digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Antioxidant vitamins are bad for your health

arstechnica.com — A new meta-analysis of existing studies published in JAMA regarding the use of antioxidant supplements shows that far from prolonging longevity, beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E usage were associated with increased mortality.

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 28, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

103 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Sick people take more vitamins.
  • stupac2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Meta-analyses can show pretty much whatever the authors want them to show.
  • nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19@mike: No - I've RTFA and they make explicit mention in their conclusion that they believe that man-make vitamin supplements are no substitution for a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.
  • nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I'll be one of the first to write the obligatory correlation does NOT equal causation statement. I think a likely explanation could be that people who are taking vitamins/antioxidants believing them to be better for their health will be less likely to exercise/eat better, thinking the "magic antioxidant pills" they are taking will more than compensate for hours in front of the TV w/ a bucket of KFC. I read the study a few days ago and don't remember seeing any mention of taking this into account - although it was a meta-analysis; so some studies may have, others may have not.

    More than anything, this study tells us what we already know: artificially created vitamins/drugs are no substitute for a diet rich in fruits, vegetables combined with a little exercise.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15The blog post is a bit misleading. It has not been shown that it is the *antioxidant* qualities of these vitamins that affect mortality. It would be interesting to see a study done on other (and more potent) antioxidants, such as idebenone, pyritinol, sulbutiamine and piracetam. I'm all for science and scientific reporting, but the blogger seemed to take a single conclusion and run with it, ignoring things like the error rate of the study.
  • CountC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18"DON'T TAKE THAT STUFF.
    IT'LL KILL YOU.

    USE OUR $400 MEDICINE INSTEAD.

    ohandthere'sasmallriskofcoloncancer,eternalpenisdisfunction,andjustlotsofbadstuff.whocaresrightatleastwegetrich"
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I've never figured out why people think that vitamin making companies with their claims are more trustworthy than big Pharma's claims?
  • JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"Zero Evidence and Unknown Study with their prove being 5% higher with no statistics.. = Unknown Magazine or people that needed Publicity"

    Indeed, who's ever heard of this 'JAMA' thing? Why would some magazine for people who can lay down the 'dope beats' be able to tell me about science?

    I actually loaded this up to make sarcastic comments about meta-analysis compared to actual experimental studies, but reading though the comments here, wow. Seriously, JAMA, one of the most prestigious medical journals out there, an unknown magazine?
  • wonderworm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16DIGG THIS CRAP DOWN. 5% higher chance of anything is hardly statistically significant. Especially through "metaanalysis". Lame story and waste of my time.

    The article offers zero evidence and is simply a lost leader hyped up title to get your attention. Digg it down so good stories can move to the first page.
  • derning, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14LIGHTER = what you light up your stogie with
    LITER = 1000 milliliters

    *bah
  • ronsanto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12All this really means is what most people already know - supplements have little to no effect. There is something about the way real fruits and vegetables package these nutrients that scientists do not understand. It would be a stretch to say that this study actually implies that antioxidants are bad you for. The correlation is too small - and sick people take more vitamins.
  • Prototek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@jo9100

    Omega-3 is not an antioxidant. It's an essential fat that the body cannot synthesis.
  • NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Not that antioxidants were ever the solution. We need little erythrocyte-sized nanobot slaves, or so I've been told.
  • drjonboyg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Um, JAMA is a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps you should read the digg'd article next time.
  • Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I think a likely explanation could be that people who are taking vitamins/antioxidants believing them to be better for their health will be less likely to exercise/eat better,"

    I remember a study from a few years back that said the exact opposite (ie., People who take supplements are usually more concerned with their health and live healthier lifestyles).
  • deff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Too much of a good thing can be bad for you.
  • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Vitamin A, in the form of beta carotene, increases the risk of cancer in smokers.
    http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/final-CARET1204
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Maybe there is too much Vitamin Pb in the supplements.
  • yakski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@jbarnett

    There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between 'natural' beta-carotene and man-made beta-carotene. It is extraordinary bad logic to think there is ever a difference between a 'natural' molecule and a man-made molecule. If the structure of a 'natural' molecule has been elucidated including any possibility of a stereo-isomer then the identical man-made molecule WILL ALWAYS be identical in all functional aspects. There will be NO difference between the two molecules. This idea that somehow a 'natural' molecule is somehow 'better' for you than a man-made molecule is illogical and ridiculous. The only possible functional difference between 'natural' and manmade vitamins/minerals/foods would be in other yet to be identified molecules/substances in the 'natural' foods.
  • neuros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6GIMME A LITER COLA!
  • laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Interesting article but I would like to read the actual JAMA article. A few questions:
    What exactly does "5% increased risk of mortality" mean?
    Are the supplements are more / less dangerous than those occurring naturally, and why?
  • miltont, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ususally, I don't really bad mouth articles, since I don't necessarily have the expertise in that field. But man, this article (I mean the editorial for arstech) is horrible. I'm not sure if the author just did a 30 second scan or what...but the JAMA article pretty much states what is known...supplements such as beta carotene taken in large doses by themselves are detrimental. And the conclusions in the article aren't all that conclusive.

