Large Study: Taking vitamins from supplements does not offer mortality benefits, has potential risks
MikePTY
Posts: 3,814 Member
A large study (well, technically, a review of a prior study) that reviewed the eating habits of over 30,000 people over the course of a decade, found no discernible benefits of taking vitamins in supplement form (either individually or from a multi-vitamin) with regards to reducing the risk of death. However, the study did find potential risks associated with high calcium supplementation as well as Vitamin D supplementation in people who don't have a vitamin D deficiency. However, vitamin intake from food was associated with a lower mortality risk. Before talking more in depth about the study, I wanted to get the disclaimers out of the way first:
Health and diet research is hard for a number of reasons, especially because most studies are observational, meaning that they can only identify associations, not causes. This limits them from making definitive judgement. So no study, this or others, should be taken as a gospel when it comes to their findings. But that being said, these observational studies still have values, especially if they correlate with other studies done into the same subject, as this one does (there has not been a clear established link between vitamin intake from supplements like there has been for vitamin intake from food).
Some excerpts from the article, which despite a click-baity headline, was a clear write up of it.:
You can read the rest of the article here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/the-nutrition-study-the-30b-supplement-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
It's important to note that this study was controlled for lifestyle and diet factors, so they tried as much as they could to isolate out just the observed impact of vitamin and mineral intake. That still doesn't necessarily illustrate causation, but it helps reduce some of the potential correlative errors.
So what to take away from this? I think it adds credence to the theory that you can't supplement yourself to good nutrition, and it is better to get vitamin and mineral intake from eating a diverse diet (diverse in the sense that it covers a broad base of vitamins and mineral). If someone hopes they can avoid eating these foods and that a multivitamin a day will make up for it, they may not get the benefits they are seeking. It also shows that there should be care taken when oversupplementing, as it can have risk factors associated to it.
It's important to note that this study didn't examine the benefits of taking supplements to cure a specific deficiency, but rather the taking of supplements in general.
The study also has several limitations, including relying on people to remember the foods that they eat (and honestly report them). Also, it’s an observational study, only able to pick out correlations, not prove that nutrients cause any observed harms or benefits.
Health and diet research is hard for a number of reasons, especially because most studies are observational, meaning that they can only identify associations, not causes. This limits them from making definitive judgement. So no study, this or others, should be taken as a gospel when it comes to their findings. But that being said, these observational studies still have values, especially if they correlate with other studies done into the same subject, as this one does (there has not been a clear established link between vitamin intake from supplements like there has been for vitamin intake from food).
Some excerpts from the article, which despite a click-baity headline, was a clear write up of it.:
The study, published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is yet another to find that taking supplemental vitamins and minerals—either individually or in multivitamins—offers no discernible benefits in terms of reducing risks of death generally or death from cardiovascular disease and cancers, specifically.
Moreover, the study didn’t just find a lack of benefits from supplements. It also found potential harms. Getting high doses of calcium (1,000 mg or more per day) from supplements—but not from foods—was linked to higher cancer mortality risks in the study. Likewise, people taking vitamin D supplements who didn’t have vitamin D deficiencies may have higher risks of all-cause mortality and death from cancers.
When the researchers picked apart effects of individual micronutrients, they found that adequate intake of vitamin K and magnesium linked to a lower risk of all-cause mortality. Also, vitamin A, vitamin K, zinc, and copper were associated with a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease. But these benefits were restricted to intake only from foods—not supplements.
You can read the rest of the article here: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/the-nutrition-study-the-30b-supplement-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
It's important to note that this study was controlled for lifestyle and diet factors, so they tried as much as they could to isolate out just the observed impact of vitamin and mineral intake. That still doesn't necessarily illustrate causation, but it helps reduce some of the potential correlative errors.
So what to take away from this? I think it adds credence to the theory that you can't supplement yourself to good nutrition, and it is better to get vitamin and mineral intake from eating a diverse diet (diverse in the sense that it covers a broad base of vitamins and mineral). If someone hopes they can avoid eating these foods and that a multivitamin a day will make up for it, they may not get the benefits they are seeking. It also shows that there should be care taken when oversupplementing, as it can have risk factors associated to it.
