Has it really been months since my last post?
Apologies. I've been very busy writing and traveling and lecturing about nutrition and health. And reviewing the edited manuscript of my next book, on fatigue and energy, to be published in March 2011.
Enjoy the blogs posted below.
Jack
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Attacks on Multivitamins
I like to read what other newsletters and magazines write about vitamin supplements. The Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter, Reader’s Digest, and even Prevention recently published long articles attacking multivitamins. These rabid attacks cited widely criticized scientific articles, and by repeating misinformation, they may have misguided and harmed millions of people.
As one example, the Tufts newsletter claimed to investigate the “top 20” multivitamin supplements (apparently those sold in drug stores) and warned that they don’t contain enough calcium and vitamin D for bone health, not enough antioxidants for eye health, not enough DHA (one of the omega-3s), not enough ginkgo, not enough bilberry, and not enough probiotics.
First, I could quibble about ingredients in multivitamins, but these formulas have never been intended as the end all of
supplements. They’re basically a form of nutritional insurance, one that’s needed more than ever given the disastrous state of malnutrition in the United States and other Western nations. It’s physically impossible to pack ideal amounts of every nutrient into a capsule or tablet.
Second, in its diatribe against multivitamins, the nutritionally conservative Tufts newsletter indirectly suggested that, if people wanted higher potencies of some nutrients or herbs, they should go buy standalone supplements of calcium and D, lutein, antioxidants, DHA, ginkgo, bilberry, and probiotics. After all, if you can’t get enough of these nutrients in a multivitamin, it only makes sense to make up the difference with whatever individual supplements are important to your health.
There is so much good research supporting the benefits of taking a high-potency multivitamin. Taking a daily multi reduces inflammation and your risk of heart disease, cancer, mood problems and many other health problems.

I have long recommended that people take at least a high-potency multivitamin, and I continue making this recommendation. Given the millions of Americans (and others) who do not get adequate nutrition, it only makes sense.
As one example, the Tufts newsletter claimed to investigate the “top 20” multivitamin supplements (apparently those sold in drug stores) and warned that they don’t contain enough calcium and vitamin D for bone health, not enough antioxidants for eye health, not enough DHA (one of the omega-3s), not enough ginkgo, not enough bilberry, and not enough probiotics.
First, I could quibble about ingredients in multivitamins, but these formulas have never been intended as the end all of
supplements. They’re basically a form of nutritional insurance, one that’s needed more than ever given the disastrous state of malnutrition in the United States and other Western nations. It’s physically impossible to pack ideal amounts of every nutrient into a capsule or tablet.
Second, in its diatribe against multivitamins, the nutritionally conservative Tufts newsletter indirectly suggested that, if people wanted higher potencies of some nutrients or herbs, they should go buy standalone supplements of calcium and D, lutein, antioxidants, DHA, ginkgo, bilberry, and probiotics. After all, if you can’t get enough of these nutrients in a multivitamin, it only makes sense to make up the difference with whatever individual supplements are important to your health.
There is so much good research supporting the benefits of taking a high-potency multivitamin. Taking a daily multi reduces inflammation and your risk of heart disease, cancer, mood problems and many other health problems.

I have long recommended that people take at least a high-potency multivitamin, and I continue making this recommendation. Given the millions of Americans (and others) who do not get adequate nutrition, it only makes sense.
Who Says You Don’t Need Supplements?
A recent article on supplements in the New York Times said what we’ve all heard a hundred times before: “Doctors and nutritionists say that people who eat a normal diet generally don’t need nutritional supplements, even if they exercise vigorously.”
The problem is such statements have absolutely no foundation.
First, what exactly is a normal diet? The definition varies among cultural and ethnic groups. Is it normal to eat the typical American (Western) diet, rich in sugars, starches, and unhealthy oils? Is it normal to eat on the run, out of boxes and microwave ovens?
Second, even if you assume that a normal diet is one consisting of fish, chicken, veggies, and other whole foods, are you really absorbing adequate amounts of the nutrients in foods? Eating healthy foods is certainly important, but poor absorption means you may not be getting those nutrients.
Third, drugs almost always interfere with nutrient absorption and utilization – and half of Americans take at least one prescription drug. Acid blockers (where prescription or over the counter products) reduce absorption of vitamins B12 and C and probably others. Antibiotics, oral contraceptives, and other common medications interfere with many of the B vitamins.
If you want to take the guesswork out of what you need and don’t need, find a nutritionally oriented doc who can measure your blood levels of nutrients. Such measurements aren’t perfect, but they do provide an idea of what you’re absorbing.
The idea that eating right means you don’t need supplements belongs in the wastebasket, along with another stupid idea: taking supplements and you’ll just make expensive urine. The truth is that everything that goes into the body eventually exits in one form or another. So if someone tells you that vitamins only make expensive urine, remind them that the $30 steak and $50 bottle of wine they had in a restaurant made even more expensive urine.
The problem is such statements have absolutely no foundation.
First, what exactly is a normal diet? The definition varies among cultural and ethnic groups. Is it normal to eat the typical American (Western) diet, rich in sugars, starches, and unhealthy oils? Is it normal to eat on the run, out of boxes and microwave ovens?
Second, even if you assume that a normal diet is one consisting of fish, chicken, veggies, and other whole foods, are you really absorbing adequate amounts of the nutrients in foods? Eating healthy foods is certainly important, but poor absorption means you may not be getting those nutrients.
