With extra snake oil
Notes from Underground
Clint Fullen
Issue date: 1/21/09 Section: Opinion
After years of research, scientists might be finding out that the only definite benefit vitamins have is effective advertising.
According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, vitamin C and E are no better for preventing heart disease than placebos. The New York Times reports the experiment found that between 14,641 male physicians there was no difference among risks of heart attack, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina and the need for cardiac revascularization whether subjects were taking actual supplements or simple sugar pills.
Doctors became hopeful that vitamin C and E might help thwart cardiovascular disease after antioxidants began to show heart benefits in animal and test-tube studies, according to USA Today.
However, the more the medical field studies these supplements, the more they begin to learn how little they actually know about them.
The Boston Globe reports that women who take calcium and vitamin D develop breast cancer at the same rate as women who do not.
The New York Times reports that a study involving 35,000 men taking vitamin E and selenium was halted because of increased possibility of cancer and diabetes.
Vitamin D is currently known to help build strong bones, but now doubts are being raised over whether the suggested intake is adequate. According to The New York Times, vitamin D levels considered sufficient to prevent malformations in children are not great enough to offset a number of serious disorders that are linked to low vitamin D levels.
Consumers constantly are reminded of the vast vitamin contents in products, but no one quite understands the practical benefits.
Even vitamin C has deceived the general public. The New York Times reports that vitamin C has been found to be "clinically insignificant" against fighting colds for people of common physical activity.
While the vitamin may be helpful for "ultramarathon runners and Canadian soldiers during sub-Artic winter exercises," ordinary Americans most likely will not gain anything from gulping down over-the-counter one-a-days before waltzing off to their nine-to-five.
According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, vitamin C and E are no better for preventing heart disease than placebos. The New York Times reports the experiment found that between 14,641 male physicians there was no difference among risks of heart attack, stroke, congestive heart failure, angina and the need for cardiac revascularization whether subjects were taking actual supplements or simple sugar pills.
Doctors became hopeful that vitamin C and E might help thwart cardiovascular disease after antioxidants began to show heart benefits in animal and test-tube studies, according to USA Today.
However, the more the medical field studies these supplements, the more they begin to learn how little they actually know about them.
The Boston Globe reports that women who take calcium and vitamin D develop breast cancer at the same rate as women who do not.
The New York Times reports that a study involving 35,000 men taking vitamin E and selenium was halted because of increased possibility of cancer and diabetes.
Vitamin D is currently known to help build strong bones, but now doubts are being raised over whether the suggested intake is adequate. According to The New York Times, vitamin D levels considered sufficient to prevent malformations in children are not great enough to offset a number of serious disorders that are linked to low vitamin D levels.
Consumers constantly are reminded of the vast vitamin contents in products, but no one quite understands the practical benefits.
Even vitamin C has deceived the general public. The New York Times reports that vitamin C has been found to be "clinically insignificant" against fighting colds for people of common physical activity.
While the vitamin may be helpful for "ultramarathon runners and Canadian soldiers during sub-Artic winter exercises," ordinary Americans most likely will not gain anything from gulping down over-the-counter one-a-days before waltzing off to their nine-to-five.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Pete
posted 1/21/09 @ 7:49 AM CST
Since when has the Boston Globe and New York Times been primary sources. If you must use data go back to the original source, read the papers or at least the abstracts. (Continued…)
Libby
posted 1/22/09 @ 1:21 PM CST
You are absolutely right, one can get an adequate supply of nutrients by eating right...you can't eat junk food & expect to "take a vitamin" to make it all ok. (Continued…)
Post a Comment