Certain vitamins supplements may increase risk of an early death. (Up to 16%)

[vhx]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear...8/04/16/scivita116.xml

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".

What do you all think of this? It seems that taking more than your body needs can mess with the natural defense system. Is news like this going stop you from taking supplements with lots of those A,E, and C? I assume this only applies to those who take them without being sick or having problems.

 

[superstition]

Excessive C causes free iron in the blood to form radicals. Excessive E causes internal or increased bleeding. Excessive A causes "hypervitaminosis", or something like that. I think that is a liver damage from excessive A.

However, I recall it takes over 500mg of vitamin C to cause a problem, and similar megadoses of the others. Beta carotene, the form of vitamin A that comes from plants (and some supplements) is safe even in large amounts.

 

[schizoid77]

It will not stop me. For every study out there, there's a counter study.

I take 4+ grams of Vitamin C every day. The body just gets rid of what it doesn't need. Not sure about A and E.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: schizoid77
It will not stop me. For every study out there, there's a counter study.

I take 4+ grams of Vitamin C every day. The body just gets rid of what it doesn't need. Not sure about A and E.

There is no way your body needs 4+ grams of Vitamin C no matter what. Chill out with that. You'll save money and possibly save your body. Read up on it. It's really unnecessary.

 

[schizoid77]

I have read up on it. A lot. And I've made a personal decision that it really is necessary.

Thanks for the concern, though.

 

[irishScott]

Researchers at Copenhagen University carried out a review of 67 studies

1. They don't mention, or even link to the individual studies.
2. They don't mention specific dose that qualify as "too much". If they wanted their results to mean anything, they should have included the numbers.

Basically all that article said was "high doses of some vitamins are bad for you". Yeah, I think I've known that "too much of anything is bad" since, oh, 3rd grade?

That said, I support increased regulation, and schizoid77: I'd like to read what you read, just out of curiosity. I doubt the high levels of Vitamin C could do major harm (although it has been linked to iron poisoning, among other things), but from what I've read unless your copper intake is ridiculously high you don't need anywhere near that amount of Vitamin C.

 

[schizoid77]

I like reading anything that the Life Extension Foundation prints. They offer scientific evidence that supports and denounces a lot of studies you see. They cut right to the chase and tell you exactly what was done, how it was done wrong, and what the results really mean.

Like the fact that the study on Vitamin C causing free radicals was nipped in the bud as long as you are taking vitamin E or even green tea which essentially stops the oxidizing of vitamin C.

Anyway, they're fun reads. But the info doesn't stop there. There are plenty of studies showing the benefits of high doses of vitamin C (at least 1,000mg/day). Just make sure you take your other supplements as well.

Your body will tell you how much vitamin C you need, just do a vitamin C flush. Then back it off a bit and you're set. I could take up to 7g if I wanted, but I go with 2g in the morning, 2g at night. Emergen-C FTW!

 

[skace]

16% sounds like it would account for misuse of the vitamins. Which probably means as long as you are taking in RDA values then that study is really irrelevant.

According to Fitday, my problem nutrients are K, D, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Zinc, and Magnesium. I should look into supplementing just them somehow...

 

[StageLeft]

I knew for a while that their benefits were dubious. After reading last year that they could be injurious, I stopped. There is simply no good reason for most people to take a vitamin supplement, I believe. The scientific data just simply does not support it. I've taken one for years, but I'm done with them.

For every study out there, there's a counter study.

So why bother? You're just wasting money. Clearly you believe the pro studies outweight the negative, even though they really do not at all.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: superstition
Excessive C causes free iron in the blood to form radicals. Excessive E causes internal or increased bleeding. Excessive A causes "hypervitaminosis", or something like that. I think that is a liver damage from excessive A.

However, I recall it takes over 500mg of vitamin C to cause a problem, and similar megadoses of the others. Beta carotene, the form of vitamin A that comes from plants (and some supplements) is safe even in large amounts.

Large amounts of Vitamin A can cause serious problems. It is a fat soluble vitamin so your body has a harder time getting rid of it compared to Vitamin C and E which are water soluble. And yes it is called Hypervitaminosis A, and yes it can cause liver damage/failure, hair loss, osteoporosis, birth defects etc. If you are 18 or older you should NOT be taking more than 10,000IU at day combined supplements and food intake. Sustained intake >10,000 IU a day can cause Hypervitaminosis A.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I knew for a while that their benefits were dubious. After reading last year that they could be injurious, I stopped. There is simply no good reason for most people to take a vitamin supplement, I believe. The scientific data just simply does not support it. I've taken one for years, but I'm done with them.

For every study out there, there's a counter study.

So why bother? You're just wasting money. Clearly you believe the pro studies outweight the negative, even though they really do not at all.

1. Please stop stating your opinions as facts.

2:

Actually, there are many scientifically proven problems resulting from vitamin deficiency. Lack of D can lead to depression, among other things and many people don't get the opportunity to get enough sun. In the winter, no one north of Georgia can get enough sun even with full-body sun-bathing. And that's in 30 degree weather when everyone's covered up.

