Everything you need to know about vitamin supplements

Now and again, a study is published that leads to a sea change in public opinion. If you’re a regular EBL reader, you already know how we feel about this. (While a single study provides some evidence about an issue, we should really consider all of the available evidence on a given topic before drawing any conclusions.)

Earlier this month, it wasn’t one study, but two.  Separate reports on the use of multivitamins and supplements among older women and the use of Vitamin E and selenium to prevent prostate cancer have led to a flurry of media reports about whether or not we, the general public, should take supplemental vitamins.

What does that mean for you?  We’ve done our best to dissect all of the evidence we can find.  Let’s start with the most recent studies.

First, researchers followed more than 38,000 older women for 25 years to track, among other things, their use of multivitamins and supplements. The study found that the risk of death among these women increased with long term use of multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper. They concluded there is “little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.”

In the second study, researchers followed more than 35,000 men over 10 years to determine whether taking vitamin E or selenium would decrease the risk of prostate cancer. In this study, the risk of cancer increased for men taking vitamin E, selenium, or both. This study also concluded there is little evidence for taking a supplement.

While these are both large, longitudinal studies, we thought it’d be prudent to check the other evidence available on supplements and talk to some Cornell nutrition professors about their interpretation of the data.

We started off at the Cochrane Collaboration, which has dozens of review on specific supplements for specific conditions. The most general report reviewed studies of supplements to prevent mortality. It reviewed 67 randomized trials with more than 200,000 participants, and found no evidence that supplements prolong life. It also concluded that Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may be harmful.

J. Thomas Brenna, Cornell professor of nutritional sciences, draws the same conclusions. “Human trials of so-called antioxidants have generally been neutral or shown harm, and these recent reports are consistent with their findings,” he said.

Brenna’s take on vitamins and supplements boils down to what he calls one of the oldest and most reliable mantras in biological science, “The dose make the poison.”  In other words, you can get too much of a good thing, and excess vitamin supplementation is no exception.

Patsy Brannon, also a professor of nutritional sciences, emphasized the need to consider your total intake of vitamins and minerals. 

“We know that those who take vitamin and mineral supplements tend to be consuming a healthier diet,” she said. “Further, many foods are fortified with minerals and vitamins such as ready-to-eat cereals and fruit justices.”

So who might benefit from a supplement and how to decide on what supplement to take and how much? 

“For those who routinely consume less than 1500 calories per day, it may be hard to consume all the vitamins and minerals in the amounts needed.  Then, a multivitamin-mineral supplement that provides only 100 percent of the recommended daily values for each of the nutrients in the supplement would be helpful,” she said.

Brannon pointed out a recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition that many adults are not meeting their nutritional needs.  Other evidence found only about 25 percent of American adults are following the recommended dietary guidelines.

The bottom line: Yes, supplements are important for specific deficiencies or when diets do not include a healthy variety of foods.  But the public as a whole may be overconsuming them to ensure health. When that happens, they may do some harm.

New evidence on yoga

Here on EBL, we’ve written plenty about alternative treatments like T’ai Chi and meditation. They’re always popular topics, maybe because many of us are looking for ways to improve our health.

So I was excited to see a New York Times blog post about the evidence surrounding yoga and pain relief. For one, it’s great news that major media outlets like the New York Times are touting the importance of systematic reviews.  And it’s also good to hear that an alternative treatment practiced by so many people – myself included – actually works.

The actual analysis, conducted by researchers in the United Kingdom and published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, reviewed ten randomized clinical trials that measured whether yoga helped reduce pain among patients with a variety of ailments. Nine of the trials found yoga led to significantly greater pain reduction than other therapies such as standard care, therapeutic exercises, touch and manipulation, or no intervention at all.

While the analysis gave preliminary indications that yoga works for pain relief, it concluded that more research is needed. The yoga practices in each of the studies varied widely, as did the type and intensity of pain experienced by patients.

