The Man Who Convinced Us We Needed Vitamin Supplements 707
An anonymous reader writes "The Atlantic has an interesting piece on the life and work of the scientist most responsible for moms around the world giving their kids Vitamin C tablets to fight off colds, Linus Pauling. From the article: 'On October 10, 2011, researchers from the University of Minnesota found that women who took supplemental multivitamins died at rates higher than those who didn't. Two days later, researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found that men who took vitamin E had an increased risk of prostate cancer. "It's been a tough week for vitamins," said Carrie Gann of ABC News. These findings weren't new. 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. What few people realize, however, is that their fascination with vitamins can be traced back to one man. A man who was so spectacularly right that he won two Nobel Prizes and so spectacularly wrong that he was arguably the world's greatest quack.'"
History is full of such. (Score:2, Interesting)
Genius that strikes out and proves how stupid the person is. e.g. Shockley, Pauling, Chomsky...
Re:History is full of such. (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably 'cause no one is perfect. Everyone messes up at some point in their life. His reluctance to refuse the vitamin C sham doesn't discredit his other accomplishments. Sure, the reluctance doesn't put him in a good light, but his other accomplishments still stand.
Re:What about D? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr. Dean Edell used to run down the latest research on his radio show. The terrible and ongoing failure of vitamins to offer any benefit as giant study after study started coming in became almost a running joke.
"We were in the 'Vitamin C' decade, then the 'Vitamin E' decade, and now the 'Vitamin D' decade", where that vitamin was the darling." Then the 10 year study with 100,000 nurses and doctors would come in, and it would offer zero benefits, and in some cases like Vitamin C with cancer, actually make things worse.
C did nothing for colds or cancer. E did nothing for hearts. I am taking D for heart reasons the past 2 years per doctor instruction. Will it help?
Dr. Dean Edell was uniquely positioned to criticize vitamins as he came from a family who were giant vitamin manufacturers. When he started his career he was big time into all that crap and other alternative stuff.
But the science inexorably crawled forward, slaying one thing after another, and he saw the light. He was an enormous friend to science and rationality and medical skepticism.
And he loses his radio show because nobody listens. Meanwhile a quack like Dr. Oz who promotes gigatons of nonsense that dopes go glassy-eyed over and tune in, has multiples hows on radio and TV.
Re:What about D? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a citation:
Garland CF, French CB, Baggerly LL, Heaney RP. Vitamin D supplement doses and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the range associated with cancer prevention. Anticancer Res. February 2011;31:607-11.
Cancer prevention is correlated most closely with serum levels of 40 ng/mL or above (as is alleviation of depression), and to reach this level in 97.5% of the population, 9,600 IU/day was necessary. This is almost double the current UL. Of course, current recommendations for daily dosage is based off 20 ng/mL being 'sufficient', while most experts in the field now believe that 30 ng/mL should be the baseline for 'sufficient' and that most positive effects will be found at serum levels of 40 - 50 ng/mL.
Vitamin D toxicity is rare, and only occurs when serum 25(OH)D levels exceed 150 ng/mL. It has never been demonstrated at doses of less than 20,000 IU/d and generally requires greater than 40,000 IU/d. Most incidents have been due to accidental ingestion, such as from a milk supply that was accidentally fortified with vast amounts of D3.
In the end, supplementation needs to be based off serum 25(OH)D levels, which can be measured by a doctor. You may need more or less to reach 'ideal' levels, and it's impossible to say exactly how much without testing. The test is cheap and hopefully will become a standard part of a routine examination, considering that vitamin D affects at least 35 different systems in the body. Without the test, 2,000 IU/d will keep you under the UL (even though it should really be changed to reflect the science behind the toxicity), and will likely keep your levels above 30 ng/mL. Remember that most dairy products are fortified with D3 which should be considered a part of the total.
Re:What about D? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I think is easily overlooked is the term "routine" in the following sentence: "Nutrition experts contend that all we need is what's typically found in a routine diet." Because routine is often defined as: "A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed regularly; a standard procedure."
I suppose if we are all trained dietitians/nutritionists that should be easy-peasy, but for the vast majority of us?
Let us not forget simple facts like salt is iodized because most people would be deficient otherwise. Foods are often fortified and enriched because we would become nutrient deficient otherwise.
It also ignores niches within groups, such as this tidbit from WebMD: "... researchers found the most effect on people who were in extreme conditions, such as marathon runners. In this group, taking vitamin C cut their risk of catching a cold in half." Perhaps stressing the importance of exercise to achieve more optimal well-being. The NLM suggests people living in very cold temperatures also stand to benefit from vitamin C supplements, and I imagine that marathon running in a cold environment... better take some C!
Unfortunately, the studies, in general, are far from conclusive and in many cases present conflicting conclusions. Many studies also appear to ignore synergies between vitamins/minerals -- that groups often aid proper absorption and misgroupings can cause malabsorption or even leeching. For instance, I'd be interested in a study that compares EmergenC to 1 gram 'plain' vitamin C, because I'd imagine EmergenC is going to be more effective. Or maybe eating an orange or some fruit/veg with a certain amount of C VS just that amount of C by itself.
Like my momma always said, "where you going to find [insert practically any single vitamin/mineral] all by itself in nature that we actually eat?!" Even sea salt has lots of trace minerals! She was all about eating right FIRST and using supplements sparingly as backup (like Vit D in the winter months, to compensate for less sun on the skin). That's a great plan, IMO, but I doubt most people routinely do that.
Re:Diet and laziness (Score:4, Interesting)
"The thing is, even if you have a horrible diet you probably still get all the essential vitamins and minerals."
Not really. You can eat at McDonald's every day, and still get scurvy.