Lack of Zinc weakens the immune system.

Lack of calcium leads to bone loss.

Lack of magnesium can impair muscle growth and calcium absorption.

The list goes on. If you do your research and avoid high doses, taking a multi has next to no dangers and a

As for benefits, maybe you could explain how my allergies all but disappeared when I started taking a multi. There were no other major changes at the time.

Obviously the benefits depend on individual genetics/doses/diet. For me, they're very palpable and not "dubious" in the slightest. Many of the benefits, according to science, are impalpable by nature. I'll gladly spend $100 a year to prevent allergies and potentially prevent cancer, among many other things.

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I knew for a while that their benefits were dubious. After reading last year that they could be injurious, I stopped. There is simply no good reason for most people to take a vitamin supplement, I believe. The scientific data just simply does not support it. I've taken one for years, but I'm done with them.

For every study out there, there's a counter study.

So why bother? You're just wasting money. Clearly you believe the pro studies outweight the negative, even though they really do not at all.

1. Please stop stating your opinions as facts.

2:

Actually, there are many scientifically proven problems resulting from vitamin deficiency. Lack of D can lead to depression, among other things and many people don't get the opportunity to get enough sun. In the winter, no one north of Georgia can get enough sun even with full-body sun-bathing. And that's in 30 degree weather when everyone's covered up.

Lack of Zinc weakens the immune system.

Lack of calcium leads to bone loss.

Lack of magnesium can impair muscle growth and calcium absorption.

The list goes on. If you do your research and avoid high doses, taking a multi has next to no dangers and a

As for benefits, maybe you could explain how my allergies all but disappeared when I started taking a multi. There were no other major changes at the time.

Obviously the benefits depend on individual genetics/doses/diet. For me, they're very palpable and not "dubious" in the slightest. Many of the benefits, according to science, are impalpable by nature. I'll gladly spend $100 a year to prevent allergies and potentially prevent cancer, among many other things.

I actually see alot of people with low serum magnesium in my ER(not dangerously low but still low). Not sure if its just our patient demographics or what.

Anyways its found in highest concentrations in green leafy veggies, milk, beans and nuts if anyone was wondering.

 

[scootermaster]

I know someone who takes Vitamin-C (Emergen-C) like, as a stimulant. As in, "wow, I need some pep, let's take an Emergen-C!".

Here's what I don't quite get here...one packet of emergency is, like, 1666% the USRDA of Vitamin C. And you're supposed to take 2-4 a day?

Like, why don't they just print "IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY!" on the side of the box. Because they are -- quite literally -- stating that they think,at best, every single one of the scientists who developed the RDA to be a complete moron, and at worst, it's some conspiracy to keep Americans vitamin C deficient. How else would you explain the notion that people somehow need over an order of magnitude more than what is "recommended"?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: scootermaster
I know someone who takes Vitamin-C (Emergen-C) like, as a stimulant. As in, "wow, I need some pep, let's take an Emergen-C!".

Here's what I don't quite get here...one packet of emergency is, like, 1666% the USRDA of Vitamin C. And you're supposed to take 2-4 a day?

Like, why don't they just print "IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY!" on the side of the box. Because they are -- quite literally -- stating that they think,at best, every single one of the scientists who developed the RDA to be a complete moron, and at worst, it's some conspiracy to keep Americans vitamin C deficient. How else would you explain the notion that people somehow need over an order of magnitude more than what is "recommended"?

That sounds like a recipe for diarrhea.

 

[scootermaster]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: scootermaster
I know someone who takes Vitamin-C (Emergen-C) like, as a stimulant. As in, "wow, I need some pep, let's take an Emergen-C!".

Here's what I don't quite get here...one packet of emergency is, like, 1666% the USRDA of Vitamin C. And you're supposed to take 2-4 a day?

Like, why don't they just print "IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY!" on the side of the box. Because they are -- quite literally -- stating that they think,at best, every single one of the scientists who developed the RDA to be a complete moron, and at worst, it's some conspiracy to keep Americans vitamin C deficient. How else would you explain the notion that people somehow need over an order of magnitude more than what is "recommended"?

That sounds like a recipe for diarrhea.

Well, let's ask the person who said "Emergen-C FTW".

Seriously...that much??!

 

[superstition]

Lack of Zinc weakens the immune system.

Lack of calcium leads to bone loss.

Lack of magnesium can impair muscle growth and calcium absorption.

Too much of them carries side-effects that people may not know about, too. Like the way zinc supplementation can leech copper out of one's body and vice-versa.

Magnesium is tricky because too much of it at once, even if it's not much higher than the RDA, can cause issues. It's better to have small amounts of it during the day.

 

[schizoid77]

Please keep in mind that RDA's are outdated and have no scientific validity - they were developed in the 40's, and are 'supposedly' revised every 5-10 years, but I doubt anything has changed since the late 60's or 70's. I wouldn't pay attention to that "OMG it's 1,666% OF RDA!" When a lot of the health community is calling for a minimum of 1,000mg/day.

