|
| Thursday, August 14, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: Sunscreen | The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
What's Worse for Health: Sun or Sunscreen?
By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD
Recent news reports have highlighted a study out of Sweden, which found women who avoid sun exposure have higher instances of death due to any cause (all-cause mortality) compared with women who regularly get more sun. Somehow these findings have been getting some buzz as “proof” that sunblock is deadly, despite that the research did not examine sunscreen use at all.
What’s the danger?
Having adequate vitamin D levels is linked with better health, so for people who do not sunburn easily, some health experts recommend 10 to 15 minutes of sun exposure, three times per week, to ensure the body is making enough vitamin D. Sweden is very far north, so there is the possibility that in this population, which receives no sun exposure for much of the year, blocking sun exposure is more harmful than not blocking it; this may lower blood vitamin D to insufficient or deficient levels.
What did the new study actually find?
The Swedish researchers collected information on sun exposure and health habits from approximately 30,000 women who were 25 to 64 years old at the start of the study. Over 20 years of follow up, the women who had the least sun exposure were twice as likely to die of any cause compared with women with the most sun exposure.
On the surface, these results seem to suggest that avoiding sun exposure is bad for health, but the study authors failed to take into account important considerations. When compared with the group with “active sun exposure habits,” those women who indicated they were not exposed to sun were significantly more likely to:
- be overweight or obese,
- be sedentary, meaning they engaged in very little physical activity compared with the sun-exposed group, and
- have a hereditary risk of melanoma.
None of these factors—all of which are important predictors of the risk of death due to any cause—were corrected or controlled for by the researchers. Further, they did not consider other diseases that may contribute to risk of death. While they assessed the use of medications for diabetes and cardiovascular disease, this approach does not provide information about other chronic diseases, such as autoimmune conditions or mobility issues that may increase risk of death.
Activities used to determine “active sun exposure”—sunbathing, winter holidays to the mountains, and vacations to warm, sunny locations—are likely related to overall health as well, as women who are frail or ill are less able to engage in these active, sun-seeking habits. It’s also possible that people who spend the most time in the sun actually are the same people who get the most sun exposure, no matter how much sunscreen they think they are applying.
Separating truth from fiction
Until a better-designed study comes along, people should continue to heed the advice of dermatologists and other experts, as the evidence still points to the importance of avoiding excess sun exposure for good health.
- Get the D. If you do not sunburn easily, for your health, aim to get 15 minutes of sun exposure three times per week. You can adjust this to account for living at northern latitudes. Even people with darker skin can develop skin cancer, so don’t overdo it.
- Screen, for sure. Make a habit of using a broad-spectrum sunscreen. It’s true the jury is still out on whether chemical-based sunscreens may have other long-term health effects, but for now the risks of not using appear to outweigh the risks of applying sunscreen. If you fear chemical sunscreens, try physical blocks. Some health experts have raised conerns about metal nano-particles in some physial formulas, but you can find zinc- or titanium-based sunscreens, that do not contain nano particles (though they may form a white sheen when applied).
- Move more. As noted, the women in the sun-exposed group were significantly more active than the sun avoiders. Regular physical activity is strongly linked to better overall health, so add movement into your day, every day. If you’re a couch potato, just 20 to 30 minutes of brisk walking will do the trick.
- Stay slim and trim. The sun avoiders were more likely to be overweight or obese. Maintain a healthy body weight throughout adulthood, and if you’re already overweight, losing just a few pounds can significantly improve health and reduce risk of death.
