Quantcast
Membership Signup
Singularity University

Studies Consistently Fail To Show Benefits Of Dietary Supplements – Experts Think It’s Time To Reevaluate

Do you really need all those pills? Some researchers say dietary supplements help only those who need them, and don't make healthy people healthier.

“Don’t forget to take your vitamins?”

That healthful reminder from mom may soon become a thing of the past. While dietary supplements remain popular in the US, a continuous stream of studies are casting increasing doubt that the widely-accepted benefits are real. Researchers and regulators are taking notice, and some are beginning to deliver a different message.

Two studies published earlier this month are the most recent examples. One takes aim at vitamin E, the other at multivitamin supplements for women.

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) put to test the common “wisdom” that vitamin E lowers men’s risk for prostate cancer. A total of 35,533 men in the US, Canada, and Puerto Rico, received one of four treatments: vitamin E, selenium (an essential mineral thought to lower the risk of cancer when taken with vitamin E), both together, or a placebo. They found that taking vitamin E actually increased the risk for prostate cancer. Taken together with selenium, however, seemed to mitigate the increased risk that comes with taking vitamin E.

Bottom line, though, is that taking vitamin E or selenium – or both – did not reduce risk of prostate cancer.

The Iowa Women’s Health Study assessed the health affects of vitamins and minerals in over 38,000 older women. With a maximum follow up of about 20 years, the study showed that taking common vitamins and mineral supplements was actually associated with an increase in mortality rate, compared to women who did not take supplements.

We have to keep in mind, though, that studying the effects of vitamins and supplements is tricky. People don’t just eat them one at a time. The subjects in the SELECT trial took their vitamin E along with their normal diet. Other vitamins and minerals can interact with vitamin E in complex ways that researchers are far from understanding. So studies that try to parse out the effects of a single supplement have to be taken, pardon me for saying, with a grain of salt.

But while any single trial is not conclusive, a pattern emerges when one takes a broader view, according to Marion Nestle, New York University professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health. “The better the quality of research, the less benefit [supplements] show,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “It’s fair to say from the research that supplements don’t make healthy people healthier.”

There's nothing like the real thing.

Others agree. The Office of Dietary Supplements, part of the National Institutes of Health, says that while vitamin C has long been a popular remedy for the common cold, research shows that, for most people, vitamin C does not reduce the risk for getting a cold. On the other hand, taking too much vitamin C can cause diarrhea, nausea, and stomach cramps. And while taking vitamin B-6 and B-12 is commonly thought to reduce risk for cardiovascular disease, the data is not conclusive. In a 2006 statement, the American Heart Association said “evidence is inadequate to recommend…B vitamin supplements as a means to reduce cardiovascular disease risk.” There’s no disputing that calcium is important for bone health, but efforts to show it reduces the risk of cancer and heart disease have fallen short. And taking calcium supplements can increase risk for kidney stones.

Early studies suggested beta-carotene decreased risk for lung cancer. But two large studies published in 1994 and 1996 showed that smokers taking beta-carotene supplements were actually more likely to develop lung cancer than smokers who didn’t take the supplement. A follow up to the studies was performed in 2004. It concluded that beta-carotene was harmful to those at risk for lung cancer, even though the subjects hadn’t taken the supplement for years.

But that doesn’t mean all of us should stop taking our vitamins. For those with specific deficiencies or the malnourished, supplements are a necessary part of the diet. It’s recommended, for example, that pregnant women take folic acid. Folic acid is important for the kind of rapid cell growth that occurs during pregnancy. Taking it helps reduce the risk of birth defects.

Large studies that evaluate supplements, such as SELECT, are rare. In fact, many supplements remain untested, not only for their effectiveness, but for their safety as well. The FDA has a separate set of regulations for supplements than they do for drugs or “conventional” foods. According to these regulations, the “manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement or ingredient is safe before it is marketed.” The FDA is responsible, however, for taking action if a supplement has adverse effects once people start taking them.

Sounds arse-backwards if you ask me. But no one’s asking me, and the fact is the supplement industry is big business. According to a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey report published earlier this year, in 2006 about half of Americans were popping at least one supplement a month. In 2010 the supplement industry raked in $28 billion in sales, a 4.4 percent increase from 2009. Despite the growing number of studies that show a given supplement doesn’t work, people continue to take them.

Joseph Fortunato, chief executive of supplement retail giant GNC Corp., is quite okay with that. The Wall Street Journal quotes Fortunato from a company conference call transcript: “The thing you do with [reports of studies] is just ride them out, and literally we see no impact on our business.”

That may soon change if the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (part of the NIH) and other health institutes have their way. The growing body of data that consistently fails to show benefits has prompted them to push for more studies that explore how nutrients work – a body of knowledge that is surprisingly lacking.

