E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA daily dose of vitamin E could actually increase a man's risk of prostate cancer, a new study shows. NBC's Robert Bazell reports.
Yet another dietary supplement has backfired.
A daily dose of vitamin E could actually increase a man's risk of prostate cancer, a study out today shows. Researchers discovered the disturbing link while studying the effects of antioxidants on men's health.
The vitamin E study comes on the heels of yesterday's report that common daily supplements, including multivitamins, iron, B6 and magnesium, appear to raise the death rate of older women.
There are big differences between these two studies, but both point to the inevitable conclusion that vitamins and supplements are not the magic potions that many people hope, even though more than two-thirds of the U.S. population takes them and they make up a $28 billion-a-year industry.
The vitamin E study, called the SELECT trial, began in 2001, used the highest standard of scientific evidence -- a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial -- with the goal of proving vitamin E and selenium reduced the risk of prostate cancer. The rationale was sound. Small studies had suggested that the antioxidant effects of the two substances might reduce a man's cancer risk.
Follow Vitals on Facebook: It's good for you
As part of this major trial, funded by the National Cancer Institute, 35,000 men were recruited to test one or both of the compounds, or a placebo. By 2008, the study was halted because the evidence was clearly showing no benefit.
Meanwhile, researchers continued to monitor the men. After four more years of follow-up, they found that vitamin E actually increased the risk for prostate cancer by 17 percent among men who took a daily dose of 400 IU, according to the report's conclusion published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. While the verdict on selenium is still not in, the researchers fear it might show negative effects, too, as they continue to follow the participants.
"I was surprised by the results of this trial," says Dr. Eric Klein, a urologist and the study leader from the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. "There was a substantial amount of evidence going into SELECT when it was designed in the early 2000s to suggest that vitamin E or selenium might prevent prostate cancer and that's why we did the trial."
Because the government rules for the sales of vitamins and supplements are so much more lax than those for pharmaceuticals, you can still walk into a health food store today and find a bottle of Vitamin E with a label that reads: "Supports prostate health."
"Consumers should be skeptical about claims that are made on bottles and elsewhere unless there is solid scientific evidence," Klein says.
In the multivitamin study, researchers tracked 3,800 older women in Iowa for nearly two decades. The study found women taking vitamin B6, folic acid, magnesium, zinc, copper and iron had higher death rates. Those taking calcium had lower death rates.
It is important to note the multivitamin study was an observational trial where women simply filled out questionnaires regularly about their vitamin and supplement intake. The authors of this study say it is only suggestive and more research is needed to establish cause and effect.
Common vitamins could increase death risk
Despite all those supplements on the shelves, all too often, the evidence is just not there. The two studies together do raise the issue that Americans may be taking far more supplements and vitamins than they need and sometimes it can be harmful. As the Cleveland Clinic study shows, the products may not just waste your money, they could harm your health.
The take-home message: Most Americans get the nutrients they eat from food. As boring as that mantra sounds, you are better off eating fruits and vegetables, exercising regularly and maintaining a normal weight. A pill will seldom substitute.
Robert Bazell is NBC's Chief Science and Medical Correspondent.
Leave a Comment:
So, it would appear that vitamins are little more than a Trojan horse. Choke full of all sorts of potential ill effects. How refreshing to hear that.
the funny thing is...supplement industry is completely 100% unregulated, it has 0 peer reviewed or research-backed utility, yet Americans are willing to take supplements in lieu of medication because it is "nature's medicine" or some crock like that. it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant and blind Americans are....they demonize pharma industry for loose regulations and low efficacy YET glorify the supplement industry for doing the exact same things or worse!
I am not a user of vitamins. But readers may want to know that suddenly multiple lawsuits are being filed, supposedly by individuals, against manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, claiming not that they are injurious but that they are just sugar pills.
In seems an interesting coincidence that alternative health systems seem to be suffering multiple attacks on a variety of fronts at the same time.
I wonder who could be behind that? Perhaps the people who would like to convince us that we all suffer from a Prozac deficiency?
I don't believe any of these studies about vitamins or natural supplements.
Big Pharma is on a push to discredit any and all natural remedies unless they can distill, patent, and jam it into pill form and sell it to us for a billion dollars.