Story Source: Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, an author, speaker, and internationally recognized expert in chronic disease prevention, epidemiology, and nutrition, has taught medical, nursing, public health, and alternative medicine coursework. She has delivered over 150 invited lectures to health professionals and consumers and is the creator of a nutrition website acclaimed by the New York Times and Time magazine. Suzanne received her training in epidemiology and nutrition at the University of Michigan, School of Public Health at Ann Arbor. The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: Journal of Internal Medicine, 2014, 276; 77-86 |
|
| Thursday, July 17, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: Vitamin D | The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
D or No D
By the Aisle7 Medical Advisory
The New York Times reports that the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an independent group of health experts, has “decided not to recommend routine testing for vitamin D levels,” a frustrating ruling for some health advocates. The panel clarified that it neither endorsed nor advised against regular vitamin D screening in most adults, and suggested that testing be considered case by case. However, those in favor of screenings point to research suggesting widespread vitamin D deficiency, and also to a wide range of studies showing benefit from vitamin D supplementation. Most recently, for example:
- New research out of Australia has found that vitamin D may positively affect blood pressure. Though a cause-and-effect relationship was not established, after pooling data from a whopping 140,000 people, Australian scientists saw a clear trend: for every 10% increase in vitamin D blood levels, blood pressure declined. Even better, the team behind the study concluded that adequate vitamin D levels lowered the chances of even developing high blood pressure by 8%.
- Researchers in Iran have found that supplementing with vitamin D—along with its old pal calcium—improves symptoms of gestational diabetes, a sometimes dangerous metabolic disorder during pregnancy. Supplementation appeared to reduce levels of glucose, insulin, and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, and insulin sensitivity and HDL (“good”) cholesterol also improved.
- On the flipside, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), D is not helpful for treating adult asthma. Though not previously associated with reducing asthma symptoms, this result is still surprising because low vitamin D levels in asthma patients have been linked to worse symptoms and a double-blind study of Japanese children found that supplementing with vitamin D reduced the incidence of asthma attacks compared with a placebo.
The lowdown
As the lead author in the Australian study put it, "In view of the costs and side effects associated with antihypertensive drugs, the potential to prevent or reduce blood pressure and therefore the risk of hypertension with vitamin D is very attractive.” That logic may apply for other conditions as well.
As to the question of mandatory testing, Aisle7 Chief Science Editor Dr. Alan Gaby points out that questions remain about which reference ranges indicate deficiency, whether the screenings provide meaningful information, and whether low levels of certain vitamin D markers truly indicate low vitamin D status. Fortunately, he suggests, “There is a simple solution to this debate: average adults, with their doctor's approval, supplement with 800 to 1,200 IU per day, which is enough to realize the benefit in most cases, and not so much to risk toxicity.”
Deficiencies are more common in winter, and seen more often in seniors, vegans, and people living in northern latitudes or those with malabsorption due to surgeries, celiac disease, or other intestinal condition.
Story Source: The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: Marcarelli, Rebekah; “Vitamin D Deficiencies Linked To High Blood Pressure,” HNGN, www.hngn.com/articles/34668/20140626/vitamin-d-deficiencies-linked-to-high-blood-pressure.htm, [accessed 26 June 2014].
Sonawane, Vishakha. Calcium and Vitamin D Supplements Improve Metabolism in Women with Gestational Diabetes: Study, www.hngn.com/articles/34458/20140624/calcium-vitamin-d-intake-improves-metabolism-women-gestational-diabetes-study.htm [accessed 30 June 2014].
Starling, Shane. Vitamin D not helpful for adult asthmatics, www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Trends/Vitamin-D/Vitamin-D-not-helpful-for-adult-asthmatics [accessed 30 June 2014]. |
|
| Thursday, May 8, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: Saturated Fats |
The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
Saturated Fats and Heart Disease: Corrections Highlight Study Flaws
By Maureen Williams, ND
Remember the recent headlines proclaiming saturated fats didn’t contribute to heart disease? In the aftermath, health and nutrition experts have called the research validity into question, since days after the original publication the study authors issued a correction, which affects the conclusions drawn from the results.
Addressing potential study errors
The original scientific paper was a meta-analysis of 72 individual studies, including a mix of clinical trials and observational (epidemiological) research. The media widely portrayed the meta-analysis results as an invitation to step up saturated fats in the diet, but the study showed no such thing: it originally found that saturated and polyunsaturated omega-6 fats appeared neutral for heart health, while omega-3 fats provided some heart health benefits.
