Why Your Multivitamin Is Killing You

[Andrew Michaels]

Around 50 percent of the population takes vitamin supplements regularly, but it's increasingly become clear that it's dangerous to do so.

Popping isolated nutrients divorced from their whole-food packages is a mistake that's killing a lot of people.

Learn why and what to do about it here.

[Mabel]

This is a very nice looking website! Thanks Andrew! I feel intuitively that vitamins are not the way to go. I believe in the help I get from my high speed blender in helping make nutrients available to me without destroying the vitamins.

[joey m]

I agree with the general premise and much of the details in this article, but some are clearly misleading. In particular, I find fault with the assumption that because the writer had not yet developed a b-12 deficiency therefore means he is getting sufficient amounts from his food. The body stores b-12 for many years, and a deficiency would therefore take many years to develop. It would be faulty logic to therefore assume that the writer is getting sufficient B-12 from the foods. This is particularly faulty logic since the food the writer mentions do not contain human active b-12. The writer may simply be a few years away from a b-12 deficiency.

The vast majority of studies out there also point to the overwhelming benefits of vitamin D supplementation. Anybody can find a few studies going the opposite way, but it is misleading to show those few studies as being proof of a point when there are countless more studies showing the opposite. The biggest issue is that there is an epidemic of vitamin d deficiency. The key is to ensure adequate blood levels of vitamin d whether that be from appropriate exposure to the sun or through supplementation when sun exposure is not possible or not appropriate.

But overall, I agree with the point that most vitamin and mineral supplements out there are worse than taking nothing at all. I take vitamin and mineral supplement that is simply a blend of whole food powders, and I have found that to be the best option.

Best,
Joey

[moonrambler]

Isolated nutrients also can be beneficial. Otherwise herbalists wouldn't use standardized extracts.

[Mabel]

Originally Posted by joey m

I agree with the general premise and much of the details in this article, but some are clearly misleading. In particular, I find fault with the assumption that because the writer had not yet developed a b-12 deficiency therefore means he is getting sufficient amounts from his food. The body stores b-12 for many years, and a deficiency would therefore take many years to develop. It would be faulty logic to therefore assume that the writer is getting sufficient B-12 from the foods. This is particularly faulty logic since the food the writer mentions do not contain human active b-12. The writer may simply be a few years away from a b-12 deficiency.

The vast majority of studies out there also point to the overwhelming benefits of vitamin D supplementation. Anybody can find a few studies going the opposite way, but it is misleading to show those few studies as being proof of a point when there are countless more studies showing the opposite. The biggest issue is that there is an epidemic of vitamin d deficiency. The key is to ensure adequate blood levels of vitamin d whether that be from appropriate exposure to the sun or through supplementation when sun exposure is not possible or not appropriate.

But overall, I agree with the point that most vitamin and mineral supplements out there are worse than taking nothing at all. I take vitamin and mineral supplement that is simply a blend of whole food powders, and I have found that to be the best option.

Best,
Joey

Indeed--I agree--there are exceptions. I take a vitamin D supplement and will may do so for the rest of my life. I tested out at 14 Last November, started taking a supplement and was at 24 this March and then at 39 in June. I think it may have helped to go from a tablet to an oil based supplement. It is vegan.

[Groundless]

Eat only cooked rare herbivore meat. No vitamins are needed if one follows this regimen. It worked for the pre-cultureal change Inuit and many other primitive cultures.

Vitamin supplements are bad medicine trying to cover up a deficient diet.

[joey m]

Groundless,

This seems like very strange advice given that the Inuit live reasonably short lives and are not a healthy population. Indeed, studies have shown they live approximately 10 years shorter than the average canadian and have significantly higher cancer rates too.

Indeed, if the Inuit follow a diet similar to the only you mention above, the only reasonably conclusion would be to avoid that diet unless you wish to lead a shorter life and have a higher risk of getting cancer.

Please review:

Health Rep. 2008 Mar;19(1):7-19. -- In 1991, life expectancy at birth in the Inuit-inhabited areas was about 68 years, which was 10 years lower than for Canada overall. From 1991 to 2001, life expectancy in the Inuit-inhabited areas did not increase, although it rose by about two years for Canada as a whole. As a result, the gap widened to more than 12 years.