.
so now naturals supplements are bad for you right? but the expensive doctor's recommended crap is good? who is sponsoring this article? natural supplements is the only thing people can afford now, stop the greed attacking now vitamins and preventive care, now is wall street, tomorrow will be all against monsanto, insurance companies and big pharma, stop creating this type of useless articles. Vitamins are bad for you : ) what a joke. I take vitamins and I been better than ever, but I have to say, all in excess is bad. There are millions of pharma related cases, millions dead, there is about 2 or 3 cases of vitamin issues every year. Do the math.
visualstudio,
Sorry, the supplement industry has been weighed, measured and been found wanting. Don't go for the same old conspiracy type argument. The authors clearly WANTED to find that it reduced prostate cancer, but you know that's how science works....you have to report the facts. I can name a bunch of vitamins that will kill you under certain circumstances. More is not always better.
I don't take one supplement, don't shop at whole foods, have excellent cholesterol levels, blood pressure is the same as when I was in my 20's around 118-120 over 75-80 5'10" 172 9% body fat...and no I don't work out religiously. I eat a normal diet NO $40 bread, seaweed, or supplements.
Yes, indeed...do the math, you surely have not.
The reason pharmaceutical drugs are regulated is because they can kill you if not taken properly. I cannot really think of one drug that does not have an adverse side effect on the person taking it. That's why they say a doctor is to weight the side effects of the drug against the benefits of the drug. There lies the abuse.
You take a drug for let's say blood pressure. It causes you to have another problem but instead of taking you off the drug, they give you another drug to counteract the side effect and the beat goes on until you have little or no problem with side effects or you're so drugged out of your head you don't notice them any more.
The problem I have with this vitamin E study is the lack of information they give but it's worth taking notice. I'm aware that the study lasted about 10 years after taking vitamin E for 7-8 years but I'll wait for more information like the percentage that got cancer, the percentages that died, the number that had a family history of cancer, and the percentages that were treatable. I'm familiar with the Cleveland Clinic and I take anything they release to the public with a grain of salt. They're a business so if you have a lot of money you will receive the best care money can buy. If not then you will get the trainees that practice on you. If you're on an insurance plan you will get better care at many of the other hospitals in the area.
As far as I'm concerned the other so called study about supplements was basically a wash since the percentage difference was less than 1% which isn't enough to make a definite conclusion like they did in the article.
Larry,
"...or you're so drugged out of your head you don't notice them any more".
Unfortunately, laypeople tend to read the news article as a substitute for the actual research article. But even if you DO get around the the real thing, there are too many people who just don't have the foundation to even understand what they are reading. When words like "drug" is misused, sentences like you wrote above slip into the conversation, erroneously. Not every medication has a sedative or hypnotic effect that could "drug you out of your head".
I encourage you to read the actual article, then to discuss it with your physician.
US1776- Who do you think makes the vitamins?
Ok, so now it's vitamins that are a factor in putting a man at risk for prostate cancer. What's next, too much sex, not enough sex? Being a man and getting old is the main factor, some get it and some don't. I'm 70 and I know men who got prostate cancer and some who didn't. So, it just seems to go "With the territory." Maybe, some day, we'll be told the real reason for dying; Getting old? Well, lol, I wake up in the morning and just figure; "So far so good."
Mellow,
No it's not vitamins that put a man at risk for prostate cancer. It is a specific vitamin supplement that may increase a man's risk. In other words more is not always better.
MarineDoc..."I don't take one supplement, don't shop at whole foods, have excellent cholesterol levels, blood pressure is the same as when I was in my 20's around 118-120 over 75-80 5'10" 172 9% body fat...and no I don't work out religiously. I eat a normal diet NO $40 bread, seaweed, or supplements."
I take a fist full of supplements everyday, don't shop at whole foods, have excellent cholesterol levels, blood pressure is the same as when I was in my 20's around 118-120 over 75-80 6'2" 190 12% body fat...and no I don't work out religiously. I eat a normal diet.
Both of our cases are anecdotal evidence. You do realize that, right?
Of course it's anecdotal. That's the point. That's what the supplement industry is based on, rather than peer-reviewed studies.