Some of the studies considered dietary fat intake alone, and others included blood measures of fatty acids. Given the range in type and quality of study included in the meta-analysis, the results depend upon how carefully and properly the data are combined.
Many health experts who took exception with the paper raised questions about the validity of some assumptions made when the pooled data were analyzed, hence the subsequent corrections issued on the paper:
- The authors originally assumed one study included in the meta-analysis found a negative effect of omega-3 fats on heart disease risk. Most experts agree that study showed a heart-health benefit from omega-3s. This error alone calls into question the conclusion that polyunsaturated fats offer no protection against heart disease.
- The authors didn’t address how total diet may change for people who eat less saturated fat. If saturated fat calories are replaced with an abundance of simple carbohydrates (sugar) and processed foods, this isn’t likely to minimize heart disease risk. Replacing saturated fat with the omega-3, omega-6, and omega-9 fats in nuts, seeds, olive oil, and fish is supported by decades of research in a variety of adult populations.
Clarifying the confusion
Dr. Emanuele Di Angelantonio of the University of Cambridge, one of the authors of the meta-analysis, believes the paper’s conclusions remain valid. He believes the main problem is how the results were “wrongly interpreted by the media.” While media misrepresentation of scientific papers is a valid concern for many researchers, Dr. Walter Willett, Chair of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department believes the paper has done damage. Dr. Willett noted, “A retraction [of the original paper] with similar press promotion should be considered.”
Back to basics
This brings us back to the basics: a heart-healthy diet means eating real food, and limiting the amount of processed and packaged foods in the diet. Many health experts feel small amounts of high-fat animal products are okay, but only in the context of a totally healthy diet.
In terms of heart disease, and just about any other chronic disease one can name, the best nutritional insurance comes from eating unprocessed, whole foods, including nuts, legumes (beans and peas), vegetables and fruit, whole grains, vegetable and olive oils, and small portions of animal products, if desired.
Story Source: Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, an author, speaker, and internationally recognized expert in chronic disease prevention, epidemiology, and nutrition, has taught medical, nursing, public health, and alternative medicine coursework. She has delivered over 150 invited lectures to health professionals and consumers and is the creator of a nutrition website acclaimed by the New York Times and Time magazine. Suzanne received her training in epidemiology and nutrition at the University of Michigan, School of Public Health at Ann Arbor. The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:398-406
|
|
| Thursday, April 10, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: D-Mannose | The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
D-Mannose May Prevent Common Urinary Tract Infections
By Maureen Williams, ND
At the beginning of every urinary tract infection (UTI), harmful bacteria cling to the inner lining of the bladder or urethra (the tube that carries urine out of the bladder). D-mannose, a sugar, has been found in a test tube to prevent bacteria from sticking in this way, leading researchers to hope that, as a supplement, it could prevent UTIs. A report in the BJU International describes research suggesting that D-mannose does prevent UTIs in women known to have them frequently.
D-mannose prevents UTIs as effectively as an antibiotic
The report describes a trial in which 308 women who suffered from recurrent UTIs were given either 2 grams of D-mannose powder per day, 50 mg of the antibiotic nitrofurantoin per day, or no treatment. After six months, the following effects were noted:
- Women treated with either D-mannose or the antibiotic had a lower risk of UTI recurrences than untreated women.
- While 60% of untreated women experienced a UTI during the trial, only 15% of those using D-mannose and 20% of those using the antibiotic had infections.
- Statistical calculations suggested that D-mannose and the antibiotic were equally effective.
- Women using D-mannose had fewer side effects than women using the antibiotic.
“We believe that D-mannose may be a useful agent for the prevention of recurrent UTIs,” the researchers said. They noted that placebo-controlled trials would be needed to verify their findings.