It's important to note that this study didn't examine the benefits of taking supplements to cure a specific deficiency, but rather the taking of supplements in general.
6
Replies
-
I remember hearing about these kinds of studies on the Dr. Dean Edell radio show. He actually advised not to supplement unless directed to do so by a doctor for deficiencies. And he said this coming from a background where his parents were in the vitamin manufacturing business. He said it’s best to get all your nutrition from foods whenever possible. It’s like we always want to take things to an extreme... “vitamins are good for us so more must be better!” without taking into account the unwanted side effects. I miss his radio show, he wasn’t like these new entertainment doctors at all, he never sold out and actively encouraged critical thinking, I learned a lot from Dr. Dean!
1 -
Any research ends with .com is not worth reading. I take multivitamin daily and it's highly advisable for childbearing age women to prevent fetal neural deffects. I use this site and I follow the rule of moderation and variety and still I lack iron and calcium and other vitamins and minerals, so multivitamin truly helps with those deficiencies.
Also, our body suprisingly only can absorb calcium 500mg at one time. There's so many rules about taking vitamin that I cannot remember, like one mineral can prevent another mineral from absorption if you take them both.
Anyhow, daily multivitamin should not be discourage. And besides, most of our foods now, like bread, cereal and salt, is fortified to prevent a lot of illness. I am not a bread or cereal eater, and to those who don't. It's smart to take multivitamin.12 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »Any research ends with .com is not worth reading. I take multivitamin daily and it's highly advisable for childbearing age women to prevent fetal neural deffects. I use this site and I follow the rule of moderation and variety and still I lack iron and calcium and other vitamins and minerals, so multivitamin truly helps with those deficiencies.
Also, our body suprisingly only can absorb calcium 500mg at one time. There's so many rules about taking vitamin that I cannot remember, like one mineral can prevent another mineral from absorption if you take them both.
Anyhow, daily multivitamin should not be discourage. And besides, most of our foods now, like bread, cereal and salt, is fortified to prevent a lot of illness. I am not a bread or cereal eater, and to those who don't. It's smart to take multivitamin.
This doesn’t describe the OP’s post, which is a popular website’s summary of scholarly research published in a professional, peer reviewed journal. The summary includes a link to the original scientific publication. It is not accurate to call it simply “research [that] ends with .com.”11 -
Well this sucks for journal publishers such as Oxford University Press, Sage Publishing, Nature, Routledge, Springer, Wiley, Elsevier, De Gruyter, Taylor & Francis...I could go on, trust me, I could.Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »Any research ends with .com is not worth reading. I take multivitamin daily and it's highly advisable for childbearing age women to prevent fetal neural deffects. I use this site and I follow the rule of moderation and variety and still I lack iron and calcium and other vitamins and minerals, so multivitamin truly helps with those deficiencies.
Also, our body suprisingly only can absorb calcium 500mg at one time. There's so many rules about taking vitamin that I cannot remember, like one mineral can prevent another mineral from absorption if you take them both.
Anyhow, daily multivitamin should not be discourage. And besides, most of our foods now, like bread, cereal and salt, is fortified to prevent a lot of illness. I am not a bread or cereal eater, and to those who don't. It's smart to take multivitamin.
11 -
This confirms what I have always said - no benifit in a vitamin supplement unless you are supplementing a specific thing in response to a known deficiency.
I take ferrogradC in response to known borderline low iron levels ( the vitamin c helps absorption, saves having to take it with orange juice) and I know many people who are told to take vitamin D in response to low levels and osteoporosis risk.
But willy nilly just taking mega doses of vitamins - not a good idea.
( however a low dose daily multi vitamin probably ok if you really want to - but don't go any further)4 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »Any research ends with .com is not worth reading. I take multivitamin daily and it's highly advisable for childbearing age women to prevent fetal neural deffects. I use this site and I follow the rule of moderation and variety and still I lack iron and calcium and other vitamins and minerals, so multivitamin truly helps with those deficiencies.
Also, our body suprisingly only can absorb calcium 500mg at one time. There's so many rules about taking vitamin that I cannot remember, like one mineral can prevent another mineral from absorption if you take them both.