Writers of these stories just throw out headlines- Vitamin E causes prostate caner- BS
What kind of "E" were they given?- who were "they"?- who paid for the study? Until I know more about the study I'll keep taking "E". Drug companies seem to be on a big push again to get rid of vitamins and other supplements- they do this every 2 years or so and have been doing it for about 30 years with little to show for their efforts and money wasted.
MarineDoc, there's no use trying to use logic or evidence in these arguments. People are angry. People are out of jobs, people are spending ridiculous prices for food, gas, housing, health care, etc. Their bank accounts are shrinking and their politicians are turning a blind eye. So of course they are going to see a big conspiracy to screw them over at every turn. You can collect 10 years worth of data, publish in a high impact peer-reviewed journal, but none of that matters when people already have it in their heads that NCI and JAMA and Cleveland Clinic and everyone else on the planet is collaborating together and out to get them.
Jim - if you read the article, or better yet, go find the real published data on pubmed or google scholar, then you can find those answers for yourself. Too often people rely on MSNBC, which is also a big business concerned with ratings and selling advertising, for 100% of their information. That often leads them misinformed and drawing incorrect conclusions, just as you have.
If vitamins and supplements are so terrible and bad for you… untested and unproven… why does every doctor on the planet put pregnant women on prenatal vitamins? And why does the lab work show you going from out of normal to normal once you are on said prenatal vitamins.
More BS on the nets... eat your fruits and veggies!!!
Graben,
Because Folic acid is KNOWN to help prevent neural tube defects, and supplemental vitamins are given to correct certain deficiencies in a pregnant woman in preparation for growth of a fetus...which will require the mother to gather more substrate. Why is this such a difficult topic for people to grasp? Does that answer your question?
I'm sure you can know the difference between a pregnant woman requiring extra nutrients for a growing fetus and an old man getting prostate cancer. If not, you need to stay away from computers and sharp objects. I'm also sure you can read.
Is it stupidity? Ignorance? Blindness? What? Why does everything have to be distilled down to vague notions of "good" and "bad" for you? That doesn't even make any sense!
And what "lab work" are you talking about?
You people DO realize that certain vitamins have particular functions...right? You can't just substitute Vitamin K for Vitamin B6.
The article SIMPLE states that taking SUPPLEMENTAL Vitamin E has been shown to increase prostate cancer risk. Is that too much for you people to understand? Is it that hard?
There is very little hope for this country as we dig ourselves deeper into this abyss of willful ignorance.
MarineDoc,
Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Seriously, how many postings are you going to make on this subject? You keep saying things like "that is just anecdotal." And I gather that you really do have a low opinion of the intelligence of the average person, ergo, a rather high opinion of your own.
Are you just going to camp out here all day as the gatekeeper for the "peer reviewed" and "real science"?
Perry Pierce
Lowell, MA
Perry,
Me thinks you are just interested in jumping into an discussion for the sake of being heard without anything to add. In the age of broadband internet service with more information at our fingertips than any other time in history, most people STILL choose ignorance over enlightenment. I have no problem calling those people out. I happen to understand the topic. It's my job and I won't apologize for knowing what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with who is more intelligent.
Now, do you have anything to add? Yes or no?
It has been noted that older people can't or otherwise, don't process the daily food intake into the body's needed nutrient content LIKE THEY DID WHEN THEY WERE 18! The aging bodies of many individuals can't make what they need when they get older. My blood vitamin D3 level was in the toilet and my B12 was below the low range. I finally found a doctor who understands the FACT that when elderly people age they lose their ability to manufacture or absorb what nutrients they need. The God damn drug companies want to treat the symptoms with their expensive, chemically engineered drugs (with all of their side effects) when in fact, all many may need are the proper amounts of the needed nutrients either through diet and/or vitamins and minerals. I wonder how much of this "evidence" is anecdotal.
100% anecdotal because in fact, your post makes no sense whatsoever. If people "need proper amounts" of nutrients yet their bodies cannot absorb them, then how does taking supplements magically force your body to absorb said nutrients? In those cases, you do need medication to treat symptoms because as you yourself agreed, the body is incapable of doing it on its own. By the way, vitamin supplements are synthesized just like drug API. Also, you must not have ever heard of enzyme kinetics, there is a limit to the amount of substrate an enzyme can process. Pumping your body full of additional substrate when your body's machinery is already maxed out does not increase rate of catalysis.
