
The Vitamin Myth: Why We Think We Need Supplements - swombat
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07/the-vitamin-myth-why-we-think-we-need-supplements/277947/?1
======
droithomme
The cited article contains phrasing that is designed to be misleading. It says
for example, "Seven previous studies had already shown that vitamins increased
the risk of cancer and heart disease and shortened lives. Still, in 2012, more
than half of all Americans took some form of vitamin supplements. " This makes
a direct comparison between people taking any vitamins _at all_ to studies
showing that very specific vitamins, under very specific and unusual
circumstances such as megadosing and certain preexisting conditions, can cause
problems. Well even water can cause problems when megadosed, and yet the fact
that most people drink water daily is not relevant to that.

Also, the author of this article, Paul Offit, is has serious credibility and
corruption problems beyond writing articles designed to mislead people.

He has previously claimed that it is perfectly safe for children to take
"10,000 vaccines at once" (and originally he claimed 100,000 but reduced it
when it was questioned). Even understanding the benefits of vaccines, there
are trade offs with them and it is certainly not safe to take 10,000 at once.
Offit holds a $1.5 million dollar research chair which is funded by Merck. He
also sold the right to his future royalties of a vaccine he developed for $182
million, of which he received around $46 million for a rotavirus vaccine. This
was interesting since he had previously pushed this vaccine during his job at
the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which was a serious
conflict of interest that ended up making him quite rich.

Here is an interesting investigative report into Offit's conflicts of interest
and hiding of financial relationships.

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigat...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4296175.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;2)

~~~
grandpa
Using Paul Graham's disagreement hierarchy
([http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)),
your first paragraph is DH2 (responding to tone), and the rest is DH1 (ad
hominem). Do you have any arguments relating to the points being made?

~~~
yock
The first paragraph correctly points out that the "seven previous studies" are
not applicable to the general public, despite the fact that the article
attempts to do so. That is not responding to tone, that is responding to
content.

The second paragraph rightfully questions the integrity of the author based on
past deceptive statements made in a similar capacity. It also points out a
legitimate conflict of interest. Neither of these are ad hominem.

------
MikeCapone
The article at first seems to be talking abou "vitamins" in general but then
goes into great detail about megadosing on vitamin C and trials with vitamin
E.

Doesn't seem like that's quite the same thing.

Personally, I take omega 3, vitamin D (gelcaps, it's fat-soluble), and kelp
(for iodine) daily. That article doesn't say much about those.

~~~
RyanZAG
The article does in a way - you take those vitamins because someone, somewhere
at some time was pushing them as an amazing cure. A couple studies were done,
data was likely cherry picked, and now you pay money to some company to give
it to you. That company makes very sure that beneficial studies are done as
often as possible.

I doubt that those vitamins are doing you much harm, but I honestly doubt that
you are getting much real benefit from them either (unless you have a real,
medical deficiency). But hey, taking them probably makes you feel safer, so
you'll likely keep taking them regardless.

Interestingly, the age of a person is usually the best indicator of which
vitamins they will take - people often get snagged into some 'holy grail'
vitamin (free radicals being the newest) and then continue to take them
because accepting that what you've been paying for over years is a waste of
money is very hard to take.

~~~
pyre

      > I honestly doubt that you are getting much
      > real benefit from them either (unless you have
      > a real, medical deficiency)
    

For stuff like Vitamin D, it depends on where you live. For example, in
Portland, OR[1], it's very sunny during the summer months, but there is very
little sun during the fall, winter and spring. I remember reading that even if
you spent all day out in the sun during the summer months, it would be
impossible to store up enough Vitamin D to last the rest of the year.

