Those who read the July 6, 2002 news articles against vitamins should take a closer look at the study. What the study said was that taking Vitamin E, C, and beta carotene did not reduce mortality rates in patients who already had heart disease and diabetes. Does this mean the vitamins had no effects? The study didn't say this. Does Vitamin C still boost the immune system? There is no proof against this. They just can't prove that it prolongs your life if you already have heart disease and diabetes as did the people in the study. This study did not look at and did not show whether these vitamins could
prevent heart disease and diabetes.
Dr. Eades in PPLP stated that in the CARET study the same antioxidant vitamins did not prevent smokers from having lung cancer. That didn't mean these vitamins weren't working. It's just that the people hadn't stopped smoking. In the Heart Study below that showed people had no improvement from supplements, how much do you want to bet that they were on a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet? They were undoing what the vitamins were doing for them. Dr. Eades points out that, yes, it is better to get your vitamins from fruits and vegetables because they contain a combination of antioxidants and phytochemicals by the thousands that can't possibly be put into a pill. But on the other hand, antioxidant vitamin supplements do augment us when we didn't eat enough fruits and vegetables. The new study below showed that blood vitamin concentrations are increased by taking pill supplements. Therefore, the antioxidant properties of these vitamins were available to the body to disable free radicals. However, as Dr. Eades pointed out in the lung cancer study, in advanced disease states or where the body is trying to fight constant daily exposure to tobacco smoke, the body may use the normally bad free radicals to a good purpose.
The point is that this study did not prove that vitamin pills had no effect. This study only proved that in disease states where other forces were working against the vitamin pills, the vitamin pills alone were not enough to overcome the disease. But then again who of us ever said that vitamins cure heart disease and diabetes? The only thing that can do that effectively is a low-carb diet. Vitamins are just a help along the way. They are not a miracle that works against the low-fat/high-carb diets that these doctors put their patients on.
And that's the bottom line conclusion of this study: Vitamins do not cure heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Duuuhhhh!
STUDY:
Lancet 2002 Jul 6;360(9326):23-33
MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.
Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group.
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that increased intake of various antioxidant vitamins reduces the incidence rates of vascular disease, cancer, and other adverse outcomes. METHODS: 20,536 UK adults (aged 40-80) with coronary disease, other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetes were randomly allocated to receive antioxidant vitamin supplementation (600 mg vitamin E, 250 mg vitamin C, and 20 mg beta-carotene daily) or matching placebo. Intention-to-treat comparisons of outcome were conducted between all vitamin-allocated and all placebo-allocated participants. An average of 83% of participants in each treatment group remained compliant during the scheduled 5-year treatment period. Allocation to this vitamin regimen approximately doubled the plasma concentration of alpha-tocopherol, increased that of vitamin C by one-third, and quadrupled that of beta-carotene. Primary outcomes were major coronary events (for overall analyses) and fatal or non-fatal vascular events (for subcategory analyses), with subsidiary assessments of cancer and of other major morbidity. FINDINGS: There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (1446 [14.1%] vitamin-allocated vs 1389 [13.5%] placebo-allocated), or in deaths due to vascular (878 [8.6%] vs 840 [8.2%]) or non-vascular (568 [5.5%] vs 549 [5.3%]) causes. Nor were there any significant differences in the numbers of participants having non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death (1063 [10.4%] vs 1047 [10.2%]), non-fatal or fatal stroke (511 [5.0%] vs 518 [5.0%]), or coronary or non-coronary revascularisation (1058 [10.3%] vs 1086 [10.6%]). For the first occurrence of any of these "major vascular events", there were no material differences either overall (2306 [22.5%] vs 2312 [22.5%]; event rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI 0.94-1.06]) or in any of the various subcategories considered. There were no significant effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation for any other non-vascular cause. INTERPRETATION:
Among the high-risk individuals that were studied, these antioxidant vitamins appeared to be safe. But, although this regimen increased blood vitamin concentrations substantially, it did not produce any significant reductions in the 5-year mortality from, or incidence of, any type of vascular disease, cancer, or other major outcome.
________________________
ARTICLE:
Vitamin Critics, Please Take Note: The Studies Are Not Clear-cut
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Healthy News
Vitamin-pill popping was declared Most Useless. The sanctimonious A, C and E-droppers were proven wrong. Vitamin supplements gave "no protection'' against cancer, strokes or heart disease. Researchers from Oxford University said it was so.
The results appeared conclusive. Twenty thousand people had been tracked over a five-year period. Half of them were given vitamin pills, the other half were not. All patients were monitored for symptoms of heart disease, stroke, cancer and other general health disorders.
``We saw absolutely no effect on vascular disease or any cancers,'' explained the research leader, Professor Rory Collins. ``There have been claims that vitamins might protect you against cataracts; that vitamins might prevent fractures by preventing osteoporosis. There was no effect.''
The findings were published earlier this month in the medical journal The Lancet and newspapers around the globe, including The Age, covered the inevitable controversy that followed.
Healthy eating was vindicated. The best way to get vitamins and minerals, the professor told the press, was to eat a diet rich in vegetables and fruit. ``There is no need to supplement with vitamin pills,'' he said.
The supplement industry counted the cost of defeat. Millions of dollars are spent worldwide each day in pursuit of health via vitamins, minerals and other nutritional supplements. But now there was no point. Vitamin pill manufacturers were vilified. The findings were interpreted as the triumph of good (healthy eating, regular exercise) over evil (popping pills to compensate for unhealthy lifestyles).
The truth, however, did not lend itself to such a clear-cut, unambiguous conclusion. As ever, when research results are published, claim, counter-claim and confusion were conveniently disregarded in the quest for a clear result.
Vitamin and mineral supplements had not been proved to be ``useless''. The Oxford study tested the effect of three vitamins only, A, C and E, on a group of 40 to 80-year-olds known to be at high-risk of developing heart disease, and monitored them, in scientific terms, for a relatively short period of time. Other permutations - younger people, other vitamins, the full spectrum of ailments and conditions, patients outside Britain - were not addressed.
Even within the confines of their somewhat specific study, the Oxford researchers acknowledged a huge amount of existing data that contradicted their findings: studies which indicate that even low levels of vitamin E can reduce the risk of heart attack; research indicating that supplements can improve health when people eat a nutrient-poor diet.
In November, researchers at the University of California in San Diego reported that patients given B vitamin supplements - folic acid, B12 and B6 - after treatment for heart disease had about half the rate of reblockage in their coronary arteries as patients taking prescription drugs alone.
And this month, doctors at the Eye and Ear Infirmary in New York have reported a breakthrough in the use of vitamin and mineral supplements to treat chronic childhood ear infections.
Forty-four children at the hospital suffering from recurrent middle-ear infections were found to have low levels in their blood of vitamin A, the mineral selenium and an essential Omega-3 fatty acid believed to be a natural anti-inflammatory.
In a small study, some of the children were given vitamin and mineral supplements to make up the shortfall, while others were given placebos. Those given the supplements remained free of ear infections for the rest of the winter and needed fewer antibiotics to treat their initial infection.
The truth is that every vitamin, mineral and nutritional staple has a different role in keeping the human body healthy. And every person is different. Without the feasibility of a study that investigates the impact of every nutrient on every disease on every person, we are left to draw conclusions from more limited, specific research. The Oxford study is one such example.
In our quest for good health, one-line conclusions are comfort food for the mind.
http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/news.asp?Id=5264
On Studies showing Vitamin Supplements as worthless
Linear Mode
