Taking only the 47 low-bias trials, involving 180,938 people, they found that supplements as a whole increased the death rate by 5 per cent. When the supplements were taken separately, beta carotene increased death rates by 7 per cent, vitamin A by 16 per cent, and vitamin E by 4 per cent. Vitamin C gave contradictory results, but when given singly or in combination with other vitamins in good-quality trials, increased the death rate by 6 per cent.
Selenium was the only supplement to emerge with any credit. It appears to cut death rates by 10 per cent when given on its own or with other supplements in high-quality trials, but the result is not statistically significant.
The populations of Western countries are engaged in a massive experiment on the effects of vitamins.
The researchers wrote: "Our findings contradict the findings of observational studies claiming that antioxidants improve health.
"Considering that 10% to 20% of the adult population in Europe and North America may consume the supplements, the public health consequences may be substantial."
They said there were several different explanations for this increase in risk - and suggested that knocking out 'free radicals' might actually interfere with a natural defence mechanism within the body.
One of the uses of free radicals in the body is in the immune system to kill invading pathogens. Taking big doses of antioxidant vitamins might render aged immune systems less able to take on invader pathogens. So the higher mortality rate of vitamin takers might be due to dampened immune systems.
Another use is for intracellular and intercellular signalling. Denman Harman MD, who first proposed the free radical theory of aging back in the 1950s, once described in an interview (sorry, no link, this is from faded memory) how he felt sluggish if he took very high doses of antioxidant vitamins. His explanation for this effect was that the vitamins were quenching free radicals that were needed for signalling and by doing so they were suppressing his metabolism.
What is in your diet still matters. But the mystery remains as to just which compounds in which foods provide the most benefit. But what about vitamin supplements? My guess: the most beneficial nutrients from a supplementation standpoint are the non-antioxidant vitamins. Most people probably do not get enough vitamin D, for example. Others do not get enough calcium for their bones or iron for red blood cells. But for antioxidants we probably should look more toward non-vitamin compounds found in some foods.
But what we most need are biotechnologies that will let us repair the damage caused by free radicals. Gene therapies, cell therapies, replacement organs, and nanobots will all eventually let us repair the aging damage caused by free radicals. We should treat the development of these technologies as an urgent priority. We are getting older every year. Aging is a defeatable malady. We should defeat it.
By Randall Parker at 2007 February 28 11:43 PM Aging Diet Studiesofcourse
his studies are payd for by big pharma, who do know very well that those sulplimets are preventing disease
soo ccousing them bilions upon bilions in loses, so ofcourse they atack splimets and hormomes,
and news agency are more then happy to post this crapy made up news , becouse guess from who they got the largest
advetising revenues? u guest prof big pharma, comercials,
fallow the money
it always works
Or maybe the results just show a correlation between the usage of supplements and an (otherwise) unhealthy lifestyle.
The reason might be that people substitute supplements for healthy foods and exercise to salve their conscience.
I guess it is hard to control for such variables in a long term study.
What proportion of people using supplements are doing so because they've had a personal experience with illness? If most people who are dying or have a significant condition are using vitamins, than deaths will be overrepresented in the vitamin group.
Morpheus, bad science reporting can be more easily explained by news professionals having little experience with science than with anti-capitalist conspiracy theories. It was recently widely reported that a 'laser comb' had received FDA approval to treat hair-loss, but these newspapers neglected to clarify that the device had merely been approved as being safe to use, not as being effective in any way. The nobody manufacturer of the product had certainly not bribed hundreds of newspapers around the world.
This is meta analysis
"For the study, the researchers selected certain publications/trials based on certain criteria with regard to its quality and reliability. When 68 were selected from 815 trials, they came to find that the results were inconclusive. And use of the vitamins was not associated with elevated risk of death. A further reduction of trials by 21 led to results indicating that vitamins were linked with an elevated risk of death." http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/G_eneral_H_ealth_34/0228052007_Antioxidant_vitamins_may_raise_death_risk.shtml
Headlines from google news have read "vitamins can kill"(www.abc.net.au) to "Antioxidants Don't Help You Live Longer"(fox news) "Study Citing Antioxidant Vitamin Risks Based On Flawed Methodology, Experts Argue" (science daily)
Gluud stands by his results, however. "Seventy per cent of the participants were healthy," he says.
So if seventy percent were healthy, and 30 percent were unhealthy, if you were to die sooner wouldn't you expect a greater risk.
What about vitamin D with prostate and breast cancer reductions.
B-12 and folic acid and dementia?
