Posts Tagged ‘multivitamins’

Are Multivitamins A Waste Of Money?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Supplements and Health

Don’t Throw Your Vitamins Away Yet

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

ProfessorThe Professor is annoyed. Two things really irritate me:

  • Charlatans who cherry pick studies to “prove” that their snake oil supplements will cure what ails you.
  • Doctors who proclaim that vitamins are a waste of money without understanding the science behind the studies they are quoting.

Are Multivitamins A Waste Of Money?

You’ve seen the headlines telling you that “the experts” have concluded that multivitamins are a waste of money. You might be wondering “What’s behind these headlines? Who are these experts, and what is their evidence?”

Let’s start at the beginning. The article (Gualler et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 159: 850-851, 2013) that generated all of the headlines was an editorial, which means it is an opinion piece, not a scientific study. It represents the opinion of five very prominent doctors, but it is, at the end of the day, just their opinion. Many other well respected experts disagree with their opinion.

They based their editorial on three recently published studies:

  • The first study reported that vitamin and mineral supplements did not decrease the risk of heart disease and cancer in healthy individuals (Fortmann et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 159, doi: 10.7326/003-4815-159-12-201312170-00729)
  • The second study reported that multivitamins did not affect cognitive function in healthy male physicians aged 65 and older (Gradstein et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 159, 806-814, 2013)
  • The third study concluded that multivitamins did not reduce the risk of a second heart attack in patients who had previously had a heart attack and were receiving appropriate medical therapy.

These were all large, well designed studies, so it would be tempting to conclude that the headlines were right. Maybe vitamins are a waste of money.

But, what if the whole underlying premise of these studies was flawed? Let’s examine that possibility by examining the flawed premises behind these and other studies.

What’s Wrong With These Studies?

#1) These studies were too narrowly focused.

MultivitaminsMultivitamins and individual vitamins and minerals are not magic bullets. They are not drugs. They are meant to fill nutritional gaps in our diet – not prevent or cure disease. We should be asking whether holistic approaches can prevent or cure disease – not whether individual nutrients can do so.

One of the examples that I love to use, because it really made an impression on me as a young scientist, occurred at an International Cancer Symposium I attended more than 30 years ago. I attended a session in which an internally renowned expert was giving his talk on colon cancer. He said, “I can show you, unequivocally, that colon cancer risk is significantly decreased by a lifestyle that includes a high-fiber diet, a low-fat diet, adequate calcium, adequate B-vitamins, exercise and weight control. But I can’t show you that any one of them, by themselves, is effective.”

The question that came to me as I heard him speak was: “What’s the message that a responsible scientist or responsible health professional should be giving to their patients or the people that they’re advising?” You’ve probably heard experts saying:

  • “Don’t worry about the fat content of your diet. It can’t be shown to increase the risk of colon cancer.”
  • “Don’t worry about calcium. It doesn’t decrease the risk of colon cancer”
  • “Don’t worry about B-vitamins. They don’t decrease the risk”
  • “Don’t worry about fiber. It can’t be shown to decrease the risk either”

But, is that the message that we should be giving people – that nothing matters? Shouldn’t we really be saying what that doctor said many years ago – that a lifestyle that includes all of those things significantly decreases the risk of colon cancer?

#2) These studies were destined to fail.

It’s almost impossible to prove that any single intervention prevents disease when you are starting with a healthy population (something we scientists refer to as a primary prevention study).

For example, in “Health Tips From the Professor” just a couple of weeks ago I shared with you that even when you combine all of the published studies with tens of thousands of patients, it is impossible to prove that stain drugs prevent heart attacks in healthy individuals.

If you can’t show that statins prevent heart disease in healthy people, why would you expect to be able to show that vitamins or minerals prevent heart attacks in healthy people?

I can’t resist pointing out that this perfectly illustrates the pro-drug, anti-supplement bias that is so prevalent among many of my medical colleagues. I haven’t seen a single editorial or headline suggesting that statin drugs might be a waste of money for healthy individuals.

#3) These studies simply asked the wrong questions.

For example, the third study described in the editorial was asking whether multivitamins reduced the risk of a second heart attack in patients who were receiving “appropriate medical therapy”. What does “appropriate medical therapy” mean, you might ask? It means that those patients were on 4 or 5 drugs, with all of their side effects.

