Last month, a study was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine that reported on the efficacy of multivitamins, and it proved to be quite controversial.  To quote the physicians: “The message is simple: Most supplements do not prevent chronic disease or death, their use is not justified and they should be avoided.”

Multivitamins don’t save me from death!?  Why do I take them?

Here’s an interesting tidbit that I think most people are aware of:  All of our “stories” end the same way.  A multivitamin is not the key to immortality.

That’s great, but they’re saying it doesn’t prevent chronic disease.

Jokes aside, I have an issue with the study, and I know there are many people who agree with my argument (since they’ve brought it up themselves):  A multivitamin is a type of dietary supplement.  A dietary supplement is meant to supplement a healthy diet with nutrients or compounds that are either deficient in the diet, or the dietary supplement is meant to bring about a specific result.  Before we get too far in my editorial, let’s look at some parts of the study:

“. . . the researchers examined whether high doses of multivitamins and minerals could prevent heart attacks, strokes and death in 1,700 people who have already had a heart attack. After an average follow-up of five years, the results didn’t show a difference between participants who took dietary supplements and those who didn’t.”

I can’t argue with the data, but in the same vein, I never knew that multivitamins were supposed to have any effect on mortality rates–  I thought it was supposed to add nutrients to my diet that I may be missing.

“The new review study looked at clinical trials that included a total of 450,000 older adults. All together, the researchers didn’t find clear evidence of a beneficial effect of supplements on cancer and heart diseases.”

Interesting.  So taking a multivitamin did not help treat cancer or heart disease.  How can people be so misinformed!?  Better yet–  Why are we allowing the vitamin companies to make these outrageous claims that their product will help fight cancer!?

Let’s look at a multivitamin label:

“Kirkland Signature Daily Multivitamin helps maintain and support:”

• Bones & Teeth* – Makes sense since there is a small amount of calcium; and if you’re not getting 100% of your RDI (Recommended Daily Intake), this extra 20% could help you get an adequate amount.  (Not to mention other minerals that help.)
• Eye Health* – Makes sense since there is Vitamin A, which is important for eye health and development according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
• Heart Health* – Makes sense since there are B Vitamins in the product; B Vitamin deficiencies can lead to irregular heartbeat, heart failure, high blood pressure, and more.
• [There are a few more, but you get the picture.]

“* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.  This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

Wait a second.  So they say it could support eye health, heart health, and other aspects of your life by preventing nutrient deficiencies, but at the same time has a mandatory label informing it can’t treat or prevent a disease.

What were these physicians thinking about!?

It’s a [Big Pharma / Illuminati / Political / Alien] Conspiracy!

While I find the “Big Pharma” conspiracy theories entertaining, this is obviously a form of reactionary extremism.

There are those out there that eat absolute garbage and claim they’ll be okay by taking a multivitamin–  In the case of those people, this new study is absolutely correct, and this news should be a sort of wake up call for anyone who lives their life with that sort of mindset.

However, I would argue that the physicians that took part in the study failed to acknowledge that the majority of multivitamin users do so as a way to make sure their bodies aren’t deficient–  Not to make up for a garbage diet.  To altogether claim that multivitamins are useless and / or “harmful” and not acknowledge that they could prevent nutrient deficiencies is absurd.

It’s also worth noting that there are studies that have shown positive effects from multivitamin supplementation in certain subgroups; for example:

• The Vitamin D and Calcium can help prevent fractures in older users.
• Zinc and Antioxidants helped with age related macular degeneration.

To close this out, here’s why I still take a multivitamin:  Look at your body like a car.  A car needs many different fluids, lubricants, and fuel to work properly.  If you drain the coolant from your radiator, your car may run for a few minutes, but you it will overheat, and you will likely run into a catastrophic problem.  If you don’t give your body all of the micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) it needs, how can you expect it to work properly?  I strive to eat healthy, but rather than track my micro-nutrients (on top of my macros and calories), I prefer taking a multivitamin.

(Full disclosure:  If you suffer from any chronic diseases, or you’re pregnant, you should consult your physician about vitamin choices as these states of being can be harmed by supplementation.  It’s also worth noting that there is an upper limit of intake for most micro-nutrients that can lead to toxicity, but this hasn’t been observed in multivitamin supplementation in apparently healthy adults.)

Sources and More Reading

Filed under: Health, Nutrition by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »

I was recently reading the comment section of an article, when I came across a particular gem that just. . .  It actually gave me a headache.  I won’t attribute this to the author, nor will I link the article, but I wanted to take a moment to dissect this comment  (The rant about the government was deleted because it’s not necessary):

“Your understanding is flawed. Obese Americans are not obese due to their caloric intake, it is the vast amounts of processed carbs and simple sugars. They spike our blood sugar and cause our natural metabolic mechanisms to adjust and begin storing the sugars as fat. You could eat the exact same “amount” (calories) of low carb diet and be much healthier.

