Topic: Research: Vitamin and mineral supplements may have adverse effects
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
LESS IS MORE Dietary Supplements and Mortality Rate in Older Women The Iowa Women's Health Study
Jaakko Mursu, PhD; Kim Robien, PhD; Lisa J. Harnack, DrPH, MPH; Kyong Park, PhD; David R. Jacobs Jr, PhD Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1625-1633. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.445
Background Although dietary supplements are commonly taken to prevent chronic disease, the long-term health consequences of many compounds are unknown.
Methods We assessed the use of vitamin and mineral supplements in relation to total mortality in 38 772 older women in the Iowa Women's Health Study; mean age was 61.6 years at baseline in 1986. Supplement use was self-reported in 1986, 1997, and 2004. Through December 31, 2008, a total of 15 594 deaths (40.2%) were identified through the State Health Registry of Iowa and the National Death Index.
Results In multivariable adjusted proportional hazards regression models, the use of multivitamins (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; absolute risk increase, 2.4%), vitamin B6 (1.10; 1.01-1.21; 4.1%), folic acid (1.15; 1.00-1.32; 5.9%), iron (1.10; 1.03-1.17; 3.9%), magnesium (1.08; 1.01-1.15; 3.6%), zinc (1.08; 1.01-1.15; 3.0%), and copper (1.45; 1.20-1.75; 18.0%) were associated with increased risk of total mortality when compared with corresponding nonuse. Use of calcium was inversely related (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94; absolute risk reduction, 3.8%). Findings for iron and calcium were replicated in separate, shorter-term analyses (10-year, 6-year, and 4-year follow-up), each with approximately 15% of the original participants having died, starting in 1986, 1997, and 2004.
Conclusions In older women, several commonly used dietary vitamin and mineral supplements may be associated with increased total mortality risk; this association is strongest with supplemental iron. In contrast to the findings of many studies, calcium is associated with decreased risk.
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
JAMA. 2011 Oct 12;306(14):1549-56. Vitamin E and the risk of prostate cancer: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).
Abstract CONTEXT: The initial report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of prostate cancer with either selenium or vitamin E supplements but a statistically nonsignificant increase in prostate cancer risk with vitamin E. Longer follow-up and more prostate cancer events provide further insight into the relationship of vitamin E and prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term effect of vitamin E and selenium on risk of prostate cancer in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 35,533 men from 427 study sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico were randomized between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Eligibility criteria included a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 4.0 ng/mL or less, a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer, and age 50 years or older for black men and 55 years or older for all others. The primary analysis included 34,887 men who were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: 8752 to receive selenium; 8737, vitamin E; 8702, both agents, and 8696, placebo. Analysis reflect the final data collected by the study sites on their participants through July 5, 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Oral selenium (200 μg/d from L-selenomethionine) with matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) with matched selenium placebo, both agents, or both matched placebos for a planned follow-up of a minimum of 7 and maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate cancer incidence. RESULTS: This report includes 54,464 additional person-years of follow-up and 521 additional cases of prostate cancer since the primary report. Compared with the placebo (referent group) in which 529 men developed prostate cancer, 620 men in the vitamin E group developed prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 99% CI, 1.004-1.36, P = .008); as did 575 in the selenium group (HR, 1.09; 99% CI, 0.93-1.27; P = .18), and 555 in the selenium plus vitamin E group (HR, 1.05; 99% CI, 0.89-1.22, P = .46). Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination. CONCLUSION: Dietary supplementation with vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer among healthy menPosts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- It's really important to see the various studies.
PubMed is a great place to see medical abstracts from around the world not just on pharmaceuticals, but also for herbal and nutritional supplements.
But, PubMed is not complete. The kinds of doctors listed below have more details about other solid research collectors.
My guess is that for each supplement I take, I've read 20 articles by different authors. I can't imagine taking anything with less homework than that. It's been eye-opening, for sure.
But, I also have a very good naturopathic doctor who, even if not LL, has still been very helpful over the years for basic issues.
Finding the studies with the correct form, etc. really matters.
