Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Is your multivitamin hurting you?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Myrl - 29 Apr 2008 03:39 GMT
Is your multivitamin hurting you?
by David Katz, MD, PREVENTION, on Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:40am PDT 172
Comments Post a Comment Report Abuse

Do you take antioxidants or a regular multivitamin? Turns out you
might not need to, according to new research in the Cochrane Review
that refutes the long-held belief that antioxidants prevent disease or
cancer.

Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies, pertaining
to more than 200,000 people, and found that antioxidant supplements--
vitamins A, C, and E; beta-carotene; and selenium--do not prevent
heart disease or cancer, do not forestall death, and may even increase
mortality risk slightly.

But the phrase "may increase mortality risk slightly" is important to
put any risk in context. Given the large pool of people analyzed,
researchers would have noticed right away if there was any significant
risk of death associated with the supplements. So if all we have is a
hint of modest harm, the risk is clearly quite small.

This finding is disappointing and counter-intuitive. How can
antioxidant supplements fail to help us and maybe even harm us
slightly?

There are several likely answers. First, we may have the doses wrong.
Just because some of a thing is good does not mean more is better.
Second, maybe we have the wrong combinations. Antioxidants in foods
come packaged with many other nutrients, and they all work together.
When we separate that harmony, we may wind up with sour notes. Third,
the participants in most of these trials were already ill. Perhaps
antioxidants have different effects before chronic disease begins.
They might even help prevent disease if taken earlier.

In general, my advice about a supplement is to remember it's not a
substitute for a healthy diet and lifestyle. Use supplements
thoughtfully. Talk to your doctor to be sure there is a sound reason,
tailored to your health, for each one you take. Don’t assume that just
because a clever ad makes a supplement sound good that it truly is.

I take an Omega-3 fish oil supplement every day, and recommend the
same for most of my patients. I believe a multivitamin or mineral
supplement is a good idea for many of us, despite a lack of research
that shows a clear benefit. (I also like a supplement called Juice
Plus, which compresses the nutrients from fruits and vegetables into
capsule form, while preserving their native proportions.)

Based on the science we have at present, there is no reason to fear
any antioxidant supplements you may have been taking--the potential
for harm is minimal. But remember: No pill bottle holds an alternative
for a healthy, active lifestyle.

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/is-your-multivitamin-hurting-you-3f-160328/
oeddien - 29 Apr 2008 10:32 GMT
> Is your multivitamin hurting you?
> by David Katz, MD, PREVENTION, on Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:40am PDT 172
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>
> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/is-your-multivitamin-hurting-yo...

if you care healthy you can open my web: http://www.mychlorophyll.com/
JuicePlusJustTakeIt@gmail.com - 29 Apr 2008 18:10 GMT
> Is your multivitamin hurting you?
> by David Katz, MD, PREVENTION, on Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:40am PDT 172
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>
> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/is-your-multivitamin-hurting-yo...
______________________________________________________________
A Case Study: Juice Plus

In 1994, when I was Health Editor of Vogue magazine. I read a report
that Juice Plus contains many of the important nutritional
constituents of the fresh fruits and vegetables from which it is made.
I hadn't heard of anything like it before (frankly, I never really
looked!. In any event, )I decided to try it since I was not consuming
enough of the natural products in my daily diet. Since then, most of
my family and I have been taking these capsules regularly.
Subsequently, I learned that several randomized, double blinded, and
placebo-controlled studies had been done on this product and the
findings were, for the most part, consistent with the current
scientific thinking that fruits and vegetables are good for you.

Just for the record, I have never had any financial interest in the
company other than having been being paid for two unrelated talks at
their company meetings some 10 and 14 years ago.

Let me emphasize that these capsules are not a substitute for eating
fruits and vegetables. They are not meant to be taken instead of food,
but only to complement a diet that does not contain them in optimum
amounts. The innumerable anecdotal stories of how well people feel are
not a substitute for scientific studies, of which there are several
valid ones.

Juice Plus is very effectively marketed, and its sales personnel are
inspired and enthusiastic. From time to time, I hear some questions
raised about whether Juice Plus is all it's cracked up to be (usually
from a competitor (whether they identify themselves as such or not).
That's part of the game in a free society. One of the criticisms is
that much of the clinical research conducted on this product has been
funded by NSA, its manufacturer. That's essentially true. However,
it's reasonable for manufacturers to sponsor research on their
products as long as the conclusions are subject to the checks and
balances of internal review boards and their conclusions are reviewed
by a peer review panel of scientists prior to publication. Although
some of the clinical research conducted on this product has been
funded by NSA, I understand that there is at least one ongoing
clinical trial currently being done by the National Cancer Institute
of the National Institutes of Health.