What about Beri-Beri, Pellagra, Night Blindness and Scurvy all deadly diseases directly linked to vitamin deficiencies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228172604.htm
If vitamins were so toxic and deadly we would be calling them such since they were first discovered in the late 1800's. This is a scare tactic. Incited by people who truly believe that man made synthetic drugs will save humanity from itself. They are sincere in their belief, even in the face of safety. Scientist are fallible, even to the point of negligence. This is nothing new, medical history is fraught with dominant paradigms lashing out ideas that contradicted the norm. Hell it took almost 100 years for Dr's to WASH THEIR HANDS after touching cadavers before delivering babies. Hence thousands of iatrogenic deaths.
what about this headline
"In-Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year, HealthGrades' Study Finds "
Some food for thought.
"The “meta-analysis” published in JAMA, which is a statistical analysis of previously published data, looked at 815 antioxidant trials but included only 68 of them in its analysis, Frei said. And two of the studies excluded – which were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the prominent British medical journal Lancet – found substantial benefits and reduced mortality from intake of antioxidant supplements.
“If these two large studies had been included, none of the reported effects on increased mortality would have been significant, with the exception of the effects of beta carotene,” Frei said. “And the research showing a higher incidence of lung cancer in smokers who take supplements of beta carotene or vitamin A is old news, that’s been known for many years. Very high doses of vitamin A are known to have multiple adverse health effects.”
It's just wrong. Plain and simple. The reason I ignore meta-analysis studies whichever way they cut -- Every time I waste my time looking at the data I find that obvious fallacies in logic in both epidemiologic and statistical axioms have been made. I have no doubt the same is true here.
It is medically impossible to consume antioxidants at a level to totally squelch ROS without killing yourself from toxicity issues. Some essential ones, like CoQ10, would require 18 grams -- the most the digestive tract will transfer is about 400 mg/24 hr period.
Paradoxically, over-consumption of an anti-oxidant results in an activated antioxidant radical. It's like a logjam -- the electrons get passed to the antioxidant but can't be easily shed to another in the electron chain leading to water. The activated molecule than wreaks havoc on its environment.
And there is a huge -- HUGE -- difference between intracellular and extracellular ROS.
Extracellular ROS doesn't persist more than a fraction of a microsecond before it lands against protein (albumin) or more likely, a lipid. And here is the danger in antioxidant use-- peroxidized lipids, which everyone maligns so much as a marker of damage, is a primary defender against cancer. Peroxidized lipids don't do much to regular cells but are positively toxic to cancer cells. It's one-half of the anti-cancer mechanism of excersize.
When extracellular ROS acts as a signal, it is directly related to cellular death, destruction and concomitant inflammation, which works as ROS->Peroxidized Lipids->Prostaglandins->Cytokines with cell-mediation. No way in hell is typical physiologic or enhanced physiologic levels of antioxidant going to get in the way of this. Failure of the aged-immune-system, to borrow Randall's phrase, is in the depleted cell-mediation side.
Intracellular ROS is a side-effect of metabolism. Immune system cells, powered mostly by glutamine, generate ROS in quantity - both from metabolism and from generating perforin et al granzymes. Depletion of antioxidant status easily crumps NK cell activity, for example, regardless of glutamine status. Same is true for T-cells. Cancer patients seem to curl over and die when they deplete their antioxidant status -- disease accelerates and cachexia moves into its final stage. Glutathione depletion status is a predictive marker in predicting athletic failure and performance drop.
Recently intracellular signalling via ROS, especially in the integrin subsystems, and some phosphorylation mechanisms, is a big thing -- but is not overly affected by anti-oxidant status. There are consistent reports of extracellular ROS implications in endothelial dysfunction associated to cardiovascular disease, but I would ask the researchers the same question -- unless it is the adjacent cell there is no way for the ROS to travel very far -- so exactly how the hell is it acting as a secondary messenger? Answer: It isn't, not between cells. It overly intracellular and persistent activation results in ROS damage to the cell.
Lose no sleep over this nonsense study. Take your supplements and the full spectrum of them.
Dr. bob
I remember that when a critique of DHEA supplementation was published some months ago, the Life Extension Foundation mailed a counter-critique to its membership. To me, an intelligent nonspecialist, LEF's counter-criticisms of the article were detailed and persuasive, despite the circumstance that the popular news media had treated the article as being somehow the last word in the scientific scholarship of DHEA. As for the authors of the meta-analysis of anti-oxidant supplementation, I think they should brace themselves for the meta-meta-analysis that's surely coming their way.