[…]

Well, if you really want the people to have freedom of choice, you need to be honest about the choices available. You can not support one above all others; ignoring science and logic; and force feed those ideals to children at a young age through the public school system.”

“Your understanding is flawed. Obese Americans are not obese due to their caloric intake, it is the vast amounts of processed carbs and simple sugars.”

So, to start, the author states that the person they’re responding to doesn’t understand metabolism.  By the end of this, you’ll understand why the author should have started their comment with: “My understanding is flawed!”

Simply put, Americans that are obese to the degree it shows are, in fact, obese because of excess calories.  In apparently healthy individuals, you have to eat an excess of calories to gain weight.  (There is an exception for metabolic depression and hypothyroidism, which aren’t the epidemic most people make them out to be; especially since metabolic depression mostly affects physique competitors.)

Here is an exception:  Obese Americans that don’t show it (Excessively “skinny-fat” individuals that, based on their body fat percentage, can be classified as obese) could become obese because of excessive carbohydrate intake while eating less than their TEE (Total Energy Expenditure), and not eating enough protein to maintain nitrogen balance.

However, I’m willing to bet that these aren’t the people that the author was referring to.

“They spike our blood sugar and cause our natural metabolic mechanisms to adjust and begin storing the sugars as fat. You could eat the exact same “amount” (calories) of low carb diet and be much healthier.”

This is true that carbohydrates can spike your blood sugar–  This is a natural response to the carbs being broken down into glucose which then enters our bloodstream.  That rise in blood glucose releases insulin which attaches to cells and opens up the door for nutrients to be shuttled in.  Insulin binds to muscle cells so that circulating glucose will get stored in the muscle as glycogen;  insulin also binds to fat cells so that circulating fat (broken down into triglycerides from dietary fat that was consumed with the meal) is stored in fat cells.  Any glucose left over is then converted into fat, which may be stored in fat cells.  (Important note:  Glucose can NOT be stored in a fat cell. It must be converted to fat first.)

Something a lot of people love to point out about insulin is that it shuts off lipolysis (“Fat Burning”) and turns on lipogenesis (“Fat Storage”).  Well, they’re partially right–  In this state, your body no longer has to burn fat for energy, because it has the most efficient energy source circulating already: Glucose.  And they’re partially right that insulin starts lipogenesis, but they fail to point out that the glucose has to be converted to fat before it can be stored as fat–  Until that happens, it’s used for glycogen repletion in the muscles, and as an energy source.

I would also like to take a moment to point out that basically all metabolic systems are running at all times–  Our metabolism is viewed as a light switch, when really it should be viewed as a series of faucets that are always flowing, some more than others.

And one last thing:  A lot of people say, “Insulin is the enemy, so if we don’t eat carbs, we don’t have to deal with the fat storage that goes along with insulin!”  Well, are you also not eating protein, because protein causes an insulin response as well.

To his final point about being healthier by switching the type of calories, I may be inclined to agree–  If you’re eating whole foods instead of processed sugars, then yes, you may be “healthier.”  At the same time, someone switching to low carb with the same amount of calories could also make themselves less healthy by making poor food choices, thus becoming deficient in certain micronutrients.

Note that the author doesn’t state that someone would lose weight by switching the types of calories, just that they would be “healthier.”

“Well, if you really want the people to have freedom of choice, you need to be honest about the choices available. You can not support one above all others; ignoring science and logic; and force feed those ideals to children at a young age through the public school system.”

I appreciate this statement, but in all of their comments on the article, they were proselytizing the paleo diet above all else.  I don’t mean to take a jab at their character, but it’s worth noting.  I digress.

Here, I just want to point out that his assumptions about metabolism are all based on flawed science, and in most cases, “broscience.”  Trying to say that we should not ignore “science and logic” while simultaneously ignoring science and logic is kind of absurd.

Real science can tell you what am optimal diet is;  I can assure you there is no book to sell it, and it will likely never be marketed properly.

It’s worth noting that I don’t advocate eating unhealthy, nor do I advocate eating severely low carbohydrate, nor do I advocate eating too many processed sugars–  I advocate, and follow, a nonrestrictive, science based nutrition approach that is based on an individual and their goals.  For me, that means I derive 25 – 30% of my calories from protein, 20 – 25% of my calories from fat, and 40 – 55% of my calories from carbohydrates.

Sources and More Reading

Filed under: Body Building, Health, Nutrition, Nutrition Myth by Gabriel DeVine
No Comments »