Keeping your urinary tract infection-free
If you suffer from recurrent UTIs, these findings suggest that D-mannose may be helpful to you. Here are some other things you can do to avoid infections:
- Flush with water. One way to prevent bacteria from clinging to the urinary tract is to keep fluid flowing through the system, so drink plenty of water throughout the day.
- Take cranberry. Whether as juice or concentrated capsule, cranberry has been found in most, although not all, studies to be an effective UTI preventer. Unsweetened juice is a good choice, since it can help flush the urinary system without adding immune-impairing sugar to the system.
- Reach for herbs. Uva ursi (Arctostaphylos uva ursi) is often used to prevent UTIs, and studies show it may be effective for treating them; however, it should only be used with medical supervision once an infection is underway.
Story Source: Maureen Williams, ND, completed her doctorate in naturopathic medicine at Bastyr University in Seattle and has been in private practice since 1995. With an abiding commitment to access to care, she has worked in free clinics in the US and Canada, and in rural clinics in Guatemala and Honduras where she has studied traditional herbal medicine. She currently lives and practices in Victoria, BC, and lectures and writes extensively for both professional and community audiences on topics including family nutrition, menopause, anxiety and depression, heart disease, cancer, and easing stress. Dr. Williams is a regular contributor to Healthnotes Newswire. The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: BJU Int 2014;113:9-10
|
|
| Thursday, March 13, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: Allergies | The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
Pregnant? Eat Nuts Now to Lower Your Child's Allergy Risk
By Kimberly Beauchamp, ND
Children born to mothers who eat lots of nuts during their pregnancies may be less likely to develop nut allergies during childhood, reports a study in the JAMA Pediatrics.
Nut allergies on the rise
Peanut and tree nut (almonds, brazil nuts, macadamias, walnuts, pecans, pistachios, cashews, and hazelnuts) allergies share similar characteristics and co-existing allergies are quite common. Most peanut/tree nut allergies begin in early childhood and about 80 to 90% of these persist into adulthood.
Understanding allergies
A true food allergy (rather than an intolerance or sensitivity) results when a component of a food (usually a protein) triggers the release of substances like histamine that cause symptoms ranging from itching, rash, or runny nose to more serious reactions, including throat swelling and difficulty breathing.
These reactions require prior sensitization, meaning that the person must have been exposed to the substance before the onset of allergic symptoms. Sometimes, the person has no knowledge of prior exposure. In these cases, exposure could have been from the environment (breathing in some particles of the food, for example) or, potentially, in utero from the mother’s diet.
Mom + nuts = fewer kid allergies
The new study investigated the diets of mothers around the time of their pregnancies and the subsequent development of peanut and tree nut allergies in their children. They found:
- Of 8,205 children in the study, 140 were diagnosed with a peanut or tree nut allergy.
- Children of mothers without a nut allergy, who ate the highest amount of nuts (five or more servings per week) around the time of their pregnancies were 69% less likely to develop nut allergies during childhood than those born to mothers who ate the least amount of nuts (less than one serving per month).
- Children born to mothers with a peanut or tree nut allergy were more likely to develop a nut allergy if their mothers ate peanuts or tree nuts around the time of pregnancy.
Revisiting the recommendations
For years, pediatricians have recommended that parents delay introducing peanuts and tree nuts until children are three years old, to decrease the chance of allergy. However, while some studies have shown that avoiding these foods may decrease allergy risk, others have shown the opposite: that delaying the introduction of highly allergenic foods may increase the risk of food allergy.
“Our study supports the hypothesis that early allergen exposure increases the likelihood of tolerance and thereby lowers the risk of childhood food allergy,” said lead study author, Dr. Michael Young of Boston Children’s Hospital, adding “our data support the recent decisions to rescind recommendations that all mothers avoid peanuts and tree nuts during pregnancy and breast-feeding.”
These recommendations go for other foods, too. According to the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology, “There are no current data available to suggest that cow’s milk protein (except for whole cow’s milk), egg, soy, wheat, peanut, tree nuts, fish and shellfish introduction into the diet need to be delayed beyond four to six months of age.”