Anyhow, daily multivitamin should not be discourage. And besides, most of our foods now, like bread, cereal and salt, is fortified to prevent a lot of illness. I am not a bread or cereal eater, and to those who don't. It's smart to take multivitamin.
As noted, this isn't a fair understanding of the study review that OP was talking about.
If the concern is getting pregnant (not all women of child bearing age are concerned about accidental pregnancy), then the precaution ought to be prenatals, I'd think, as they have specific supplements important for early pregnancy that are not in just a multi. And I'd NEVER supplement iron without a diagnosed deficiency, as it can be dangerous (and seeing that you are low on MFP is not reliable at all, and doesn't mean deficiency).3 -
@apullum .com means commercial.. I learned making research paper with nutrition not to use any website that ends with .com. So yah, I stay away. Most of the journal that are publish with .com has hidden agenda. .gov or .edu I will consider reading and see below if the author received funding from the said products they are researching.14
-
It's important to note that this study was controlled for lifestyle and diet factors, so they tried as much as they could to isolate out just the observed impact of vitamin and mineral intake. That still doesn't necessarily illustrate causation, but it helps reduce some of the potential correlative errors.
Very interesting -- I'll read it.So what to take away from this? I think it adds credence to the theory that you can't supplement yourself to good nutrition, and it is better to get vitamin and mineral intake from eating a diverse diet (diverse in the sense that it covers a broad base of vitamins and mineral). If someone hopes they can avoid eating these foods and that a multivitamin a day will make up for it, they may not get the benefits they are seeking. It also shows that there should be care taken when oversupplementing, as it can have risk factors associated to it.
Agree with all this (my assumption has always been that there's more in the foods that tend to be nutrient dense and associated with good outcomes than we have isolated and identified, so better to go with the food than rely on a multi). More specifically, I'm interested in the negatives about D supplementation (calcium too, but that seemed to be megadoses). I've always understood that D in winter in climates that tend to be sun-challenged (since it's hard to get adequate D in food) is a good idea. I don't actually comply most of the time, as I can't remember to take vitamins for some reason, but I always intend to. I do wonder if there might be something else (people who don't take it are more likely to be outside a lot which is good for you).
At any rate, it's pretty much spring, and plenty of light lately, so I can research it over the summer!2 -
The approach taken by holistic Doctors is merely one of "covering gaps". Multivitamins help fill in gaps that may be present in your current diet. This means you are using the vitamins as intended, as supplementsto an already diverse diet.
You also have to wonder who paid for these studies. Many of them were done so by Pharmaceutical companies. They don't want people to be healthy. They want them taking their drugs so they do these studies to bad mouth vitamins.
Ultimately a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is the best with a good deal of variety/color. The problem people face today is that they simply don't get enough or hate eating vegetables and fruit.10 -
I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
2 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »@apullum .com means commercial.. I learned making research paper with nutrition not to use any website that ends with .com. So yah, I stay away. Most of the journal that are publish with .com has hidden agenda. .gov or .edu I will consider reading and see below if the author received funding from the said products they are researching.
I am a professor. I publish academic papers as part of my job. I also teach my first year writing students to identify scholarly sources.
What you’re saying is not how academic research as a whole works, and is a poor way to evaluate the quality of research. Many reputable journals have websites ending in .com, and academic journals generally do not have .gov addresses (there are some exceptions). .edu is hosted at an educational institution and that publication may or may not be peer reviewed; it may just be a student or professor posting a paper on their own.
Additionally, this is still not relevant to OP’s post, which was a summary of a peer reviewed study published in a highly reputable journal. If you don’t trust the summary, the link to the original study was also available.19 -
The approach taken by holistic Doctors is merely one of "covering gaps". Multivitamins help fill in gaps that may be present in your current diet. This means you are using the vitamins as intended, as supplementsto an already diverse diet.
You also have to wonder who paid for these studies. Many of them were done so by Pharmaceutical companies. They don't want people to be healthy. They want them taking their drugs so they do these studies to bad mouth vitamins.
