Study Citing Antioxidant Vitamin Risks Based On Flawed Methodology

Study Citing Antioxidant Vitamin Risks Based On Flawed Methodology, Experts Argue

Science Daily — A study recently published on possible health risks of antioxidant supplements is based on flawed methodology and ignores the broad totality of evidence that comes to largely opposite conclusions, say experts from the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University.

The research, which was published in this week’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that antioxidant supplements such as vitamins A and E may “significantly increase mortality,” and that there was no evidence for any positive effect of vitamin C in the reduction of mortality rates.

However, Balz Frei, professor and director of one of the world’s leading institutes that studies the possible health value of vitamins, phytochemicals and micronutrients, said that the new study’s focus on a selected group of clinical trials disregards the results of other more positive trials, as well as huge amounts of laboratory, animal, and human observational and experimental data.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228172604.htm

Looks like a case study of how not to do a meta-analysis.

I have followed his ideas on Vitamin C for twenty years or more, taking between 8,000 to 10,000 mg PER DAY. Vitamin C is the magic potion as far as I am concerned.

I only take Vit. C at those levels when I am coming down with something, tho. I usually can get by with only 4,000 per day - 2,000 in the a.m. and 2,000 in the p.m. This vitamin allowed me to get my son and I off of all the medicines the doctors had us on. I started out taking pure ascorbic acid but had to switch to an esterfied C - because it has less acid. Pauling is my hero.

I've taken 1,000 mg supplemental vitamin C every day since I was about 13 years old.
Consistency is important. I would probably get sick within a week if I stopped taking supplemental vitamin C. You, with your current dose of 8,000 mg would probably get sick if you suddenly dropped to 500mg.

I'm wondering why you feel that such a huge amount of vitamin C is more healthful than a smaller amount, say 500mg or 1000mg on a daily basis.

Of course the International Alliance of Dietary Supplement-Food Associations (IADSA) is going to push back on something like this. They already have their share of problems with the laws that prohibit them from making health claims for supplements. And while they accuse the JAMA authors of being either inept or purposely deceitful, they advance carefully worded quotes like this one:

Do they really want the public to disregard the advice of the USDA, physicians, dieticians, and nutritionists, who have been urging the public to increase their intake of antioxidant-rich fruits, vegetables and nuts, to prevent chronic and degenerative diseases?” - Dr Alexander Schauss, Senior Director, Natural and Medicinal Products Research, AIBMR Life Sciences

http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?articleid=17859&zoneid=2

Schauss has to know that the studies were on pills (supplements) -- not on foods containing these antioxidants.

The JAMA authors conclusion was that real food is a better source of antioxidants, and that some pills may have negative effects.

Edit to add JAMA's actual wording on the conclusions of this analysis:
Conclusions Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/8/842