In reality the study was not asking whether multivitamins reduced the risk of a second heart attack. The study asked whether multivitamins had any additional benefits for individuals who were taking 4 or 5 drugs to reduce their risk of a second heart attack. That’s a totally different question.

There are lots of examples of this paradigm. For example, 17 years ago the Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study showed that vitamin E significant decreased heart attack risk in patients with severe cardiovascular disease (Stephens et al, The Lancet, 347: 781-786, 1996). Patients in that study were taking one or two medications. However, in today’s world that would be considered unethical. The standard medical treatment for high risk heart disease patients today is 4 or 5 drugs, and when patients are receiving that many medications it is no longer possible to demonstrate a benefit of vitamin E. The story is similar for omega-3 fatty acids.

That poses a dilemma. What recent studies show is that individual nutrients don’t reduce the risk of a second heart attack in someone who is receiving “standard of care” medical treatment.

But that’s not the question I am interested in. I’d like to know whether natural approaches might be just as effective as the drugs or whether natural approaches might allow one to use fewer drugs or lower doses. I’d like to avoid all of the side effects of those drugs if I could.

What about you? What questions would you like answered? Do these studies answer those questions?

What Was Overlooked In Those Studies

The studies did show conclusively that there were no harmful effects from supplementing except for high dose beta-carotene in smokers. Somehow that information never made it into the headlines.

The Bottom Line

  • Don’t pay much attention to the reports that supplements don’t work and are a waste of money. Those studies are fundamentally flawed.
  • Don’t pay much attention to the reports claiming that vitamins will hurt you. Except for beta-carotene in smokers the latest studies showed no evidence of harm.
  • On the other hand, don’t expect miracles from your vitamins. If you spend your time sitting in front of the TV set eating pizza & drinking sodas, popping a vitamin pill won’t prevent much of anything.
  • Finally, holistic approaches are often as effective as drug therapy – without the side effects. Your vitamins can be an important part of a holistic approach to better health that includes weight control, a good diet and exercise.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Use of Sports Supplements By Young Athletes

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Fitness and Health, Issues, Supplements and Health

Are Sports Supplements Effective? Are They Safe?

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

plate-of-pills-200-300In recent years, the use of sports supplements by young athletes has increased dramatically. The most commonly used sports supplements among teenagers of all ages were vitamins and minerals, though “ergogenic aids” are used by some teen athletes specifically to enhance performance. Among these performance-enhancing supplements  are substances such as caffeine, creatine, ephedra and other stimulants, human growth hormone (HGH) and anabolic steroids.

Of the vitamin and mineral supplements, mutivitamins, vitamin C, calcium and iron were reported as being taken most often. While the risks of taking vitamin supplements is relatively low, there is some concern that young athletes may then progress to taking more dangerous substances under the impression that they are as harmless as vitamins and minerals. And while the risk of overdose with vitamins and minerals is low, it is not nonexistent, and some vitamins can be toxic when too much is taken (such as iron and vitamin A) or may interact with other vitamins or drugs.

Although many performance-enhancing supplements are advertised as being safe – especially those made from natural compounds –  a great number of them have not been tested by any regulatory agency, so their actual safety is not known. In addition, there are no formal guidelines for dosage in many cases, so there could be adverse side effects if too much is inadvertently taken.

The pressure to excel at sports is greater than ever, and there is increasing competition to get into elite sports programs where they have a better chance of being discovered by professional sports scouts looking for the next big star. The possibility of fame and fortune can be a strong enticement to young athletes to try performance-enhancing supplements to give them an edge over their competition. And often it is their coach that suggests or encourages this practice.

According to studies done on high school athletes, they report taking supplements to not only enhance performance, but also to encourage growth and muscle development, prevent illness and reduce fatigue. Supplement use was greatest among athletes who practiced two or more different sports and those who were required to “bulk up”, such as wrestlers and weight lifters.

While the opinions of friends, teammates and coaches were a big influence on the decision of young football players to take supplements (particularly creatine), it was their parents who had the greatest amount of influence on their decision. So it is incredibly important for parents to be educated as to the benefits and drawbacks of each of these supplements for young athletes.