    Here's a few tidbits from the paper:
    "Beta carotene used singly significantly increased mortality. This effect was not significant when combined with other supplements"
    "Vitamin A given singly or in combination with the other supplements did not significantly affect mortality"
    And the same thing is said for Vitamin E.

    Now this one is funny:
    "Vitamin C given singly or in combination with the other supplements was without significant influence on mortality, even after the exclusion of high bias risk trials and selenium trials."
    No Sh!t. Now if anyone knows a little chemistry, Vitamin C or ascorbic acid, is water soluable...if we take too much of it....it comes straight out...which on a side note, makes high doses of Vitamin C useless.

    Now if you're wondering, then why did the JAMA paper claim antioxidants are bad...well thats what they saw...in their "high bias risk trials" which should raise flags that say that any conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Just my two cents, from a person who works in the field.
  • Vision2098, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@michaelb1

    an analysis analysis.
  • steamynachos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Reviewing series of previous studies and drawing new conclusions based on the evidence
  • JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Um, JAMA is a peer reviewed journal."

    You've been dug down, repeatedly, for stating that JAMA is peer reviewed. While claims of conspiracies in the health industry are being dug up. Go digg.
  • SansSociety, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Can we also try to digg primary sources, or even secondary sources that are a bit more formal and reputable (not blog-style), at least for science news.
  • fuzzmello, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6this is from the same jerks who banned tryptophan and immediately began marketing ambien and other dangerous sleep aids.

    they won't stop until every natural remedy and supplement is controlled by health care business professionals.
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6what the hell is a "meta-analysis"?
  • HotMovies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's why I get all my antioxidants from wine.
  • yakski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@zanzzz

    Boy that is a complete load of crap.... 'Natural' companies don't want to make money apparently but drug companies do and this is evil, seems to be your logic. The reality is that 'natural' products are rarely supported by scientific studies of any kind and yet these same companies make billions of dollars in this country. The truth is that drug companies do extensive scientific testing and the 'natural' products hardly ever do any scientific testing. The truth is that even with extensive testing some drugs show undesirable side-effects when used extensively in a large population and then these drugs are pulled from the market. The truth is that natural products could show undesirable side-effects in a large population and will hardly ever be pulled from the market since believers will blame everything else except their natural product. The truth is that ineffectual natural products drain the wallets of the general population giving them zero in terms of payback. The truth is that taking a pill advertised on TV will not make Bob's penis larger nor Mary's breasts bigger, but people will spend billions on this snake oil. The truth is that there is no simple cure for cancer nor easy way to stay healthy given our current low understanding of nutrition and disease and the effect of individual genetic variety. Only through scientific studies will the truth be understood not through parables people tell about natural products.

    PS.. Drug companies routinely test 'natural' substance for effectiveness and treatments. That is often how they discover new and novel molecules that demonstrate potential for new drugs.
  • sabertooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"First they say 'Eggs are Good'. Then they say 'Eggs are Bad!' Then they say 'Well, the whites are good, but the yellows are bad...' MAKE UP YOUR MIND! IT'S BREAKFAST, I GOTTA EAT!" -Lewis Black

    Also, don't trust sunscreen....
  • ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I love how one week something is good for you, the next week it'll kill you."

    yep, you've got to love the way science gets reported. Impending death and/or miracle lifesavers sell a lot better than responsible journalism.
  • ricree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@imperium2000

    "I've never figured out why people think that vitamin making companies with their claims are more trustworthy than big Pharma's claims?"

    Agreed. Especially since the regulations governing pharmaceutical claims are much more strict than those of supplements.
  • ronmonks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Is it just limited to "beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E" or does it also relate to many other vitamins/diet supplementation?
  • Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10>Does it mean it's bad to drink milk
    Yes unless you are a calf
  • Cybie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is why I stick to Twinkies and Mountain Dew! There's no vitamins, minerals, fiber in there.. no siree.
  • mrtorok, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Just reading all of you idiots arguing is giving me a headache.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3they change their mind every day about whats healthy and whats not. so dont be a ***** idiot, just follow the two best nutrition rules for life on this planet as we know it
    1.moderation - too much of anything is bad for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    2.natural - if the ingredient wasnt on the planet 500yrs ago its bad for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    there now you learned something and can stop digging up every god damn health article that will change in a week
  • drjonboyg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4JAMA is a peer reviewed journal, you moron.
  • wonderworm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, you're wait is halfway over. There is some new evidence that low daily beer intake can reduce heart disease. Similar to the reservatol effect of wines and grape juice just not as strong.
  • philodygmn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, supplements are highly processed and very far from being a whole food from which the body can derive energy and nutriment.

    http://web.mac.com/dynamist/iWeb/dynamist/duh/2E9BD5B0-C694-4982-88E0-5A7F0F73F28D.html
  • JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"but those such as Piracetam, Melatonin, Valerian, and/or Resveratrol/Grape Seed Extract have great effects that have yet to be tainted by biased research."

