{"id":4345,"date":"2011-10-17T19:45:15","date_gmt":"2011-10-18T00:45:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wholehealthchicago.com\/?p=4345"},"modified":"2022-03-21T15:18:21","modified_gmt":"2022-03-21T20:18:21","slug":"medicines-latest-step-backwards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wholehealthchicago.com\/blog\/2011\/10\/17\/medicines-latest-step-backwards","title":{"rendered":"Medicine\u2019s Latest Step Backwards"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Posted 10\/17\/2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cVitamins linked to higher odds of early death in older women,\u201d the headlines screamed last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I finished an anxious call from my 88-year-old Aunt Hildy. Once peacefully ensconced in her Florida condo, now, after seeing a TV news report that vitamins were dangerous when used by women over 62, Hildy was eyeing with great suspicion the field of supplements spread across her kitchen countertop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already I\u2019d received a dozen or so emails from worried patients, all of whom I reassured the same way: Your supplements are fine. Just make sure you\u2019re not taking any iron. And watch less TV. Nothing new here on iron–we\u2019ve known the risks of too much iron in men and post-menopausal women for years. That\u2019s because iron is a pro-oxidant (the very opposite of an antioxidant) that can increase your risk for heart disease and damage to arteries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s essential to note that buried in the final paragraph of the article in question (which appeared in Archives of Internal Medicine<\/em>, October 10, 2011) is the following: \u201cIt is not advisable to make a causal statement of excess risk based on these observational data.\u201d  What this basically means is \u201cHey, these are the numbers and they\u2019re just numbers. They aren\u2019t people and we\u2019re not sure exactly how to apply them to real people.\u201d In other words, they want you to be deeply impressed that they\u2019ve spent 2\u00bd decades on this project even though there\u2019s nothing (except for the iron bit) really worth taking seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the news media (and whoever wrote the editorial mentioned below) are taking it very seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it boils down to this: Now that we\u2019ve frightened the pants off you, don\u2019t jump to any hasty conclusions. The researchers grudgingly admit that after attempting to track the nutritional supplement habits of 38,772 women (with an average starting age of 62) beginning in 1986 and all the way until 2008, all they confirmed were two hard facts that doctors had already known about for years. Namely, that iron is bad for you unless you need it, and calcium is good for you. All their other findings are very iffy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about the other supplements they were tracking? <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The researchers asked all the women about their use of multiple vitamins, vitamin A, beta carotene, B-6, folic acid, B complex, C, D, E, iron, calcium, copper, magnesium, selenium, and zinc. Although the media make a big point of the appearance<\/em> of a worsened mortality among supplement users, there were simply too many \u201cconfounding variables\u201d to draw any reasonable conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A confounding variable is some piece of information about the participants in the study that skews the results. The confounding variables in this study might include income (supplements cost money many people don\u2019t have), nutritional habits, social support network, exercise, and their overall sense of well-being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, understand that the study would classify a woman using supplements who remained healthy and fit until her death at 88 as being worse off than a woman who didn\u2019t use supplements and who died at 92 after two decades of debilitating chronic illness.  Remember, they tracked a group of women as they aged from 62 to 90 and many died along the way. Rather than base the study on \u201clongevity,\u201d I myself would have chosen \u201cquality and <\/em>longevity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s do some serious thinking about the real reason a study like this was published. <\/strong>Here\u2019s an excerpt from the same concluding paragraph in the article: \u201cWe see little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.\u201d This conclusion was reached only because there didn\u2019t seem to be any longevity benefits from taking supplements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But let\u2019s face it, by the time you\u2019ve reached your 80s or 90s, it\u2019s unrealistic to expect your supplements to add more years. A far more realistic expectation might be an improvement in quality of life. Unfortunately, no one asked. And thus no one heard potential responses like supplement users feeling \u201cpretty darn good, considering I\u2019m 90\u201d or non-supplement users responding with a plaintive chorus of \u201cOy veh, don\u2019t ask.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please don\u2019t miss this next piece, from the same journal\u2019s editorial on the article: \u201cWe cannot recommend the use of vitamin and mineral supplements as a preventive measure, at least not in a well-nourished population. Therefore, we believe that politicians and regulatory authorities should wake up to their responsibility to allow only safe products on the market.\u201d <\/em>(Italics mine.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point, I need to pause for a deep breath, slow my beating heart, and stop hyperventilating. Now for a few facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n