I have heard complaints that Juice Plus has little or no fiber. That's
true because water and some of the fiber in the fruits and vegetables
is removed in order to convert the juice into a concentrated powder.
While some fiber is restored to the capsule, it is not marketed either
as a fiber supplement or as a substitute for eating more fiber-rich
fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Given the high cost of prescription drugs, the growing awareness of
the connection between diet and disease, and the growing number of
nutritional products on the market today, Americans should take a look
at supplements such as Juice Plus - but it's important to do it
correctly. And pay no attention to information written by anyone who
chooses to remain anonymous.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Juice Plus+ Just Take It!  www.energynutrition.net
PeterB - 29 Apr 2008 23:45 GMT
Supposed disclosure of a poster's "identify" can't speak to the value
of one's post.  Readers have to vet the claims presented and question
them just as they would from any other source.
PeterB - 30 Apr 2008 20:37 GMT
Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
appear so.  Most consumers use typical drug store products made mostly
of synthetic materials referred to as "natural vitamins," including
synthetic beta carotene, vitamins D and E, and pharmaceutically-made B
vitamins.  Most of these inferior analogues have been implicated in
*other* studies for their questionable health effects.  I personally
use a synthetic-free food-based multivitamin and know that despite the
additional cost, I'm actually getting what I paid for.  How said that
so-called "vitamin" studies using various synthetic chemicals are
really just drug studies marketed without that important disclosure.
Martin - 01 May 2008 08:30 GMT
>Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
>before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>so-called "vitamin" studies using various synthetic chemicals are
>really just drug studies marketed without that important disclosure.

If you want people to get more natural vitamins, why aren't you
constantly promoting eating more veggies and fruit? It's  because you
are employed by a producer of 'natural' vitamins, isn't it?
PeterB - 01 May 2008 20:03 GMT
> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> constantly promoting eating more veggies and fruit? It's  because
> you are employed by a producer of 'natural' vitamins, isn't it?

Marty, try to keep up.  The topic is whether or not a multivitamin can
be harmful, and I responded with a brief reference to the type (not
brand) of multivitamin I use based on my understanding of health.  By
all means, eat more fruits and veggies.

If I represented monied interests like you, I suppose I would also
attack other posters without regard for the truth.  That proves to me
that you are guilty of what you accuse me of.
Martin - 02 May 2008 12:25 GMT
>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
>> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>attack other posters without regard for the truth.  That proves to me
>that you are guilty of what you accuse me of.

No no no, you stop posting about expensive unnacesary supplements and
tell people to stop taking them and start eating more, all natural
fruit and veggies and I might start to believe you're not getting paid
to do this. But the fact that you don't and the fact that you have
returned on this newsgroup at a moment when the economy is bad (and
certain slip-ups from you) have convinced me that you are a paid
poster.
Rod - 02 May 2008 13:20 GMT
>>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
>>> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> certain slip-ups from you) have convinced me that you are a paid
> poster.

And you are not ?

Martin, you are given to making statements that are not fact so "Piss Off"
please.

Cheers, Rod
Martin - 02 May 2008 15:33 GMT
>>>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
>>>> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?" It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>And you are not ?

Sometimes I wish I was.

>Martin, you are given to making statements that are not fact so "Piss Off"
>please.
>
>Cheers, Rod

Having a control problem Rod? This is usenet, it's a public forum, so
no, I'm not going to piss off. In the mean time: may your head fall
off at an awkawrd moment. Cheers Rod!
PeterB - 03 May 2008 00:31 GMT
> >> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
> >> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> economy is bad (and certain slip-ups from you) have convinced me
> that you are a paid poster.

Marty, please say hello to your sponsors for me, okay?  And if you
find supplements to be unncessary for you personally, by all means,
don't take them.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 02 May 2008 20:06 GMT
> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> constantly promoting eating more veggies and fruit? It's  because you
> are employed by a producer of 'natural' vitamins, isn't it?

Martin it would seem you're deflecting. There are chemical differences
in vitamin forms. Racemic "vitamin E" compared to high gamma mixed
tocopherols, the vitamin D analog vitamin D2 compared to vitamin D3,
cyanocobalamin compared to methylcobalamin, all trans beta-carotene
compared to a mixture of cis and trans beta-carotene with other
carotenoids.
Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather they
do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research is flawed
in that if uses the inferior forms of the vitamins.

Life takes a sharper knife than that butter spreader in your hand.
Martin - 03 May 2008 08:23 GMT
On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com
|" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Did the authors of the study first define what constitutes a vitamin
>> >before evaluating the benefits of taking a "multivitamin?"  It doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>compared to a mixture of cis and trans beta-carotene with other
>carotenoids.