The reason selenium extends life, may be due to the fact that it is essential for the conversion of the inactive thyroid hormone T4 into the biologically active form T3. Hypothyroidism is indirectly responsible for innumerable illnesses, including heart failure and cancer.
here is a sceitific explenation a perfect exemple (just like doung metions above)
that explains very clearly the scientist and the media bias
very clearly
not only that sumpliments not shorten life but ideed they extend it (bouth mean and maximum )
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/mar2007_awsi_01.htm
lets not forget that most scietist and doctors are incredbly close minded tunnel vision people, and prety dumb
just like the general population who even after years of war in iraq and afghanistan cant point them out on the map
these scietist rise from the same retarded people just they menge to get a degree
see an exemple for that here
http://www.cutepiggy.com/mentally_retarded_war_on_terror
bouth links are worth while
Ahhh...
Lets try to remember that the Cochrane Compilation generates the most respected neutral reviews of data on a broad spectrum of medical and pharmaceutical data.
Explaining away counterintuituve conclusions with conspiracy theories or by calling scientists "dumb" is the height of antiintellectualism.
Oh, and another thing...
I would be surprised if the profit margins for "supplement" manufactures weren't equal to of higher than those for pharma manufactures.
They have minimal regulation, minimal oversight, no duty or expectation to perform large intensive studies, etc.
Poppycock bbm!
The situation is Bayesian, the study exists in a massive context of prior data, and assumptions matter. Previous posters here have brought enough priors to the table here to show that the study is not believable. And as far as the "appeal to authority" of the Cochrane Collaboration goes -- I have lots and lots of problems with their methods. I will take well-done targeted studies over their meta-analyses any day of the week. And as I always say "Show me the data -- not your conclusions."
This is seperate from the political fact that there is a movement afoot to harshly regulate supplements with the draconian pharma regs. Pharma regs don't exist for anyone's "safety and effectiveness". The pharma regs exist to prevent new low cost competitors from entering the market. Supplements remain such a threat, politically and competitively. Politically it shows the farce of draconian pharma regs. Competitively, well just look at curcumin -- NFkb inhibitor par excellence, unpatented and widely available -- pharma is trying desperately to come up with a patented version -- a pity they all test inferior to curcumin. But imagine if they got regular curcumin pharma regulated! Then I could have "pharma grade", "approved", curcumin....
Remember, it doesn't take thousands of individuals to determine the effectiveness of a good drug.... in fact, if testing a drug requires thousands of patients to prove effectiveness it means the drug is in fact useless...
A few points:
1) It has been my experience (though this might be a result of the circles I run in) that the people who take vitamins are trying to life a long time and have optimized their diets too.
2) If these studies enrolled people (and at least some did) then the effect of the people deciding to take vitamins (e.g. due to illness or due to a desire to live forever) is not a problem. So we need to know more about their method of selecting studies.
3) Purenoiz, I agree that vitamin D is beneficial. I have said as much in probably a dozen posts. But these studies are to look at antioxidant effect. So they are looking at the major antioxidant vitamins.
4) It is worth noting that in animal studies (which are heavily controlled compared to human studies) the only factor that raises life expectancy is calorie restriction. On mice and other lab critters many different combinations of antioxidants have been tried with no benefit for total life expectancy. This is one reason why biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey thinks we should focus far more on the development of rejuvenating treatments.
Poppycock?
I agree that it is fair game to attach the methodology of studies, of course. But this meta-analysis is the best data available, and it is in concordance with the findings of several well done studies. The guys at Cochrane are not a bunch of morons, and are noted for their disinterest.
But even if you disagree with the findings of a study because of methodolicical reasons, it may be reasonable to reject its conclusion (that antioxidant supplementation above a certain level is associated with an increased death rate). But it is unreasonable to accept the opposite of the conclusion (that anti-oxidant supplementation increases lifespan/quality or whatever) just because you disagree with the methodology.
I wonder if you'd be voicing these methodological objections so stridently if the conclusions had been in concordance with your pre-formed beliefs.
You say "Show me the data -- not your conclusions"... but you provide no data to support your argument, and no data that show that anti-oxidants increase life span. There have been numerous studies now that show that vit A, for example, when supplemented, increases negative outcomes. Note also the animal data as pointed out by Randall.
What is important here is further study, to confirm or reject the findings of the metaanalysis, as well to determine why anti-oxidants might not be favorable over a certain does. That type of reasearch deepens our understanding of the sub-cellular processes at work, which, in turn leads to new breakthroughs in the area. Is it possible that the conclusions of the study are wrong? Sure. Is it possible that the conclusions are right, and are simply pointing to something about metabolism we don't know about? Sure.
Here are some notes from a site with an article on the harmful effects of antioxidant supplements:
"Antioxidants like vitamin C, E and beta-carotene actively bind to radicals. Antioxidant excess inhibits the useful functions of radicals, like decomposing tumor-cells, and can therefore enhance cancer !! (17) Radicals also kill mutagenic substances from cigarette smoke. Consuming supplementary ß-carotene therefore inhibits protective action of radicals, increasing lung cancer risk. (18)
Excessive vitamin C can cause cancer by activating mutagenic HCA from food (20) and can also enhance cancer because tumors need vitamin C to grow. (21) Vitamin C also increases transformation of harmless iron into pro-oxidative free iron. (22) "
the site is http://www.13.waisays.com/cancer.htm
And Here are they're sources:
(17) Schwartz, J.L. ,The dual role of nutrients as antioxydants and prooxydants : Their effect on tumor cell growth. Journal of Nutrition 1996 / 126 (4suppl.) / 1221-1227.
(18) Rapola, J.M. et al, Randomised trial of alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene supplements on incidence of major coronary events in men with previous myocardial infraction. Lancet 1997 / 349 (9067) / 1715-1720. , Goodman, G.E. et al, The association between participant characteristics and serum concentrations of beta-carotene, retinol, retinylpalmitate, and alpha-tocopherol among participants in The Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) for prevention of lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 1996 / 5 (10) / 815-821. , The Alpha-Tocoferol, Beta-carotene Cancer Prevention Group, The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. New England Journal of Medicine 1994 / 330 / 1029-1035. , Chow, W.H. et al, Risk factors for small intestine cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1993 / 4 (2 / 163-169. , Omenn, G.S. et al, Risk factors for lung cancer and for intervention effects in CARET, the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1996 / 88 (21) / 1550-1559.
(20) Hsieh, S.E. et al, The effect of vitamin C on N-acetyltransferase activity in Klebsiella pneumonia. Food and Chemical Toxicology 1997 / 35 (12) / 1151-1157.
(21) Agus, D.B. et al, Stromal cell oxidation : a mechanism by which tumors obtain vitamin C. Cancer Research 1999 / 59 (18) / 4555-4558.
(22) Simon, J.A. et al, Relation of serum ascorbic acid to serum vitamin B12, serum ferritin ,and kidney stones in the US adults. Arch.Intern. Med. 1999 / 159 (6) / 619-624. , Palmer, A.M. et al, Dietary antioxydant supplementation reduces lipid peroxidation but impairs vascular function in small mesenteric arteries of the sptreptozotocin-diabetic rat. Diabetologia 1998 / 42 (2) / 148-156. , Podmore, I.D. et al, Vitamin C exhibits pro-oxidant properties. Nature 1998 / 392 (6676) / 559. , Rehman, A. et al, The effects of iron and vitamin C co-supplementation on oxidative damage to DNA in healthy volunteers. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1998 / 246 (1) / 293-298. , Horwitt, M.K., Do the metals in vitamin-mineral supplements produce undesirable oxidations ? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997 / 65 (5) / 1571.
It may be a bit biased because it's talking about things that cause cancer and mentioning the potential of antioxidants to cause cancer, however the part about inhibiting the functions of radicals may be a cause behind the increase in deaths.
BBM!
Re-read my posts -- please note that I DO NOT PUT ANY FAITH in meta-analysis studies. I have already gone on record saying that I don't buy into them whichever way they cut. From a Bayesian perspective, they are nothing but useless noise as far as I am concerned. I'm still smarting from the Framingham heart study blaming cholesterol and not inflammation as the source of heart disease, let alone ignoring homocysteine...
Two -- I don't have to provide any data whatsoever -- it is the person making an assertion that needs to prove their case. As I pointed out, the study contradicts the corpus of known knowledge AND other posters have shown sufficient priors to dismiss it as irrelevant. (Plus, just goto Medline. We both have day jobs... if you want to know -- between Google and Medline, is there anything that isn't retrievable? Geez... let's all put footnotes to our comments and submit to peer review!)
Three -- I don't listen to authorities or experts. The only thing I care about is the knowledge. I will listen to anyone provided they are speaking rationally and giving me reasons, not rationalizations. I even pay attention to rampant speculation if it seems based in a modicum of fact. I might be contrarian to Randall on most topics, but this doesn't mean he isn't thinking on the basis of something factual.
Adam -- Of course any substance can act in a toxic manner in the body. 1-5 grams/day of Vitamin C is antioxidant in effect.5-10 grams unclear. Above 20 grams/day (such as via IV, and upto 100gr is sometimes given) we are clearly pro-oxidant. And what do you know -- it's also selectively toxic to cancer cells apparently at such levels....
For posterity sake here is the official rebutal, of this junk science article about some biased retard scientist,. claming antioxidants shorten life.
Another Flawed Attack against Antioxidants
by William Faloon, Tianan Jiang, MD/PhD, & Steven V. Joyal, MD
Released March 5, 2007
In today’s media frenzied world, science is practiced by ambush. The very day a medical study is published, it can become the headline news story of the day. This denies an opportunity for those who might disagree with the study’s design and methodologies to rebut what might be junk science. In the case of a recent study questioning the value of certain antioxidant nutrients, the flaws are so significant as to cause its findings to have little or no meaning.
Within five days of this blatant attempt to discredit certain antioxidants, the Life Extension Foundation prepared this rebuttal to expose the flaws of this irrational and highly biased attack that the media used to disparage popular dietary supplements.
Overview
Oxidative stress is a well-recognized factor directly implicated in a number of human diseases1-2, and a great deal of scientific information supports and validates the role of antioxidants to decrease oxidative damage.3-6.
The latest attack against antioxidants emblazoned across headlines is from a convoluted statistical review published in the February 28, 2007 edition of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association).
This statistical review was developed by the same group of researchers that denounced antioxidants as without significant benefit in an article published in 20047. It takes the bold step of not only discounting all of the well-established scientific support for antioxidants in preventing disease, but brazenly declares that antioxidant vitamins increase all-cause mortality (death from all causes).
Suboptimal dosages, outdated formulations, and inadequate study duration
One of the problems with dietary supplement research is that it frequently evaluates nutrients that were initially popularized in the 1960s and 1970s, but comprise a mere fraction of what health conscious individuals are actually using today based upon current, up-to-date research.
The JAMA review that attacked the value of antioxidants included vitamins A, C, E, and selenium and evaluated these very basic nutrients in a very wide & inconsistent dosage range:
Supplement
Dose range
Vitamin A (synthetic)
1,333-200,000*** IU
Alpha Tocopherol (synthetic)
10-5,000 IU
Vitamin C (synthetic)
60 – 2,000 mg
Selenium (natural)
20 – 200 mcg
As an example of the strange decisions made by the JAMA authors as to which studies to exclude or include in their analysis, they selected a single dose study*** of patients using 200,000 IU of vitamin A, who were subsequently followed for 3 months.8
Several critical nutrients taken by health-conscious individuals were omitted from the JAMA analysis, along with optimal forms of these nutrients such as gamma tocopherol & natural alpha tocopherol succinate in the case of vitamin E, and CoQ10. Among the critically important nutrients that were completely or mostly ignored included fish oil, lipoic acid, carnitine, standardized fruit & vegetable extracts, B-vitamins, and minerals such as magnesium, zinc, and calcium.
Life Extension long ago warned members about the potential implications of taking only the alpha tocopherol form of vitamin E. Whether this was a factor in the studies in which vitamin E did not show a positive health benefit is unknown, but the role of gamma tocopherol was not discussed as a possible reason for the synthetic alpha tocopherol failing to work in the minority of hand-selected studies used in this evaluation.
For serious supplement consumers interested in maximum benefit, the nutrients that were evaluated in the negative JAMA study make up a small percentage of the many complimentary nutrients they have been taking for the past 10-20 years or more.
The average duration of the studies selected for the analysis was 3.3 years, and the average age of the study subjects was 62 years. The belief that the administration of these very basic antioxidant supplements, in a wide range of suboptimal doses, could somehow reverse a lifetime of oxidative damage strains scientific credibility.
Exclusion of over 91% of antioxidant studies
Out of a potential total of 815 studies that assessed the effects of antioxidant supplements in the JAMA statistical review, only 68 were chosen for inclusion in this statistical review – this means that fully 91% of eligible antioxidant studies were arbitrarily excluded from the JAMA statistical analysis. Furthermore, 405 of the excluded studies showed no deaths whatsoever in any of the groups.
Of the studies that were included in this flawed statistical review, several were completely misinterpreted:
The JAMA statistical review incorrectly included 30 deaths from a study published in 2001, yet actual review of this study shows that there was only one death in the placebo group, one death in the drug plus antioxidant group, and no deaths in the group given only antioxidants;9
The JAMA statistical review failed to account for pre-existing risk factors in 399 of 800 Parkinson’s disease patients assigned to 2000 IU of vitamin E per day in the DATATOP trial - in fact, after adjustment for pre-existing risk factors, there was no excess mortality in the group assigned to vitamin E, nor did researchers observe any evidence of increased mortality for each additional year of exposure to high-dose through 13 years of observation.10
Even more disturbing than the studies that were misinterpreted by the JAMA authors is the fact that many large studies of significant trial duration showing benefit with antioxidants were excluded from this flawed & biased statistical review: A few examples of intentionally omitted positive studies were:
A study involving over 29,092 male smokers aged 50-69 years followed prospectively for 19 years showed that men with the highest serum alpha-tocopherol levels had a 28% lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality than did those with the lowest levels, and a 21%, 29%, and 30% lower risk of deaths due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other causes;11
A study in 3,254 people (1,260 males and 1,994 females) aged from 39 to 85 years followed from 1989 to 1995 showed that higher serum levels of carotenoids with pro-vitamin A activity significantly reduces the risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer;12
A study in aging women that showed those with the lowest levels of alpha- and beta-carotene, lutein/zeaxanthin, and total carotenoids were significantly more likely to have increasing IL-6 levels over a period of 2 years, and those aging women with the lowest selenium levels had a significantly higher 54% risk of death over a 5-year period;13
A study in patients with aggressive, small cell lung cancer showed a clinically significant 35% decreased risk of death associated with antioxidant supplement use after adjustment for tumor stage and other risk factors;14
A study in 1,168 elderly men and women followed for 10 years showed that plasma carotene concentrations were associated with a 21% lower mortality risk for every 0.39 micromol/L increase in plasma carotene, a 41% lower mortality risk for cancer, and a 17% lower risk of mortality due to cardiovascular disease;15
A study that evaluated the effect of Vitamin E, beta carotene, and vitamin C on prostate cancer risk in over 29,000 men during 8 years of follow-up showed that supplemental beta-carotene intake at a dose level of at least 2000 micrograms per day was associated with a highly significant 52% decreased prostate cancer risk in men with low dietary beta-carotene intake as well as a dramatic, 71% decreased risk of advanced prostate cancer with increasing dose and duration of supplemental vitamin E;16
A study in 1,214 persons age 75-84 studied for over 4 years showed that those people with the lowest vitamin C plasma levels ( 66 micromol/L) had a mortality risk nearly 50% less;17
A study that examined vitamin E and vitamin C supplement use in relation to mortality risk in 11,178 persons aged 67-105 years (Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly) in 1984-1993 showed that vitamin E reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 34%, reduced the risk of coronary disease mortality by 47%, and the simultaneous use of vitamins E and C was associated with a 42% lower risk of total mortality and 53% lower risk of coronary mortality;18
A study (Chicago Western Electric Study) that followed over 1,800 middle-aged men over a 30-year period showed that during 46,102 person-years of follow-up the risk of fatal stroke was 29% lower in the group taking the highest amount of vitamin C and beta-carotene;19
Two studies with different designs conducted in Linxian, an area of north central China with some of the world's highest rates of esophageal and stomach cancer and a population with a chronically low intake of several nutrients, showed significant reductions in mortality associated with antioxidant intake:
One study showed that in 3,318 persons with esophageal dysplasia, a precursor to esophageal cancer, significantly lower total and cancer mortality risk was observed in those Chinese receiving beta-carotene, vitamin E, and selenium, and a whopping 55% decrease in mortality due to cerebrovascular disease;20
A second study in 29,584 adult Chinese followed from March 1986-May 1991 showed a significantly lower total mortality among those receiving supplementation with beta carotene, vitamin E, and selenium, with a significant 23% reduction in stomach cancer in this high-risk population;21
A study in 1,078 pregnant women infected with HIV given daily multivitamin supplements including vitamins A, C, and E showed reductions in risk of death, reduction in risk of HIV progression, and reduction in viral load;22
A study involving 15,419 children over one year showed the risk of death in the group supplemented with synthetic vitamin A (8,333 IU daily) was 54% less;23
A study with lung cancer patients over age 60 showed that those patients taking supplements including antioxidant vitamins like A, C, and E had a dramatic 68% increase in survival, from only 11 months in non-users to an astounding 41 months for the vitamin users (median survival);24
A study that showed daily oral administration of high-dose vitamin A (300,000 IU daily) was effective in reducing the number of lung cancers related to tobacco consumption and improved disease-free interval in patients surgically-treated for stage I lung cancer;25
A study in 595 critically-ill ICU patients showed that supplemental vitamin C and vitamin E reduced the risk of multiple organ system failure by an amazing, statistically significant 57% along with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay.26
Respected scientists agree with Life Extension’s evaluation of the flawed JAMA statistical review
Meir Stampfer, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health
"This study does not advance our understanding, and could easily lead to misinterpretation of the data.”27
Balz Frei, Director and Endowed Chair, Linus Pauling Institute, Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Oregon State University
“This is a flawed analysis…the totality of the evidence indicates that antioxidants from foods or supplements have many health benefits, including reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, some types of cancer, eye disease, and neurodegenerative disease…they are a key to an enhanced immune system and resistance to infection.”28
Jeffrey Blumberg, Director of the Antioxidants Research Laboratory at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts
“One of the major premises of doing such a meta-analysis is that the studies should be comparable…here, they looked at primary prevention, treatment, old people, young people, smokers, nonsmokers. Only when they used their own criteria of what was good and what was bad were they able to show an increase in all-cause mortality."29
Life Extension is always vigilant in providing our members with rigorous scientific review of information on health & disease prevention
Statistical analysis is a tool used to interpret and assess information. The quality of the statistical result depends in large part upon the criteria used to evaluate the data. Regrettably, Life Extension fears that the greater impact of the JAMA analysis will be to tragically cut short the lives of people who may otherwise derive lifesaving benefit from antioxidant supplements, but avoid these dietary ingredients out of fear generated by this deeply-flawed, biased statistical review.
References:
Sies H. Introductory remarks. In: Sies H, ed. Oxidative stress. Orlando, FL.: Academic Press; 1985:1-7.
Halliwell B, Gutteridge JMC. Free Radicals. In: Biology and Medicine. 3rd ed. London, England: Oxford University Press; 1999.
Papas AM. Diet and antioxidant status. In: Papas AM, ed. Antioxidant Status, Diet, Nutrition, and Health. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1998:89-94.
Halliwell B. Antioxidants in human health and disease. Annu Rev Nutr. 1996;16:33-50.
Halliwell B. Antioxidant defense mechanisms: from beginning to the end (of the beginning). Free Radic Res. 1999;31:261-272.
Willcox JK, Ash SL, Catignani GL. Antioxidants and prevention of chronic disease. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2004;44:275-295.
Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2004;364:1219-1228.
Murphy S, West KP Jr, Greenough WB III, Cherot Katz J, Clement L. Impact of vitamin A supplementation on the incidence of infection in elderly nursing home residents: a randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing. 1992;21:435-439.
Brown BG, Zhao XQ, Chait A, et al. Simvastatin and niacin, antioxidant vitamins, or the combination for the prevention of coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;345: 1583-1592.
Marras C, McDermott MP, Rochon PA, Tanner CM, Naglie G, Rudolph A, et al. Survival in Parkinson disease: thirteen-year follow-up of the DATATOP cohort. Neurology. 2005;64:87-93.
Wright ME, Lawson KA, Weinstein SJ, Pietinen P, Taylor PR, Virtamo J, Albanes D. Higher baseline serum concentrations of vitamin E are associated with lower total and cause-specific mortality in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov;84(5):1200-7.
Ito Y, Suzuki K, Ishii J, Hishida H, et al. A population-based follow-up study on mortality from cancer or cardiovascular disease and serum carotenoids, retinol and tocopherols in Japanese inhabitants. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2006 Oct-Dec;7(4):533-46.
Walston J, Xue Q, Semba RD, Ferrucci L, Cappola AR, Ricks M, Guralnik J, Fried LP. Serum antioxidants, inflammation, and total mortality in older women. Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Jan 1;163(1):18-26.
Jatoi A, Williams BA, Marks R, Nichols FC, Aubry MC, Wampfler J, Yang P. Exploring vitamin and mineral supplementation and purported clinical effects in patients with small cell lung cancer: results from the Mayo Clinic lung cancer cohort. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):7-12.
Buijsse B, Feskens EJ, Schlettwein-Gsell D, Ferry M, Kok FJ, Kromhout D, de Groot LC. Plasma carotene and alpha-tocopherol in relation to 10-y all-cause and cause-specific mortality in European elderly: the Survey in Europe on Nutrition and the Elderly, a Concerted Action (SENECA). Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;82(4):879-86.
Kirsh VA, Hayes RB, Mayne ST, Chatterjee N, Subar AF, Dixon LB, Albanes D, Andriole GL, Urban DA, Peters U; PLCO Trial. Supplemental and dietary vitamin E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C intakes and prostate cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Feb 15;98(4):245-54.
Shetty PS, Breeze E, Fletcher AE. Antioxidant vitamins and mortality in older persons: findings from the nutrition add-on study to the Medical Research Council Trial of Assessment and Management of Older People in the Community. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Nov;78(5):999-1010.
Losonczy KG, Harris TB, Havlik RJ. Vitamin E and vitamin C supplement use and risk of all-cause and coronary heart disease mortality in older persons: the Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Aug;64(2):190-6.
Daviglus ML, Orencia AJ, Dyer AR, Liu K, Morris DK, Persky V, Chavez N, Goldberg J, Drum M, Shekelle RB, Stamler J. Dietary vitamin C, beta-carotene and 30-year risk of stroke: results from the Western Electric Study. Neuroepidemiology. 1997;16(2):69-77.
Blot WJ, Li JY, Taylor PR, Guo W, Dawsey SM, Li B. The Linxian trials: mortality rates by vitamin-mineral intervention group. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Dec;62(6 Suppl):1424S-1426S.
Blot WJ, Li JY, Taylor PR, Guo W, Dawsey S, Wang GQ, Yang CS, Zheng SF, Gail M, Li GY, et al. Nutrition intervention trials in Linxian, China: supplementation with specific vitamin/mineral combinations, cancer incidence, and disease-specific mortality in the general population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Sep 15;85(18):1483-92.
Fawzi WW, Msamanga GI, Spiegelman D, Wei R, Kapiga S, Villamor E, Mwakagile D, Mugusi F, Hertzmark E, Essex M, Hunter DJ. A randomized trial of multivitamin supplements and HIV disease progression and mortality. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1):23-32.
Rahmathullah L, Underwood BA, Thulasiraj RD, Milton RC, Ramaswamy K, Rahmathullah R, Babu G. Reduced mortality among children in southern India receiving a small weekly dose of vitamin A. N Engl J Med. 1990 Oct 4;323(14):929-35.
Jatoi A, Daly BD, Kramer G, et al. A cross-sectional study of vitamin intake in postoperative non-small cell lung cancer patients. J Surg Oncol. 1998 Aug;68(4):231-6.
Pastorino U, Infante M, Maioli M, Chiesa G, Buyse M, Firket P, Rosmentz N, Clerici M, Soresi E, Valente M, et al. Adjuvant treatment of stage I lung cancer with high-dose vitamin A. J Clin Oncol. 1993 Jul;11(7):1216-22.
Nathens AB, Neff MJ, Jurkovich GJ, Klotz P, Farver K, Ruzinski JT, Radella F, Garcia I, Maier RV. Randomized, prospective trial of antioxidant supplementation in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg. 2002 Dec;236(6):814-22.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/27/589608-antioxidants-dont-help-you-live-longer
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2007/Feb07/vitaminstudy.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022700925.html
See the comment ahead of mine??
Right on the money. But beyond that, these studies cited are flawed for a very different reason:
They ignore BASIC BIOCHEMISTRY. The studies assess effect for nutritional dosing of ONE compound, that reacts as either a coenzyme or functions as an enzyme active site center for reactions. Certain micronutrients, such as selenium, manganese, and magnesium, have many metabolic roles - their actions in preserving cellular health status are multi-fold and complex.
It appears as though traditional medicine and Big Pharma is also scared shitless of a more profound knowledge-base that has been developing for some 60 yrs: orthomolecular medicine. Long chided for being faddish, it has enjoyed more serious attention in recent years. Suffice it to say, micronutrients have been shown to play a profound role in regulatory element driven gene expression.
What is missing in these studies? An understanding of biochemical pathway interactions and metabolite storage - a dynamic process. You know, it often puzzles me - have these investigators not understand basic concepts like redox potential and redox cycling of anti-oxidants, especially in membranes?
Now boys and girls, what do you think happens if you feed an antioxidant in excess, and its oxidized while "doing its thing"?? Why, Golly Gee Whillikers, its converted into an oxidant!! Thus, the feeding of excess antioxidant without supplying its matching redox couple for regeneration of antioxidant activity is just asking for: excess auto-oxidation and membrane damage.
Add to this, the altered effect of oversupply of fats, themselves gene expression modifiers, and the inevitable shift in membrane fatty acid composition - and there ya go! A multiplicity of insideous altered function in the most important cellular organelles, the site of MOST of the important cellular metabolic reactions: mitochondrial, endoplasmic reticulum, and sarcoplasmic reticulum.
Can we say: cellular aging and oxidation?
Lets add just a wee bit of fuel to the fire: bad diet has inter-generational effects, in the epigenetic priming of metabolic processes that occurs as parents form mature gametes and again, when Momma Dearest progresses through pregnancy.
You can't fix bad dietary and lifestyle choices with a handful of pills, although Traditional Medicine and Big Pharma have made a killing doing it. Its reality, handing off personal responsibility and the costs of faulty lifestyle habits to the health risk management sector, is very, very expensive, eh?
fallow the money it always works
Always? That kind of leads, eventually, into proof that 9/11 was planned by the makers of magnets and little american flags.