Post by theshee on Nov 30, 2010 2:51:36 GMT 10
Millions of us pop them daily, but a new book says vitamin pills can do us more harm than good
The freezing weather and interminable winter colds may have got you reaching for the echinacea or vitamin C tablets, but you might want to reconsider.
Because in a controversial new book that’s been a phenomenon in the U.S. and is due to be published in the UK next month, journalist Michael Specter examines our obsession with vitamins and dietary supplements. His analysis of decades worth of research results in some very surprising conclusions.
His interest in the world of dietary supplements was sparked when he began to feel unfocused and lethargic. When his doctor’s tests couldn’t find anything wrong, he did what millions of us do every day and decided to self-medicate with vitamins.
There had to be something in it because not only do thousands swear by them, but vitamins and dietary supplements are big business.
According to figures from Mintel, 42 per cent of Brits regularly take vitamins or supplements, and last year we spent more than £396 million on pills and potions of this type.
But working out exactly which vitamins you should be taking can be something of a minefield for the novice. The shelves of Boots are lined with hundreds of these remedies, and health food shops such as Holland & Barrett boast thousands of combinations of vitamins.
Just to see what was around, I took a quick look on the website of Healthspan, ‘the UK’s No.1 direct supplier’ of vitamins and dietary supplements. They had everything from artichoke tablets, billed as a ‘digestive aid’, through to ginkgo biloba and Korean ginseng tablets to ‘boost memory and mental performance’ and turmeric tablets which apparently act as ‘a natural anti-inflammatory’.
In his local health food store, Specter found a similarly bewildering array of options, promising similarly impressive cures, as he recalls in the book.
‘The store had a garlic section — not actual garlic, but various pills with names such as GarliMax and Garlique, which all claimed to possess the healing properties of garlic, thought for centuries to help ward off the common cold, clear up respiratory infections and soothe sore throats.’
He also found the antioxidants ‘all seemingly fuelled by the “natural” power of prickly pear, goji, and acai, the popular Brazilian berry that supposedly offers benefits such as rejuvenation, skin toning and weight loss, not to mention prevention of various illnesses like heart disease.’
Almost every metabolic process in the body results in oxidation. This is because as cells are broken down, they release unstable molecules called free radicals which are thought to be the cause of many serious diseases.
Once they’ve been set free, they become scavengers, ransacking essential proteins and DNA by grabbing their electrons for spare parts. The theory is that antioxidants prevent those reactions. However, as Specter says: ‘It was impossible to know how, or if, they worked.’
His search threw up countless other options — milk thistle (‘for those who drink regularly or have frequent chemical exposure’); vitamin C (‘high doses of which may provide additional protection against oxidative stress’); an omega 3 pill (‘may help reduce the symptoms of a variety of disorders’); St John’s Wort (‘to support healthy mood’); folic acid (‘offers pregnant women protection against birth defects; may have a role to play in heart health’) . . . the list went on.
In a bid to learn more about all these supplements, Specter started going through information from medical institutions such as the National Institute of Health and the Harvard School of Public Health.
While many of the supplements he looked at appeared to be harmless, they hadn’t actually been shown in any major, placebo-controlled study to do any particular good; others, like St John’s Wort, might be helpful in some cases for some people, but can easily interfere with and negate the effects of a large number of prescribed medicines.
Antioxidants are often described as possessing wondrous powers. But while diets naturally rich in antioxidants have been associated with lower rates of chronic disease, this association has never been replicated in trials where people take antioxidants as supplements.
The Cochrane Collaboration is a well-reputed medical research group that compiles and reviews all available evidence on individual topics.
In 2008, they looked at 67 different trials relating to antioxidants. Some 232,550 participants were included and the review concluded there was no evidence that taking antioxidants was beneficial. In fact, vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin E — all heralded for their antioxidant properties — increased the likelihood of death.
And what about fish oils? Among their touted benefits is their ability to improve brain function.
But in an 18-month study of 400 Alzheimer’s patients, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, omega 3 capsules failed to improve their symptoms. This was a small study, but it’s another example of how little evidence there is to support the idea that any of these things are actually good for you.
Countless other studies reflect this — 2009 marked the end of a 15-year U.S. study that looked at how to prevent heart disease, cancer and bone fractures in postmenopausal women.
The trials involved 161,808 women and revealed that taking multivitamins gave women no protection against the likelihood of developing breast, colorectal, endometrial, kidney, bladder, stomach, ovary or lung cancers.
