More evidence that vitamins and supplements are bullshit. While people with specific conditions may benefit AFAIK there is no pill you can take that has actually been proven to improve the health outcomes on otherwise healthy people.
All this confusion is the natural result of the combination of profit seeking and the difficulty of medical research. Maybe someday they will find that magic pill just not yet.
NY Times had a bunch of good article on the subject at the end of last year such as this one:
The problem with your comment IMO is that, while there's a fair bit of foundation to both questions of efficacy of vitamin supplements in general (it's a very incestuous industry with a history of collusion and abuse), and to megadosing in particular (most micronutrients are generally considered to be limiting only when lacking from a diet -- consuming more than limiting factors tends not to be associated with benefits and can be associated with harm, such as where overconsumption of one nutrient blocks uptake of another, or has toxic effects of its own).
But to claim that all supplements, and vitamins, are bullshit, without substantiation, is simply not justified. There are in fact clear cases where supplementation has proven beneficial where a deficiency exists (vitamins C, D, and B-complex vitamins in particular).
And it seems HN are calling you on that.
I do generally agree that eating a balanced and nutritious diet is your best insurance.
Yes - if you have a known vitaamin deficiency, you should (and your doctor would recommend) be taking vitamins to correct it. I hope this is not controversial.
However if you are healthy (i.e. have no known condition requiring treatment with vitamins), then there is no solid evidence that vitamins or supplements improve health outcome. If you disagree the burden of proof is on you: Point to multiple double blind studies by reputable researchers showing consistent and significant (practically not statistically) positive results. This may happen but AFAIK has not happened to date.
About 77% of the population is deficient in vitamin D.[0] You can't say "vitamins are bullshit" because only deficient people need them when a huge majority of the population IS deficient.
Sensible theory so then you need to run experiments to see if supplementing Vitamin D in "healthy" people actually improves their health outcomes. There are many reasons the theory might be wrong (ex. Natural variation of "normal" vitamin D levels). Unfortunately so far these studies have been mixed - even some negative outcomes.
From what I understand, the paper did a survey of Vitamin D related statistical studies. Then, went ahead and said that there existed a reverse causal link (Depression -> Stay Inside -> Low Vitamin D) as to why certain correlations existed. I am not going to make any judgements as to the causal conclusions they make. However, can you please clarify where you got the "negative outcomes"? There is no such thing mentioned in the NYT article, neither in the abstract of the Lancet paper.
The negative outcomes are not in those short summaries but the are easy to find. However just as a few positve studies don't prove Vitamin D is good for you a few negative studies don't prove it is bad. However negative studies do add to balance of evidence against use.
There is also the risk of overdose in any widely used supplement. Thankfully few of the 60,000 cases of vitamin toxicity in the US annually are Vitamin D (Iron is the riskyist).
A short walk in the sunlight is the best source of Vitamin D because your body naturally regulates it's production to near the optimum amount! I often wonder if the extreme avoidance of sunlight by some people is actually unhealthy...
I hope you don't take any prescription medicine, do not drink, do not sleep near electronic devices, sleep 8+ a night and eat only food that has none of the weird chemical preservatives which nobody knows the long term effects. How is the air pollution in your city? What about the weather? How much fluoride do you consume a day? Do you get stressed? Do you drink caffeine? Have you ever taken antibiotics?
> While people with specific conditions may benefit AFAIK there is no pill you can take that has actually been proven to improve the health outcomes on otherwise healthy people.
You're absolutely right. Taking supplements is about attempting to minimize the probability that one is deficient in something that's needed, which, if not addressed, can eventually affect one's health.
In the same sense, it's impossible for one to prove to themselves that they are perfectly healthy.
I'd recommend simply avoiding a bad diet (mostly just eat a diversity of foods) then you will already be getting all the vitamins/nutrients/etc you need while avoiding getting too much of anything that is bad for you. No need for pills unless something is wrong.
In the future this may change. For example genetic tests may be able to identify hidden long-terms problems with clear biochemical mechanisms that can be corrected with a pill. Much harder to find something that will make most people healthier but it could happen. Just not yet.