Ultimately a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is the best with a good deal of variety/color. The problem people face today is that they simply don't get enough or hate eating vegetables and fruit.
Um who do you think makes multivitamins? Many of them are made by pharmaceutical companies. This study doesn't bad mouth vitamins or make any recommendations on what people should do. It simply analyzes the data and draws conclusions about the link or lack there of between vitamin supplements and certain health outcomes. But one conclusion and individual could draw from the study is that rather than taking supplements, eating fruits and vegetables is more beneficial. So I'm not exactly sure how a study that could encourage people to buy less from pharmaceutical companies and get it from food is secretly backing their agenda. But I've never been great with conspiracy theories.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.
I know vit d is in my annual bloodwork - does your doc do CBC and CMP?0 -
The approach taken by holistic Doctors is merely one of "covering gaps". Multivitamins help fill in gaps that may be present in your current diet. This means you are using the vitamins as intended, as supplementsto an already diverse diet.
You also have to wonder who paid for these studies. Many of them were done so by Pharmaceutical companies. They don't want people to be healthy. They want them taking their drugs so they do these studies to bad mouth vitamins.
Ultimately a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is the best with a good deal of variety/color. The problem people face today is that they simply don't get enough or hate eating vegetables and fruit.
Um who do you think makes multivitamins? Many of them are made by pharmaceutical companies. This study doesn't bad mouth vitamins or make any recommendations on what people should do. It simply analyzes the data and draws conclusions about the link or lack there of between vitamin supplements and certain health outcomes. But one conclusion and individual could draw from the study is that rather than taking supplements, eating fruits and vegetables is more beneficial. So I'm not exactly sure how a study that could encourage people to buy less from pharmaceutical companies and get it from food is secretly backing their agenda. But I've never been great with conspiracy theories.
You beat me to it regarding who makes vitamins. Also, what about other companies making supplements? they're not in it for the kindness of their hearts.
This study is important because it gives you a very big (sample size and diversity) picture of real world practices, albeit difficult to interpret, but it tells you more about the general population than a clinical trial would.2 -
The approach taken by holistic Doctors is merely one of "covering gaps". Multivitamins help fill in gaps that may be present in your current diet. This means you are using the vitamins as intended, as supplementsto an already diverse diet.
You also have to wonder who paid for these studies. Many of them were done so by Pharmaceutical companies. They don't want people to be healthy. They want them taking their drugs so they do these studies to bad mouth vitamins.
Ultimately a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is the best with a good deal of variety/color. The problem people face today is that they simply don't get enough or hate eating vegetables and fruit.
Um who do you think makes multivitamins? Many of them are made by pharmaceutical companies. This study doesn't bad mouth vitamins or make any recommendations on what people should do. It simply analyzes the data and draws conclusions about the link or lack there of between vitamin supplements and certain health outcomes. But one conclusion and individual could draw from the study is that rather than taking supplements, eating fruits and vegetables is more beneficial. So I'm not exactly sure how a study that could encourage people to buy less from pharmaceutical companies and get it from food is secretly backing their agenda. But I've never been great with conspiracy theories.
You beat me to it regarding who makes vitamins. Also, what about other companies making supplements? they're not in it for the kindness of their hearts.
This study is important because it gives you a very big (sample size and diversity) picture of real world practices, albeit difficult to interpret, but it tells you more about the general population than a clinical trial would.
Yup everyone from big pharma to big ag to family farms and natural news websites and holistic doctors are out to make a buck. That they are doesn't discount the value of what someone is doing. It has the value it has or doesn't have regardless of that. If we discount things in general because somebody would profit off the result then we pretty much have to discount everything.1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.
I know vit d is in my annual bloodwork - does your doc do CBC and CMP?
Yeah on the CBC, I don't know what CMP means. But I don't get a breakdown of every reading...like Vit D or other micronutrients. Maybe I have to specifically ask.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.
I know vit d is in my annual bloodwork - does your doc do CBC and CMP?
Yeah on the CBC, I don't know what CMP means. But I don't get a breakdown of every reading...like Vit D or other micronutrients. Maybe I have to specifically ask.