About Natural Products Foundation: NPF is a 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit corporation. For more information visit the Foundation online: naturalproductsfoundation.org.
Story Source: Kimberly Beauchamp, ND, received her doctoral degree from Bastyr University, the nation’s premier academic institution for science-based natural medicine. She co-founded South County Naturopaths in Wakefield, RI, where she practiced whole family care with an emphasis on nutritional counseling, herbal medicine, detoxification, and food allergy identification and treatment. Her blog, Eat Happy, helps take the drama out of healthy eating with real food recipes and nutrition news that you can use. Dr. Beauchamp is a regular contributor to Healthnotes Newswire. The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: JAMA Pediatrics;doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4139
|
|
| Thursday, February 13, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: Green Tea | The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
Don't Mix Green Tea and This Blood Pressure Medication
By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD
Drug-nutrient interactions occur when a nutrient or other natural substance—from a food, beverage, herb, or dietary supplement—alters the effects of a medication in the body. It’s important to better understand when and how these interactions arise, because they can be harmful. Researchers have uncovered a drug-nutrient interaction with the blood pressure medication nadolol (brand name Corgard) and a popular beverage: green tea.
The how & why
The study authors invited ten healthy adult volunteers to drink approximately 24 ounces of green tea or water daily, for two weeks. After the two-week period, the green tea group took 30 mg of nadolol with 12 ounces of green tea, while the water group took 30 mg of nadolol with 12 ounces of water. Participants drank another 12 ounces of green tea or water 30 minutes after taking nadolol.
This was followed by a two-week washout period of no green tea, after which the participants switched groups. In this way, all ten volunteers participated in both the water and the green tea phases of the study.
Compared with the two-week water phase of the study, participants in the green tea phase experienced significantly:
- lower blood concentrations of nadolol
- lower urinary excretion of nadolol
- less blood pressure–lowering effect from nadolol
Savvy consumers make good patients
This study found that consuming about 3 cups of green tea daily for two weeks, followed by taking the blood pressure medication nadolol with green tea, significantly reduced both the amount of medication circulating in the body and the ability of the medication to lower blood pressure.
Use these tips to better understand how these study results apply to you.
- Be consistent. If you take prescription or over-the-counter medications to manage a health condition, take your medication at the same time each day with the same beverage and meal.
- Be alert. If you notice that a medication that normally works well for you isn’t working so well anymore, consider recent changes to your diet, exercise habits, or the dietary supplements you are using. For example, maybe your blood sugars are running higher despite taking your diabetes medications as usual, or your blood pressure is creeping up even though you’re taking the same blood pressure medication. This might be a clue that something new in your diet or routine is interfering with your medication. Or it may be an “off” batch of medication, which also needs to be addressed.
- Consult an expert. If you do notice changes in how your medications are working, discuss this with your pharmacist or doctor. He or she can help you sort out what changes in your daily habits may be contributing to the change in your medication efficacy.
- Be curious. For any new medication you’re prescribed, specifically ask your doctor and your pharmacist if there are any dietary or other precautions you need to follow. For example, grapefruit juice interacts with many different medications, yet you may not learn this if you don’t ask which foods, beverages, or other substances are of concern.
- Read regularly. Periodically read the materials that come with your usual prescriptions. Information changes, and you’ll pick up new precautions that may not have been known or noted when you first began taking the medication.