> I'd recommend simply avoiding a bad diet (mostly just eat a diversity of foods) then you will already be getting all the vitamins/nutrients/etc you need while avoiding getting too much of anything that is bad for you.
A diversity of foods doesn't mean much.
Fish oil is commonly recommended for good reasons. The amount of Omega 3 in the American diet is insanely low, mostly due to the lack of sea food in the average American diet (Seafood being one of the more plentiful sources of Omega 3).
In addition to that, the amount of Omega 6 in the average American's diet is sky high. There are potential problems when the Omega3/Omega6 ratio in a diet is too far in favor of Omega 6, these problems are what Fish Oil is theorized to help with.
On a more general note, many supplements can help with a variety of problems. While I'd say most supplements are worthless, there are quite a few that are not.
If you properly take melatonin, it will help with your sleep. (Don't take the huge doses most people do, 300mcg will suffice, overdosing will hurt your sleep after awhile!)
l-Theanine greatly reduces the side effects of caffeine and helps it work longer. Flat out, less anxiety, less jitters, and a large increase in focus.
Creatine flat out helps all around with physical performance, and may help out with some mental performance as well. There are dozens upon dozens of studies showing creatine's effectiveness.
Heck there are supplements out there that work as treatment for diabetes by controlling blood glucose levels, and by control, I mean "take this supplement, blood glucose levels drop".
The multi-vitamin sold at your local pharmacy? Yeah likely useless (or even worse), assuming it has any active ingredients in it at all.
But well researched supplements from reputable companies that have independent third party audits done on their production lines?
Heck there are supplements out there that work as treatment for diabetes by controlling blood glucose levels, and by control, I mean "take this supplement, blood glucose levels drop".
Cinnamon and Alpha-Lipoic Acid among others, are reputed to have this effect. Being diabetic, I was curious, and one time when I ran out of Metformin while traveling and not having a chance to get back to my doctor to get a new prescription, I decided to do a little (totally unscientific, not to be relied on) testing on myself.
I checked my blood sugar a couple of times, took 1 gram of ALA, and checked my blood sugar an hour later, and 90 minutes later.
I always saw a decrease. Now, this doesn't prove anything, as it could be that, by happenstance, the timing worked out that way, in terms of when I last ate and the natural upswings and downswings in the levels. But I made it a point to try and do this several hours I'd last had anything to eat to minimize that aspect, and I saw marked (50-60 point) drops after taking the ALA.
I never bothered testing Cinnamon or ALA+Cinnamon, but I tend to believe the suggestion that ALA supplementation may be of value for diabetics.
> I always saw a decrease. Now, this doesn't prove anything, as it could be that, by happenstance, the timing worked out that way, in terms of when I last ate and the natural upswings and downswings in the levels. But I made it a point to try and do this several hours I'd last had anything to eat to minimize that aspect, and I saw marked (50-60 point) drops after taking the ALA.
What you want is stabilized R-ALA, it is much more expensive but the unstabilized form of ALA tends to degrade quickly so you have less guarantees over what you are getting.
If you are type 2 you can do a good job of maintaining it by supplements and dietary maintenance. A Ketogenic diet is great, since it just removes carbs all together. :)
Examine.com is your friend. Unfortunately they went through a site redesign recently that puts their most powerful organizational tools behind a paywall. Then again, they need to earn their $ and their services are well worth it.
>>I'd recommend simply avoiding a bad diet (mostly just eat a diversity of foods)
Define "bad diet". Define measuring method & desired degree of food diversity. Isn't that what we're all here trying to figure out? ;-)
I want to eat more fish but the whole mercury thing scares me away. Perhaps fish oil supplements grant me the benefits of eating fish without the mercury??? I have no idea, but that sounds like a reasonable conclusion I'd come to.... then a study like this comes out and then I'm like (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
All this confusion is the natural result of the combination of profit seeking and the difficulty of medical research. Maybe someday they will find that magic pill just not yet.
NY Times had a bunch of good article on the subject at the end of last year such as this one:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2013/12/16/a-challenge-...