin shoppe all the time, and regardless of what they take their life expectancy is less than someone with a healthier lifestyle.
It's well established in the literature that nutrients from food sources are far superior than supplements. And, supplementing nutrients doesn't make up for a poor diet.
Are you saying the Linus Pauling Institute is not "reputable"?
Does he take the stance that we can't get all of our nutrients from food sources?
If so, then he is ignoring mountains of evidence and I would consider it a quack organization, and would bet money that they make money off of uninformed consumers.
linus pauling was a famous chemist,nobel prize winner but not sure if his expertise in quantum chemistry translates to nutritional research. he was the guy who promoted taking high doses of vitamin c and promoted it for treating cancer. unfortunately, humans are not subject to rigourous control condtions like chemistry and mayo clilnic disproved his "observational" study of few indidividual that supposedly benefitted from high dose vitamin c in terms of their cancerl, mayo clinic found no benefit. but it's not to say vitamin c doesn't have benefits
Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks
linus pauling was a famous chemist,nobel prize winner but not sure if his expertise in quantum chemistry translate to nutritional research via his institute.
Tony, if you want to see some good research done on nutrition and health, especially how they relate to heart disease, you should look up dr ornish. He was one of the first docs to actually reverse CAD.
Although, this is probably the wrong site to advertise this, since he promotes a mostly whole food, plant-based diet. Nevertheless, he has contributed a lot to the field of cardiac rehab. Which is my area.
Tony, if you want to see some good research done on nutrition and health, especially how they relate to heart disease, you should look up dr ornish. He was one of the first docs to actually reverse CAD.
Although, this is probably the wrong site to advertise this, since he promotes a mostly whole food, plant-based diet. Nevertheless, he has contributed a lot to the field of cardiac rehab. Which is my area.
yes he had spectacular results, but holy cow, the diet is very strict. people have forgotten his results but i work with a non interventional cardiologist who advocates ornish diet , pritikin and routine fasting. i belileve the pritikin also showed reversal of heart disease.
Official Race Member of the Crank Crushing Rednecks
yes he had spectacular results, but holy cow, the diet is very strict. people have forgotten his results but i work with a non interventional cardiologist who advocates ornish diet , pritikin and routine fasting. i belileve the pritikin also showed reversal of heart disease.
It is extremely difficult! I once dropped my total cholesterol from 233-165 in 3 months on his diet though. And my triglycerides dropped from 430-145.
Esselstein is another doc who has documented reversal as well. My thought is that even if someone isn't willing to make changes that drastic, there is still benefit to increasing plant food intake and limiting animal foods.
The Linus Pauling Institute is a part of Oregon State University (which Linus Pauling was a professor before his passing at age 93), they have an online library with recommended daily allowances for nutrients.
I suppose, theoretically, if someone had a very balanced diet and consistent sufficient calories, then on paper they would be, balanced. You could even get all the Vit D you needed naturally. And you would never need take a pill, or inject anything, EVER. In fact, Hippocrates once said, "let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food".
I'm not going to stop taking a Multi, B-Vit, Vit D, or Selenium, because I perceive the benefit regardless of the above study. Don't take this statement as me saying all supplements are good and large quantities should be taken by all, but there are supplements that are beneficial to some people based on their diet and nutritional needs. My original point was the study was flawed, cause I didn't see any mention of the participants all having the same base-line health stats. This study was like trying to compare the difference between a .45 and .22 by shooting a cardboard box.
The Linus Pauling Institute is a part of Oregon State University (which Linus Pauling was a professor before his passing at age 93), they have an online library with recommended daily allowances for nutrients.
I suppose, theoretically, if someone had a very balanced diet and consistent sufficient calories, then on paper they would be, balanced. You could even get all the Vit D you needed naturally. And you would never need take a pill, or inject anything, EVER. In fact, Hippocrates once said, "let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food".
I'm not going to stop taking a Multi, B-Vit, Vit D, or Selenium, because I perceive the benefit regardless of the above study. Don't take this statement as me saying all supplements are good and large quantities should be taken by all, but there are supplements that are beneficial to some people based on their diet and nutritional needs. My original point was the study was flawed, cause I didn't see any mention of the participants all having the same base-line health stats. This study was like trying to compare the difference between a .45 and .22 by shooting a cardboard box.
