Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

just_some_guy65 t1_irecd47 wrote

This is the story about every essential nutrient (including food itself), rectifying a deficiency is good, taking in excess looking for a greater beneficial effect ranges from pointless to harmful to health.

Sadly there is a huge supplements industry taking people's money due to this mistaken belief. Even more sadly such people will claim that evidence-based treatments are a scam.

41

just_some_guy65 t1_irwwp28 wrote

I gather there was a rather overwrought reply to this post of mine from now deleted user "modsarefascists42" alleging that I was upset about something, on re-reading I really can't see it. Anyhow as anyone who knows anything about the subject, not all papers and studies are created equal and a rather excellent resource called The Cochrane Library exists who do meta-analyses on the published research, carefully weeding out the dubious trials and poor methodology. So I have selected just two of their vitamin analyses - there are literally many dozens of these if you search their site.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011906.pub2/full

> Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life

> Authors' conclusions > We did not find evidence that any vitamin or mineral supplementation strategy for cognitively healthy adults in mid or late life has a meaningful effect on cognitive decline or dementia, although the evidence does not permit definitive conclusions

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007176.pub2/full?highlightAbstract=antioxid%7Cantioxidants%7Cvitamin

> Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases

> Authors' conclusions > We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta‐carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

1

modsarefascists42 t1_irgfwuy wrote

There's way too big of a backlash against things like multivitamins too though, to the point that many people think they're worthless. They absolutely are not, and getting a perfectly balanced diet is a lot harder than many people realize. Basic vitamin supplements are a bad thing, plus there extremely cheap. A multivitamin is like $10 for a few months. Just gotta take it at dinner.

I mean perfect example I got a noticable benefit from taking some basic supplements, never spending more than $15 a month on it all (likely far less). I thought it was all just a scam like you, that I was probably just fine from a decent diet. Just fine isn't the same as good though. You shouldn't have to wait until you have a deficiency so bad that it causes medical issues. Vitamin D is by far the biggest one, most people just don't get enough sunlight to make their own. Maybe manual laborers in the tropics, but that's about it.

Tho I've never heard of anyone thinking you could just take more vitamins and get healthier. That's kinda ridiculous, they're dangerous in crazy high doses but so is everything.

Also gotta take your vitamins with food, always. They're just peed out otherwise.

Edit: in case anyone thinks the ass replying to me has a point, check the peer reviewed papers I linked to. This guy is nuts and shouldn't be giving anyone medical advice.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068797/

More below too

0

just_some_guy65 t1_irhnwy2 wrote

How did you rule out the placebo effect? How do you know clinically that you are low in vitamin D?

1

modsarefascists42 t1_irhtcis wrote

Doctor telling me?

2

just_some_guy65 t1_irhug0x wrote

The doctor told you that your idea that vitamins are beneficial regardless of a deficiency is not placebo?

Let's be charitable and assume that your doctor told you that your vitamin D levels were low, how was that determined? What were the objective criteria assessing the consequences of this?

1

modsarefascists42 t1_irihusy wrote

I didn't say regardless of deficiency, I said deficiencies are more common than you're pretending. Stop putting words in my mouth.

This kind if stupid attitude is why vitamin D deficiencies are so absurdly common in america. Just because you heard once that vitamins aren't necessary for a perfectly balanced diet doesn't mean that they aren't useful for most people. Because most people don't have a perfectly balanced diet. Vitamin D deficiencies are linked to numerous worse health outcomes both on their own and more importantly with worse infections that it helps allow to happen. Stop being bullheaded and leading people to do things that hurt their health.

1

just_some_guy65 t1_irikznu wrote

Tremendous fake outrage to conceal not answering either of my questions.

Evidence that deficiencies are "absurdly common"?

That is three unanswered questions.

1

modsarefascists42 t1_irljo4u wrote

>About 1 billion people worldwide have vitamin D deficiency, while 50% of the population has vitamin D insufficiency. Approximately 35% of adults in the United States have vitamin D deficiency.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15050-vitamin-d-vitamin-d-deficiency

Dumbass

1

just_some_guy65 t1_irm906e wrote

That is just a claim on a website with no study referenced, hilarious that you are slinging insults, in this case a bit of a boomerang.

You still haven't answered three questions.

Edit here is some food for thought about vitamin consumption

https://www.google.com/search?q=vitamin+supplement+in+cancer+study+halted

Here is a professor giving a lecture where he examined the evidence from trials

https://youtu.be/2mDrAQi1SwU

0

modsarefascists42 t1_irmjjks wrote

You are the most absurd case of dunning Kruger I've seen on this awful site. There's literally DOZENS of studies done on this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068797/

I'm honestly shocked you haven't started spouting antivax bullshit yet. What I am linking to you is very well known and has been studied for decades.

IDK why you're being so petulant but just give. it. up. You're wrong, stop trying to pretend like every source that isn't agreeing with you is invalid, the only thing wrong is the information you believe.

Also it's hilarious that you're ignoring peer reviewed papers yet linking some random YouTube shit.

Edit: here is one from Nature explicitly calling out your argument as harmful to public health.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-020-0558-y

Just because you believe something and you (maybe) went to medical school a generation ago does NOT mean you are always right. If you're to goddamn lazy to even do a Google search before you start throwing fits then you really shouldn't be discussing this topic much less be in the medical field (God I hope not).

1

just_some_guy65 t1_irmn908 wrote

Again projection, I followed your first link that is simply re-stating the starting assumptions by referencing "studies". In the references there are links but on following the links we get more of the same, we don't get to see if they are randomised, double blind placebo controlled trials or simply observational studies perhaps funded by people with an interest in the outcome.

In my previous post, the YouTube link has a university professor calmly and rationally looking at the evidence in favour of routine vitamin supplements. Each case he presents at first looks very promising in support until his reveal of what happens when the data is subject to critical examination or a proper randomised trial is done. Over and over what we see is conventional "it must be beneficial, look at the data" overturned by "Actually the high quality studies show the opposite".

The other glaring flaw in what you present is addressed in my two original questions you fail to reply to: What actual clinical issues are documented in quality studies by these alleged deficiencies? For example are we seeing 25% of the world's population suffering from Rickets?

I don't have a problem with correcting a vitamin deficiency that has been demonstrated with peer reviewed science. However a very lucrative industry worth 151 Billion dollars in 2021 https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/dietary-supplements-market Has an obvious vested interest in convincing people that they must have deficiencies in something which is addressed by using their products daily. If this was merely a waste of money that would be one thing but what persuaded me to stop taking them several years ago was the mountain of evidence that they could be actively harmful and when not in the form of food didn't necessarily work in the same way inside the body.

0

modsarefascists42 t1_irmtizf wrote

Lol there it is. You're convinced that supplements are all evil and now that you've been proven wrong you're doubling down because you've taken this as an attack on you personally.

I gave you a fucking nature paper and the other is published in a major outlet. You're wrong, give it up.

Also taking basic supplements costs less than $10 a month. Is this seriously a hill worth dying on when it is such a clear benefit to pubic health? I mean for fucks sakes we add all kinds of vitamins to our foods already because we were as a population not getting the full amounts needed.

You're throwing a fit cus I'm advocating that people spend less than 10 a month taking basic vitamins, ones I've shown we are as a population are often lacking if not outright deficient in. Think about that.

1