by Linda from The Witches Kitchen
I saw an article this week about a study just published, that followed a sample of nearly 39,000 older American women all the way from 1986 till now, and came to the conclusion that "several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements may be associated with increased total mortality risk". Increased.
It's real science, done by a group at the University of Minnesota. And yet there are hundreds and hundreds of studies that show the disease preventative effect of a whole range of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, phytonutrients and major nutrients.
It seems they only work when they are in real food.
It's not a one off either. It led me on a bit of a research binge. A study of 161,808 participants over 8 years in the Women's Health Initiative clinical trials "provided convincing evidence that multivitamin use has little or no influence on the risk of common cancers, CVD [cardiovascular disease], or total mortality in postmenopausal women."
A study of 182,099 participants enrolled in the Multiethnic Cohort Study after 11 years of follow-up found "no associations were found between multivitamin use and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular diseases, or cancer".
And there's a batch of supporting studies of smaller groups.
So why do we spend such a fortune on multivitamins, fish oil capsules, and vitamin enriched food? Why do we go for the breakfast cereal with "added vitamins and minerals" over the plain old rolled oats? Why the bread with "added fibre"? When all the solid evidence is that if you eat a good balanced diet of real food, supplements won't do a thing, and if you don't, they won't do a thing either.
There's good data that Australians spend something like $2 billion a year - $2 billion - on complementary and alternative medicines. Some of it is real medicine, prescribed by a naturopath or someone competent, to treat a condition and there's plenty of evidence for the benefit of that. But the majority is vitamins and supplements people buy themselves, just to feel more secure.
At the same time, at least in Australia, the cost of living is a major political issue, with people stressing about the cost of food, and farmers up and down the Murray Darling river system squeezed by prices that leave them no margin for a long term view of landcare.
And maybe the two are, in a bizarre way, related. It's not a healthy relationship, but the more we worry that the food we are buying isn't the product of loving land care, the more we indulge in superstitious practices we just hope will somehow help.
If I could just get that $2 billion a year and invest it in the Murray Darling Basin Plan, and then in keeping the Liverpool Plains for growing muesli rather than coal seam gas, and then after that in protecting the Great Barrier Reef from fertilizer run off, maybe we would feel happier about the price of real food.
8 comments:
I'm curious: did you read the articles you've cited, or just the abstracts? Many times reading the methodology and analysis employed in a particular study can affect the way I feel about the value of the "results."
When you say, "It seems they only work when they are in real food," you imply that this was stated in that "real science" study...was it? Or is it your interpretation? Rather important distinction.
Also, and I apologize if this sounds like nit-picking: if the first study is the only one that suggests an increase (which did not apply to calcium), then it is indeed a "one-off," as you cite the others as showing a lack of association.
I'm trying to be succinct; hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to be rude. I have no opinion about the value of vitamins and supplements, but I do have my doubts about the way scientific research is often interpreted and restated for general consumption.
I love this. I read a study recently that said the same thing; basically that there's no long term evidence to support the idea that supplements for vitamins and minerals actaully absorb, to any beneficial end, into the blood stream. Awesome. (insert sarcasm) So much for the multi-billion dollar supplement market. I still take one, but it's primarily for the herbal mix in it that helps with hormone balance and energy. I can't seem to find one that has just those things I want and not all the junk I don't need anyway. I appreciate that you followed up on this and posted. It's important that we debunk myths about health and get back to doing things as they were meant to be done. Taking a multi-vitamin doesn't reverse or even justify a high-fat, uber-processed, diet. I'm tired of hearing the excuse "At least I take vitamins" ug. Good job :)
"It seems they only work when they are in real food."
Makes me wonder to what extent it's simply the real food that's working.
Hi Quinn, I totally agree with you about science and the way is interpreted and cited for public consumption.
I first read a newspaper article in the Wall Street Journal, but I don't trust sources like that, so I tried to track down the original science. I wasn't joking about the binge - I read the abstracts for a lot of studies and the full articles for dozens. I picked these to cite because they were large scale, over long periods, independent scientists, and peer reviewed science. I did read the whole articles I cited, but I cited the abstact as it's a bit tricky to get the full article on some scientific journals. Some sites require a subscription to get the full article, but if you know the exact title and put it into google, the first result is often the full article without a paywall.
It was stated in the results that it appears that there are other compounds or combination effects at work in food, but it's also my own "it seems" - when you compare this with all the equally good science that shows good links between health outcomes and foods. For example, For example, this study of 42,254 women over five and a half years found "a dietary pattern characterized by consumption of foods recommended in current dietary guidelines is associated with decreased risk of mortality in women". Put diet quality and mortality into Google Scholar and your find a lot of large studies like that.
But I think it's a very good and important point you raise - looking at things that are cited as science with a scientifically skeptical eye is important.
I thought your article was really interesting. I am currently seeing a naturopathic physician to treat some of my health issues that couldn't be treated properly with traditional medicine. My diet is the number ONE factor in my improving health..or rather my change in diet. I've gone gluten free, which is a personal choice that I made. I also take supplements, too. They have been helping...but really a proper diet is the key.
It did bring up something that I'm not sure many people are aware of...in the United States. There is a movement in Congress to try and ban supplements made after 1994. I first heard about it in a newsletter I receive. I did ask my naturopath about it and she did confirm that...but that's all I really know. I'm not sure to what extent it can/will affect that market.
In any case, I enjoyed your post :) Love and hugs from the ocean shores of California, Heather :)
I dont know about this particular study but when vitamines and minerals are in real food they are combined by nature to work at its best. for instance when you get a diuretic from the doctors you will need to take potassium as its leached from your body. But if you take it via dandelions as in a tea, you not only get the diuretic but dandelion is high in potassium so it boosts your levels at the same time. See mother nature really is the smartest one of all.
Love it, that last paragraph in particular. Linda, you know I love your personal blog, but I am so glad you started blogging here too.
Yes science is often misinterpreted and misquoted, and science itself can and often is wrong. Deciding to believe in a piece of science comes down to how the information feels. Not very scientific I know. The fact is no one has the real answers to any thing. Science is not about facts, even scientists know that. Science is just a set of observation (open to interpretation) and theories/models on how the universe works. Sometimes they prove to be useful and other times they mislead, even scientists.
For me what Linda talks about here feels true because it aligns with other information, experiences and beliefs I have. The main belief being that food is a highly complex chemical cocktail with many of these working together as a whole. Isolating and eating these chemicals individually I see as equivalent as trying to drive a car with just a steering wheel.
But I have no scientific proof, it just feels right.
Post a Comment