SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Most popular vitamin and mineral supplements provide no health benefit, study finds
The most commonly consumed vitamin and mineral supplements provide no consistent health benefit or harm, suggests a new study led by researchers at St. Michael's Hospital and the University of Toronto.
Published today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the systematic review of existing data and single randomized control trials published in English from January 2012 to October 2017 found that multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium and vitamin C -- the most common supplements -- showed no advantage or added risk in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, stroke or premature death. Generally, vitamin and mineral supplements are taken to add to nutrients that are found in food.
"We were surprised to find so few positive effects of the most common supplements that people consume," said Dr. David Jenkins*, the study's lead author. "Our review found that if you want to use multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium or vitamin C, it does no harm -- but there is no apparent advantage either."
The study found folic acid alone and B-vitamins with folic acid may reduce cardiovascular disease and stroke. Meanwhile, niacin and antioxidants showed a very small effect that might signify an increased risk of death from any cause.
What about people who would otherwise eat an incredibly nutrient-deficient diet (e.g. junk food, rice, bread, pasta, french fries, hot dogs, etc.)?
Supplemental Vitamins and Minerals for CVD Prevention and Treatment (DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.020) (DX)
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 30 2018, @06:08PM (1 child)
Another obvious example is mild folic acid supplementation for breeding age chicks is probably extremely wise although it will never prevent heart attacks, strokes, osteoporosis, all that end of life stage stuff. From memory folic acid is water soluble and essentially impossible to OD on, although I'm sure some hero would find a way. Its interesting that my son has medically diagnosed Celiac disease aka gluten intolerance and the SAD (shitty american diet) seems to rely on folic acid supplementation of wheat... so I forget how much he takes but he does take a little, as he can't eat the wheat that most americans get their folic acid from. I suppose folic acid supplementation is more important for young women with Celiac disease. I mostly eat paleo low carb ish so I can't get folic acid from the standard american half dozen donuts for breakfast or one pizza daily or whatever it is fat people aka standard american diet victims, eat. Anyway, regardless the point is there's more to nutrition than mere prevention of fatal diseases. Its entirely possible to improve quality of life or duration of life without dodging the eventual CVA or MI bullet at the end.
A perhaps overly close reading also indicates no trend in preventing afflictions is defined as five years, although getting cardiovascular-related-diseases takes a lifelong effort of laziness and bad eating habits, so its almost exactly like people who wait until they're 75 to start exercising on the theory that their ancestors all died of cardiovascular incidents around 80 so may as well take it easy and have that second bowl of ice cream for the first 3/4 of a century. It don't work that way; to some extent how you die (or not) at 80 depends on what you exercised and ate at 40, you can't start at 75 and expect to dodge the bullet. I seem to recall a smoking lung cancer study that after quitting or avoiding second hand smoke it takes darn near a quarter century for victim rates to decline to non-smoking averages. Presumably physical wear and tear damage to blood vessels takes awhile to repair.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Thursday May 31 2018, @01:01AM
Averages don't work the way you think they work. During the smoking period you either fucked something up or not. Your 25 years is because that disease takes time to grow and kill you. Not over 25 years though, so after a long enough time the average returns to non-smoker levels - because after that long, anything bad you got from your smoking period has run its course and killed you or healed.
Speaking of cancer, folic acid is often added to birth control pills, and women who plan on getting pregnant in the next year or two take it. Otherwise, breeding age or not, it increases your chance for cancer. Take a look at a supa-dupa type of b complex that makes you piss yellow. You'll have 2k% of all those b vitamins, but not over 100% of falloc flacid. There's a reason for that.
As far as the article, the summary and especially the title have nothing to do with each other. The study specifically studied the effect of some vitamins as it pertains to cardiology, and found no effect. They don't claim anything besides that. The idiots that run soylent do, from their white trash cum-filled bunker.