In fact, while hundreds of studies have demonstrated that regular exercise reduces the risk of a number of conditions, including coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes, studies of vitamin supplements have failed to produce any similarly convincing results.
So why do we persist in taking them? And where does this conviction they’re good for us come from?
Part of the problem lies with high-profile proponents of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) who peddle the idea that intuition is more valuable than clinical evidence.They insist that conventional medicine relies on scientists who lack human qualities and argue that doctors don’t look at the body holistically; rather than taking into consideration the complicated entity that is the human body, they behave as if they’re replacing the engine of a car.
But most doctors aren’t opposed to complementary medicine — if it works. The NHS would be delighted if evening primrose oil could be shown to be as effective as HRT for treating menopausal women — it would save them a fortune. But the evidence isn’t there, and while drugs have to go through extensive testing before they can be sold, supplements don’t.
In the UK, supplements are considered as food, which means they can’t claim to treat, prevent or cure a medical condition, but they are allowed to say things such as ‘echinacea can assist your body’s immune defences to fight infection and protect against colds and flu’.
The other problem is that because something is ‘natural’ we can’t believe it will harm us. Kava kava has been used for thousands of years to treat anxiety. However, it has also been linked to liver damage and, as a result, was banned in the UK in 2003.
The result was uproar from fans of the supplement and a legal challenge from actress Jenny Seagrove, who argued that there was no legal right to forbid her to use a herb which helped her to relax.
So is it just a case of buyer beware? Michael Specter thinks it’s more important than that.
‘Taking mega doses of vitamins or craniofacial massage for the flu may seem comforting. At worst, many have argued, such actions are self-inflicted wounds. There comes a point, though, when individual actions become part of something bigger.’
In South Africa, in the mid-2000s, a German health entrepreneur, Matthias Rath, urged people to substitute high doses of multivitamins for proven Aids therapies.
He was supported in this by the then health minister and president, both of whom denied the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of Aids and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
People who took vitamins, rather than relying on the medicines they needed, died. In 2008, a group of researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of as many as 365,000 people between 2000 and 2005 had it provided drugs to Aids patients.
Something worth thinking about next time you get a sniffle and decide to reach for the echinacea.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1333882/Vitamins-pills-actually-make-sick.html#ixzz16gtGLZuQ
The freezing weather and interminable winter colds may have got you reaching for the echinacea or vitamin C tablets, but you might want to reconsider.
Because in a controversial new book that’s been a phenomenon in the U.S. and is due to be published in the UK next month, journalist Michael Specter examines our obsession with vitamins and dietary supplements. His analysis of decades worth of research results in some very surprising conclusions.
His interest in the world of dietary supplements was sparked when he began to feel unfocused and lethargic. When his doctor’s tests couldn’t find anything wrong, he did what millions of us do every day and decided to self-medicate with vitamins.
There had to be something in it because not only do thousands swear by them, but vitamins and dietary supplements are big business.
According to figures from Mintel, 42 per cent of Brits regularly take vitamins or supplements, and last year we spent more than £396 million on pills and potions of this type.
But working out exactly which vitamins you should be taking can be something of a minefield for the novice. The shelves of Boots are lined with hundreds of these remedies, and health food shops such as Holland & Barrett boast thousands of combinations of vitamins.
Just to see what was around, I took a quick look on the website of Healthspan, ‘the UK’s No.1 direct supplier’ of vitamins and dietary supplements. They had everything from artichoke tablets, billed as a ‘digestive aid’, through to ginkgo biloba and Korean ginseng tablets to ‘boost memory and mental performance’ and turmeric tablets which apparently act as ‘a natural anti-inflammatory’.
In his local health food store, Specter found a similarly bewildering array of options, promising similarly impressive cures, as he recalls in the book.
‘The store had a garlic section — not actual garlic, but various pills with names such as GarliMax and Garlique, which all claimed to possess the healing properties of garlic, thought for centuries to help ward off the common cold, clear up respiratory infections and soothe sore throats.’
He also found the antioxidants ‘all seemingly fuelled by the “natural” power of prickly pear, goji, and acai, the popular Brazilian berry that supposedly offers benefits such as rejuvenation, skin toning and weight loss, not to mention prevention of various illnesses like heart disease.’
Almost every metabolic process in the body results in oxidation. This is because as cells are broken down, they release unstable molecules called free radicals which are thought to be the cause of many serious diseases.