And on the 'real, medical deficiency' front, there are many debates as to what
optimum levels are for some vitamins and minerals. Nutrition is the one area
where some things seem very unsettled (e.g. All fat is bad! No wait only some
fat is bad! No wait eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat! etc). [ And
even then a real, medical deficiency may just mean that your body is degrading
vs. operating efficiently. E.g. maybe taking Vitamin X will help your body
digest and absorb food better, but you don't _need_ it to keep living so there
is no real, medical deficiency. ]

[1] Used Portland as an example, because I remember reading about this.

~~~
gebe
That's why milk companies in Sweden (total fucking darkness for 6 months every
year) have to enrich milk with less than 1,5% fat with Vitamin D. It's
actually a requirement by law.

~~~
kevinnk
Vitamin D enrichment is required for most milk in the USA, and according to
wikipedia virtually all first world countries have a similar law.

------
dkarl
The article treats the belief in supplements entirely as a case of well-
nourished people pursuing quack fixes, ignoring scientifically credible
practices such as food fortification using iodine and folic acid, the widely-
known connection between vitamin C and scurvy, the use of iron supplements to
treat anemia, and the historical experience with real malnutrition. The
article makes it sound like a ludicrous idea that snuck into the public
consciousness via the senility of Linus Pauling in the late 1960s, but vitamin
supplementation makes much more sense as an attempt to continue applying a
historically successful formula of improving human health by identifying
previously unrecognized dietary deficiencies and correcting them.

Also, the ending of the article destroys its credibility. The author is no
less an intellectual hack than the people he writes about.

~~~
mikevm
Yes, but people mistake a threshold response for a dose-dependent response.

Maybe certain vitamins (and pseudo-vitamins like vitamin D3) have a threshold
response, that is, you only need a certain amount of it in your body for it to
function properly, and adding any more will not make you any healthier
(overdosing on vitamins can be fatal, so you can't just up the dosage).

~~~
gwern
And also timing effects. To take the previously-mentioned iodine effect -
while administering iodine in childhood or later will eliminate goiters due to
iodine deficiency, as far as anyone can tell, post-natal iodine does little to
nothing about the retardation or intelligence decreases caused by iodine
deficiency, and even in pregnancy, the effect of supplementation seems to
start decreasing from conception.

------
mistercow
This article seems relevant:
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/20i/even_if_you_have_a_nail_not_all_...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/20i/even_if_you_have_a_nail_not_all_hammers_are_the/)

In summary, many of the studies that have shown scary correlations like
"multivitamins increase mortality" are (according to the author) based on
inappropriate (but easy to apply) statistical models. Scientists are too-often
not trained well enough in how to evaluate the model they are using to see if
it is appropriate for the task, and peer review boards often do not include
statisticians.

A simple summary of how this can apply to vitamin supplements: suppose you do
a trial where you give different groups different doses of a vitamins and then
monitor their health. Most vitamins are detrimental to have too little of,
helpful to have the right amount of, and then increasingly detrimental to have
too much of. The graph of their benefit/harm would be a curve starting at a
low number, curving up to a high peak, and then dropping down to lower and
lower numbers off to infinity. If you fit this graph to a line, you'll see a
downward slope, giving an indication like "multivitamins increase mortality
rates".

------
ChuckMcM
And this is why science sucks. And I mean that in a supportive way. It can
tell us that the answer we want to believe is not the _correct_ answer.
Unfortunately it takes a very strong individual to accept that when what they
want to believe is the belief that is wrong.

My personal experience is that older folks (>65) get stuck more firmly than
younger folks. It is especially sad when someone you care about deeply
believes so strongly in a reality that exists only for them.

~~~
DanBC
> My personal experience is that older folks (>65) get stuck more firmly than
> younger folks.

Did you not read the thread on HN just this week full of 911 truthers?

~~~
jlgreco
It's not a problem that is seen _only_ with old people, but it really does
seem to me that old people are over-represented. Almost all of the truthers I
know "in real life" are over 50.

------
roin
Benefits or risks of vitamins is one of the most confusing medical topics to
assess for an average consumer. After hearing about benefits of vitamin C,
zinc, vitamin D, etc., only to later read that some doctors say it's going to
kill you, I had decided to ditch them altogether.