Int J Circumpolar Health. 2010 Feb;69(1):38-49. -- Cancer is a major contributor to the difference in life expectancy between residents of Inuit Nunangat and the rest of Canada; reduction in cancer rates would make the greatest contribution to gains in life expectancy.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Personally I think everyone needs to do supplementation of the Omega 3, 6, 9. Across the board the American population especially has toxically low levels of this nutrient due to the diet of preference.

Also, if you are pregnant, please take folic acid supplements. It's the only thing that has greatly reduced the rate of spina bifida, a tragic congenital deformation of the spine.

[joey m]

Omega 3 for sure -- particularly the long chain versions. I supplement with a algae version of DHA since I don't trust the fish oils. The fish oils are often rancid or laced with heavy metals.

I wonder why you recommend omega 6's and 9's for everyone? Most people are overloaded with omega 6's already in the standard american diet, and omega 6 intake affects omega 3 conversion into the longer chain forms. And omega 9 is rproduced by the body when proper omega 3 and omega 6 is available.

Also, while folic acid is indeed very important during pregnancy, it is far better to get the blood levels up from food rather than supplementation. Recent studies are showing the supplemental folic acid increases risks of certain cancers.

Please read the following:

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2009 Nov;12(6):555-64. --

RECENT FINDINGS: There is a consensus view that folic acid supplementation has numerous health benefits, many of which are significant in their impact. However, emerging evidence suggests that increased population exposure to folic acid may also have a negative impact with respect to certain developmental and degenerative disorders. As examples, presently much attention is focused on the role of folic acid fortification augmenting colon cancer risk, whereas earlier in the life cycle, the vitamin may additionally influence insulin resistance. Without question, conditions that are influenced by folic acid are both diverse and many - from concerns relating to cognitive decline, breast cancer and vascular disease through to preconceptional issues where maternal folate levels might conceivably alter the phenotype of offspring via epimutations.

SUMMARY: The highly complex and critical biological importance of folic acid-related molecular nutrition makes it a difficult micronutrient to deploy as a simple intervention at a population level - it has far too many biochemical spheres of influence to predict effects in a generalized way. Additionally, several gene variants and other nutrients are interactive factors. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the scientific community does not have a true consensus view on whether mandatory fortification is appropriate as a population measure. This latter point not withstanding, any ultimate decisions on fortification should be well rooted in scientific fact rather than political expediency.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by joey m

Groundless,

This seems like very strange advice given that the Inuit live reasonably short lives and are not a healthy population. Indeed, studies have shown they live approximately 10 years shorter than the average canadian and have significantly higher cancer rates too.

Indeed, if the Inuit follow a diet similar to the only you mention above, the only reasonably conclusion would be to avoid that diet unless you wish to lead a shorter life and have a higher risk of getting cancer.

Please review:

Health Rep. 2008 Mar;19(1):7-19. -- In 1991, life expectancy at birth in the Inuit-inhabited areas was about 68 years, which was 10 years lower than for Canada overall. From 1991 to 2001, life expectancy in the Inuit-inhabited areas did not increase, although it rose by about two years for Canada as a whole. As a result, the gap widened to more than 12 years.

Int J Circumpolar Health. 2010 Feb;69(1):38-49. -- Cancer is a major contributor to the difference in life expectancy between residents of Inuit Nunangat and the rest of Canada; reduction in cancer rates would make the greatest contribution to gains in life expectancy.

You don't think it has anything to do with medical advancements, keeping Canadians alive? Imagine if intuits had great healthcare. They die naturally early, and Canadians live unnaturally long. Also, does life expectancy account for the skewed numbers associated with child death?

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by joey m

Also, while folic acid is indeed very important during pregnancy, it is far better to get the blood levels up from food rather than supplementation.

I guess your assumption is that the food available through various chain supermarkets has adequate nutritional value. This isn't really true anymore because of industrial farming practices and monocultures.

I'm not a nutritionist, I'm not recommending anything.

[joey m]

You don't think it has anything to do with medical advancements, keeping Canadians alive? Imagine if intuits had great healthcare. They die naturally early, and Canadians live unnaturally long. Also, does life expectancy account for the skewed numbers associated with child death?

I'm sure this may have something to do with medical advancements, but living into the high 60's with high rates of cancer (as is the case with the inuits) is not something worth emulating. There are other cultures without significant medical advancements that live far longer without the higher rates of cancer (e.g. okinawans before westernization). From the studies I saw and pointed to, it seemed to the researchers that the difference in life expectancy was largely due to the higher cancer rates. Although infant mortality could certainly be some of the issue.