All you need is eating a balanced diet, moderate exercise and be happy and content. Nothing else. If a person reaches a certain old age, it's fine to die with some dignity, instead of trying to hang in here for as long as possible. For what?
Perhaps older people don't process vitamins and minerals as they did at 18 because they consumed such a poor diet as they were growing up and didn't get enough good exercise. Drug companies do push their drugs, but that doesn't mean that the drugs are not useful or safe. People who blindly avoid all pharmaceuticals and choose "natural" alternatives that have not been rigorously tested and make claims that are not backed up by facts are just helping different companies, possibly harming themselves or wasting their money. I know where Waldo is and it isn't in a very smart place.
first, the fda has always been able to regulate the dietary supplement industry according to food regulations.
prior to the 1994 dietary supplement health and education act(dshea), the fda could conduct regular routine physical inspections of manufacturing facilites; regulate label claims to make sure they are truthful and not misleadingl ensure the safety of ingrediants used in products; and not allowing new ingrediants or removing existing ingrediants for safety reasons. The following information shows the regulatory compliance timeline for the dietary supplement industry as follows; 1994 dshea act; prior to 1994 dietary supplements were regulated as foods under the food, drug and cosmetic act. next, the public health security and bioterrorism preparedness and response act of 2002 which required facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for human consumption in the usa to register the facility with fda by 12/12/2003. The adverse event reporting legislation was passed in late 2006,mandating the reporting of serious adverse events associated with dietary supplements. This law went into effect in 12/2007. Last, the good manufacturing practice (gmps) regulations designed specifically for dietary supplements went into effect 8/24/2007.
There have been past studies on various vitamins causing cancer, i.e, vitamins, a,c, and e. And, I agreed since these studies are based on synthetic vitamins. The difference between natural and synthetic in short is the difference between something that's living and something that's dead. A synthetic vitamin is a chemist attempt to reconstruct the exact structure of a crystalline molecule(a natural food that has been treated with various chemical, solvents,etc., to reduce it down to one specific "pure" crystalline vitamin. In this process all the synergists, which are termed "impurities", are destroyed. These crystalline "vitamins" should be more accurately be termed DRUGS) by chemically combining molecules from other sources. These sources are not living foods, but dead cheimcals. For example, Vitamin E(d-alpha tocopherol) is a byproduct of materials used by the Eastman Kodak company to make film. However, it is not legally necessary to give the source from which the synthetic "vitamin" is derived. Synthetic "vitamins" should more accurately be called drugs.
Natural whole food vitamins is different than "natural vitamins" since the word "natural" has no specific definition other than that the substance exists somewhere on the planet or in outer space.
Natural "whole food vitamins" are vitamins that are found in food, untampered-with in any way that would change their molecular structure, their biological or biochemical combination, or their actions.
Vitamins in their natural state always exist as living complexes with specific synergistic co-factors, enzymes,phytonutrients anbd organic mineral-activators,and never as isolated single factors. A vitain needs all of its synergists to function. Further, there are literally hundreds of such synergists, most of which have not yet been studied but are nevertheless very important. Organic food sources are preferred since they are more nutrient-dense and contain no pesticide residues.
You cannot repair and rebuild a living body with dead chemicals.
In, my practice I have found the use of Standard Process Whole Food Supplements benefit my patients greatly. Last, I wonder why the medical industry hasn't use whole food supplements in their studies?
Maybe, because the outcomes would be different.
and the doctor who lead the study to discredit Vit. E. who was the spokesman on NBC news tonight? Fortunately the Cleveland Clinic requires that researchers disclose their "connections", esp. if they've received more than $5000. from them
"Consulting. Dr. Klein receives fees of $5,000 or more per year as a paid consultant or speaker for the following companies:
@MmmMmmBeer
Vitamin B12 for instance, has to be given by injection to be effective and has HAS been a tremendous help to me. Other vitamins such as D3 is manufactured by us through one of our organs. The skin. ALL of my kids, in fact, had their blood levels tested for D3. They are all in their twenties and they were ALL below the lowest threshold. Three of them live in Nevada where the sun shines about 90% of the time. Vitamin D3 levels can be raised through diet, but not in them or me for some reason. Maybe a genetic trait not known to us. My level of D3 was raised, substantially, by first having a prescription dose of 60,000I.U. once a week for four weeks then taking 2000 I.U. daily now. Both the B12 and D3 have made a huge difference in my overall health as supplements.