But a year ago there was a large, randomized, double-blind study (not
something most of these studies can claim) that measured a regular dose
multivitamin, not huge megadose supplements that tend to focus on one or two
compounds. The result showed 8% fewer cancers. The subjects were all men and
were all doctors, so one could infer that they were much healthier than
average. I've been taking a simple multivitamin since. I wouldn't be shocked
to learn in ten years that I'm doing the wrong thing, but this is the most
convincing study I've seen in any direction.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/health/daily-
multivitamin-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/health/daily-multivitamin-
may-reduce-cancer-risk-clinical-trial-finds.html)

------
Bjoern
I don't get this.

Focus on a healthy, balanced diet and make sure you include enough variety
focusing on plenty of colorful vegetables, fruits and nuts. Exercise regularly
and take good care of your body getting enough sleep and enough sunshine.

Is that not enough?

~~~
arjie
I have this unsubstantiated belief that most people taking supplements live an
unhealthy life otherwise. Many people want a magic solution to things, and
taking lots of pills seems to be cure du jour.

This is made worse by the fact that there do exist people for whom supplements
are required. Without justification, everyone thinks they fall in that group.

~~~
kalleboo
Or the people eating the pills are the health-conscious ones who don't
actually need them since they're already eating healthy. Ironic.

------
oblique63
Not directly about the article, but for anyone interested in finding out what
actual research has to say about any supplement you might be interested in,
[http://examine.com/](http://examine.com/) is a great resource to explore for
that.

~~~
narrator
I think a lot of people on this thread are guilty of cognitive laziness.
Either all supplements are bad at any dose or they're all good at any dose.
Nobody wants to talk about science because reading medical studies is hard.

Reading this article reminds me of trying to have technical bio-medical
conversations with doctors. They blow me off and give me the same baby talk
they give all their other patients. That's the way the author of this article
writes, broad baby talk generalizations. It's the reaction I'd imagine I'd get
if I tried to have a conversation about digital signal encoding with my cable
TV installer. They don't care, it's not their job, it's not important and they
just do their job the way they do it for everybody and get paid either way.

~~~
oblique63
Yeah, that phenomenon plagues everything diet/nutrition/fitness these days.

Doctors themselves aren't necessarily scientists nor researchers, and in
practicality it's hard to have that kind of wide depth of knowledge when
you're supposed to be a 'general' physician anyway. The problem arises from
our culture which turns everything doctors say into a holy tautology that
dominates public discourse (without actually understanding the matter), to the
point where it doesn't even matter what scientific research comes up with,
because _" those scientists never make up their minds anyway"..._ sigh.

It's when you realize that even a rudimentary understanding of the scientific
process would avoid that kind of misunderstanding, that it puts into
perspective how sad our situation is. This is largely thanks to the media and
not individual people themselves, but it's still quite annoying to say the
least.

But even without that, if people subsequently understood the role and
limitations of doctors, such critical self-research wouldn't be so rare
anymore anyway. A doctor's role is like that of a consulting company with you
as the client: you're always going to be better suited to understand _your_
problem domain, a doctor will just serve as a guide to make sure everything
makes sense and will _then_ help you implement a solution. Or well, that would
be the ideal case anyway. I know I've had my fair share of poor doctors too.

------
jotm
OK, let's get one thing straight: vitamins and supplements ARE USEFUL.

The article seems to focus on them as cures - which they are not. Saying that
a vitamin is a cure for anything is like saying a loaf of bread is a cure.

Vitamins are fuel - the more intense activities you do, the more you use them.

IF you have a good diet, you don't need multivitamins/supplements. But if you
have a homogenous diet (eat the same thing every day and nothing else), then
vitamins and supplements are much more useful than harmful.

Moreover, no matter what diet you have, if you do bodybuilding or intensive
physical or mental exertion, vitamins and minerals from supplements are almost
a must.

It's like using normal fuel vs jet fuel - no matter how good your bioreactor
(stomach) is, it just cannot extract all the vitamins and minerals you need
for that kind of exertion.