I understand where you're coming from, but they're statistically able to account for the differences you refer to.
And, I don't mean to make blanket statements about all supplements being ineffective, but I do stand by my statement that nutrients from foods are superior, and supplementing those that we don't get doesn't give us the same protection.
Tony, if you want to see some good research done on nutrition and health, especially how they relate to heart disease, you should look up dr ornish. He was one of the first docs to actually reverse CAD.
Although, this is probably the wrong site to advertise this, since he promotes a mostly whole food, plant-based diet. Nevertheless, he has contributed a lot to the field of cardiac rehab. Which is my area.
I appreciate that, I'll check it out. My total Cholesterol was like 104 last time I had it checked, but could raise the HDL a little. I've been eating more nuts and olive oil. Doc recommended fish/fish oil, but I don't really trust the fishing industry these days.
I know you don't recommend supplements, but since you work in the cardio area, do you think fish oil supps are bad for someone with low HDL?
Most of our cardiologists recommend fish oil for our patients, but to eat the actual fatty fish like salmon would be more beneficial. And, it's a great source of protein!
I appreciate that, I'll check it out. My total Cholesterol was like 104 last time I had it checked, but could raise the HDL a little. I've been eating more nuts and olive oil. Doc recommended fish/fish oil, but I don't really trust the fishing industry these days.
I know you don't recommend supplements, but since you work in the cardio area, do you think fish oil supps are bad for someone with low HDL?
Let me warn you though, ornish promotes a mostly vegan diet. He works w patients that are candidates for bypass and are either not good candidates, or want to avoid surgery.
Im positive that his diet would not be beneficial to someone who is on aas and looking to put on mass.
I just like to emphasize how important whole grains? Legumes, fruits and veges are for us in regards to cancer and heart disease.
Most of our cardiologists recommend fish oil for our patients, but to eat the actual fatty fish like salmon would be more beneficial. And, it's a great source of protein!
I try to eat wild salmon at least twice a week.
That's good advice. The wild stuff is kinda pricey tho
Let me warn you though, ornish promotes a mostly vegan diet. He works w patients that are candidates for bypass and are either not good candidates, or want to avoid surgery.
Im positive that his diet would not be beneficial to someone who is on aas and looking to put on mass.
I just like to emphasize how important whole grains? Legumes, fruits and veges are for us in regards to cancer and heart disease.
That sounds like Dr Richard Flemming's area of work as well. Yeah, I'm not a big mass guy, but I do NEED my protein. I try to stay in good enough shape to run a 10k in 40 minutes and still bench 225. Now that I'm 35 it's getting harder.
That's good advice. The wild stuff is kinda pricey tho
Yes it is, I buy mine from Costco. I eat a lot of canned salmon and make it up like tuna and have it on a sandwich. Prob not the best since its canned, but it's my compromise.
As far as I know, the experts recommend eating fish, even if it's farmed. Their position is that the benefits outweigh the risks. But, I'm not an expert on farmed vs wild, I just made the decision to eat mostly wild.
DISCLAIMER:
All health, fitness, diet, nutrition & supplement information presented on IronMagazineForums.com's pages is intended as an educational resource and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website. As well as any exercise technique or regimen, diet, supplement, etc., particularly if you are pregnant or nursing, or if you are elderly or have chronic or recurring medical conditions. Discontinue any exercise that causes you pain or severe discomfort and consult a medical expert. The statements made about products have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (U.S.). They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any condition or disease. Please consult with your own physician or health care practitioner regarding the suggestions and recommendations made at IronMagazineForums.com. Neither the author of the information, nor the producer, nor distributors of such information make any warranty of any kind in regard to the content of the information presented on this website. Except as specifically stated on this site, neither IronMagazineForums.com, nor any of its authors or other representatives will be liable for damages arising out of, or in connection with the use of this site. This is a comprehensive limitation of liability that applies to all damages of any kind, including (without limitation) compensatory, direct, indirect or consequential damages, loss of data, income or profit, loss of or damage to property and claims of third parties. Sponsors pay for advertising space, we have no affiliation with the companies that have banners displayed on our websites. Please be advised it is your responsibility to check the laws that govern your country, state, or province in regards to items offered by some companies you may read about on this site.