Unconventional Approaches (Score:4, Interesting)
My great uncle Gene and Pauling were classmates at Oregon Agricultural College (which later became Oregon State University), they graduated the same year with degrees in Chemical Engineering. When he began classes Gene couldn't hack the math at all, he hadn't taken the requisite courses or something; coming from a small farm town in eastern Oregon perhaps they weren't on the curriculum. Then, after breaking his leg and being laid up in a cast for a while, he devised his own approach to problem solving, a more roundabout method to things like long division that obtained the same answer as the conventional approach, but not as streamlined as what was usually taught. Armed with these methods he obtained his degree and went on to a respectable engineering career, overseeing projects like renovating the Mission at San Juan Capistrano and devising various formulas for asphalt used in road building.
I always wondered if Gene's crackerjack approach to problem solving didn't rub off on Pauling in some fashion.
Re:Diet and laziness (Score:4, Interesting)
"In very rare cases does someone need to take any supplements at all. If one pays attention to having a proper diet one can get all the vitamins needed naturally. Part of the whole vitamin craze is how lazy people are. It can take some thought and effort to eat a healthy diet containing all the nutrients a body needs to thrive. It's quite worth doing so though."
It isn't just laziness. It's also money. It is difficult to get a balanced diet on a low budget. (Not impossible, but difficult.)
And the cases where vitamins are necessary are not all that rare. For example while as the article says, everyday free radicals may not be as terrible as they have been made out to be, when there is a flood of them they can do severe damage.
Case in point: you get a bad sunburn. A lot of the pain and damage of sunburn is caused by free radicals. If you get a sunburn, a proven method of mitigating the damage is by taking large does of vitamin C and some aspirin, both of which are strong free-radical fighters.
Another case is physical injury. (Granted, sunburn is physical injury too but I mean more like severe bruises or broken bones). Double-blind studies have shown that large doses of vitamin C can dramatically shorten the healing time. In one study done with guinea pigs (obviously, they are not humans but still), carefully controlled injuries to broken limbs healed in half the time of the control group when given large doses of vitamin C.
However, those ARE exceptions, and not everyday occurrences. And they have never been shown to lessen the severity of, much less cure, colds and the like.
Re:Diet and laziness (Score:2, Interesting)
Um, so as a vegetarian, you, what? eat fish? (OK, sure, fish oil, not quite the same, but it's still not vegetarian.)
Out of interest, why are you a vegetarian?
And, if you are having trouble eating enough protean, increase the number of beans and bean products in your diet. E.g. lentils, tofu, and hummus are all great foods. Also, try peanut butter on cheese! (But get peanut butter that is 99% or so peanuts, and 0% sugar. And get decent cheese, like Cheddar or Emmental, not that plastic stuff Americans eat.)
Umm, I realize that I may well be telling you stuff you already know, especially if you have put any thought into your diet, which I guess you have. Sorry if it sounds patronizing.
Re:Diet and laziness (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a very good reason why multivitamins exist, and that's because it's non-trivial to get enough nutrients in even healthy foods. And that's assuming that you have the time and energy to properly select and prepare your foods. It also assumes that your body needs the same amount of nutrients as the information suggests. Which may or may not apply.
"Properly select and prepare" being key here.
I grow my own tomatoes in organic soil with known mineral content. They taste significantly different than hothouse tomatoes bought from the grocery store or produce stand. Why? Because the mineral content is significantly different, and they haven't been force-watered.
So it's important to know what's in the food you're actually buying, not just the type of food you're buying.
That's selection. Then there's preparation.
If you buy roasted salted almonds that have been sitting on the store shelf for a year prior to you bringing them home, they're going to have very different nutritional content than if you sourced the same almonds but got them fresh from the producer, brought them home and refrigerated them, and then roasted them (without salting) immediately prior to use. Even roasting vs. not roasting makes different vitamins and minerals accessible to your body; which is the really important thing here.
It doesn't matter how much iron, for example, you consume if it's in a form your body can't actually use for anything.
And these days, if you actually consume enough force-grown produce to give you traditionally healthy vitamin and mineral levels, you're likely getting a huge dose of hormones, pesticides, herbicides, and various other chemical cocktails. It gets even worse with meat.
Re:History is full of such. (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I recall Pauling thought there was a connection between very large doses of vitamin C and a boost of the immune system. There's a very large distance between that and what he's being blamed for in the article here. The two examples are Vitamin E problems and multivitamin issues. It's easy to think Pauling had daft ideas if you believe he proselytized about vitamin supplements.
I think Pauling is being blamed for things he's got nothing to do with.
Utter rubbish (Score:4, Interesting)
Article is an excerpt from a book written by a guy that sold vaccines for big pharma. I'm not against vaccines, they're a good thing (although there is still plenty of room to be nervous without believing in autism/mercury).
But you have to keep in mind the vaccine industry has been at war with Pauling since he showed a IV drop of C will cure Polio. If you actually look it up you can find where he did that, and unlike everybody else here will have verified something in the article.
Because every claim made by the author in that article is probably wrong.
Shame on The Atlantic for this puff piece. They usually have good science.
Re:Diet and laziness (Score:4, Interesting)
Compared to before that, when people lived in rural settings? not much.
When I was living in West Africa (ten years ago?) the biggest causes of death were:
Accidents caused by reckless behaviour: Driving cars with no brakes, repairing buldings with no scaffolding, handling dangerous animals/goods with inadequate protection, dangerous machinery with no training etc (25%)
Diseases cause by lack of basic hygene: drinking polluted waeter. not washing hands before meals/after toilet (or doing so with poluted water).(25%)
Bad medical treatment: wrong or inappropriate medical procedure, or drugs, expired drugs, fake drugs (20%).
Removing these, life expectancy would be better than the UK. (which is far better than the US). Interestingly, all of these are issues which are addressed most effectively by more government regulation!!!)