Most bodybuilders know that a dose of pure protein powder is much more
effective for muscle building than any amount of meat or cheese. Same goes for
glutamine and other supplements, and of course vitamins.

The article also focuses on megadoses - well, no s#@t, a megadose of anything
is bad for you. 3 grams of vitamin C per day is batshit insane in my book -
500-1000mg is more than enough.

But don't just take what I said at face value. Like Einstein said, don't trust
everything you read on the Internet - check with several different sources,
read some research abstracts before making up your mind and storing ANY
information as true in your brain.

~~~
TheEzEzz
> IF you have a good diet, you don't need multivitamins/supplements. But if
> you have a homogenous diet (eat the same thing every day and nothing else),
> then vitamins and supplements are much more useful than harmful.

This is exactly what the article is contesting, but I think the confusion is
mostly a semantic one. If "vitamin" means "molecules necessary for good
health" then you are right. If "vitamin" means the typical molecules found in
multivitamins then the science supports the article's claim.

~~~
jotm
By vitamin(s) I mean the chemical compound(s) that have been proven to be
absorbed from food and used by the body.

If you get a cheap multivitamin that doesn't actually contain the real stuff,
well that's a whole other problem.

------
ValentineC
Does anyone know how Ray Kurzweil is faring with his 150 supplements a day?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil#Health_and_aging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil#Health_and_aging)

~~~
kolev
I've been taking similar quantities in years and my WellnessFX labs and annual
physicals are perfect. Even if supplements are not help me (much), they are
not hurting me (much) either although it's hard to tell as often damage
accumulates over years and labs only expose a few pixels of the whole picture.

~~~
count
If you can't tell, or it's hard to tell, over years, then why go through all
the trouble and expense?

~~~
kolev
Well, maybe I'd be getting worse if I wasn't taking them... How can I know,
right? :)

~~~
count
Science demands you double blind placebo test!

------
michaelfeathers
I remember seeing a doctor speaking in a news story about how we overuse
vitamins and supplements, most of which simply pass through our bodies.

He said "Americans have the most expensive urine in the world."

~~~
da02
I remember seing a study on the WWW about how vitamin fanatics are healhier
than regular multi-vitamin users:
[http://www.landmarkstudy.com/](http://www.landmarkstudy.com/)

I wouldn't trust a doctor compared to a bunch of eggheads who studied vitamin
fanatics. Doctors are constantly misinterpreting studies. (Not to say I don't
either.)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
People obsessed with their health are healthier than people who aren't? That's
a shocker.

~~~
da02
I'm sorry. I should have linked to an English translation of the study:
[http://www.remedyspot.com/showthread.php/155664-Dietary-
Supp...](http://www.remedyspot.com/showthread.php/155664-Dietary-Supplement-
Fanatics-Healthiest-Of-All)

"Nearly nine in ten multi-supplement users consumed 20 or more different kinds
of supplements throughout the year... The results of the study are startling.
Instead of anticipated side effects and overdosage, researchers found the
following:"

* Vitamin E levels among multi-supplement users were more than double that of non-users and multivitamin users.

* Risk for diabetes was 73% less, coronary heart disease 52% less..

* Blood serum levels of carotenoids (beta carotene, lycopene, lutein) were three higher among multi-supplement users than non-users, and double that of multivitamin users.

Except for the blood serum levels, I concede most of this does not counter
your argument of correlation vs. causation.

------
ck2
Used to get bad headaches almost daily.

One crazy week I forgot to take my daily multivitamin a couple times - then I
realized that the week was more headache-free.

So I stopped taking it entirely and now I very rarely get headaches.

As a control I tried taking it again and even another brand and headaches came
back.

~~~
tobtoh
That's not really proof of anything since your headache could be purely
psychological especially since you already suspect that the multivitamins are
causing your headaches which means you are not an independent observer, but a
biased (if well meaning) participant.

The correct way to prove it would be a double blind test using placebos. ie
not something you could prove on your own.