I know all that. Which I why I promote eating more fruit and veggies,
which contain stuff that is all natural and for which our body has
evolved. It's PeterB who promotes taking all kinds of expensive
supplements.

>Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather they
>do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research is flawed
>in that if uses the inferior forms of the vitamins.

Which is why I promote avoiding that by taking veggies and fruit in
stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB
promotes the exact opposite. Why?

>Life takes a sharper knife than that butter spreader in your hand.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 03 May 2008 08:48 GMT
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> >Life takes a sharper knife than that butter spreader in your hand.

If I thought veggies and fruits did it all, I'd go that route. But in
my view
that is a failed approach, sure it is fine for procreation, and even
for living to 70 years. But I aim for more and food no matter
how good doesn't cut.

Nor are the natural forms always best. I could provide examples but
in my experience those fixated on their supposedly natural diets
(which in my experience normally aren't) simply plug their ears
and go la la la. I could cite various threads preserved in
one of the usenet archives the argued this point.

Understand it was sci.life-extension that started my interest in
the Usenet. MHA is simply a distraction rather like one of
the card games that came with the computer.
More over mega doses of certain vitamins and nutrient like
substances in my personal can be truly life conserving.
David Wright - 03 May 2008 19:43 GMT
>> Which is why I promote avoiding that by taking veggies and fruit in
>> stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>for living to 70 years. But I aim for more and food no matter
>how good doesn't cut.

I think these people who say they consume all those veggies and fruit
are in the pockets of Big Farma.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "There are two kinds of Republicans:  millionaires and suckers."
                                                     -- John Dolan
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 03 May 2008 22:21 GMT
> In article <af579e59-348d-4d3c-ba28-085b6f911...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>      "There are two kinds of Republicans:  millionaires and suckers."
>                                                       -- John Dolan

OK OK, I could have worded that better. I already eat all the veggies
and the fruits (more limited now).

Big Farma, cute. More like small farms when I can or out the backyard
kitchen garden.
PeterB - 03 May 2008 21:51 GMT
> I know all that. Which I why I promote eating more fruit and
> veggies, which contain stuff that is all natural and for which our
> body has evolved. It's PeterB who promotes taking all kinds of
> expensive supplements.

No, I recommend getting the best deal you can find.  I suggest those
in the states use iherb.com, an online vendor that does not engage in
paid referrals, or their local health food stores.

> >Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather
> >they do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB
> promotes the exact opposite. Why?

Marty, feel free to avoid taking supplements.  I'm no different than
the other holistic thinkers posting here.  We believe in a quality
organic diet, and some of us believe in supplementing our diets.  I
should actually be supplementing more than I do.  My posting history
reveals that I promote consumer access to nutritional products,
meaningful risk-benefit analysis for drugs, the creative destruction
of FDA, full disclosure of medical risks related to pharmaceuticals
and other medical products, and meaningful enforcement by FTC of drug
advertising, which is criminal.  Since you could never produce the
"quote" you claimed you found in the archives in which I supposedly
said I was a vitamin salesman, we all know you were lying about it.

Now, Marty, look at the signature in my various posts. What do you
see?  Forget the black space you must be falling into by now between
your ears, look the other way.  Right.  WHITE space.  I'm not selling
*anything* ... But *you* are.
Martin - 03 May 2008 22:32 GMT
>> I know all that. Which I why I promote eating more fruit and
>> veggies, which contain stuff that is all natural and for which our
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>in the states use iherb.com, an online vendor that does not engage in
>paid referrals, or their local health food stores.

Ah yes, iherb.com. Bottom of homepage:
"Disclaimer : Statements made, or products sold through this web site,
have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. They are
not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."
I guess these people do not stand behind their product. So why would
anyone buy from them?

>> >Understand I have no problem with vitamins being synthetic rather
>> >they do need to have the right structure. Much vitamin research
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>organic diet, and some of us believe in supplementing our diets.  I
>should actually be supplementing more than I do.  

So you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Interesting.

> My posting history reveals that I promote consumer access to nutritional products,

Why? Is there anyone attempting to prevent such access? FYI, I'm
totally against preventing access. I'm for preventing bogus claims.

>meaningful risk-benefit analysis for drugs, the creative destruction
>of FDA, full disclosure of medical risks related to pharmaceuticals
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>your ears, look the other way.  Right.  WHITE space.  I'm not selling
>*anything* ... But *you* are.

