Yet another unreliable study
The result of the latest study on multivitamins for women must have been easy to predict at the very start. Is this how research funds are used? The notion that the intake of a low-dose supplement in the prevention of disease is ludicrous – the money would be better spent researching the preventive use of food supplements in efficacious doses.
The study, which was published on February 9th 2009, in the Archives of Internal Medicine, (vol 169, No. 3, Feb 9, 2009) was led by Dr Marian Neuhouser from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA. It researches the development of cancer and heart disease over a period of 8 years in the lives of 161 808 postmenopausal women who took part in the US government funded Women’s Health Initiative. The result showed no differences in disease development between the 42 % women between 50-79 years of age who took food supplements and those who didn’t.
The design of this study shows a serious lack in the understanding of biochemistry and nutrition. The women were postmenopausal, had weight issues and relevant information about their lifestyle, health and possible intake of food supplements earlier in life are absent. How can one be so naïve as to expect that daily food supplements at RDA-levels, including at the most 10 vitamins and minerals, can possibly affect the outcome of cancer or heart disease? RDA’s were developed as a daily nutrient minimum after the Second World War in order to prevent deficiency diseases like scurvy – not as a norm for health and certainly not to cure disease. Higher doses of the whole spectrum of vitamins and minerals are needed in order to preserve or achieve health. Women who took more than 10 vitamins and minerals daily were excluded!
A reliable study requires scientific relevance. This study lacks information about the forms of vitamins and minerals or the daily doses used,regardless of the fact that vitamin or mineral form used are in themselves vital to the outcome of a study as some forms of vitamin and minerals are not readily absorbed.
One wonders if there is any value in contributing to disease funds if the money is to be used in this type of unscientific research. Conditions like cancer and heart disease are results of previous lifestyle and events and usually take a long time to develop. Researching older women’s intake of RDA-level supplements is meaningless. Many of the women are likely to have had pre-clinical conditions when they enrolled in the study and detailed information on their lifestyle, diet and intake of supplements during their youth were not taken into account.
The Yellow Canary recommends researchers to include researchers, doctors and nutritional practitioners with nutritional expertise and clinical experience in the design phase of their study. Untill this occurs, this type of study or meta-analysis is scientifically worthless.