I guess your assumption is that the food available through various chain supermarkets has adequate nutritional value. This isn't really true anymore because of industrial farming practices and monocultures.

Yes, my assumption is that food available in generic stores will have high levels of folic acid. Despite many internet claims about the loss of vitamins and minerals due to farming practices, I have seen literally nothing in scientific literature to back up those claims. But there is plenty in the literature to suggest that the foods do indeed have the nutrition they are supposed to have. Really it is more the grains that have potentially lost some nutritional bite, but not the greens and fruits. And the greens and beans are the best sources of the folic acid anyway.

It seems to me the statements you made were recommendations. Here were your statements:

Also, if you are pregnant, please take folic acid supplements.

and

Personally I think everyone needs to do supplementation of the Omega 3, 6, 9

[stanmrak]

Uninformed use of supplements can be harmful, but where's the evidence that it's dangerous? Hey, you can die from drinking too much water, so that makes water "dangerous" as well.

While it may have been once upon a time that you could get all the nutrients you need from the food you eat, that's not true anymore, IMO. Depleted nutritional content in produce and increased stress from the environment has made supplementation a highly recommended practice.

I take lots of supplements (for over 30years), but not a multivitamin. Educate yourself and design a supplementation program that enhances an already-healthy diet. Supplements are not a substitute for good nutrition, but a valuable complement.

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by joey m

Groundless,

This seems like very strange advice given that the Inuit live reasonably short lives and are not a healthy population. Indeed, studies have shown they live approximately 10 years shorter than the average canadian and have significantly higher cancer rates too.

Indeed, if the Inuit follow a diet similar to the only you mention above, the only reasonably conclusion would be to avoid that diet unless you wish to lead a shorter life and have a higher risk of getting cancer.

Please review:

Health Rep. 2008 Mar;19(1):7-19. -- In 1991, life expectancy at birth in the Inuit-inhabited areas was about 68 years, which was 10 years lower than for Canada overall. From 1991 to 2001, life expectancy in the Inuit-inhabited areas did not increase, although it rose by about two years for Canada as a whole. As a result, the gap widened to more than 12 years.

Int J Circumpolar Health. 2010 Feb;69(1):38-49. -- Cancer is a major contributor to the difference in life expectancy between residents of Inuit Nunangat and the rest of Canada; reduction in cancer rates would make the greatest contribution to gains in life expectancy.

You confuse the Inuit that ate the white settlers diet with the ones that ate their native diet. This has been a distortion of truth by the veg*n community. The Inuit that ate their native diet of all meat were near disease free.

[Lifeisamazing]

Can anyone educate me on why everybody needs to take in Omega 3s as supplements?

[Groundless]

Originally Posted by Lifeisamazing

Can anyone educate me on why everybody needs to take in Omega 3s as supplements?

Many of the seed oils, breads, grains and/or the choice of man made fats have a great deal of O6 in them. O6's are becoming pretty much proven to create a whole host of problems for humans. If you pummel your body with O6's the idea is to balance it with O3's to get a better ratio. I see this as a band-aid to a bad diet, but, whatever floats your boat.

My opinion/plan is to eliminate all O6 foods and then I don't need to supplement O3's. I can cite articles/studies on the effect of O6's if you want. Then you can judge for yourself.

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by Groundless

Many of the seed oils, breads, grains and/or the choice of man made fats have a great deal of O6 in them. O6's are becoming pretty much proven to create a whole host of problems for humans. If you pummel your body with O6's the idea is to balance it with O3's to get a better ratio. I see this as a band-aid to a bad diet, but, whatever floats your boat.

My opinion/plan is to eliminate all O6 foods and then I don't need to supplement O3's. I can cite articles/studies on the effect of O6's if you want. Then you can judge for yourself.

See, you don't really need omega-3 supplements. And by the way, you need omega-6s too, just not in as big amounts as our society makes available to us.

It would be cool if you did.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Groundless

You confuse the Inuit that ate the white settlers diet with the ones that ate their native diet. This has been a distortion of truth by the veg*n community. The Inuit that ate their native diet of all meat were near disease free.

I have no idea about the accuracy of any of these claims, but I have indeed read that Eskimos have begun importing meat instead of hunting because hunting is immensely expensive and time-consuming, and the latest generation is not learning to hunt.

[stanmrak]

Why would you need omega 3 supplements?