~~~
mesozoic
They could have a friend prepare supplements that are real and placebo. Take
them and record the results. It would go further to prove the effect within
the sample population of themselves which is likely all they care about.

------
continuations
There's also study showing vitamin supplementation reduces cancer risks:

[http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1380451](http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1380451)

------
jjindev
My gut feel, based on a BS Chem and then casual reading, has been that the
occasional vitamin is best. Keep a bottle in the cupboard, take a one when you
feel like it (no more than once a week). Replace the bottle when it expires.

Chances are you don't need it, and I think the body is really good at
snatching up things it needs when that pill rolls by.

(I worried about the kidney/etc burden of daily excess, but the idea that
daily excess could spur excess in the form of cancer does not surprise.)

------
vermontdevil
It's amazing that vitamin supplement market is not regulated at all thanks to
Orrin Hatch. So many unsupportable claims out there among the products for
sale that it makes me dizzy.

This market is truly caveat emptor.

------
codyb
The imbalance makes sense (too many antioxidants, or too much of a vitamin,
etc). I also always wondered if people who took vitamins were less likely to
eat healthy as well. Or perhaps even if they do eat healthy then by eating
healthy they're creating an imbalance. I wonder if you could take very small
doses and eat poor;y and do okay? It seems not.

~~~
jszmajda
Yeah, also wondering if there are other correlations they didn't consider.
That's the problem with these articles---all the evidence points to one
answer, but is that causation or correlation?

~~~
doberpen
You didn't actually read the article did you? They weren't talking just about
retrospective studies, seeing who gets cancer and whether they took vitamins
or not. The article talked about multiple randomized double blind placebo
trials.

If you get a bunch of random people, give some these high doses of vitamins
and give some a placebo, the ones getting the vitamins did worse.

~~~
Retric
Unfortunately that says nothing about people who are not megadosing on
vitamins or who benifit in other ways thus offsetting the risks.

------
adventured
I'm amazed at the confusion in regards to what's deduced from the consumption
of vegetables and similarly healthy foods (and using that to push vitamins).

It's every bit as important, in my opinion, to not eat killer foods, as it is
to eat vegetables. That is, a neutral effect alone would be enough to show
dramatic health improvements. This is where the pro vitamin arguments went
wrong from day one.

Water isn't a miracle elixir that cures cancer. Strip out all high fructose
corn syrup and sugar from all American beverages, and the equivalent
conclusion would be to suggest that water cures obesity, diabetes and cancer
(when in fact the absence of sugar and HFCS is what's doing the trick).

Also, telling me that people took vitamins without showing me their specific
day to day diets and exercise routines, is absurdity to put it very mildly.
Dietary input and exercise is radically more important than the vitamins in
the health outcomes.

~~~
rdouble
Is that really true, though? It seems like you'd be healthier eating healthy
salads and a donut, rather than never eating a donut, but never eating a
salad, either.

------
sandGorgon
There is an even more interesting (damning?) article - "Dont Take Your
Vitamins". [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dont-
take-y...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/dont-take-your-
vitamins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&)

 _Two years later the same journal published another study on vitamin
supplements. In it, 18,000 people who were at an increased risk of lung cancer
because of asbestos exposure or smoking received a combination of vitamin A
and beta carotene, or a placebo. Investigators stopped the study when they
found that the risk of death from lung cancer for those who took the vitamins
was 46 percent higher._

~~~
gboudrias
From the same author...

------
terhechte
I wonder if you get the same kind of negative effects when you eat too many
fruits. I tend to eat a lot of fruits throughout the day.

~~~
ValentineC
This may be scientifically unproven, but I'm a believer that the negative
effects from fruits come from all that sugar in them.

------
cko
What surprises me is my fairly recent discovery that larger-than-life people
like Pauling could be "gullible." (Though I'm sure there's a better word for
it.) As I'm reading about Pauling and the common cold and cancer and then
"every disease known to man", I realized that intelligence alone does not make
one immune to self-delusion. I started reading Walter Isaacson's biography on
Jobs a few days ago and it's the same realization.