Waldo, again, purely anecdotal. Once you have conducted a 10 year study with thousands of participants please come back and try again.
Also, no one is saying that vitamins are not helpful. In your case, given your obviously genetic risk, that's the treatment that worked for you. However, for the vast majority of the population, taking vitamins will not reduce cholesterol, will not kill infections, will not ease MS pain, will not destroy cancer cells, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Other treatments are needed. There is no conspiracy. Those "god damn drug companies" are keeping millions of people alive and improving quality of life. That is not anecdotal, you can see all the evidence you wish to read on clinicaltrials.gov
Supplements are not natural, they too are produced chemically in big vats. The more the meta-analyses of the supplement trials come in, the worse all this is getting. Waldo thinks we are being poisoned by BigPharm, I think it is Whole Foods....
natural supplements are not natural of course Mr. Wise, but for sure are much better than prescription drugs, just look at the doctor's recommended vitamins, 10 times more expensive than regular good quality vitamins, the difference? if big pharma profits, is good. Now that wall street is known to be a big ponzi scheme big pharma wants to get every penny from all of us, if you have no reasonable comments to post, please just read and let the ones who know do the writing, now go back to twitter
There are natural supplements, you just need read labels and know what your are looking for. Research is good for you.
Visual and Seakat - what Ian is saying is that nobody squeezes a large vat of oranges to extract Vitamin C. It is mass produced in large quantity synthetically just like drug API. What you are taking in pill form is not naturally derived. I know as I worked in a plant manufacturing and QCing Vit A, K, D, E, and Folic Acid. Our specs were 50%-150% tollerance. That means we can claim XXmg of a vitamin but be as much as 50% above or below our own label claim. Why? Because there is no regulation in the industry and people bought our product without ever knowing or feeling the difference. I have since moved into the pet care and livestock industry which, of course, is tightly regulated by USDA and for some medications the FDA (same as humans).
Also Visual - concerning your "prices" claim - the last bottle of multivitamin I bought was about $15-16. That was back in 2008 when I still worked for my old company. Currently my medication costs me $4. So the vitamin was 4-fold more expensive and was basically a glorified sugar pill! But hey, it's all good since the $28billion supplement industry is profiting in place of the pharma industry, right?
You are now seeing the big *scare tactics* used in Europe a few years ago.
They Europe cut ALL dosing to well below RDA/RDM.
Everything else requires a prescription.
So, if you need 4000 mg of Vit-C a day, like I do, then get a script.
Otherwise have fun swallowing 400 pills at 100mg [RDA for Vit-C]
Guess who is going to be next on the list for implementing this - more profit for the medical industry.
wap3: Just out of curiosity, who told you you need 4000mg of Vit C a day? Or did you just decide that yourself??
The supplement industry is based in Utah and according to NYT and other reports, it is championed by Senator Orrin Hatch who has used his political powers to stop and attempt to regulate it. I originally thought that if people were stupid enough to subsidize the economy of Utah without harming themselves so be it. However, these new studies suggest that supplements can be harmful. I believe there will be more to come regarding the negative effects of supplements and hopefully that will put an end to this useless industry.
I read that over 65,000 people die each year from taking PRESCRIPTION drugs. Then I tried to see how many people died from overdosing on vitamins. A US report released in June, 2011 tracked deaths from vitamin supplements for the last 27 years.
How many died? Zippo. None. Nada.
Again, just when the FDA is gearing up to reign in supplements, these bogus fear mongering stories & "studies" appear as if out of nowhere - along with the trolls and woodpeckers in their AMEN corner.
Hey - no one puts a gun to your head and makes you take vitamins. Leave the hell alone those of us who do want to take them - we neither need nor want your social engineering help to "save us from ourselves."
Actually the figure on Rx drugs is over 100,000 deaths per year in the US alone. This "study" is clearly part of a new media campaign against supplements. It is interesting that this happens just at the moment that bills promoting massive restrictions against supplements are pending in congress. We no longer have real science in this country. It is all for sale, or perhaps more directly, you can't get the funds to do science unless you can spin it for the sponsor which is ultimately a pharmaceutical company.
post your facts, websites etc... or else you just pulled 100k out of your butt
AJS, it is no one's fault but your own if you don't know that Edwin is telling the truth.