Oh, and as far as diarrhea is concerned, you will def. get it almost immediately upon taking more than your body needs, it's how you know when to back off. Look up any Vitamin C flush guide to learn how to gauge how much of it your individual body needs. I can take up to about 8g before experiencing any issues. So I only take 4g a day.

Emergen-C also has a lot more than just C, there are other vitamins, alpha lipoic acid, and a bunch of minerals in there as well. You can buy a box of 'em for like $8. Cheap enough for me considering how much you're getting in one packet.

 

[superstition]

Originally posted by: schizoid77
Please keep in mind that RDA's are outdated and have no scientific validity - they were developed in the 40's, and are 'supposedly' revised every 5-10 years, but I doubt anything has changed since the late 60's or 70's. I wouldn't pay attention to that "OMG it's 1,666% OF RDA!" When a lot of the health community is calling for a minimum of 1,000mg/day.

It's not logical to argue that because something is a certain age it is invalid. The melting point of gold was determined long before the RDA.

 

[schizoid77]

The values they defined decades ago don't apply by today's standards of optimal health, so yes, they are old and need to be updated.

 

[superstition]

Originally posted by: schizoid77
The values they defined decades ago don't apply by today's standards of optimal health, so yes, they are old and need to be updated.

The human body hasn't changed. Being old doesn't prove anything other than that something is old.

Do you have an alternative to the RDA - one that is complete and supported by considerable research?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: superstition

Originally posted by: schizoid77
The values they defined decades ago don't apply by today's standards of optimal health, so yes, they are old and need to be updated.

The human body hasn't changed. Being old doesn't prove anything other than that something is old.

Do you have an alternative to the RDA - one that is complete and supported by considerable research?

Institue of Medicine's DRIs (Dietary Reference Intake)

The Dietary Reference Intakes or DRIs are a set of values that serve as standards for nutrient intakes for healthy persons in the United States and Canada. These values can be viewed in table format by clicking on the link below.

Information important to understanding the DRIs includes:

The current values were established between 1997 and 2004. They cover 46 nutrient substances.


The set of DRI values include Estimated Average Requirements, Recommended Dietary Allowances, and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels. Some nutrients have Adequate Intake values. Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges have also been established. For more information about this set of values click here.


DRI values are developed for different sex and age groups (and for pregnant and lactating women). Different groups will have different DRI values. For more information about the sex/age groups for DRIs click here.


DRI values are based on average requirements (or average adverse intakes) and provide reliable information on the needs of groups of persons. However, because they are average values, DRIs cannot be used to ensure adequate or safe levels of intake for any single person. DRI values can be used as a guide for individuals but an individual?s actual requirement or adverse intake level may be more or less than the DRI value. For more information about using the DRIs to plan and assess the diets of groups or individuals click here.


Detailed information about how the DRI values are developed is provided in a series of books. For more information about these books click here.


A general guide on the DRIs is also available. For more information on the general guide click here.

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/4574.aspx
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/4574/45132.aspx

 

[Delerious]

That article is clearly crapola. From my personal experience and opinion I disagree. Also it clearly contradicts itself:

"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."



In reading some of the comments:

This was a meta-analysis of 67 different studies, which appears to have been handled in a very particular way to produce the results reported. For the other side of the coin, see the critique at www.lef.org which summarises as follows:

The report .... is fatally flawed because it:

1. Omitted 91% of the studies that measured the effects of these vitamins on human subjects, including all studies for which there was no mortality!
2. Included studies that used doses far below or far above what health conscious people actually supplement with.
3. Chose to bias the reporting of the results by emphasising one type of statistical model that showed a significant effect rather than another statistical model that did not show a significant effect.
4. Failed to account for the 14 mechanisms involved in aging and premature death.

This story was first published last year, drew a lot of criticism for its flaws and was quickly removed from media websites on the day it appeared, perhaps because broadcasters realised they were complicit in regurgitating anti-supplement propaganda. Shame on you Daily Telegraph.

 

[skace]

Schizoid is taking the equivalent of 36 raw lemons a day in vitamin c. I don't care what you think of the RDA, think of the logic in that for a second. 8g would be 72 lemons.

For comparison, a single lemon a day would give you a consistent 200% RDA of Vitamin C.

 

[scootermaster]

Originally posted by: skace
Schizoid is taking the equivalent of 36 raw lemons a day in vitamin c. I don't care what you think of the RDA, think of the logic in that for a second. 8g would be 72 lemons.

For comparison, a single lemon a day would give you a consistent 200% RDA of Vitamin C.

Well, the logic is that human-kind, for thousands of years, has just BARELY escaped the gaping maw of Vitamin-C deficient holocaust. And schizoid77 is just doing his job to keep our species alive.

Kudos to him.

It's amazing how people, world-class athletes, cave men, and just your average, healthy 90 year-old alike have survived without 36 raw lemons a day. It really is a statistical anomaly!

 

[bobsmith1492]

Extremes are always good to avoid. Too much of ANYTHING in the world is bad for you (including oxygen, water, lettuce, sex, etc., not to mention vitamins)