The Bottom Line:

  • There is tremendous pressure on teenage athletes to qualify for elite programs that will increase their chances of being selected for the top college teams and eventually getting onto professional teams. Because of that, the use of sports supplements by teenage athletes is commonplace.
  • Vitamin and mineral supplements are generally harmless unless taken in excessive amounts.
  • Performance-enhancing sports supplements, on the other hand, are poorly regulated. Many are useless and others are potentially harmful. In next week’s “Health Tips From The Professor”, I’ll give you some examples of sports supplements you might want to avoid.
  • If you are the parent of a teen athlete, have a conversation with your child about supplements. Don’t lecture, but involve them in the process of doing research. You may be surprised what you both find.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Multivitamin Supplements May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Issues, Supplements and Health

Can A Multivitamin A Day Keep Breast Cancer At Bay?

 Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

3d rendered illustration - breast cancerA few weeks ago I wrote about soy and breast cancer survival. You’ve probably seen the latest headlines: “Multivitamin Supplements May Reduce Breast Cancer Mortality” and are wondering if they could possibly be true. After all, wasn’t it just a short time ago that the headlines said “Multivitamin supplements have no effect on breast cancer mortality” or that “Multivitamins may increase your risk of death”?

With all the conflicting headlines, you have every right to be skeptical about the latest news. So perhaps we should start with looking at the previous studies and discussing why they disagree.

What do we know about multivitamin use and breast cancer survival?

 Three very large studies have reported no correlation between multivitamin use and breast cancer incidence. So it is pretty clear that multivitamins don’t prevent breast cancer.

However, breast cancer incidence and breast cancer survival are two different things. In the first case you are starting with healthy women and asking how many of them develop cancer. That is what we scientists call a primary prevention study. It is very difficult to prove the effectiveness of any intervention in a primary prevention study. In the second case you are starting with a sick population and asking if an intervention provides a benefit. It is much easier to prove whether or not an intervention is effective in this kind of study.

There, have been several small studies looking at the effect of vitamin supplementation in women who already had breast cancer. While the results have been mixed, the majority of the studies showed that vitamin supplementation did appear to reduce breast cancer recurrence and mortality.

What makes this study different?

The women in this study were part of 161,608 women enrolled the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study to investigate the effects of multivitamin use in post-menopausal women. In fact, this was one of the studies to report no effect of multivitamin use on the incidence of breast cancer (Neuhouser et al, Arch. Intern. Med., 169: 294-304, 2009).

What the present study did was to look at the those women in the WHI who did develop breast cancer during the previous study and followed them for an additional 7.9 years to see if multivitamin use affected breast cancer survival (Wasserthiel-Smoller et al, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 141: 495-505, 3013).

This is the largest study of its kind (7,728 women). It started with an older and sicker group of women than previous studies.  All of the women were 50-79 years old at the time the study began, and all of them had invasive breast cancer at the time of enrollment into the study.

The results were quite impressive. Multivitamin use improved survival by 30%, and the results were highly significant.

Strengths of the Study:

  • This was a large and very well controlled study. The authors did an excellent job of controlling for confounding variables that might have affected the outcome.
  • Multivitamin use was measured at multiple time points. It was assessed at enrollment into the original WHI study and at each subsequent doctor visit. The multivitamin usage for the purpose of data analysis was the usage at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, but the authors also corrected for any change in vitamin use post-diagnosis.
  • The study was in agreement with the majority of previous studies, further strengthening the conclusion that multivitamin use in women with breast cancer improves the likelihood of survival.

Weaknesses of the Study:

  • Because previous studies have been mixed with respect to the effect of multivitamins on breast cancer survival, further placebo controlled intervention studies will be required before multivitamin use becomes part of the standard of treatment for breast cancer patients.
  • Most of the women in the study were post-menopausal. It is unclear if multivitamins will provide the same benefit to pre-menopausal women with breast cancer.
  • This study measured consistent multivitamin use before and after the diagnosis of breast cancer. It did not look at women who began multivitamin use after diagnosis. So we have no idea whether starting multivitamin use after diagnosis would have also been beneficial.

The Bottom Line:

1)    This study strongly suggests that multivitamin use may help improve your chances of survival if you are unlucky enough to develop breast cancer.  While more studies are still needed, this study certainly strengthens the argument for multivitamin use.