Story Source: Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, an author, speaker, and internationally recognized expert in chronic disease prevention, epidemiology, and nutrition, has taught medical, nursing, public health, and alternative medicine coursework. She has delivered over 150 invited lectures to health professionals and consumers and is the creator of a nutrition website acclaimed by theNew York Times and Time magazine. Suzanne received her training in epidemiology and nutrition at the University of Michigan, School of Public Health at Ann Arbor. The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics; online 13 January 2014; doi:10.1038/clpt.2013.241
|
|
| Tuesday, February 4, 2014 |
|
| Natural Products Foundation meets with Regulatory Agencies | Truth in Advertising Program Refers 40 Cases to FTC and FDA
Marc Ullman, chairman of the Natural Products Foundation Legal Advisory Council, met with representatives of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in January to present documentation highlighting 40 advertisers responsible for making drug claims on behalf of dietary supplements. The cases were also brought to the attention of representatives at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The 40 organizations referred to the federal agencies failed to amend marketing materials after being contacted by the NPF Truth in Advertising Program. NPF requested that the agencies take action against all non-compliant companies, including the most recent Truth in Advertising referrals.
“NPF is pleased with the continued feedback and interest our Truth in Advertising initiative has received over the past four years from FTC and FDA,” noted Mr. Ullman. “We are working aggressively to maintain advertising standards within the industry, and to rehabilitate problems we see from the inside. Since 2010, this program has sent 400 warning letters to companies with illegal claims in their advertising. Every year we find the advertisers increasingly receptive and open to our message of reform. Changes are made day-to-day, improving the larger picture for the industry, and protecting consumers from false or misleading information.”
The NPF Truth in Advertising Program works to educate publishers, manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers to help ensure that consumers receive accurate information about dietary supplements. In 2013, as part of the Truth in Advertising initiative, NPF reviewed 275 advertising cases suspected to be problematic and mailed 150 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements with illegal drug and disease claims.
“With the Foundation’s education outreach and guidance, a large majority of advertisers are able to correct and improve their materials without issue,” stated Ullman. “Most cases result in positive action; however, if companies are unwilling to bring advertising into compliance after glaring problems have surfaced, then the only option left is regulatory action. As responsible industry members we feel it is vital to sit down with regulators, highlight the trends we’re seeing in the field, identify the pitfalls, and to work through individually detailed case histories.”
Since 2010, 74% of warning letter recipients have acknowledged the problems highlighted by NPF investigation and worked to revise their promotional content and advertising practices. Over the four-year course of the program, Truth in Advertising has overseen 600 advertising case reviews. Truth in Advertising Review is initiated by NPF staff members under the supervision of the NPF Legal Advisory Council.
“The NPF Legal Advisory Council is composed of dedicated lawyers who volunteer their time to help monitor problems and educate members of our industry,” said Ullman. “This is a great example of the supplement industry’s commitment to compliance and self-regulation.”
Current Legal Advisory Council volunteers are Mr. Ullman of Ullman, Shapiro & Ullman, New York; William Garvin of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Washington, D.C.; Jackie Kuler of Gronek & Associates, Chicago; Nicholas Licato, General Counsel at Nexgen Pharma; and Jim Prochnow and Justin Prochnow of Greenberg Traurig, Denver.
The Truth in Advertising Program provides resources and guidance to industry members so that the information presented to consumers concerning dietary supplements is truthful and not misleading. Resources are highlighted on the NPF industry-oriented webpage: naturalproductsfoundation.org/truth.
“NPF aims to improve the overall standard of supplement advertising,” stated David Brown, chairman of the NPF Board of Directors. “We continue our industry outreach knowing the absolute importance of honest advertising for both the well-being of consumers and the sustained integrity of all natural products.”
|
|
| Thursday, January 16, 2014 |
|
| NPF Science Update: Supplement Research | The NPF Science Update brings you news about scientific advances in the field of natural products. The Science Update features contributions from scientists, academics, doctors, healthcare professionals, industry veterans and other experts. To sign up to receive the monthly Science Update via email, please click here: NPF Science Update.
"Stop Wasting Money" Editorial Ignores Full Body of Supplement Research
By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD
An editorial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine urges people to “stop wasting money on vitamin and mineral supplements” and concludes, “the case is closed.” While the particular studies in question did show negative findings for a short list of health conditions in certain populations, this opinion provides a narrow view of the depth and breadth of supplement research. It also ignores the complex relationship between nutrition and health and potentially leaves many people unnecessarily confused about supplements.