Jaques, Edwin, and Seakat - how many would have died if they did not take medication? We could go back to the days where you died of the flu and average life expectancy was about 50 years old, but personally I'd rather live longer with modern medicine. This is not a "new media campaign" the lack of oversight in supplement industry has been a problem for decades. There are many issues, including safety. But the biggest issue I see is efficacy. $28billion per year spent on an industry which provides no clinical utility, no data to support claims, and is not held responsible for any claims made. People are wasting their money on something "natural" because it sounds good. That's called marketing and advertising. When it goes unchecked (like it used to with pharmaceuticals, with liquor, with tobacco, with kid's cereals, etc.) then you have problems.
Jaques, your last sentence was pretty revealing about your stance on research/informing yourself, and indeed the comment works both ways. "No one puts a gun to your head" and makes you take medication, either. Leave those of us who have an understanding of biology, genetics, medicine alone and enjoy your natural supplements. Just realize that you may be taking a sugar pill because no one is regulating the industry. By the way, the last bottle of multivitamin I bought was about $15-$16. That was in 2008 before the economy drove up prices. My medicine currently costs me $4.
Wow! What is the AMA up to? Now everyone should stop taking supplements, but you can allow yourself and your children to be injected and drugged. If you eat an apple that is genetically engineered you're going to get sick. If you eat an apple the way GOD created it, you will be healthy. What they're not telling is who the manufacturers are. Vitamins are beneficial. You can't get your vitamins from the genetically engineered, sprayed, hybrid, processed food that is in our grocery stores. There is alot more to this study that isn't being revealed. There are still many companies that sell superior products. You won't find them in the drug store. Don't believe everything in the mainstream media.
Here they go again! This must be "Dump on Supplements" week on NBC. Don't bother quoting facts to counter them. They're not interested. Really, is anybody believing this junk?
Cancer takes 10-40 years to develop. This study did not follow the subjects for a sufficient length of time to conclude anything. The author appears both ignorant and biased.
adhesiolyser: So if cancer takes 10-to 40 years to develop, they why are kids 3 and 4 years old dying from it? Speaking of ignorant!!
are kids getting prostate cancer at 3-4, no... so Verno your speaking of ignorance as well
verno- the case of pediatric malignancy differs from that of adults, and was not the subject under consideration. The mutations leading to pediatric malignancies often occur in the parent of the child, and that greatly reduces the lead time.
The evidence, the conclusion, and the tone of the article in question was generally atrocious. There is more to a human being than a prostate, something the author didn't seem to know, as he leaped to his desired conclusion.
I've been researching this topic for many years. I take supplements that are food-sourced, and combine with adaptogens and other supplements such as AHCC. There are over 200 scientific studies regarding AHCC as just one example. I would never go into a drug store and purchase the crap they sell there. My post probably would be deleted if I tried to relay to everyone the best companies to look at in terms of quality, do a bit of research on your own, it could be a new chapter in your life. There is no silver bullet, in my mind good health comes from a holistic balance of good sleep, nutrition, hydration, supplementation, exercise and recreation. Good genes do not hurt either lol. Supplements should be food sourced and have the right synergy also, do not buy something based on the claim on a label, do careful reserach first. Best regards to everyone and their health.
Agree, nothing is better than good nutrition, but when we cannot afford to buy 5 lbs of oranges to consume the vit c we need, or our stomach cannot handle the acid, a good 10 cents vitamin c pill will do the trick. Stay Healthy, eat well and get your vitamins for when busy or broke, can you afford to be sick?
"Studies May Be Bunk"
That is a heavy caveat - move along now, nothing to see here, move along.
ALSO,
HOW MANY older women took just this peculiar mix of vitamins? Was it two women, four women out of 38,000? That is a strange mix to take particularly when it excludes Calcium.
Get a clue, this is a screwy article. Even this male (me) knows women are supposed to take calcium and if you take calcium it almost always comes with a complimentary amount of magnesium. Women do NOT go out and seek exclusively magnesium UNLESS they have a medical condition which depletes it like ALCOHOLISM in which case a doctor would prescribe magnesium. Is this a clue that these two women were alcoholics? I find (Google) that magnesium is also a palative for (rare) a few migraine sufferers.
