That bullshit study which they say reflected that vitamins hurt women

This is what I just heard. Has anyone heard the same? I plan to find out today if this is true, because if it is, it's one more bs study by corporations:




29,000 women average age 62 were asked to take survey about vitamins. Same women were asked to take the survey 11 years later at average age 73. Same women were asked to take the survey again 7 years later at average age EIGHTY YEARS OLD!

Uh... DUH!!!!!!!!!!! You know, I see what gets passed as 'science' and it scares the heebee jeebies out of me, because it's not science, it's bullshit.

This has been going on for many many years.

Absolutely! Let's tell everyone!

And check out how many supplement companies are behind the criticism of the study while you're at it.

Edit: here's who is funding the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota, the research group responsible for the "bullshit study"

http://www.cancer.umn.edu/research/grants/index.html


Sid

Thanks!

Yes or No: Do you believe that at least *some* vitamins and minerals can be toxic in large enough amounts?

Anything can be toxic "in large enough amounts."

Your question is stilted to give the answer you want, which you then will misuse to make a different point.

So it's really just a matter of degree. How much is toxic? How much isn't toxic, but causes harm? How much doesn't cause instant harm, but can cause damage or accumulate over time?

Do you agree these are useful questions to answer, no matter whether we are talking about pollutants or supplements?

But if all you want to do is attack me personally, go right ahead.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's my point.

However it's pretty difficult to drink enough water to be harmful.

Please keep up the attacks though, since you can't argue the facts, evidently.

with large doses, in a way that water soluble vitamins do not.

I presume you're talking about the Iowa Women's Health Study done by the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota.

This longitudinal study, following 41,836 participants (not 29,000) over a course of more than 25 years is the epitome of good science.

http://www.cancer.umn.edu/research/programs/peiowa.html

Sid

Edit spelling

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that is, they start with 'vitamins are bad' then look to see if 80 year old women who took vitamins are sick, dead, or not.

The study, as explained, does not show vitamins are the cause of morbidity. It's a bullshit study, and the conclusion is therefore bullshit.

I'd love to know who 'donated' funding for the continuation of this "study." (If it can be called that) :)

too funny.

Sid

and she said stick with vitamins (multi w extra D), so I am.

the usual funders, the mega-wealthy pharma companies. Who else has the money to fund shit like this?

It seems odd to make blind claims, as you have repeatedly done without researching the subject.

In fact, it seems irresponsible.

But I do know that in some cases certain vitamin supplements are harmful to both women (and men) *IF* they have an underlying genetic disorder called Hemochromatosis aka 'Iron Overload'. Now this may sound like a random anomaly, however I vaguely remember reading about the participants of this study (or one of them-wasn't there more then one?) Anyway, the biggest thing that stood out to me was the fact that this study, the one I read about, was taken from some North Western European population (don't remember where specifically) and mentioned in the study summary, they added the caveat that none of these women had been pre-screened for underlying disorders such as hemochromatosis.

Geography is significant because of the fact that the hemochromatosis gene is most prevalent in north western European populations. For example, one study from Ireland found that as many one in four people in Ireland are 'carriers' (meaning they possess at least 1 allele w/the hemochromatosis mutation). Hemochromatosis was once thought to be rare in many countries including the US, therefore remains under-diagnosed because the symptoms of affected individuals are varied but not abnormal-seeming ailments of aging people such as cirrhosis, heart disease, joint pain, ect. Nonetheless hemochromatosis is a killer, leading to premature death from (usually) organ failure. Affected men, incidentally, are usually diagnosed at an average age of 40 while women, not until after menopause since regular menses protects them by ridding the body of the overabundance of iron.

This study is the type of thing I never would have known or cared about had 2 of my sisters not been diagnosed with hemochromatosis just recently. One has been found to be a carrier, while the other is affected (symptomatic and found to be carrying both alleles). They are post menopausal btw. I've been tested and thankfully don't carry the gene. The affected sister is being treated w/regular phlebotomies. Yet BOTH were cautioned to stay away from ANY supplements containing iron, and to go easy on iron-rich foods.

I can't help but wonder if a large, unaccounted for # of the women in this study were carriers of at least 1 or both hemochromatosis gene mutations, especially given the geographic location of the study. This (seemingly) insignificant factor could really skew the findings in favor of calling supplements "harmful". And if I recall correctly, I don't think the study I read indicated what type of supplements the women were taking. Until diagnosed and counciled on the dangers of iron overload, both of my sisters had been taking the same iron-rich supplements they had been taking for years despite not needing them- being post-menopausal. I wouldn't be surprised if many women do this as a matter of habit.

Perhaps pharmaceutical companies encouraged the omission of this small but important piece of the puzzle when laying out the parameters of the study???

My apologies to the OP for the length of this. But if anyone would like to know more about hemochromatosis here is a link... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001368/ Note: I just picked the first one I found since there are a ton of them.

But even the way this study was set up is a joke.