So what do we do with all this uncertainty? If you’re considering taking a dietary supplement, get informed. Read up and talk to your doctor. But as professor Nestle says, it might be a waste of money for people without specific deficits. The best way to get the vitamins and minerals you need? The old fashioned way: a balanced diet.

[image credits: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Dietary Supplements For Health And Fitness]
image 1: pills
image 2: balanced

Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

11 comments

  • ChasingLongevity says:

    So Ray Kurzweil is wrong to be taking all of those supplements? Really?

  • Rob says:

    Seems to me that you are doing the same as the MSM: Finding that vit E and B12, etc is not much good so concluding that all supplements are bad. Vit D is recommended and so is selenium. There are many supplements that are worthwhile such as phosphatadylcholine,resveratrol, acetyl l carnatine and q10 and many others. You [and the MSM] don\’t mention these because they are good.

  • Wayne says:

    …and a ‘related story’ link has a title of: ‘Elderly With Less Vitamin D More Likely to Die’.

  • MSOMM2000 says:

    For those of us taking a supplement regime—ala Kurzweil–Transcendant Man (except in my case a similar battery for now 18 years) I would suggest that I have seen no big or rather comprehensive study of a full regimen of supplements, across a varied population and over time. Rather, we get: let’s pick on Vitamin E, we will do C, etc. next time.

    Scientists suggest that a true measure of success is your average telomere length against your age group. I see no such reference in these studies which seem to be looking for problems rather than benefits. Who among us can eat healthy enough (and sufficiently enough) to get the “bathing” impact of anti-oxidants, for example.

    If Big Pharma could get patents on many supplements, I believe that they would be near universerally recommended by main stream MED, which now pushes only BIg Pharma medicines.

    We may need the FDA to sponsor the broad based research necessary to restore sensibility here. In my own case, with good diet and exercise, my health is excellent. It is impossible to know what good the supplements may do or will do–but they have not proven deleterious. In the absence of better research, I will continue to hedge my bets. Getting annual diagnostics is also a given. I’ll stick with Kurzweil, thanks.

    • ChasingLongevity says:

      Well put! Anyone know where the most up to date list of what he (Kurzweil) is taking for supplements?

    • arpad says:

      Supplement-takers, such as yourself and Ray Kurzweil, inevitably assume the efficacy of supplement-taking with scientific verification only being welcomed when it supports your prejudice.

      Indulge yourself any way you prefer, as long as it harms no one else, but please have the dignity to assume responsibility for your preference as such and not try to dress it up in the trappings of science.

  • MSOMM2000 says:

    Prejudice, indeed. Let’s advocate for real research and fact finding-not more labels and sweeping negative generalizations. This is real health and well-being. adcom–please read Transcendant Man.

  • Herbys says:

    OK, you are stopping short of the full conclusion. It might be very well that not only supplements are not necessarily good for you, but that FOODS that we have taken for granted as healthy are not so. FOr example, spinach was considered to be a super food for decades because it contained large amounts of iron, before discovering that the iron in Spinach was mostly excreted in urine without a health benefit for the body.
    It might perfectly turn out to be that the greens don’t do as much good as we thought. I sincerely hope that is the case. I hate greens.

  • Josh Trutt says:

    Both the SELECT trial and the Iowa Women’s Health Study created dramatic headlines that are not at all supported by the studies themselves.
    I have written a detailed de-bunking of the SELECT trial which you may find useful. You can find it here:

    http://physioage.com/component/content/article/13-whats-new/284-does-vitamin-e-cause-prostate-cancer

    I hope to soon find time to write a similar discussion of the Iowa Women’s Health Study.

  • RThealth says:

    There are many comments already here that have zoned in on some of the flaws in the recently reported studies.

    All the (vitamin E) study showed was that alpha-tocopherol alone is not the form of vitamin E to use and iron and copper should not be taken on a routine basis – all of which has been known for years.

    The most negative effects were reported in conjunction with iron and copper. We never recommend supplementing with iron or taking other minerals much in excess of the RDAs (of course, if you are anemic, that’s a different story).

  • originalmike007 says:

    Can supplements be harmful for someone taking a lot of them? Yes, absolutely. Whatever inputs the body doesn’t absorb has to be processed out by the liver and kidneys. The liver and kidneys are already dealing with too many toxins in today’s typical western diet. Toxicity build up as a cause for most diseases is a competing theory of medicine to the mainstream medicine (every disease has it’s own specific cause). Dietary therapies for different diseases easing or even curing diseases gives witness to some truth being present in the toxicity build up theory. Far better than prescribing another expensive industrially derived supplement is to examine what is wrong with the patient’s diet and how to balance the diet properly.

Singularity Hub Newsletter

Close