2)    The rap on multivitamins has always been that they aren’t needed by healthy people who have a good diet. However, multivitamins are important for assuring good nutritional status if your diet is not optimal or if you have increased nutritional needs – either because of your genetic makeup or because of illness.

3)    The difficulty is that you usually don’t know if your genetics increases your vitamin needs, and once your disease has progressed far enough to be diagnosed it may be too late to improve disease outcome.  That’s why many experts consider a multivitamin supplement as an inexpensive form of nutritional and health insurance. I concur.

4)    As for the fear that multivitamins might just kill you, that hypothesis has been disproven by several subsequent studies including one published just a couple of weeks ago (Macpherson et al, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., doi: 10.3945/ajcn.112.o49304).

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

What Is The Planetary Diet?

Posted May 21, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Earth Day has come and gone, but you are still committed to saving the planet. You save energy. You recycle. You drive an electric car. But is your diet destroying the planet?

This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) serves as a dire warning of what will happen if we don’t change our ways. I touched on this report briefly in a previous issue of “Health Tips From The Professor,” What Is The Flexitarian Diet , but this topic is important enough that it deserves an issue all its own.

The commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.” It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

How Was The Study Done?

The study (W. Willet et al, The Lancet, 393, issue 10170, 447-492, 2019 ) was the report of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. This Commission convened 30 of the top experts from across the globe to prepare a science-based evaluation of the effect of diet on both health and sustainable food production through the year 2050. The Commission included world class experts on healthy diets, agricultural methods, climate change, and earth sciences. The Commission reviewed 356 published studies in preparing their report.

 

Is Your Diet Destroying The Planet?

When they looked at the effect of food production on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • “Strong evidence indicates that food production is among the largest drivers of global environmental change.” Specifically, the commission reported:
  • Agriculture occupies 40% of global land (58% of that is for pasture use).
  • Food production is responsible for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use.
  • Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction. Specifically, 80% of extinction threats to mammals and bird species are due to agricultural practices.
  • Overuse and misuse of nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizers causes eutrophication. In case you are wondering, eutrophication is defined as the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates from commercial fertilizer) that stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen. This creates dead zones in lakes and coastal regions where fish and other marine organisms cannot survive.
  • About 60% of world fish stocks are fully fished and more than 30% are overfished. Because of this, catch by global marine fisheries has been declining since 1996.
  • “Reaching the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming…is not possible by only decarbonizing the global energy systems. Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement.”
  • The world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion by 2050. The current system of food production is unsustainable.

When they looked at the effect of the foods we eat on the environment, the Commission concluded:

  • Beef and lamb are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and land use.
  • The concern about land use is obvious because of the large amount of pasture land required to raise cattle and sheep.
  • The concern about greenhouse gas emissions is because cattle and sheep are ruminants. They not only breathe out CO2, but they also release methane into the atmosphere from fermentation in their rumens of the food they eat. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it persists in the atmosphere 25 times longer than CO2. The single most important thing we can do as individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to eat less beef and lamb. [Note: grass fed cattle produce more greenhouse gas emissions than cattle raised on corn because they require 3 years to bring to market rather than 2 years.]
  • In terms of energy use beef, lamb, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs all require much more energy to produce than any of the plant foods.
  • In terms of eutrophication, beef, lamb, and pork, all cause much more eutrophication than any plant food. Dairy and eggs cause more eutrophication than any plant food except fruits.
  • In contrast, plant crops reduce greenhouse gas emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

What Is The Planetary Diet?

In the words of the Commission: “[The Planetary Diet] largely consists of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and unsaturated oils. It includes a low to moderate amount of seafood, poultry, and eggs. It includes no or a very low amount of red meat, processed meat, sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.”

When described in that fashion it sounds very much like other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable. Here is a more detailed description of the diet:

  • It starts with a vegetarian diet. Vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, soy foods, and whole grains are the foundation of the diet.
  • It allows the option of adding one serving of dairy a day (It turns out that cows produce much less greenhouse emissions per serving of dairy than per serving of beef. That’s because cows take several years to mature before they can be converted to meat, and they are emitting greenhouse gases the entire time).
  • It allows the option of adding one 3 oz serving of fish or poultry or one egg per day.
  • It allows the option of swapping seafood, poultry, or egg for a 3 oz serving of red meat no more than once a week. If you want a 12 oz steak, that would be no more than once a month.