I already said I never claimed you are selling anything. I said you
are promoting things and are being paid for it. You're Big
Supplement's very own Mr. Astroturf.
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 01:59 GMT
> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com
> |" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> stead of putting money in the pockets of Big Supplement. PeterB
> promotes the exact opposite. Why?

Ah, ha! Now I know you're a Farma-shill.

How much are you getting paid to shill for Big Farma?

Signature

Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4

Peter Bowditch - 04 May 2008 03:51 GMT
>> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com
>> |" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
>How much are you getting paid to shill for Big Farma?

I just took over the management of a web site for a town with an
economy based almost totally on farming. I was even paid to do it. I
am obviously now a paid shill for Big Farma.

Wait until the gold mine opens later this year. Perhaps I can get on
the payroll of Big Digga. (If they use a cyanide extraction process I
could even sell the water from the tailings dam as a cure for cancer.
Laetrile, you know.)

Signature

Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

PeterB - 04 May 2008 04:26 GMT
> >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com
> >> |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> process I could even sell the water from the tailings dam as a
> cure for cancer.  Laetrile, you know.)

Since food-based laetrile doesn't contain free cyanide, you might have
to market your water from the tailings dam as a drug.  You could call
it cya-nara and claim that it cures people of cancer permanently.  Me,
I'll take the laetrile.
Martin - 04 May 2008 11:01 GMT
>> >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com
>> >> |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>it cya-nara and claim that it cures people of cancer permanently.  Me,
>I'll take the laetrile.

Great news! When do you start?
trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 04 May 2008 05:13 GMT
> >> On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1...@gmail.com
> >> |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> Australian Skepticshttp://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Though Peter is just trying to be clever, big mining concerns
have left huge messes on the landscape. Heavy metals such
as Pb, Hg, Cd, As, and acidic run off are the externalities of
such operations. Don't forget just how toxic all the processing
from ore to metal is beyond just the simple act of mining.
I seen towns poisoned by lead because it was cheaper to pay
the fines than clean up the stack emissions.

Big mining suits you Peter.
D. C. Sessions - 04 May 2008 15:04 GMT
> Though Peter is just trying to be clever, big mining concerns
> have left huge messes on the landscape. Heavy metals such
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I seen towns poisoned by lead because it was cheaper to pay
> the fines than clean up the stack emissions.

On it and under it.  This year's heavy snowfalls are expected
to fill up the closed mines around Leadville CO and run a lot
of metals into the river -- which supplies, directly or
indirectly, the water supply for much of the area around Denver.

However, mining isn't really necessary for heavy metal pollution.
A good example is the South Bay area (Silicon Valley), which is
adjacent to a rich deposit of cinnabar (mercury).  The groundwater
there has been loaded with mercury since before the first well was
dug, and it feeds into San Francisco Bay.  Don't eat the fish.

Other areas (e.g. central Arizona) have plentiful arsenic deposits
in the subsurface strata.  No mining worth mentioning around Cave
Creek, but the wells there are always towards the high end of the
safe arsenic levels.

Those minerals have been in the Earth for a LONG time, and so has
the water.  Don't be surprised if they got intimate.

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 17:26 GMT
>>Though Peter is just trying to be clever, big mining concerns
>>have left huge messes on the landscape. Heavy metals such
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Those minerals have been in the Earth for a LONG time, and so has
> the water.  Don't be surprised if they got intimate.

Sorry, D.C., but I'm not buying this.

I don't believe that these toxins are naturally in the water. God
wouldn't put something as toxic as mercury or arsenic in our drinking water.

You know as well as I do that lead and mercury are even more toxic than
that terrible toxin formaldehyde.

And if God wouldn't put a toxin like formaldehyde in our food--and we
know God wouldn't do such a thing because God doesn't go around
poisoning people (although, admittedly, He smites those made in His
image in many other ways, some quite horrible and/or dramatic)--He would
never put something even *more* toxic into our drinking water,
especially since we almost universally have many fewer options in what
water we drink than what foods we choose to eat.

If these toxic chemicals like lead and mercury are in our water, I'm
sure God wasn't to blame. So, just who put these toxins into the
drinking water? Big Pharma? Big Farma? Big Digga? Someone other than God
has to be the culprit.

Signature

Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4

D. C. Sessions - 04 May 2008 18:36 GMT
> Sorry, D.C., but I'm not buying this.
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> drinking water? Big Pharma? Big Farma? Big Digga? Someone other than God
> has to be the culprit.

Good question.  I can't address the theology of it, but
I do know that mountain springs in areas where there has
never been mining, industry, or even more than passing
human habitation have heavy metal content that you don't
want to be drinking for very long.