Comprehensive metabolic panel. My doctor doesn't do one unless I ask or we're trying to find the cause of some specific issue. I always ask for a copy of my results because I'm nosy
I assume if you were deficient in anything they'd be telling you.
The mega dose Vit D I take is 50k iu once per week (Saturdays, except I'm rubbish at remembering so get maybe 3 weeks out of 4). It seems to be enough to keep my levels up but by no means off the charts.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.
I know vit d is in my annual bloodwork - does your doc do CBC and CMP?
Yeah on the CBC, I don't know what CMP means. But I don't get a breakdown of every reading...like Vit D or other micronutrients. Maybe I have to specifically ask.
What pinuplove said - I was surprised when mine ordered that but she said it’s just her policy
All my breakups are also posted online through their patient portal - so I can typically review before I see her which helps me make informed decisions - compared to my endocrinologist who doesn’t share anything and makes it hard to be an informed patient2 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.
My D hasn't been tested either. My doctor just said that she recommends D in the winter to everyone (I'm in Chicago). When I log at Cronometer I do notice that D is the one thing I'm consistently low on, and would need to get from sun.
Maybe I should ask to be tested.
I do have seasonal depression issues too -- going to try that light thing this coming year maybe -- which is one reason I've wanted to add in the D, as I've heard from several people that it's helpful.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm interested in the take on Vit D too. It's the one I feel has changed me. I don't ant to read the study because today I have enough to worry about...but is that covered in this?
My doctor told me years ago that vitamins were not necessary and I should stop taking them. She did recommend a Vit D. I'm in the upper U.S. and we don't get much sun. I really feel like Vit D was instrumental in combatting my seasonal depression.
Without Vit D supplementation my level runs 15-20. Supplementing gets it up to 60 or so. But only the mega dose once a week seems to work. I guess this would be a case of supplementation being medically indicated. My levels are now "normal" but only stay that way with continued supplementing so...
Don't mind me, I'm just rambling now
Interesting about the one mega dose. I don't even know if Vit D levels are something they routinely test for and I had started taking 2000iu daily before my doctor told me that. For the record, my doctor isn't God, she led me astray on more than one occasion. To thine own self be true I guess. I've been supplementing D for ten years. I take 1000iu daily now. Sometimes in the summer I skip it for weeks at a time. It is the only thing that made life worth living for me from October to May.
I know vit d is in my annual bloodwork - does your doc do CBC and CMP?
Yeah on the CBC, I don't know what CMP means. But I don't get a breakdown of every reading...like Vit D or other micronutrients. Maybe I have to specifically ask.
Comprehensive metabolic panel. My doctor doesn't do one unless I ask or we're trying to find the cause of some specific issue. I always ask for a copy of my results because I'm nosy I assume if you were deficient in anything they'd be telling you.
Mine has this new app thing that reports all results. It's cool.
I will ask about a CMP next time, I think.1 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »@apullum .com means commercial.. I learned making research paper with nutrition not to use any website that ends with .com. So yah, I stay away. Most of the journal that are publish with .com has hidden agenda. .gov or .edu I will consider reading and see below if the author received funding from the said products they are researching.
Well, its a good thing that the Annals of Internal Medicine article that this is summarizing is at annals.org, then, isn't it! Here you go -- now you don't have to stay away!
https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2730525/association-among-dietary-supplement-use-nutrient-intake-mortality-among-u?doi=10.7326/M18-2478Results:
During a median follow-up of 6.1 years, 3613 deaths occurred, including 945 CVD deaths and 805 cancer deaths. Ever-use of dietary supplements was not associated with mortality outcomes. Adequate intake (at or above the Estimated Average Requirement or the Adequate Intake level) of vitamin A, vitamin K, magnesium, zinc, and copper was associated with reduced all-cause or CVD mortality, but the associations were restricted to nutrient intake from foods. Excess intake of calcium was associated with increased risk for cancer death (above vs. at or below the Tolerable Upper Intake Level: multivariable-adjusted rate ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.07 to 2.45]; multivariable-adjusted rate difference, 1.7 [CI, −0.1 to 3.5] deaths per 1000 person-years), and the association seemed to be related to calcium intake from supplements (≥1000 mg/d vs. no use: multivariable-adjusted rate ratio, 1.53 [CI, 1.04 to 2.25]; multivariable-adjusted rate difference, 1.5 [CI, −0.1 to 3.1] deaths per 1000 person-years) rather than foods.