I guess I myself was deluded to think that these "titans" are some how
superior in every way to "the rest of us."

------
zw123456
I realize that a personal testament is anecdotal, but about 10 years ago I
stopped taking vitamins and instead just focused on a balanced diet. I feel
better and it costs less. There are legitimate reasons for some people to take
vitamins, but if you can do it with a better diet, I think you are better off.
If you are taking vitamins, try not taking them and instead work on your diet
and see what you think. I think somethings are difficult to prove
scientifically and instead you have to do what works for you.

------
kolev
Most people buy crappy vitamins and supplements at Target, Costco, etc. There
are many forms of Vitamin E, for example, and 99.9% of people just take one of
the 8. This is just an example. It's a similar situation with Vitamin A,
Vitamin C, Folic Acid vs Folate, etc. I usually ignore those as it's similar
to read studies about beef when those are done with antibiotic and hormone
rich meats and if you eat pasture-raised, organic beef - it has a different
quality and nutritional profile. All these studies aim to scare people away
from preventive medicine and send you back into the drug-dispensing MDs. Yes,
you don't need supplements if you eat a healthy, traditional diet, but even
organic foods don't have the same quality and properties as those freshly
grown, picked, etc. Supplements are an insurance and people need to very, very
carefully select theirs as there are tons of scammers in the field! Just got a
mailer from Walmart and it's 2/3rds ads of supplements! Same with Costco!

~~~
SeanLuke
Your claim, as I understand it, is that Target, Costco, and Walmart stock
substandard vitamins compared to those you can find if you are "very very
careful". This is an extraordinary claim: and you are asked to provide
extraordinary proof. Do you have any?

~~~
wiml
It's not an especially extraordinary claim. There are multiple ways to
formulate a lot of supplements (e.g. α-tocopherol vs. γ-tocopherol, or any of
the zillion ways to put a mineral like calcium or iron into edible form). Some
of these are more effective than others. Some of these are cheaper to
manufacture than others. All he's claiming is that in cases where the cheapest
formulation is not the most effective one, you'll often not find the more
effective form unless you know what to look for and go out of your way to find
it.

~~~
SeanLuke
He is claiming that the vitamins at Costco, Target, and Walmart are "crappy".
That is indeed an extraordinary claim.

~~~
kolev
Well, magnesium oxide and calcium carbonate (worst form possible) without
vitamin K and D3 (at least!) to direct your calcium to your bones and not
arteries is pure crap, sorry!

------
shirro
Sales of unnecessary products is simply a consequence of capitalism working
properly. People create needs that didn't exist previously through marketing
which is all most "health" advice on television (eg Dr Oz) or other media is.
Legitimate nutritional deficiencies and cherry picked studies help fuel the
marketing strategy. They get fantastic viral social media support from all the
hypochondriacs, paranoid conspiracists and other health nuts who can't think
critically and lack the scientific education to assess the marketing.

Some vitamins and vitamin analoques do have legitimate benefits as medication
but best leave the dosing to a qualified health professional. Much better to
eat a balanced diet with lots of vegetables, fruit and some whole protein. And
get some sun in moderation if the climate supports it.

------
pallandt
Misleading title. Sometimes it would do you really good to take certain kind
of vitamin(s). However, the 'supplement' class doesn't include just vitamins.
It seems articles that attempt to debunk 'myths' are getting quite popular, in
disfavor of real science/research. This one is mostly one-sided and doesn't
show much effort at all in at least gathering some counter-arguments. Also,
metastudies such as the ones enumerated in this piece can sometimes be flawed
by the very methodology they were constructed. Journalistic sensationalism.