The same drug will do nothing or something, or some other things, or kill you, depending on how much you take. And most drugs have multiple effects, which are differently affected as dosage goes up. It's all very messy.

and full of other variables as well- not just dosage.

The underlying condition that I mentioned in my other post is a good example. People w/that particular genetic disorder (btw THE most common genetic disorder in the US and Canada- 1 in 200!) should have NO added iron, period! And that includes what they take in w/their diet. I'm sure there are probably many other underlying conditions that one should take into consideration as well; regarding supplementation. Also, possible interactions of supplements w/prescribed meds- It just seems to me that all of this should be reviewed w/one's doctor.

Personally, I'm not really advocating for or against vitamins or supplementation based on this study alone, since to be quite honest, it is a very recent revelation to me that vitamins could be harmful. I, like probably many people, have always assumed that they were helpful in good ways, yet benign in adverse effects. It wasn't until my siblings diagnosis (not the study) that it really occurred to me to ask my doctor what I should keep or eliminate from my list.

He (my doc) had no issue w/anything I was taking (as in it adversely affecting me) however, he took the time to tell me what he considered to be most helpful (in my case) and what not. Plus, he saved me some more money by writing a script for my Omega 3 Fish Oil :-)

Bottom line, I'm sort of on the fence regarding this issue... I still believe that vitamins/supplements may be good, even VERY good, however now I know that it's best to really work w/your Doc on this.

Since Pharma wants to sell us tons and tons of vitamins. And this study advises women to just eat a balanced diet and forget popping the pills.

There's another study that seems to show calcium supplementation may lead to higher rates of heart disease.

I threw away my pills and am trying to focus on good food.

That would make them far wealthier than they already are.

Don't fool yourself.

It would make interesting reading.

Naw, that can't be it.

The OP has been stuck on this one part of this single study for weeks, and she keeps posting more OPs about it, but offering nothing new.

The reality is that the science is clear: Most people do not need to take multivitamins, so save your money, unless your physician directs you otherwise.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vitamins-and-mortality/

Sid

this from the poster claiming a 25 year study involving more than 40,000 subjects is a bullshit study.

:rofl:

Sid

"any study that disagrees with what I believe" = "bullshit study"

:thumbsup:

Sid

is a brilliant scientific work indeed! Woohoo!

Sid

:rofl:

Weak sauce.

Sid

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vitamins-and-mortality/

"As is typical of observational studies, the results are somewhat mixed, depending upon the details of how such studies are conducted. There are also many variables to consider – which vitamins and which doses in which populations with what health conditions. There is therefore a great deal of noise in the data. I do not think we can conclude that the vitamins listed above actually increase risk of mortality. But neither can we conclude that there is any health benefit for routine supplementation. Years of research have failed to provide such evidence, and the mixed results we are seeing is consistent with there being no or only a small effect.

Based upon the totality of evidence the best current recommendation is to have a well-rounded diet with sufficient fruits and vegetables, which should be able to provide most people with all the micronutrients they require. There is no evidence to support routine supplementation. There is also reason to avoid taking megadoses of vitamins, as this can cause toxicity, and even short of toxicity the evidence becomes more compelling at higher doses of the risks of supplementation.

But there are also many situations in which targeted supplementation is evidence-based and appropriate. There is increasing evidence to support the use of vitamin D supplementation for many populations. Many elderly have borderline or low B12 levels, which correlates with dementia. Pregnant women should take prenanatal vitamins. (To give just a few examples.)

Vitamins are just like any other health care intervention – they have potential risks and benefits and it is best to follow the evidence. For most people the best advice is to ask your primary health care provider which supplements, if any, you should take. Recommendations should be based upon specific health conditions and blood tests to measure levels of vitamins, so that specific deficiencies can be appropriately targeted."

--------------------------

Why are you stuck on this single part of a single study, when the reality is that it really doesn't matter.

Assuming that people have well-rounded diets is foolish. Nobody eats properly all the time. Vitamins are a good idea.

The statement you posted...

"There is also reason to avoid taking megadoses of vitamins, as this can cause toxicity, and even short of toxicity the evidence becomes more compelling at higher doses of the risks of supplementation."


...is without justification. The megadoses they are referring to have nothing in common with taking daily vitamin supplements.


If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. (good luck with that)

The supplement industry is trying to have that reality muddled by obsessing on this one small part of one study.

The repeat posts of it all over the Internet have made that very clear.

Do you even know how to find out about that study?

Uff da!

Which one is it going to be? Name it and I'll try to bring you down off your horse about it.

Got it.

THEREFORE IT IS BULLSHIT!
:P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2107183





I don't know why it wasn't obvious from the beginning that this was all bullshit.

Every study that has ever found vitamins to be harmful (other than in doses nearly impossible for most people to achieve) has turned out to be false.

Vitamins won't hurt anyone, unless you want to talk about big pharma's bottom line.

This is in regard to the Iowa study. Longitudinal, big numbers, etc...

I'm not sure there is any such thing as "the consumer labs study."