Limitations:
Results from observational data may be affected by residual confounding. Reporting of dietary supplement use is subject to recall bias.
Conclusion:
Use of dietary supplements is not associated with mortality benefits among U.S. adults.
Hey! Look! It's also indexed in PubMed, which is a DOT GOV site!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959527
6 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »@apullum .com means commercial.. I learned making research paper with nutrition not to use any website that ends with .com. So yah, I stay away. Most of the journal that are publish with .com has hidden agenda. .gov or .edu I will consider reading and see below if the author received funding from the said products they are researching.
You do realize that the vast majority of reputable journals use .com addresses right? I'm not sure who gave you the advice you stated above, but it was very very poor advice. I honestly suggest that if you're at all interested in research of any kind, you should really learn how academic publishing works. I suspect most journals can't publish with .edu or .gov top level domains. The .edu is out of the question because most journals aren't connected to universities. .gov is going to be more or less nonexistent in terms of URLs of journals because most journals aren't tied to government entities (and .gov as a top level domain is limited to the US).
I mean your, "no websites that don't end in .edu or .gov" takes out, among other journals, The Lancet.
Also PubMed (which has a .gov address)? They aren't actually a publisher. Most of their entries are citations and then they also archive some articles from some journals.
So again, I really suggest that you learn about reputable academic publishing. The academic publishing industry is very much a commercial venture, but the entities that see most of that money are the publishers, NOT the authors (you also might want to read about how funding works).3 -
@savithny ummmm, you have an abstract, It's not the full text. It's irrelevant, sorry.
Unless I can see their statistic, how they collected the data, and how they controlled their subjects, I can't tell how they came up with the conclusion.
Also, I read the original post journal, since everyone are so hype up about it. Ummmm... It's basically somebodies outlook about the original journal, and for all I know the authors outlook could be skewed.5 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »@savithny ummmm, you have an abstract, It's not the full text. It's irrelevant, sorry.
Unless I can see their statistic, how they collected the data, and how they controlled their subjects, I can't tell how they came up with the conclusion.
Also, I read the original post journal, since everyone are so hype up about it. Ummmm... It's basically somebodies outlook about the original journal, and for all I know the authors outlook could be skewed.
The first sentence of the OP said that it was a review. Arstechnica isn't an academic journal nor is it claiming to be one. Additionally, abstracts aren't irrelevant. They are far from the full picture, but they aren't irrelevant. It seems as though you don't have a lot of knowledge on academic publishing and/or journal articles. Assuming you're at a university, there are a load of in person resources for you to glean information from. Making an appointment with a professor who has a number of published articles and asking them about it might be a good first step (they'll likely be tenured faculty if that helps narrow down the search).3 -
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamins/
"Read enough nutrition news, and you’ll see that not all scientists agree on multivitamins. Some say that there’s not enough proof that multivitamins boost health, so they don’t recommend them. Other scientists point to studies that seem to show a link between multivitamin use and increased risk of death. But those studies are flawed. Looking at all the evidence, the potential health benefits of taking a standard daily multivitamin seem to outweigh the potential risks for most people."
The antivitamin journal said this in their
Conclusion:
Use of dietary supplements is not associated with mortality benefits among U.S. adults.
But, they did not mention that they actually proven it actually shows mortality risks.
1 -
Daisy_Girl2019 wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamins/
"Read enough nutrition news, and you’ll see that not all scientists agree on multivitamins. Some say that there’s not enough proof that multivitamins boost health, so they don’t recommend them. Other scientists point to studies that seem to show a link between multivitamin use and increased risk of death. But those studies are flawed. Looking at all the evidence, the potential health benefits of taking a standard daily multivitamin seem to outweigh the potential risks for most people."
The antivitamin journal said this in their
Conclusion:
Use of dietary supplements is not associated with mortality benefits among U.S. adults.
But, they did not mention that they actually proven it actually shows mortality risks.