It's important to keep in mind that, for some of these "studies" the wrong form of vitamin has been assessed.
This happened with at least one major Vitamin E study. They used synthetic where they should not have done so.
For some herb studies, they've used the wrong part of the plant, or even the wrong species.
A widely reported study a few years ago about Echinacea and colds in children had major flaws with the details or the dose or the plant used. But all we see are the failed headlines, not that that methods were not optimal.
So, what we can learn from that is to get to the bottom line regarding species, form, age, manufacture and storage conditions - so we know what to look for and what to avoid.
Some studies don't use the optimum dose. Some study just one ingredient when that one thing may require another.
For instance, Vitamin D should be D3, not D2 and it must be accompanied by Vitamin K in order to work properly.
One problem I have with some of the studies is that they can't monitor life-style so it may not really be a true study in that case.
True, some supplements are not what they say they are. That's why we need to be sure to have good guidance and get the best form from the best manufacture practices.
To find doctors with the proper education, there are many links in the thread below. They will know best how to distinguish good supplements and when they are needed, and when not.
They know how to find the best research.
A key, too, is getting vitamins from foods as much as we can - and knowing when that may not work.
Links to many articles and books by holistic-minded LL doctors of various degrees who all have this basic approach in common:
Understanding of the importance of addressing the infection(s) fully head-on with specific measures;
Knowing that support supplements are important, but NEVER enough alone. And knowing which supplements have direct impact, which are only support and which are both.
You can compare and contrast many approaches.
BASIC HERBAL EDUCATIONAL links, and
BODY WORK links with safety tailored to lyme patients,
RIFE links,
BIONIC 880 (& PE-1) links, and
LOW HEAT INFRARED SAUNA detail. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Rivendell
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 19922
posted
Well, I read "Cure Unknown", by Pamela Weintraub, and saw from her research journalism how "peer reviewed" studies on Lyme Disease by prominent researchers were a farse. They were manipulated to get certain results, which has caused the wrong attitudes and treatment for Lyme.
I know that there is a movement on to make vitamin supplements and herbs by prescription only, so I don't trust these "so-called" research results.
Keebler mentions some very good points.
Posts: 1358 | From Midwest | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
I read that "natural E" was not used in the study.
-------------------- This is only my opinion and/or experience with Lyme Disease. I am not a medical professional. Posts: 587 | From usa | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the Vitamin E study, the difference was not statistically significant when combined with selenium.
Gee, what would happen if someone took a multi-vitamin, and received all the synergistic benefits of the range of nutrients?
I agree that the exact form/type and purity of the supplement makes a big difference.
-------------------- Garden
"Fibromylagia" for 8+ years Pos IgeneX WB per both Igenex and CDC Pos Neuroscience MyLymeImmuneID Started tx for Lyme in March 2011 Posts: 245 | From East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
MichaelTampa
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 24868
posted
Of course, none of these split out a group of people who all tested energetically that the supplements would be helpful, and then had half abstain and half take them, in order to see the effect that can be had when the body indicates the supplement would be helpful.
Posts: 1927 | From se usa | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged |
MannaMe
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 33330
posted
I heard that the studies showing adverse effects were done using synthetic vitamins.
What would happen if they used real food /plant based vitamins?
Posts: 2252 | From USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- The studies are usually done when some corporation gets the bright idea to market some kind of supplement to make money (not necessarily to aide fellow human beings).
A totally natural product cannot obtain a patent.
To "develop" a new product, they have to tweak mother nature in some way - or make it some kind of proprietary formula - in order to be able to patent it.
Then they can charge a bunch more money than if folks just took it in its more natural form, even if condensed as in an extract.
As far as I'm concerned, my own experience - and "observational" studies - often tell me a great deal. I don't need some fancy study to tell me how much better I feel if I eat sardines for breakfast, along with vegetables and a bit of millet.
From many thousands of years we have some very rich observations regarding plants and people. We should not loose sight of that. But, then, that information is not all that easy for the lay person to find. It's been buried. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic