The Vitamin Hoax - 10 Not to Take
 

I am listing this for informational purposes only in case you have not seen this article in the November 2007 edition of Reader's Digest:

http://www.rd.com/content/are-vitami...good-for-you-/

Reader's Digest?
 

This is the typical middle of the road type article with a little here and then a little in the opposite direction.

The constant Vit E study analysis is totally off base. The Linus Pauling
institute explains why. Anyone can read over there.

It has long been accepted by many who are in the nutrition fields that our RDAs are outdated. I always think the drug companies would love to have control of everyone's health...rather than letting people take care of themselves.

For a general healthy reader, that article is adequate. For anyone with issues, deteriorating health, it is misleading. It does not address malabsorption from disease like Crohn's or Celiac/Gluten intolerance. It does not mention that many drugs remove nutrients from your body, so you can't use them. It did not mention hidden genetic errors of metabolism..such as the 25 known folate methylation errors, or the failure of pyridoxal kinase in the liver to activate B6.
As the genome is becoming understood, it is obvious that not all people share the same ability to use nutrients found in food. I could go on and on. But you get my point.

I found it interesting that the study they cited at the beginning of the article did not cite the amounts of the anti-oxidants the people in the study were taking. Anything done to excess will probably have ill effects. And of course, they didn't say what these people died of, so we have no idea if it could have been something completely unrelated to anti-oxidant use.

A better CYA move for "Reader's Digest" would have been for them to advise their readers to consult their physicians before beginning any major dietary changes such as supplementation. A lot of harm has come to people who failed to inform their docs what OTC supplements they were taking, particularly when they were also on prescription meds. I take supplements myself, but I've always researched them for potential interactions and always provide an updated list to my docs at each visit.

This article also doesn't address the quality of the supplements that were being taken. The source of the vitamin or mineral may be suspect, or there may be unwanted fillers or other unnecessary or even harmful ingredients. There can be a lot of variation from supplement to supplement as to how much of the main ingredient is bioavailable.

And I didn't expect "Reader's Digest" to mention this because it is not common, but some people have health conditions that preclude them from eating fruits and vegetables. So they HAVE to rely on supplementation to get proper nutrition.

It's good that "Reader's Digest" brings up the subject of supplements, but I hope they don't cause any unnecessary panic amongst the general population that their Ester C is gonna kill them or whatever. :rolleyes:

fanfaire
:cool:

Reader's Digest has a great deal of drug ads in its publication. They have formed a partnership with Merck. Why would anyone believe what Reader's digest says about supplements, which the drug companies feel as competition for the prescription drugs.

Mrs D
 

"the failure of pyridoxal kinase in the liver to activate B6"

What does this comment mean? B6 is an issue I am dealing with and probably the reason I have neuropathy. I found your comment interesting but don't fully understand...

I have been told to take P-5-P, but no one including the healthfood stores in my area or my doctors have heard of it. As far as they are concerned it is just "B6". :confused:

julie,

was it 5-htp?

here is link :

http://www.iherb.com/ProductsList.aspx?c=1&cid=1580

and this one explains what it is:

http://www.doctormurray.com/newsletter/3-04-2005.htm

stores that carry
 

a section devoted to NOW company, would have it. Otherwise you have to
go online to purchase it.

example:
This is the one I use.
http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails....1&pid=740&at=0
reasonably priced and enteric coated.

I have a B6 information thread here:
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=30724

One has to realize that if you are ending up HERE or at other forums
with "problems" that errors involving nutrients should be looked at
thoroughly. There are just too many man-made (from drugs) and genetic
things that go wrong that affect our health and quality of life.

For example the beta-carotene data and lung cancer. After that first set of reports to use antioxidants for cancer, failed, other studies were done, showing that antioxidants need to be taken TOGETHER...that they hand off free radicals to each other as a team. Isolating them and using only one (like betacarotene) creates an artificial situation in the body, that does not occur in nature.

And there are many studies now showing folic acid works better in the body when taken as a supplement, rather than from food. Folate is easily damaged by heat and microwave and lost from vegetables.

When people fail with B12... I'd suggest you look at folate too. The methylation failures include folic acid. The folinic acid now available would be an alternative for those patients.
http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails....&pid=7735&at=0


The superior methylfolate which up until recently was available OTC for pennies a tablet was made by Merck. They decided to stop selling it to vitamin manufacturers so they could make MORE money on the RX versions. Pure Greed! Another example of drug companies taking choices away from individuals. Metanx the RX mixture of methylB12, methylfolate and P5P is RX only.

I would like to add --- that the understanding of B6 toxicity is rather skewed by doctors. The actual events published were for huge
megadoses--in the GRAM range used for a long period of time, and only the un-activated pyridoxine form. I believe the actual papers add up to about 20 individuals over time. Doctors have seized upon this and skewed it into a "common" event, at low doses.
What is really happening I think is that pyridoxine is not being converted to active P5P normally in some people, and hence they are actually LOW in active B6. If you compare dangerous events with NSAIDs --drugs commonly used in this country--- you will find
average numbers of injury or death in the 40,000 per YEAR in USA (this is a combined figure of injury + death)! Yet doctors don't even blink when they write out Rxs for
Naprosyn or Motrin.

For example on one list there were 7600 deaths from NSAIDs reported for one year alone.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm
This article predicts MORE:
http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/20...1/fennerty.htm

So the B6 data is minute compared to drug statistics!
You can print out my B6 thread linked to above, and give it to your doctor. I have papers there from PubMed Medline.
I would expect blank looks from doctors about P5P....they don't know anything about vitamins or how the body
uses them or converts them for use.

A good example from the Reader's Digest article is a skewed comment that zinc interferes with blood pressure medications.
Here is an accurate list of what zinc may interact with:
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/zinc-000999.htm
You can see that listing blood pressure in the Reader's Digest format is inaccurate, since zinc is LOST in people taking ACE inhibitors.
The word interact....can be confusing since people assume a negative. Zinc does not negate ACE inhibitor function, it just makes zinc unavailable to the patient for necessary use. So general articles like the Reader's Digest can be misleading.
Also zinc does NOT weaken the immune system...quite the opposite-- in fact so that is very wrong.

The only benefit I see in articles like this is recommending caution, and finding out correct information before embarking on using
supplements, esp in high doses. That is why I am here, on NT!

Oh, good grief.
 

I saw the headline when shopping, and I expected something like this. Disgusting.

Thank goodness the information is there for those who dig, but so unfortunate that most will believe the poor reporting.

rose

I've been reading Reader's Digest for years. And I'm not happy with the way it's changed. Used to be you could pretty much count on them for accuracy. Not anymore. And I find that sad.

My mom and dad
 

Loved this,but like J makes me kind of sad as well...

I bought the magazine and read the article the other day. I agree with Mrs. D., I think it just generally addresses a healthy person. I know there are people that are deficient in certain Vitamins and of course they would have to write a book to go into all of that. Anyway, I do agree with some of it while at the same time taking it with a grain of salt too.

These days, with the internet so handy, anyone..... can publish.... anything.
99.9% of the time it is just plain WRONG !
I don't know where these people get their info,
but today's journalism just doesn't get the facts straight, or bother to research deeply enough to inform correctly.
I studied Broadcasting in college, and am old enough to remember Walter Cronkite & Edward R. Murrow- and the ethic used to correctly inform the public.
Ahhh....the good ole days!!

I singled out the zinc information to show...
 

that these general articles cannot provide really useful, accurate data.

There are space constraints in publications. And you are at the mercy of the writer who may be not so great. I don't consider myself a good writer, but I do get the FACTS straight, while my grammar is sometimes lacking.:o My son is always after me for my punctuation, for example. :thud:

We are so overwhelmed with commercials today for vitamins and it is hard
to know what to choose/select. Look at the new Centrum, with the guys jumping out of a PLANE to get your attention.:rolleyes:

I have been to professional seminars in the past and PROFESSORS have told us in the audience (we who paid good money for the subject!) to just tell people to get Centrum! End of point! :rolleyes:

Today things are a little better...with good companies like NatureMade now promoting RxEssentials. That commercial is very good IMO to turning things around from the one vitamin mix fits all people, to illustrating that individuals have certain needs that differ from others.

If I see another reference to that disgusting misleading Vit E meta-analysis paper, I will scream! The rumor has it that this paper was paid for by drug companies. An explanation as to why it was useless can be found at
Linus Pauling Institute, BTW. But the general media continues to quote that dastardly paper...ad nauseaum.

Another example I am reminded of.... Robitussin and other cough preps were forced out of their grandfathered FDA approval to get studies behind them for safety and efficacy. This is happening across the board for RX items too (hence quinine is now gone). But Robitussin (guaifenesin) is not harmful. And passed easily with an outlay of big bucks. But our local ABC affiliate reported one night ---Dangerous cough medications recalled by FDA--- and this was inflammatory and not accurate at all. Media coverage of medical things is very poor, and spotty, and should be read carefully! VERY !!

So frustrating.

And add to that that you can find MDs publishing such blatantly bad information in print as well as on the Internet: bananas, potatoes and beans as great sources of B12. Ack!!!! :eek:

I once read an article in the New York Times that shocked me, it was so riddled with errors. I thought, "How could they have hired such a person." But on looking into it, I found that it was written by their medical reporter who had been working for them for many years. Sooooo disappointing.

Between "studies" skewed by funding, reporters who get even simple things wrong, it is like a dangerous form of the old telephone game.

rose