Dr. M. Cary Reid is a geriatrician at Weill Cornell Medical Center and director the Translational Research Institute for Pain in Later Life, an evidence-based center in New York City to help older adults prevent and manage pain. He recently completed his own systematic review of alternative therapies including yoga for the treatment of osteoarthritis, which is submitted for publication.

Dr. Reid shared his thoughts on yoga for pain relief: “The good news is there appear to be few downsides to doing yoga, so my thinking is that we should be offering it routinely to patients, particularly those who are reluctant to try pain medications.” He echoed the need for larger, more definitive studies.

Until then, I’ll still be frequently my local yoga studio.

Got mold? Follow the evidence

Storms, floods and hurricanes are an unfortunate reality in our world – one that often leads to damp buildings, mold and potential health problems.

Here on EBL, we’ve discussed some of the evidence-based tactics for dealing with flooding.  Now a new systematic review by the Cochrane Collaboration reviews the data available on preventing respiratory illnesses due to environmental mold.

The review included eight studies with 6,538 participants. In each study, researchers tracked incidence of asthma and respiratory illnesses after the removal of mold and dampness from family houses, schools and an office building.

The review found some improvements in health. For example, the number of emergency and inpatient visits decreased and students visited the doctor less frequently due to colds.  On the whole, mold remediation decreased the severity and amount of symptoms in patients with asthma and respiratory infections.

But because each study measured different outcomes and designs varied widely, the authors found it “difficult to draw hard conclusions” and recommended better research.

Is junk food cheaper?

It’s a major misconception in our modern society: processed foods like chips, frozen dinners and Happy Meals are not cheaper, but actually more expensive than whole foods like whole grains, fruits and vegetables. While this topic graces our TV screens in shows like Jamie Oliver’s Food Revoluion and our shelves in books like Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, the misconception remains among many Americans.

A few weeks ago, Mark Bittman wrote a column in the New York Times making the case that cost is not what keeps American families from eating healthy meals.  Bittman argues that advertising and marketing of snacks and fast food, the addictive nature of unhealthy foods and a lack of cooking skills are to blame for America’s nutrition problems.

It’s a problem that is documented by plenty of evidence, says Christine Olson, a professor of community nutrition at Cornell.

“His article lends some visibility to a fact that is well-known by nutritionists and family economists and amply-substantiated by research,” she said. “A home-prepared family meal is generally more nutritious and cheaper than a family meal purchased at a restaurant, even a fast food restaurant.  But the frenetic pace of family life and the relentless advertising by the fast food industry contribute to the widely-held opposite perception. “

Cornell Cooperative Extension has been educating families about this very issue for decades. Its Food and Nutrition Education in Communities program has been helping families gain the knowledge, skills, attitudes they need to eat healthily since the 1970s. Another program called Cooking Up Fun teaches young people about cooking with healthy ingredients.

It’s one of the many ways that Cornell Cooperative Extension is using evidence to help improve the lives of families in New York.

Eating fish lowers your stroke risk

We’ve all heard that seafood should be part of a healthy diet. It provides lean protein and healthy fats that reduce your risk of heart disease, depression, joint pain and other problems. A new international meta-analysis has found that people who eat fish a few times each week are less likely to suffer a stroke than those who only eat a little or none at all.

The study, published in the journal Stroke, found the omega-3 fatty acids in fish may lower stroke risk through their positive effects on blood pressure and cholesterol. The analysis is based on 15 studies, which followed a total of 400,000 people ages 30 to 103. Each study asked participants how frequently they ate fish, then followed them for between 4 and 30 years to see who suffered a stroke.

The analysis found that eating three extra servings of fish each week led to a 6 percent drop in stroke risk. That translates to one fewer stroke among a hundred people eating extra fish over a lifetime.

While the research provides an interesting link, it does not prove that adding fish to your diet will keep you from having a stroke. People “could have healthier diets in other ways, people could exercise more, people could have better education that could lead them to see their doctors more,” Dariush Mozaffarian, a Harvard School of Public Health epidemiologist whose research was included in the analysis, told Reuters this week. But it’s likely that people who start out eating no fish or very little probably have the most to gain by putting it on their plate more often, he said.

Skip to toolbar