This is obviously very different from the way most Americans currently eat. According to the Commission:

  • “This would require greater than 50% reduction in consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and greater than 100% increase in the consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes.”
  • “In addition to the benefits for the environment, “dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10.8-11.6 million deaths per year globally.”

What Else Did The Commission Recommend?

In addition to changes in our diets, the Commission also recommended several changes in the way food is produced. Here are a few of them.

  • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel used to transport food to market.
  • Reduce food losses and waste by at least 50%.
  • Make radical improvements in the efficiency of fertilizer and water use. In terms of fertilizer, the change would be two-fold:
    • In developed countries, reduce fertilizer use and put in place systems to capture runoff and recycle the phosphorous.
    • In third world countries, make fertilizer more available so that crop yields can be increased, something the Commission refer to as eliminating the “yield gap” between third world and developed countries.
  • Stop the expansion of new agricultural land use into natural ecosystems and put in place policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land.
  • Manage the world’s oceans effectively to ensure that fish stocks are used responsibly and global aquaculture (fish farm) production is expanded sustainability.

What we can do: While most of these are government level policies, we can contribute to the first three by reducing personal food waste and purchasing organic produce locally whenever possible.

What Does This Mean For You?

If you are a vegan, you are probably asking why the Commission did not recommend a completely plant-based diet. The answer is that a vegan diet is perfect for the health of our planet. However, the Commission wanted to make a diet that was as consumer-friendly as possible and still meet their goals of a healthy, environmentally friendly, and sustainable diet.

If you are eating a typical American diet or one of the fad diets that encourage meat consumption, you are probably wondering how you can ever make such drastic changes to your diet. The answer is “one step at a time.”  If you have read my books “Slaying The Food Myths” or “Slaying the Supplement Myths,”  you know that my wife and I did not change our diet overnight. Our diet evolved to something very close to the Planetary Diet over a period of years.

The Commission also purposely designed the Planetary Diet so that you “never have to say never” to your favorite foods. Three ounces of red meat a week does not sound like much, but it allows you a juicy steak once a month.

Sometimes you just need to develop a new mindset. As I shared in my books, my father prided himself on grilling the perfect steak. I love steaks, but I decided to set a few parameters. I don’t waste my red meat calories on anything besides filet mignon at a fine restaurant. It must be a special occasion, and someone else must be buying. That limits it to 2-3 times a year. I still get to enjoy good steak, and I stay well within the parameters of the Planetary diet.

Develop your strategy for enjoying some of your favorite foods within the parameters of the Planetary Diet and have fun with it.

The Bottom Line

 

Is your diet destroying the planet? This is not a new question, but a recent commission of international scientists has conducted a comprehensive study into our diet and its effect on our health and our environment. Their report serves as a dire warning of what will happen to us and our planet if we don’t change our ways.

The Commission carefully evaluated diet and food production methods and asked three questions:

  • Are they good for us?
  • Are they good for the planet?
  • Are they sustainable? Will they be able to meet the needs of the projected population of 10 billion people in 2050 without degrading our environment.

The Commission described the typical American diet as a “lose-lose diet.”  It is bad for our health. It is bad for the planet. And it is not sustainable.

In its place they carefully designed their version of a primarily plant-based diet they called a “win-win diet.”  It is good for our health. It is good for the planet. And, it is sustainable.

In their publication they refer to their diet as the “universal healthy reference diet” (What else would you expect from a committee?). However, it has become popularly known as the “Planetary Diet.”

The Planetary Diet is similar to other healthy diets such as semi-vegetarian, Mediterranean, DASH, and Flexitarian. However, what truly distinguishes it from the other diets is the restrictions placed on the non-plant portion of the diet to make it both environmentally friendly and sustainable (for details, read the article above).

I have spoken before about the importance of a primarily plant-based diet for our health. In that context it is a personal choice. It is optional.

However, this report is a wake-up call. It puts a primarily plant-based diet in an entirely different context. It is essential for the survival of our planet. It is no longer optional.

If you care about global warming…If you care about saving our planet, there is no other choice.

For more details read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

UA-43257393-1