Overview of the overview
The editorial discusses three papers published in the same issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine that evaluate the effects of multivitamin and mineral supplements on new and recurrent cases of heart disease, and on the risk of cancer and mental (cognitive) decline:
- Study 1. Exploring whether vitamin supplements prevent heart disease and cancer in healthy older adults, this paper reviewed 3 multivitamin trials and 24 single or paired vitamins trials that included over 400,000 randomly assigned participants. Though the editorial authors concluded there was no evidence of reduced chance of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer, the review actually did find that supplements significantly reduced cancer risk—by 6%—in men.
- Study 2. Looking at how well a daily multivitamin might prevent cognitive decline among participants in the Physicians’ Health Study II (5,947 men aged 65 years or older), this paper found no differences in thinking (cognitive) function between the vitamin and nonvitamin groups. However, other published findings from this very same study population have demonstrated that multivitamins may reduce the risk of cancer and cataracts.
- Study 3. Considering whether taking multivitamins and minerals after a heart attack (myocardial infarction) might reduce risk of further heart attacks, this study did not show a benefit. However, the study authors themselves concluded that “nonadherence to the study regimen” rendered the results inconclusive.
Taking the broader viewpoint
With high healthcare costs and the risks of side effects from many common drugs, consumers are well advised to consider all safe potential health resources available, including supplements. Here are some variables not factored into the editorial:
- Other studies have found a positive association between supplements and reduced heart disease and cancer risks, including well-designed double-blind research.
- Plenty of studies have shown therapeutic support for many other conditions not considered by the editorial, including osteoporosis, macular degeneration, anemia, high cholesterol, mood disorders, and many more.
- Supplements have been found to help correct common deficiencies, proactively protecting against conditions that often accompany deficiencies.
- Supplement effects are also influenced by intake amount and product quality, which were not taken into account.
- Research has shown that certain therapeutic effects of nutrients require higher intake amounts than a person would ordinarily get with food or in a multivitamin.
- Taking a multivitamin helps safeguard against dietary gaps.
Consider the full body of research
By ignoring the positive and inconclusive results in these studies and not considering other research showing well-established benefits, this editorial presents an incomplete view to the public and suggests a biased assessment of the research not shared even by doctors involved in the studies in question. Dr. Howard Sesso, MD, a lead researcher on the Physicians’ Health Study II, noted that, “because of the possible cancer-related benefits tied to multivitamins, they are still worth considering, in particular for people who may not get enough vitamins in their diet.” Dr. J. Michael Gaziano, a Physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, is a lead researcher on the Physicians' Health Study, and a co-author on one of the papers prompting the editorial. Dr. Gaziano told USA Today, “It drives me crazy that they say 'enough is enough,' when there's only been one large study of (standard) multivitamins and it's ours.”
No single analysis of the research can uncover the full complexity of the effects of nutrients—from dietary supplements or food—on total health. In the end, rather than close the book on dietary supplements solely on the basis of one questionable editorial opinion, it makes sense to consider the full body of evidence as well as your own personal health needs. Eat healthfully, exercise regularly, and work with a qualified healthcare practitioner to create a health plan that works for you.
About Natural Products Foundation: NPF is a 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit corporation. For more information visit the Foundation online: naturalproductsfoundation.org.
Story Source: Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD, an author, speaker, and internationally recognized expert in chronic disease prevention, epidemiology, and nutrition, has taught medical, nursing, public health, and alternative medicine coursework. She has delivered over 150 invited lectures to health professionals and consumers and is the creator of a nutrition website acclaimed by theNew York Times and Time magazine. Suzanne received her training in epidemiology and nutrition at the University of Michigan, School of Public Health at Ann Arbor. The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Aisle7. All rights reserved.
References: Ann Intern Med 2013;159:850-1 |
|