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 19:18 GMT
>>Sorry, D.C., but I'm not buying this.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> human habitation have heavy metal content that you don't
> want to be drinking for very long.

Maybe they're blowing in from China.

Signature

Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4

MothWrangler - 04 May 2008 06:27 GMT
>>>On Fri, 2 May 2008 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com
>>>|" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> could even sell the water from the tailings dam as a cure for cancer.
> Laetrile, you know.)

Damn! You're adding new shilling accounts by the...um...decade, while I
haven't been able to land on even one payroll, despite my years of
dedicated posting, effective shilling skills, and highly influential posts.

What am I doing wrong? Do you have any suggestions or pointers for me?

I just found out that I need to replace important parts of my central
A/C system, and the first estimate I got was for over $12,000, so I
could use a little extra cash right now.

Nancy
Unique, like everyone else

Signature

Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4

Jan Drew - 05 May 2008 04:21 GMT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/7c164120890c998a

Jan 26 2008

I can't read too many of the posts on MHA myself. The sheer magnitude of
uneducated (and not just uneducated, but *proudly* uneducated),
illogical, magical, and delusional thinking there makes me too Woo-zy.

Nancy
Unique, like everyone else
Jan Drew - 03 May 2008 02:29 GMT
"Martin" <idontwantno@spam.com>

http://www.myspace.com/mrady66
PeterB - 01 May 2008 20:07 GMT
Timing key to multivitamin benefits

08-Oct-2003 - People who have been taking multivitamins for a long
period of time could see a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, report
researchers in the US. However they noted that the vitamins had no
effect after a short period of use.

The study, published in the recent issue of the American Journal of
Epidemiology, shows that people who took multivitamins regularly from
10 years before the start of the study had an approximately 30 per
cent lower risk of developing the cancer. Those who had only recently
begun to use multivitamins saw no significant benefits however.
Previous studies suggest that multivitamin use may reduce colorectal
cancer risk but only after a long latency period, reported the
researchers from the Atlanta-based American Cancer Society. The
authors, investigating the role of timing in vitamin use, examined the
relationship between regular multivitamins (four or more times per
week) and colorectal cancer incidence among 145,260 men and women in
the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort.

Current multivitamin use was reported on a questionnaire at enrollment
in 1992-1993, while multivitamin use had already been obtained for a
different study approximately 10 years earlier.

The authors observed 797 incident cases of colorectal cancer during
follow-up from 1992 to 1997. After adjustment for multiple risk
factors, they found that regular multivitamin use at enrollment was
not associated with risk of the cancer, whereas regular multivitamin
use 10 years before enrollment was associated with a 30 per cent
reduced risk.

The researchers were cautious about the study results, calling it
'limited evidence' of the association between multivitamins and the
cancer. They are also lacking evidence to determine the component in
multivitamins linked to the protective effect.

However while research showing the positive association between
multivitamin use and cancer prevention remains conflicting, a second
US report out last week suggested that use of the supplements could
help save billions of dollars in healthcare.

Funded by Wyeth Consumer Healthcare and conducted by the US-based
Lewin Group, the report found that if older adults took daily
multivitamins, the country could save more than $1.6 billion in
Medicare over the next five years.

"We were able to identify significant cost savings based on improved
immune functioning and a reduction in the relative risk of coronary
artery disease through providing a daily multivitamin to the 65 and
over population," said Dr Allen Dobson, senior vice president and
director of Healthcare Finance at The Lewin Group at a conference on
multivitamins in Washington last week. "In my experience, finding any
cost savings for preventive measures is unusual and finding cost
savings of this magnitude is very rare."

The study was based on a rigorous review of literature on the health
effects of multivitamin use among adults over 65 years old. The
researchers analysed Medicare claims files and widely accepted
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost accounting methods to determine
the costs and potential savings from the protection afforded by
multivitamin supplementation

Over the five-year period from 2004-2008, the study results show
potential savings from a reduction in hospitalisations for heart
attacks, as well as from a reduction in hospitalisations, Medicare
nursing home stays and home healthcare associated with infection.

The preventive benefits of multivitamins on colorectal cancer,
prostate cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis were not included in the
cost estimation, however, because the researchers concluded that
evidence currently available in these areas did not support a direct
translation from health effect to reduced heath care use within a
health insurance framework, they said.

Experts at the 'Multivitamins and Public Health: Exploring the
Evidence' meeting also concluded that multivitamins are safe,
affordable, cost-effective and accessible and that there is promising
evidence supporting multivitamin use for theprevention of some chronic
diseases such as cardiovascular disease.

© 2001/2008 – Decision News Media SAS – All Rights Reserved.

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=38766-timing-key-to
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.