Vitamin supplements 'do us no good and may be harmful'
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
We swallow them by the bucketload at great expense but there is no evidence vitamin supplements do us any good, and they may even be doing us harm, scientists have concluded. In a blow to the multimillion pound dietary supplement industry, a review of 67 randomised trials of vitamin pills has found that far from prolonging life, they may actually shorten it.
There is "no convincing evidence" that antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying prematurely and some of the commonest ones may increase the risk of early death, according to the review, published by The Cochrane Collaboration.
One in three women and one in four men in the UK are estimated to take vitamin pills to ward off disease. Despite several studies warning of potential dangers, the industry continues to thrive.
The latest review, one of the largest involving 232,000 participants, compared those taking the supplements with those who took a placebo or received no treatment. The supplements studied were beta-carotene (a precursor of vitamin A that is converted into the vitamin in the body), vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium.
Goran Bjelakovich, the visiting researcher who led the systematic review at Copenhagen University, said: "We could find no evidence to support taking antioxidant supplements to reduce the risk of dying earlier in healthy people or patients with various diseases."
"The findings show that, if anything, people in trial groups given beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E showed increased rates of mortality. There was no indication that vitamin C and selenium may have positive or negative effects; we need more data [on these]."
The researchers separated out the 47 trials with a low risk of bias and in these they found a significantly increased death rate. When taken separately, vitamin A was associated with a 16 per cent increased mortality, beta-carotene with a 7 per cent increase and vitamin E with a 4 per cent increase. For vitamin C and selenium there was no significant increase or decrease in the death rate.
Dr Bjelakovich said: "The bottom line is that current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general healthy population." The researchers were unable to explain their findings but said "excessive antioxidants can adversely affect key physiological processes".
Yesterday, Pamela Mason, of the Health Supplements Information Service, said: "Trials using antioxidant supplements have shown inconsistent findings and yet another review is not going to tell us anything at this stage that we do not already know."

Comments
49 Comments
I've never understood these kind of studies. What evidence can there possibly be that those who have died, would not have died earlier if they hadn't taken the vitamins?
Posted by Jackie Curbishley | 17.04.08, 23:17 GMT
Hogwash, the western medical community has been attempting to pull vitamins and supplements for years. How about printing the millions of studies showing they do work too!
Posted by Elan | 17.04.08, 18:48 GMT
Supplements are exactly that - supplements. Lost of people here are saying that we should be eating fruit and veg instead of taking supplements. Every responsible adult in the supplements industry would entirely agree. Supplements are purely to help us deal with thed reality of our daily lives. We should be eating as much good organic food as possible, with balanced meals including all the food groups and tons of greens. But if we happen to be running out the door, juggling a long day of work and play, perhaps on our period or after a night out, then good quality supplements are handy things. To supplement a good diet.
www.OrganicFoodee.com
Posted by Ysanne Spevack, Editor http://www.OrganicFoodee.com | 17.04.08, 08:06 GMT
If you are fit and healthy and have a balanced diet there is no need for supplements. Humans have evolved happily for millions of years without taking supplement pills. I can't see how it would do a fit, healthy person any good - we evolved to eat good food, not swallow little pills. I came to this conclusion years ago without hearing about any studies. It just seemed like common sense to me. However, if you have health problems, it could well be that supplements are of benefit. Alcoholics can get malnourished and suffer liver dysfunction, for example, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to hear that Vit B supplements did actually benefit them.
Posted by Dan | 17.04.08, 04:56 GMT
WOW! boring posts.
You are still parading your psycosis/vitamin convictions and haddled knowledge of what is happening. The uk is 2 sausages short of a mixed grill.
Go eat some spuds and fat. forget all the mumbling....
this is a $ run business and making billions. The french just attacked beckam's missus ....skinny? Guess who will take up the slack ..The french farmers..dinna think so.
Gorra go catch some fish..ice is out and the steelhead are running.
yawn.
Posted by pete | 17.04.08, 01:08 GMT
Really some comments appearing here show a real tendency to return to the middle ages, and replace science with magic thinking.
Some facts:
a) There is something called levels of evidence, a universally accepted system of evaluating studies, according to their methodology and hence the validity of their results: This study is a systematic review (meta analysis) hence Level 1 - the highest level of evidence
b) Cochrane collaboration is the most respected source of clinical evidence worldwide, and set the standards , 20 years ago, for systematic reviews. It is a non profit , international organisation.
c) In contrast, the "evidence" for vitamins comes - at best - from simple randomised trials , and at worst, from anecdotal evidence "I have been taking them, and feel fine" Exactly the sam erationale is used to rationalise everything, from "magic treatments" to the "evil eye"
d) Even worse, most proponents of vitamin supplements have conflict of interest issues - they either prescibe them (herbalists etc) or make them (pharmaceutical companies)
Posted by Christos Georgalas | 17.04.08, 00:17 GMT
Does any agency regularly check the efficacy of store-bought vitamins? Are we buying merely talc and gelatin pills, or some dead version of the original living enzyme?
If indeed we are consuming colored chalk pills, these results come as no surprise.
Posted by Rich Campbell | 16.04.08, 23:54 GMT
does this mean that the health supplements, pamela mason, is correct/ incorrect or will the business end of this absurd new industry ply us with 'new information'. Is 2 glasses of wine today still benificial if I only have one tomorrow? Is butter more harmful than margarine when the amazon rain forest is being chopped down to help stop the seal hunt? What would you rather bee or a wasp?
Go dig up your old granny and ask her. Nonsense was'nt part of her world like it is ours. tut..tut
PLEASE HELP FEED THE STUGGLING people LOOKING FOR gov $ to maintain a lifestyle ???...fill in the rest yourself..someone is joking here.
Posted by pete | 16.04.08, 22:32 GMT
When printing a story like this as news, you should also include who paid for the research. For instance if a drug company paid for the research, Iwould probably not believe it. They don't want anyone making the world WELL, that would cut into their profits. I'm taking my vit's every day as normal. I am a boomer, work full time in a stressul job. I do dance classes every night, three hours long, except on Friday and Saturday. I also go to the gym. I sold my car and walk everywhere and I've got more energy than people in their 20s. I put this down to starting on Vit's at age 19 years!!!! I'm not on any medication, have slightly lower than normal BP and my cholesterol is normal. Thanks for the research, but you won't mind if I ignore it!!! Eve.
Posted by Eve | 16.04.08, 17:22 GMT
Is there any recent meta-analysis on the number of people in Denmark who have been injured or killed by the administration of medically approved and licensed substances?
Posted by David Medd | 16.04.08, 17:02 GMT
49 Comments