Mother Jones Article "DO VITAMINS REALLY WORK?"

Here is link to read article, Do Vitamins Really Work? 

by Kiera Butler, Senior Editor, Mother Jones Magazine, March/April 2012 Issue 

Set UP: While Mother Jones hopefully is not your first choice for nutritional advice, this article is typical of what is currently coming out of media sources. It touches many of the trendy views glimmered from some current research interpretation. 

Copy:

I didn't start taking vitamins until a few years ago, after Target began selling adult multivitamins in the form of gummy bears. I've been dutifully popping two bears a day ever since, getting my daily candy fix while ostensibly improving my health. After all, to hear the $28 billion supplement industry tell it, the gummies could be all that stands between me and scurvy. (A) "Some people, like if you're eating kale for breakfast or something, get all their nutrients from food," says Duffy MacKay, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), the industry's leading trade group. "But in this complex world, that's getting increasingly rare."

According to a survey by the National Institutes of Health, nearly a third of Americans take multivitamins regularly. The Vitamin Shoppe, a chain with more than $700 million in annual sales, has been growing by double digits year after year. (B) Yet mounting data suggests that multivitamins aren't the nutritional wonders the industry would have us believe. "There is virtually no evidence that they make healthy people healthier," says author Marion Nestle, one of several nutritionists who told me that vitamin deficiency is quite rare in the United States. (Her latest book, Why Calories Count, is due out in April.)

Despite manufacturers' coded claims that multivitamins ward off chronic illness—D "promotes breast health," B is "heart healthy"—a large 2009 study of postmenopausal women published in Archives of Internal Medicine found that (C) multis didn't protect against any of the diseases studied, including heart disease and lung, breast, and colon cancer. A 2011 study involving nearly 39,000 women reached similar conclusions.

What's more, if you're the kind of person who takes a multi you may literally be pissing away your hard-earned dollars. According to another oft-cited study, (E) typical vitamin users are more likely than nonusers to get their quota from food alone. And with so many fortified products crowding supermarket shelves, it's not hard to exceed recommended daily limits for certain vitamins and minerals. In some cases, that can be dangerous. Several studies link excessive folic acid intake—the amount you might get from popping a multi and eating two bowls of Total—with lesions that can lead to colorectal cancers. For seniors, who usually get all the iron they need from fortified rice, cereals, and sliced breads, a multi with iron can increase the risk of heart disease. And pregnant women who pop standard multis containing the retinol form of vitamin A may boost the likelihood of birth defects. (Prenatal vitamins are formulated to be very low in retinol.)

Thanks to the unceasing pressure of politicians like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the (F) Food and Drug Administration doesn't regulate the labeling of supplements. Last June, Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, (G) introduced a bill that would force manufacturers to slap a warning on supplements that could cause health risks. Naturally, the industry opposes it. "We believe in the safety of our products across the board," Mike Greene, CRN's vice president of government relations, assured me.

But not all companies police their own labels well. In a recent analysis of 60 common multivitamins, ConsumerLab.com found (H)  fault with about a third of the label claims: For instance, one gummy for kids exceeded the upper daily limits of vitamin A and zinc, and one adult multi had double the recommended dose of vitamin A.

While federal health officials recommend multis for picky-eater kids and anorexics, and specific supplements for certain categories of people (see chart), (I) most of the nutritionists I talked to encourage their healthy patients to stop fretting about vitamins. Our diets may be chock full of sugar, sodium, and fat—but when's the last time you met someone with rickets? Most people, Nestle says, "will have adequate nutrient intake from whatever they are eating," even if they don't chomp kale for breakfast.

Given all of this, I've decided to give up my daily vitamin regimen—and spend the money I save on good old unfortified gummy bears.  -END COPY.

ANALYSIS:  The obvious take away- Vitamins are not necessary, foods provide adequate vitamin amounts, and taking some vitamins may even be slightly negative for disease states. The points (A-I) explanations will add clarity to this article.

The first observation about this article is that it is almost entirely negative. Calcium appears to be the only positive point. 

(A) (B) and (I) The vitamin industry spokesperson from CRN says it is getting rare that foods will supply all the nutrients the body requires. At the end of this article, just the opposite point of view is expressed by the author quoting a Nutritionist saying "Most people will have adequate nutrient intake from whatever they are eating,"  

Let's see what the Government CDC has to say about deficiencies and then some University Scientists:

TRUTH: according to the stats from the Government's CDC, Center for Disease Control, there are people with up to percentages of 31% that are deficient in at least one vitamin (for the few that were included in this report). ref  Notice this report does not include vitamin K or the major minerals Calcium, Magnesium or Potassium, just some vitamins plus iron and iodine. Copied below:

What are the key findings of this report?

• The rate of nutrient deficiencies in the general U.S. population ranges from less than 1% for folate, vitamin A, and vitamin E to about 10% for vitamin B6, vitamin D, and iron. For most nutrition indicators, deficiency rates vary by age, gender, or race/ethnicity, and can be as high as 31% for vitamin D deficiency in non-Hispanic blacks.
• Folate deficiency decreased to less than 1% after foods began being fortified with folic acid in 1998. Before fortification began, folate deficiency, as determined by blood folate levels, was approximately 12% for women of childbearing age. The report also shows that blood folate levels in all race/ethnic groups were 50% higher since fortification.
• Non-Hispanic blacks (31%) and Mexican Americans (12%) had higher rates of vitamin D deficiency compared to non-Hispanic whites (3%).
• Young women (20 to 39 years of age) had iodine levels close to levels indicating iodine insufficiency. This age group also had the lowest levels among any age group of women.
• Using a new marker of iron status, the report indicates higher rates of iron deficiency in Mexican-American children aged 1 to 5 years (11%) and in non-Hispanic black (16%) and Mexican-American women (13%) of childbearing age (12 to 49 years) when compared to other race/ethnic groups. The new iron marker measurements will help doctors better interpret iron status in individuals, especially in persons with disease that includes inflammation.