Third, drugs almost always interfere with nutrient absorption and utilization – and half of Americans take at least one prescription drug. Acid blockers (where prescription or over the counter products) reduce absorption of vitamins B12 and C and probably others. Antibiotics, oral contraceptives, and other common medications interfere with many of the B vitamins.
If you want to take the guesswork out of what you need and don’t need, find a nutritionally oriented doc who can measure your blood levels of nutrients. Such measurements aren’t perfect, but they do provide an idea of what you’re absorbing.
The idea that eating right means you don’t need supplements belongs in the wastebasket, along with another stupid idea: taking supplements and you’ll just make expensive urine. The truth is that everything that goes into the body eventually exits in one form or another. So if someone tells you that vitamins only make expensive urine, remind them that the $30 steak and $50 bottle of wine they had in a restaurant made even more expensive urine.
Food Addictions and Overweight
Each new year prompts millions of people to go on diets and sign up for gym memberships to lose weight and get back into shape. Within a month or two, most people resume their former eating and sedentary habits, leading to an annual weight gain.
Why are the vast majority of Americans now overweight or obese? There are many reasons, including the lipogenic effects of high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats, and simply eating too many empty calories, most of which are cheap mass-produced carbohydrates and fats.
A commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal focused on what I have long believed: that unrecognized food addictions are a major factor in overweight and obesity. The concept of food addictions, the authors wrote, is controversial – but there are many similarities to drug and alcohol addictions. Powerful cravings and withdrawals symptoms are signs of food addictions. And interestingly enough, anti-opioid drugs seem to reduce food cravings.
There are many factors behind food addictions. Some foods, such as wheat and dairy, contain trace amounts of natural opioids. Sweet foods stimulate the brain’s production of its own opioids. Some foods lead to increased dopamine levels – one of the brain’s pleasure neurotransmitters.
Breaking food addictions is like dealing with any other addiction: It’s going to be rough for a little while. But once an addiction is broken, most people gain a renewed sense of well being. During this process, it certainly helps to be mindful of what you put into your mouth – and to stop rationalizing that a little bit of this and a little bit of that won’t hurt. Just as a little bit of tobacco, alcohol, or cocaine will sabotage some people, little bits of problematic foods will reestablish food addictions.
Why are the vast majority of Americans now overweight or obese? There are many reasons, including the lipogenic effects of high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats, and simply eating too many empty calories, most of which are cheap mass-produced carbohydrates and fats.
A commentary in the Canadian Medical Association Journal focused on what I have long believed: that unrecognized food addictions are a major factor in overweight and obesity. The concept of food addictions, the authors wrote, is controversial – but there are many similarities to drug and alcohol addictions. Powerful cravings and withdrawals symptoms are signs of food addictions. And interestingly enough, anti-opioid drugs seem to reduce food cravings.
There are many factors behind food addictions. Some foods, such as wheat and dairy, contain trace amounts of natural opioids. Sweet foods stimulate the brain’s production of its own opioids. Some foods lead to increased dopamine levels – one of the brain’s pleasure neurotransmitters.
Breaking food addictions is like dealing with any other addiction: It’s going to be rough for a little while. But once an addiction is broken, most people gain a renewed sense of well being. During this process, it certainly helps to be mindful of what you put into your mouth – and to stop rationalizing that a little bit of this and a little bit of that won’t hurt. Just as a little bit of tobacco, alcohol, or cocaine will sabotage some people, little bits of problematic foods will reestablish food addictions.
Up and Down Media Reports
The media roller coaster continued with recent news reports on the good and bad of nutritional supplements – all without providing any real context.
In one study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers combined either niacin (a form of vitamin B3) and a statin drug or the drug Zetia with a statin (a combination known as Vytorin). The niacin combination worked far better in terms reducing the thickening of the carotid artery, a major blood vessel.
As good as niacin is, the finding was neither new nor surprising. Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, discovered that niacin lowers cholesterol back in 1955 – and it has been approved by the FDA for that purpose for more than 50 years.
Meanwhile, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study claiming that supplements of the B-vitamin folic acid increased the risk of cancer. The study was a statistical shell game. Folic acid allegedly increased the risk of cancer by 38 percent, but the results were not statistically significant.
If you read the actual study, not just the panicky newspaper and web news, you would have learned that 70 percent of the subjects were current or former smokers, all of the subjects had a high risk of cancer, and nearly all of the cases were lung cancers. Omitting this information was nothing less than sloppy journalism. So, if you smoke, should you stop taking your vitamins or stop smoking?
In one study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers combined either niacin (a form of vitamin B3) and a statin drug or the drug Zetia with a statin (a combination known as Vytorin). The niacin combination worked far better in terms reducing the thickening of the carotid artery, a major blood vessel.
As good as niacin is, the finding was neither new nor surprising. Abram Hoffer, MD, PhD, discovered that niacin lowers cholesterol back in 1955 – and it has been approved by the FDA for that purpose for more than 50 years.
Meanwhile, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study claiming that supplements of the B-vitamin folic acid increased the risk of cancer. The study was a statistical shell game. Folic acid allegedly increased the risk of cancer by 38 percent, but the results were not statistically significant.
If you read the actual study, not just the panicky newspaper and web news, you would have learned that 70 percent of the subjects were current or former smokers, all of the subjects had a high risk of cancer, and nearly all of the cases were lung cancers. Omitting this information was nothing less than sloppy journalism. So, if you smoke, should you stop taking your vitamins or stop smoking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