Omega 3 fats are called "essential fatty acids" because they're "essential." The only reliable source of omega 3 is fatty fish. Vegetarian sources do not measure up to marine-based sources. Unfortunately, due to environmental pollution, most fish today are contaminated with dangerous toxins like mercury, dioxins and PCBs, as well as other banned chemicals, poisons, carcinogens and high levels of antibiotics.

80 percent of the seafood sold in America is imported, much of it from third world nations such as China, Vietnam and the Philippines, all of which tend to have poor food safety standards. The Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with supervision of food safety, inspects less than one percent of the nation’s imported seafood.

How badly are fish contaminated? A recent study sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts analyzed salmon fillets purchased in 16 large cities in North America and Europe. The samples included farmed and wild-caught fish from about 700 different sources, in eight major salmon-producing regions all over the globe.

They found significantly higher concentrations of contaminants such as PCBs, dioxins, dieldrin, and toxaphene in farmed salmon than in the wild varieties. Using EPA cancer risk parameters for these toxins, they recommended these limits on monthly consumption:

Wild-Caught: 4 to 8 servings (8oz) per month
Farm-raised: 1 serving (8oz) per month

In most cases, consumption of more than one farmed salmon meal per month could pose unacceptable cancer risks! Although this was just one study, you'd have to assume that many other varieties of fish have an equal amount of toxins.

Read more about the study at A Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed vs. Wild Salmon

Omega 3 fish and krill oils from reputable manufacturers are molecularly-distilled to remove most contaminants and are your best source of omega 3's, unless you have a source for wild-caught Alaskan salmon.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Andrew Michaels

Around 50 percent of the population takes vitamin supplements regularly, but it's increasingly become clear that it's dangerous to do so.

Popping isolated nutrients divorced from their whole-food packages is a mistake that's killing a lot of people.

Learn why and what to do about it here.

Pretty much everything in vitamins can be gotten somewhere in nature anyways.

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Pretty much everything in vitamins can be gotten somewhere in nature anyways.

Maybe, but I doubt that anyone eats a diet that covers all the bases nutritionally. For example, I don't like to eat cooked tomatoes, watermelon or guava, which means I get little or no lycopene in my diet. I may do OK without it, but why not get its unique, proven anti-cancer properties by taking a supplement?

Supplements aren't a substitute for a good diet, but they make a valuable complement.

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Maybe, but I doubt that anyone eats a diet that covers all the bases nutritionally. For example, I don't like to eat cooked tomatoes, watermelon or guava, which means I get little or no lycopene in my diet. I may do OK without it, but why not get its unique, proven anti-cancer properties by taking a supplement?

Supplements aren't a substitute for a good diet, but they make a valuable complement.

I, on the other hand, eat absolutely everything that I feel is edible. If I can get all the nutrients from real food, I'll better do that because it's enjoyable.

Why I don't believe in supplements is that natural foods are very complex and I don't think we know yet how to duplicate that. Once we try to remove one vitamin from all other nutrients, I think something stops working as well...

[joey m]

Originally Posted by Groundless

You confuse the Inuit that ate the white settlers diet with the ones that ate their native diet. This has been a distortion of truth by the veg*n community. The Inuit that ate their native diet of all meat were near disease free.

Please show me the studies or evidence to document the "truth" as you call it. The evidence I have seen shows that while Inuit populations may not have had high incidence of cancer earlier this century, they also lived very short lives. With shorter lives, one would expect to see lower rates of cancer. Again, I would rather model my diet after those cultures that lived long lives. Just me.

[danthony]

This has been a debate that is has been going on for some time. I believe a daily multi vitamin is ok along as the rest of your diet is intact. Those usually suffering from chronic risks usually have a real deficiency in their diet, poor exercise regimen e.t.c. as well.

[stanmrak]

I assume everyone knows NOT to use a cheap drug-store brand of multivitamin such as Centrum, also known in hospital circles as "bedpan bullets," because that's where they end up, mostly intact.

You can't get a quality multivitamin that costs less than $40 for a month's supply, and even then, it's usually wise to "supplement" these with additional things like omega 3s and higher doses of vitamin D.

I prefer to custom-tailor my supplements to complement my diet, but then I end up taking 30 pills a day, which I don't mind — but it's not for everyone.

[Bizarre Jester]

I agree that multi-vitamins are not good to use every day. Taking a vitamin with just one supplement that we lack is better. The best option would be to eat the foods that contain the vitamins but that is not always convenient.