This is supposed to be an article about taking mulitvitamins, not some limited peculiar oddball mixture
Way to stick with what's important MSNBC. Really? Millions are just trying to EAT!
35 years ago, I had quit bowling and all sports because of a broken bone in my right hand caused by a high fast ball to my head. A long time friend of mine had me read an article in "Prevention" magazine about older women with arthritus in their hands had to quit knitting and sewing. He gave me a bottle of Vitamin "E" and said that me being Irish would not buy one for myself. I started taking 1 Vitamin E twice a day and within 30 days, was without pain and back to bowling again and also to continue as a Certified welder and maintence man in a Chemical plant; I have taken them for more than 35 years and I will turn 80 in a very short time;
Thank You;
But, do you have prostate cancer? LOL
Why believe ANY of the studies because what is good for you today is bad tomorrow.........And vice versa.
So now that we know that the value of studies is worthless.......stop wasting money and just eat nutritious foods in moderation with perhaps a small amount of red wine.........which is good for you today but will likely give you cancer with the next study!
Stay the hell away from metabolic supplements, like other supplements they reduce the natural processes.
What the Hell are people supposed to believe from these @#$%@%#&. First chocolate is good for. Then it's bad for you. Eggs are no good for you, then they are good for you. Peanut butter is no good for you, now it's good for you. This is good for you then not. that is no good for you but now it is. What the Hell is going on?????????????????
I agree with you totally! When I had my first baby, I was told by the doctors and nurses that I should leave my baby sleep on her tummy. Three years later I had my second baby, the same doctors and nurses told me not to leave baby sleep on tummy because she might suffer sudden death. And my old folks had always told us not to leave baby sleep on tummy. They had told me I should rotate the baby so she'll have a head/face in good shape. Don't always listen to doctors. They go to extremes in academic research.
You're describing what the media does. The paper will just say X may cause Y. Example: eggs. Eggs are cheap, tasty, and a complete protein. However, they have high amounts of cholesterol. So are they good or bad? No research paper will tell you that, because that requires individual consultation. The research paper will just say eggs have high amounts of protein with a complete set of amino acids. Or, eggs have high amounts of cholesterol which can lead to heart disease. It's up to you to figure out if eggs are bad for you. The scientist has just told you what's there.
But when it hits the media what are they supposed to say? Eggs have cholesterol so watch out? That doesn't bring readers/viewers/consumers. They freak out and say eggs are bad! Then they say eggs are good! Anything to keep your attention. I've read enough science papers to know that no "proper" science paper (can't vouch for just any paper that claims to be scientific) will put a conclusion such as "eggs are good/bad." It's the components and their effects they study. Whether it's bad/good for you is for you to figure out.
Hopefully that makes sense. The summary is that the media portrays research reports as containing ultimate conclusions when really they only contain discussions about constituent parts and the possible effects.
Just eat natural food! But unfortunately nowadays we don't have any uncontaminated natural food anymore. Everything is somewhat contaminated by the environment which we have contaminated ourselves. There's nothing really safe to eat or drink. But still, natural food is a lot safer than any supplement or drugs. Whenever it's something you are told to take daily for the long term, don't take it. It just doesn't sound right in my opinion.
At least we still get to hear the unbiased results of such studies. If the teabaggers' deregulatory agenda ever takes root, Big Pharma will be able to conduct its own "studies" that show whatever results maximize profits. You will be playing the teabagger roulette whenever you shop for a drug: Will it cure me or kill me?
So I was a big vitamin supporter for a long time. But as with most un regulated, untested things. I don't think we are dosing correctly or getting the advertised dosage. I now think we are really doing as much harm as over medicating. We have not done enough studies on how vitamins are accepted by the body. They could be treated for all we know as a foreign substance. I am now of the conclusion that their is no replacement for proper eating habits. Getting vitamins from fruits and vegetables.
The vitamin E study "SELECT 2001" I went and read about it, you can too, here:
http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/qa/2008/selectqa
Did you read all the way to the last sentence?
The other study (ATBC) found beneficial effects from Vitamin E at 50 IU/day while the SELECT dose (the only one mentioned in this article) "may have been too large to have a prevention benefit".