Once they’ve been set free, they become scavengers, ransacking essential proteins and DNA by grabbing their electrons for spare parts. The theory is that antioxidants prevent those reactions. However, as Specter says: ‘It was impossible to know how, or if, they worked.’
His search threw up countless other options — milk thistle (‘for those who drink regularly or have frequent chemical exposure’); vitamin C (‘high doses of which may provide additional protection against oxidative stress’); an omega 3 pill (‘may help reduce the symptoms of a variety of disorders’); St John’s Wort (‘to support healthy mood’); folic acid (‘offers pregnant women protection against birth defects; may have a role to play in heart health’) . . . the list went on.
In a bid to learn more about all these supplements, Specter started going through information from medical institutions such as the National Institute of Health and the Harvard School of Public Health.
While many of the supplements he looked at appeared to be harmless, they hadn’t actually been shown in any major, placebo-controlled study to do any particular good; others, like St John’s Wort, might be helpful in some cases for some people, but can easily interfere with and negate the effects of a large number of prescribed medicines.
Antioxidants are often described as possessing wondrous powers. But while diets naturally rich in antioxidants have been associated with lower rates of chronic disease, this association has never been replicated in trials where people take antioxidants as supplements.
The Cochrane Collaboration is a well-reputed medical research group that compiles and reviews all available evidence on individual topics.
In 2008, they looked at 67 different trials relating to antioxidants. Some 232,550 participants were included and the review concluded there was no evidence that taking antioxidants was beneficial. In fact, vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin E — all heralded for their antioxidant properties — increased the likelihood of death.
And what about fish oils? Among their touted benefits is their ability to improve brain function.
But in an 18-month study of 400 Alzheimer’s patients, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, omega 3 capsules failed to improve their symptoms. This was a small study, but it’s another example of how little evidence there is to support the idea that any of these things are actually good for you.
Countless other studies reflect this — 2009 marked the end of a 15-year U.S. study that looked at how to prevent heart disease, cancer and bone fractures in postmenopausal women.
The trials involved 161,808 women and revealed that taking multivitamins gave women no protection against the likelihood of developing breast, colorectal, endometrial, kidney, bladder, stomach, ovary or lung cancers.
In fact, while hundreds of studies have demonstrated that regular exercise reduces the risk of a number of conditions, including coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes, studies of vitamin supplements have failed to produce any similarly convincing results.
So why do we persist in taking them? And where does this conviction they’re good for us come from?
Part of the problem lies with high-profile proponents of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) who peddle the idea that intuition is more valuable than clinical evidence.They insist that conventional medicine relies on scientists who lack human qualities and argue that doctors don’t look at the body holistically; rather than taking into consideration the complicated entity that is the human body, they behave as if they’re replacing the engine of a car.
But most doctors aren’t opposed to complementary medicine — if it works. The NHS would be delighted if evening primrose oil could be shown to be as effective as HRT for treating menopausal women — it would save them a fortune. But the evidence isn’t there, and while drugs have to go through extensive testing before they can be sold, supplements don’t.
In the UK, supplements are considered as food, which means they can’t claim to treat, prevent or cure a medical condition, but they are allowed to say things such as ‘echinacea can assist your body’s immune defences to fight infection and protect against colds and flu’.
The other problem is that because something is ‘natural’ we can’t believe it will harm us. Kava kava has been used for thousands of years to treat anxiety. However, it has also been linked to liver damage and, as a result, was banned in the UK in 2003.
The result was uproar from fans of the supplement and a legal challenge from actress Jenny Seagrove, who argued that there was no legal right to forbid her to use a herb which helped her to relax.
So is it just a case of buyer beware? Michael Specter thinks it’s more important than that.
‘Taking mega doses of vitamins or craniofacial massage for the flu may seem comforting. At worst, many have argued, such actions are self-inflicted wounds. There comes a point, though, when individual actions become part of something bigger.’
In South Africa, in the mid-2000s, a German health entrepreneur, Matthias Rath, urged people to substitute high doses of multivitamins for proven Aids therapies.
He was supported in this by the then health minister and president, both of whom denied the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of Aids and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
People who took vitamins, rather than relying on the medicines they needed, died. In 2008, a group of researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of as many as 365,000 people between 2000 and 2005 had it provided drugs to Aids patients.
Something worth thinking about next time you get a sniffle and decide to reach for the echinacea.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1333882/Vitamins-pills-actually-make-sick.html#ixzz16gtGLZuQ