Check out the scientific article linked below for nutrient deficient percentages showing without supplements or certain selected foods, only 3% get required potassium, which means 97% are deficient:

J Nutr. 2011 Oct;141(10):1847-54. doi: 10.3945/jn.111.142257. Epub 2011 Aug 24.

Bottom line from this sceintific article: Without enrichment and/or fortification of foods and supplementation, many Americans did not achieve the recommended micronutrient intake levels set forth in the Dietary Reference Intake.  

The reality is that without supplementation and food fortification there would be significant deficiencies. How did the author of this article miss these significant percentage nutrient deficiencies? Most likely the author did not thoroughly research this topic but just reported what a few "experts" reported.

(B) Is there any evidence since this article reports "there is no evidence that Multiple vitamins help healthy people stay healthy."

This is perhaps one of the areas where Science has dropped the ball in determining proper vitamin protocols, dosages, vitamin forms, and how they relate to health. What these studies do reveal is that Science has in most cases tested the wrong dosage or vitamin form. The sometimes positive and other times negative results are to be expected when you understand the physiological principles involved. And one of these principles shows that vitamins are indeed working, but the functions are either overactive or interfere with other needed processes at the tested levels and forms.

One easy example concerns anti-oxidants and the accepted anti-oxidant theory of disease creation. It has some significant flaws. There is a body wisdom that relies on free radicals to perform necessary positive functions before anti-oxidants neutralize them. Too many anti-oxidants and this radical function does not get processed. One such radical process involves white blood cells in the immune system generating radicals to destroy head cold viruses. This is what is known as anti-oxidant load or balance. Not many Nutritionists or even Doctors realize this anti-oxidant load point that is easy to unbalance with supplements. 

Most Multiple Vitamin formulas fail to consider this factor. And there are many other points just as significant: Mineral ratios and balance, Vitamin synergistic functions with other family members, and correct forms of vitamins such as for beta carotene, folate, and vitamin E.

Until such studies are undertaken, the evidence for or against Multiples will largely remain a mystery. The precautionary principle says follow Nature. What she puts together in foods is probably there for a reason. Why take a chance and use the wrong forms and dosages of vitamins where Science has told us such forms do not really work that well from the current scientific research base.

(C) Most Scientists know that Heart Disease and Cancers take many years before they manifest themselves. Thus, a 5 or even a 10 year study may not be long enough to tell if a nutrient in question has a positive effect on the prevention or delay of these diseases. In heart disease, measurements are taken to reveal plaque or calcification of arteries to predict future disease, but cancer may take 15 years or more to finally get large enough even to show up. 

Here is a recent example to illustrate this point where a Medical Doctor used poor judgement to influence a patient. The patient was diagnosed with osteopenia, thinning of bones. Rather than immediately go on drugs, the patient wanted to try supplements and lifestyle changes first. After 3 months, the patient went back to the Doctor who ran the same test and finding no changes, told the patient the supplements were not working and she needed to go on the drugs. NOW, this Doctor surely knew that bone takes up to 6 months to show improvement from any new protocol. Bone will start to replace itself during the 3 months, but the major mineral going into the bone responsible for greater density only occurs between 3-6 months.

Many nutrients are known to influence pathways to building health. One example, after a meal with a high fat content, the artery walls will turn a bright red, an indication of an inflammatory process. Giving vitamin C and E before the same meal will keep the artery walls a rosy pink, their natural color. One of the functions of vitamin C is to build collagen in the body. Collagen is necessary to keep skin elastic. Many of you may have experienced a person that smoked their whole lives, and now at older age have paper thin shiny skin. Smoking uses up vitamin C and they suffered a lack of collagen production to protect the skin thickness. If a smoker added extra vitamin C, could that offer prevention over a lifetime? Supplements may have other functions rather then just to prevent major diseases. In fact some of these may be their most beneficial actions.

There are other members of the vitamin E family that have greater heart disease fightling abilities than the one that Science uses in research. 

(E)  Yes, this is very important to get the dosage correct. Vitamin supplements are very concentrated and you need to realize a little can go a long way. The health issues raised here between vitamins and diseases do have valid points. This information is undersupplied to the Public and should be involved in vitamin formula decisions, such as lower vitamin A and Folic Acid amounts, as well as correct forms. Fortified foods play a major role in these isssues. And yes, NO IRON! For Everyone! See MVC 

(F) Wrong! The FDA has very strict labeling requirements for Supplements. Plus they have very specific Good Manufacturing Practices that have to be followed. ref The area that is under-regulated is that the safety of a supplement is put on the Vitamin Company before they introduce a supplement. Drugs have to go through years of testing on animals etc, while vitamins, since they fall in the food category, do not. When vitamins appear to do harm, very rare so far, OR are mislabeled, the FDA has the power to take them off the market.

(G)  Senator Durbin has introduced legislation numerous times in the past and again just this month, August 2013, that attempt to give the FDA absolute power to limit vitamins without even due process proving any harm. Senator Durbin, like many Congress members, receive campaign contributions from the Pharmaceutical Drug Industry. The Drug Industry Scientists know that certain vitamins have influence over some disease states and this knowledge could chip away at increased drug use. Such potential conflicts of interest should not be allowed to trump the health of the People. Look at the AREDS study using vitamins for eye health. ref  Since Durbin's bills have failed in the past, the Drug Industry has been purchasing Vitamin Companies as a way to further control information channels and the vitamin industry. ref