    Biased research is why most people don't consider a single study to be more than highly suggestive. But it's also why any study is laid out in a manner which ensures perfect repeatability by anyone. You think the research is flawed, you're free to go over their sources and critique them. I spent a year doing that, and it's not hard to find meta-analysis that's full of holes. But seriously, I'm very familiar with almost every study out there on piracetam. To say it's not been tainted by biased research is like saying water and wetness have no connections. Resveratrol is the only other one I have any concrete experience with in terms of looking into the research data, and as far as I know, there's never been even a single good human study done with it. It's highly suggestive that experimental studies on humans will show great results, and I actually take it myself, but it seems like you're making a case for it simply because of, rather than in spite of, solid concrete evidence.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"More than anything, this study tells us what we already know: artificially created vitamins/drugs are no substitute for a diet rich in fruits, vegetables combined with a little exercise."

    Very true. Further, I think that the combination of vitamin (and other) suppliments in moderation, along with a healthy regimen of diet and exercise is probably better than either alone.
  • HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"artificially created vitamins/drugs are no substitute for a diet rich in fruits, vegetables"

    The fruits and veggies with or without the pesticide?
    Cuz, like, last year I read a study that said pesticides were good for you, but like, now, they're not sure.
    I'm so confused.
  • enovakrss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I take a lot of vitamins, e.g. at least 600% of the RDA of A-vitamin.

    Fortunatelly, the first poster's article says that
    "Beta-carotene supplements have not been shown to be harmful to nonsmokers, says Demetrius Albanes, M.D., of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. (Since 1984, Albanes has been a principal investigator for the ATBC Study, which NCI sponsored.) This is based in part on another large trial, the Physicians’ Health Study, which found no benefit or harm from beta-carotene supplements in healthy men."

    Haha, I don't smoke, I'm healthy, I do not neet to believe this article or not.

    But I think that too much beta-carotinoide could be bad for me.. but I wouldn't care, as it's much better to take this amount of vitamins and live healthy for 60-70 years, and die after that; than get a flu or any other lame sickness during these years and live 80 years.
  • wobitnobby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They compiled the results of 47 studies, with a total of more than 180,000 people. Most of the people were healthy, but some of the studies gave antioxidants to people with underlying disorders (gastrointestinal, cancer, etc.). This was more than just a JAMA study, this was a Cochrane Review. The Cochrane Institute periodically compiles all the published research from all journals to see if there have been advances which agree with each other.

    The results for Vitamin A in the form of beta carotene were the most detrimentally significant, but there seems to be a positive effect from selenium (more study required).

    From the journal article:
    All antioxidant supplements were administered orally. The dose and regimen of the antioxidant supplements were: beta carotene 1.2 to 50.0 mg (mean, 17.8 mg) , vitamin A 1333 to 200 000 IU (mean, 20 219 IU), vitamin C 60 to 2000 mg (mean, 488 mg), vitamin E 10 to 5000 IU (mean, 569 IU), and selenium 20 to 200 µg (mean 99 µg) daily or on alternate days for 28 days to 12 years (mean 2.7 years). In one trial40 antioxidants were applied in a single dose and participants were followed up for 3 months thereafter. The mean duration of follow-up in all trials was 3.3 years (range, 28 days-14.1 years).
  • rmblam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is one of those scientific concensus deals right?

    Carrots are good for your. Carrots are bad for you.
    Vitamins are good for you. Vitamins are bad for you.
    Butter is bad for you. Butter is good for you.
    Margarine is good for you. Margarine is bad for you.
    Global cooling will destroy the earth (think 1970's). Global warming will destroy the earth (we mean it this time!!!)
  • wobitnobby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's true of observational studies, or case studies, but not true of randomized controlled trials, which is why RCTs carry more weight when being used in meta-analyses. RCT's aim to use a rational mechanism, show dose effect, and relapse after withdrawal of treatment.
    It's rare to arrange for that kind of control when studying humans, so we don't always achieve it, but sometimes we do. And the medical journals love those kinds of studies.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4this was funded by the drug companies
  • elebrio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is where I shop for vitamins http://vitanetonline.com
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.