December 30 2013. The December, 2013 issue of the journal Nutrients published a review article by Alexander J. Michels and Balz Frei of Oregon State University’s Linus Pauling Institute which points out some of the flaws in the design of studies intended to evaluate vitamin supplementation, particularly vitamin C.
“One of the obvious problems is that most large, clinical studies of vitamins have been done with groups such as doctors and nurses who are educated, informed, able to afford healthy food and routinely have better dietary standards than the public as a whole,” commented Dr Frei, who is an international expert on vitamin C and antioxidants.
The duo observed that men and women with nutritional inadequacies are the population most likely to exhibit benefits from dietary improvements or supplementation. “More than 90 percent of U.S. adults don’t get the required amounts of vitamins D and E for basic health,” Dr Frei noted. “More than 40 percent don’t get enough vitamin C, and half aren’t getting enough vitamin A, calcium and magnesium. Smokers, the elderly, people who are obese, ill or injured often have elevated needs for vitamins and minerals. It’s fine to tell people to eat better, but it’s foolish to suggest that a multivitamin which costs a nickel a day is a bad idea.”
He added that the largest trial of multinutrient supplements uncovered a significant reduction in the risk of cataract and cancer among men over the age of 50. “The cancer reduction would be in addition to providing good basic health by supporting normal function of the body, metabolism and growth,” he stated. “If there’s any drug out there that can do all this, it would be considered unethical to withhold it from the general public. But that’s basically the same as recommending against multivitamin/mineral supplements.”
