|
NOTE: All the studies we will review are tagged with citation numbers like this: [2] If you “click” on that red number, you will be transported to the actual study. Many of the graphics can also be enlarged by clicking on them.
Supplementation For |
 |
Negative Press
Almost every year there's a new spate of negative studies about the benefits of supplementation. Two of the worst examples were papers published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, reporting on the results of the Physicians' Health Study trial. The authors enrolled 14,641 male physicians from the United States, aged 50 years or older. The median age of participants was 64.3 years old
[2]
42% had pre-existing high blood pressure
6% had pre-existing heart disease
6% had pre-existing diabetes Men with a history of heart attacks, or previous strokes (indicating vascular disease) were eligible to participate in this study All participants received synthetic ascorbic acid and
44% were past or current smokers
9% already had pre-existing cancers
Men with a history of cancer were enrolled And although this is extremely unusual, ALL participants received their supplements by mail, and adherence to the program was defined by yearly written reports from the doctors, IF they took least two- thirds of their supplements. So, the doctors could forget to take their vitamins and could still remain in the program. It’s quite likely that under-dosing was common.
Do YOU remember if YOU took all your vitamins last October? Honestly?
They divided them into 4 groups, so only 3,656 doctors actually received 400 IU (international units) of vitamin E every other day, and 500 mg of “vitamin C” daily. They tracked this group for 8 years, reviewed their health status, and then published 2 separate studies.
The first, or Heart paper, concluded that vitamin C and vitamin E supplementation
did not reduce the risk for major cardiovascular events.
[1]
However, their selection of candidates, and their methodology
was seriously flawed:
The second, or Cancer paper, used this same exact (flawed) cohort to state that
vitamin C & E supplementation did not reduce the risk of prostate, or other forms of cancer.
[3]
The weak points in this study include:
Do you see a pattern emerging?
Using elderly individuals, who already have the disease you want to prevent, or have multiple risk factors for developing that disease (including advanced age, history of smoking, high blood pressure, uncontrolled cholesterol levels, and high homocysteine levels) is a very effective way to make supplementation look bad.
Numerous other studies, discussed in a previous issue of the HealthQuest Newsletter (Alternative Approach To Heart Health) used similar bogus strategies to attempt to discount the real benefits of supplementation.
The underlying flaw with all these types of studies is that they expect single nutrients to act as though they are experimental drugs. In Nature, vitamins do not exist as single components that act independently.
In reality, Vitamins occur in our foods as complexes. Vitamin complexes are made up of different components — enzymes, co- enzymes, and co-factors — that need to work together synergistically to produce their intended biologic effects.
It should come as no surprise that synthetic ascorbic acid, all by itself is not very helpful, especially when it is stripped of all the other active agents that are normally bound to it in our food.
Go to Page 2
|
* Although these statements may have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, they are all drawn directly from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that's good enough for me! |