What you just posted is not a scientific study. It is general information about vitamins. It was probably written by someone who is knowledgeable about the topic, although we don't know because there is no author named, so we cannot look up that person's credentials. We also don't know when it was written, since it doesn't include a date of publication. Unless it was written or revised within the last couple days, it does not take into account the study the OP was discussing. That study was published on April 9, 2019. The link you posted is therefore still not relevant to the OP's discussion.
You have actually posted an excellent example of why you should not take something as the end-all, be-all final word just because it is on a .edu domain. It is hopefully accurate, but it is not scholarly (i.e., peer reviewed science written for other scholars, which often goes into depth about a specific research question).
Your nutrition class instructor appears to have done you a great disservice. This person taught you a blanket "rule" about evaluating sources, and that rule is not correct. There is not much you can learn about a source just by looking at the top level domain on which it's posted. Scholarly articles are frequently posted on .com sites. .edu sites do not guarantee that a source is either accurate or scholarly. Depending on exactly what it is you're looking at, a .gov site's content may be influenced by partisan politics about what content can or cannot be posted. The top level domain means almost nothing when it comes to evaluating the quality of a source.
Scholarly sources are articles printed in peer reviewed journals OR books printed by academic presses (often, but not always, affiliated with a university; Google the press if you're unsure).
OP's article was printed in Annals of Internal Medicine. If you are not familiar with academic journals, you can read more to find out whether they are peer reviewed. From the Annals of Internal Medicine's About Us page: "Material published in Annals is subject to peer review and the journal greatly appreciates the efforts of the over 18,000 volunteers in our reviewer database who provide critical input into our peer review process. Acceptance rates for original research range from 6-8% in recent years." (https://annals.org/aim/pages/about-us) This means that each article submitted to the journal has been reviewed by 2-3 scholars in the field. It also means that Annals is very selective, publishing only a small percentage of articles that the reviewers and editors deem to be the highest quality research.
Your link has not been through this rigorous vetting process. We don't know who wrote it or what their credentials are. We don't know when it was published or updated. It doesn't cite any sources, so we can't tell where the information came from or check the sources ourselves. Peer reviewed articles, on the other hand, always include the authors' names, their professional credentials (i.e., their highest degree and/or current job), the exact day of publication, and a complete list of properly cited references.
Peer reviewed publications also require authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. This disclosure allows you to evaluate whether "the authors' outlook could be skewed." You can see that the study the OP discussed was funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health, which is a US government agency. Note that the NIH is a very large, frequent, and prestigious funder of a great deal of medical research. The Annals website offers even more detail than that, though; the authors and editors were all required to disclose all relationships or financial interests whatsoever with relevant organizations. The full disclosure forms are easily accessible on the Annals website. You can also evaluate the authors' credentials, as they are all listed. All of the authors have terminal degrees in their fields and all are affiliated with Tufts University. One, incidentally, is also affiliated with the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health--where your link was posted.
If you went to the Annals site or the PubMed site to read the original study, what you saw was the abstract, not "somebody's outlook about the original journal." The abstract is a type of summary that precedes a journal article. It is written by the article's authors. Note that one study published in a journal is an "article," while the entire publication is a "journal;" it is incorrect to refer to a single study as a journal.
You may not have been able to read the full text of the article if you are not currently on a university campus, or if your university doesn't subscribe to any of the databases that host the article. It is unfortunately extremely common for academic research to be behind a paywall. This is one function of the abstract: to provide a brief summary for people who cannot or do not want to read the whole article. However, if you go to a local university's library and and speak with a reference librarian, they may be able to help you locate the full text of the article. If you are a student, your campus library can generally get you academic articles for free even if your university does not subscribe to the relevant databases. Universities typically have relationships with other universities that let them borrow or access one another's materials.
I would strongly encourage forgetting what this instructor in your nutrition class taught you about evaluating sources. It seems highly flawed and is leading you to favor lower quality sources over higher quality ones. You have multiple knowledgeable people on this thread who are trying to explain to you how academic publishing works. If you are a student, you need to visit your campus library and talk with a research librarian about how to find and evaluate scholarly sources.16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions