David A Bender

Some 20-30% of the population in developed countries takes a daily vitamin supplement. Does it do them any good? Our current estimates of vitamin requirements are based on the amounts needed to prevent deficiency diseases; in most countries deficiency is no longer a major problem.

The question is whether higher levels of intake provide health benefits. There are two ways to answer this question: to identify biomarkers of optimum nutritional status, rather than the absence of deficiency; or epidemiological studies to identify nutrients associated with a lower incidence of chronic diseases, followed by intervention studies. Neither approach has yet provided satisfactory answers, and a recent review in the June JAMA finds little convincing evidence in favor of supplements.

A number of promising suggestions for biomarkers exist, including metabolic markers of damage from radicals, immune responses, and damage to DNA. None is responsive to only a single nutrient, and all are affected by a plethora of non-nutritional factors. To date we do not have any markers that can be used to determine optimum intakes.

The epidemiological approach has prompted a number of intervention trials, most of which have been disappointing. There is clear epidemiological evidence that people with a high plasma concentration of vitamin E are less at risk from cardiovascular disease. The Cambridge heart antioxidant study showed a reduction in non-fatal but not in fatal myocardial infarctions. While the benefits from reducing non-fatal infarctions are obvious, this is hardly convincing evidence of the benefits of vitamin E supplementation.

Similarly, there is evidence that high intakes of carotene are associated with lower incidence of lung, prostate, and other cancers, although carotene may simply be a marker of fruit and vegetable consumption.

Carotenes are antioxidants and might be expected to reduce the damage from radicals that underlie the development of cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, most compounds that act as antioxidants do so by forming stable radicals that persist long enough to undergo metabolism to non-radical compounds. By definition they therefore form radicals that can penetrate deeper into tissues and plasma lipoproteins, and potentially cause more damage than the oxygen radicals they have replaced.

The results of two major intervention studies with carotene, one in Finland among smokers and the other in the United States among people who had been exposed to asbestos, yielded unexpected and unwanted results: more people receiving the supposedly protective supplements died from lung (and other) cancer than people receiving placebo.

Vitamin C is an antioxidant, and it also inhibits the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines from dietary amines and nitrites. It might therefore be expected to have protective action against the development of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The evidence with respect to cardiovascular disease is unconvincing.

The epidemiological evidence linking a high intake of vitamin C with reduced cancer incidence is confounded by the fact that the fruits and vegetables that are sources of vitamin C are also rich in a variety of other compounds that may be protective. There is a long held belief that vitamin C (perhaps in very large amounts) is protective against the common cold. A systematic review did not support this but did find some evidence of a modest benefit in reducing the duration of symptoms of colds.

An intake of vitamin D above what can be obtained from normal diets (possibly in combination with supplementary calcium) delays the loss of bone with increasing age, so supplements may be advisable to prevent osteoporosis and osteomalacia. For most people, increased exposure to sunlight is probably more effective than supplements, although we may have to balance the beneficial effects on bone health against the increased risk of skin cancer.

The benefits of folic acid supplements taken periconceptually in preventing neural tube defect have been shown convincingly. High intakes of folic acid also reduce plasma homocysteine, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease independent of plasma lipids and other risk factors, and low intakes of folic acid are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer.

This has led to mandatory fortification of cereal products in the United States and elsewhere. However, although folic acid lowers plasma homocysteine, there is no evidence yet from controlled trials whether or not this will reduce cardiovascular disease or cancer. Until the results of intervention trials in progress are available, the benefits of folic acid supplements other than to prevent neural tube defects remain unproved.

The answer to the question of whether we should take a multivitamin tablet every day must be that unless our intake is inadequate as a result of a poor diet then supplements will probably do us no good apart from folic acid taken periconceptually and, possibly, vitamin D by elderly people.

British Medical Journal July 27, 2002

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

About half the country takes nutritional supplements, and I suspect the percentage is considerably higher for readers of this newsletter. Supplements can compensate for some of the damage we do to ourselves. However, my experience is that many people, if not most, take supplements to justify their poor food choices. This makes as much sense as building a boat with rotten wood and using the best screws in the world to fasten them together. The boat may hold together, but it will leak everywhere. The boards in the boat are like the macronutrients in our body - the protein, carbohydrates and fats that we consume. If we make poor choices there, the screws -- the vitamin supplements -- we use are irrelevant. Most vitamins serve as catalysts for reactions to occur in our body. While we need catalysts, it is more important to obtain good fuel for the reactions to properly occur. Also, a funny thing happens when you start out with good fuel (raw organic food): it has most of the vitamins and minerals you need packed right inside and at no extra charge. Amazing. Most of the new patients I see are spending more than $100 a month on supplements, with some significantly higher than that. But supplements will not compensate for improper eating. Use the right food as your supplement and you will be much healthier. That said, there are certain clinical conditions that do warrant the use of nutrients and supplements as drug alternatives, and I use this approach frequently. My key, though, is to minimize the long-term use of supplements. And I really don't think healthy patients should be on more than five supplements a day. On supplement I do advise for most new patients is probiotics, to optimize their gut flora. While most people seem to benefit from this periodically, I generally don't believe it is necessary to remain on it indefinitely. Another supplement that is near critical for some patients, particularly those who avoid eating animal protein, is vitamin B12. I don't advocate avoiding all meat, but it is, nevertheless, a common approach among patients. The human body is quite forgiving and can tolerate the associated abuse - highly insufficient B12 intake -- for about 7 years, as it utilized the liver reserves of B12. But after those 7 years, the B12 deficiency frequently causes irreversible brain damage. Finally, I want to make it clear that I do not classify fish oil as a supplement. It is a food alternative to fish. Sadly, our culture has managed to pollute the world enough to eliminate this entire class of food from our diet. Fish were a very healthy food for their Omega-3 fat content, but mercury, PCBs and DDT are now present in nearly all fish to varying degrees. I had previously listed a set of fish that were less contaminated, but have seen many patients consume even these "safe" fish and then show elevated levels of mercury in their system. Most fish oil is molecularly distilled so that the mercury is extracted from the fish, leaving only the benefits that I have p