It's funny and sad to read peoples' responses to this article, and how each response just spouts whatever political point of view the writer happens to have, with very little regard for what the article actually said. What I got from the article is to be skeptical of health claims made by the various supplements. The same can also be said for the claims made by the big pharmaceutical companies. Take Zoloft for example. How many people who take Zoloft actually benefit from the treatment? Very few, I'll wager. The same goes for MOST of the pills we pop, whether they are supplements or prescriptions. Some medications are life saving. Like insulin, for a diabetic who needs it. But most of what we take is unnecessary, and may actually be harmful in some cases. I don't dispute what Paul Morrison said (above) about Vitamin E. Maybe it worked for him, just like he said. But be skeptical. Don't blindly take anybody's word for what is/is not good for you. And especially, don't take megadoses of anything. Even Vitamin C is bad for you if you take too much.
What I got from the article is be skeptical of MSNBC.
JP, you should be skeptical of everything you read, including what MSNBC puts out. That's my point exactly.
Another "News cast" of something that MAY be bad.
This is not news, its just another reporter looking for a headline and another useless scientific study about two poops fought over by a rat and mouse.
Tell me something real that is news and really has an impact of people.
It's not useless. If I had prostate issues or a family history I'd probably use this info to reduce my Vit. E intake in hopes it reduces my risk. Before this study I would have never known this link. It's not useless just because it's not applicable to everyone. Science rarely gives absolutes and this is no exception.
I wonder if these people know that the double blind method has never been proven to work. Instead of being a gold standard, it has no more value than the paper in a dollar bill until it can be proved it does what it's supposed to. It is also vulnerable to hidden doctoring: doctoring the study population as was done in a study "proving" vitamin E increases your chances of lung cancer (the experimental group was a year older than the placebo group.
Another method is failing to follow someone else's original protocol. This was done when "proving" omega-3's were dangerous.
A third is to be ignorant of the substance to be tested's properties. I always suspect this to be the case with vitamin E studies, where there are 5 different substances that can be called vitamin E, one of which is inactive. The research purist will only use one- mixed tocopherols in such a study would be blasphemy as the study would lose its precious purity.
I'm not sure you understand what double blind means. Double blind means that neither the patient nor the doctor know who is getting the real stuff, at what dose, or who got the placebo. The double blind eliminated the "hidden doctoring" of the single blind. If I'm interpreting what you wrote correctly. Or are you implying that the double blind requires manipulation of the possible participant pool before the study begins? Even if that's your contention, that's a problem with the doctors not the procedure.
Not following protocols is an issue for all research not just with the double blind method.
I'm not sure how your third point is even relevant to the double blind method. It seems like you have a problem with the way the doctors set up the experiment not with how double blind studies work. Using an improper substance is a failing of the doctors to properly construct the experiment. The double blind method doesn't require the experimenter set up the experiment in a negligent manner.
8 different E's not 5.
You mean one of which is synthetic (dl Alpha-Tocopherol ) and the most widely used in supplements and skin/hair care products, and which independent research has shown to be, at least up to now, useless.But, it's man made and the most profitable form of Vit E, so.........
I wonder if these people know that the double blind method has never been proven to work. Instead of being a gold standard, it has no more value than the paper in a dollar bill until it can be proved it does what it's supposed to. It is also vulnerable to hidden doctoring: doctoring the study population as was done in a study "proving" vitamin E increases your chances of lung cancer (the experimental group was a year older than the placebo group.
Another method is failing to follow someone else's original protocol. This was done when "proving" omega-3's were dangerous.
A third is to be ignorant of the substance to be tested's properties. I always suspect this to be the case with vitamin E studies, where there are 5 different substances that can be called vitamin E, one of which is inactive. The research purist will only use one- mixed tocopherols in such a study would be blasphemy as the study would lose its precious purity.
The article used a double-blind placebo-controlled trial for men as bait then switched to an unscientific observational trial for women to suggest that vitamins/multivitamins cause higher death rates.
BTW Centrum’s Silver multivitamin has 50 IU of Vitamin E and Puritan Pride’s High Potency Ultra Vita Man multivitamin has 100 IU of Vitamin E, both products fall far short of the 400 IU that were used in the controlled trial for men.