------
FrankenPC
If supplementation did nothing, we wouldn't be dosing up with tons of anti-
depressants (neuro-transmitter modulation supplements). I agree about
isolates, or what people traditionally call vitamins. But for genetic
deficiencies for neurological problems, supplements can be awesome.
Personally, I take 5-HTP, GABA and NAC daily and really feel the difference.
See for yourself. Keep in mind therapeutic doses of supplements can be rather
large. You need Dr. supervision to make sure you aren't damaging your
liver/kidneys.

~~~
chrisballinger
5-HTP is potentially cardiotoxic by raising blood serotonin levels.

~~~
kolev
Yup, I stopped taking it long ago, although, high serotonin is nice.

------
rsync
No mention yet of Nick Lane and his (wonderful) books:

\- Oxygen \- Power, Sex, Suicide

If you want a fascinating, very readable, well laid out argument against the
entire notion of antioxidant supplementation (as well as a fascinating,
technical but not too technical, pop-sci read) these are it.

tl;dr: Ingested antioxidants have no way to target the specific area in
mitochondria where the damage would take place, and even if they did, it would
probably be negative because free radicals are an essential cell signaling
mechanism that aids in weeding out damaged cells.

------
lingben
the only supplement which has been shown to have a net positive impact on
health in long term studies is vitamin D3 - and its not even a 'vitamin' but a
secosteroidal hormone

------
ladzoppelin
If you take any kind of daily drug for anything then you will probably need
some sort of supplement to counteract the deficiencies the drug is creating.
If you have electronic devices , like a smartphone, then a melatonin
deficiency is created and supplementation of melatonin can be a great benefit.

------
known
Vitamin deficiency could be a side effect of medication you take. For e.g B1
deficiency due to metformin
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidiabetic_drugs#Comparison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidiabetic_drugs#Comparison)

------
rikelmens
A must read: [http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/54272-another-day-
anoth...](http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/54272-another-day-another-
pill-2012-supplement-regimen/)

~~~
kolev
Yes, nice summary, although, vitamin D should be taken as early in the day as
possible, i.e. as far as possible from your bedding time as it disrupts
melatonin release: [http://www.bulletproofexec.com/bulletproof-your-sleep-
with-v...](http://www.bulletproofexec.com/bulletproof-your-sleep-with-
vitamin-d/)

------
Osmium
I remember reading somewhere that due to how the vitamins are compressed into
tablet form, you actually absorb very little of them anyway. But I can't
verify this, because I can't find a citation right now...

------
lightyrs
This guy is a pharmaceuticals shill — of course he denounces his competitors.

------
spydum
Could the higher incidence of cancers be that the supplements were actually
helping the cancer cells grow and be healthier than they otherwise would be?

~~~
kolev
Some really are and that's why supplements should be taken carefully and along
with frequent labs, but I doubt increasing cancer rates is due to supplements
as not that many people take them regularly... yet!

------
martingoodson
We cannot trust Paul Offit. See my comment on his previous article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5848390](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5848390)

------
a8da6b0c91d
Magnesium and iodine deficiencies are probably widespread and it's not really
possible to address these through modern food. Well over half the population
is measurably magnesium deficient. The problem is soil depletion and modern
water purification. The case for a lot of vitamins is weak, but I think it's
pretty strong for various minerals. I add mineral drops to my drinking water,
just in case.

~~~
tocomment
Where do you get the drops? I'd add potassium to your list too. The rda for
potassium is huge like 10 bananas worth a day. I don't know how anyone can be
getting enough potassium.

~~~
kolev
Buy potassium gluconate. It's nasty, but better than overloading yourself with
carbs from bananas. I'm not sure if you're aware, but bananas are radioactive
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose))
and, BTW, brazil nuts are more, but as a nice benefit, bananas increase your
serotonin levels. :)

~~~
pstuart
Brazil nuts are also good for selenium:
[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/379.long](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/379.long)

~~~
kolev
Yes, of course. Two a day max though.

------
dschiptsov
99% of world's population live happily without supplements.

And, of course, natural vitamins are necessity. Children die from malnutrition
without them.

