BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Multivitamin Use and Risk of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease in the Women's Health Initiative Cohorts, vitamins have little or no influence on common cancers, CVD, or mortality in postmenopausal women
Orbz
post Feb 16, 2009, 08:02 PM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 301
Joined: Jan 03, 2007
From: Australia
Member No.: 6770



Just out in the news today...

Multivitamin Use and Risk of Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease in the Women's Health Initiative Cohorts
Marian L. Neuhouser, PhD; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller, PhD; Cynthia Thomson, et al.
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(3):294-304.

QUOTE
Background Millions of postmenopausal women use multivitamins, often believing that supplements prevent chronic diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Therefore, we decided to examine associations between multivitamin use and risk of cancer, CVD, and mortality in postmenopausal women.

Methods The study included 161 808 participants from the Women's Health Initiative clinical trials (N = 68 132 in 3 overlapping trials of hormone therapy, dietary modification, and calcium and vitamin D supplements) or an observational study (N = 93 676). Detailed data were collected on multivitamin use at baseline and follow-up time points. Study enrollment occurred between 1993 and 1998; the women were followed up for a median of 8.0 years in the clinical trials and 7.9 years in the observational study. Disease end points were collected through 2005.

We documented cancers of the breast (invasive), colon/rectum, endometrium, kidney, bladder, stomach, ovary, and lung; CVD (myocardial infarction, stroke, and venous thromboembolism); and total mortality.

Results A total of 41.5% of the participants used multivitamins. After a median of 8.0 years of follow-up in the clinical trial cohort and 7.9 years in the observational study cohort, 9619 cases of breast, colorectal, endometrial, renal, bladder, stomach, lung, or ovarian cancer; 8751 CVD events; and 9865 deaths were reported. Multivariate-adjusted analyses revealed no association of multivitamin use with risk of cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98, and 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.05 for breast cancer; HR, 0.99, and 95% CI, 0.88-1.11 for colorectal cancer; HR, 1.05, and 95% CI, 0.90-1.21 for endometrial cancer; HR, 1.0, and 95% CI, 0.88-1.13 for lung cancer; and HR, 1.07, and 95% CI, 0.88-1.29 for ovarian cancer); CVD (HR, 0.96, and 95% CI, 0.89-1.03 for myocardial infarction; HR, 0.99, and 95% CI, 0.91-1.07 for stroke; and HR, 1.05, and 95% CI, 0.85-1.29 for venous thromboembolism); or mortality (HR, 1.02, and 95% CI, 0.97-1.07).

Conclusion After a median follow-up of 8.0 and 7.9 years in the clinical trial and observational study cohorts, respectively, the Women's Health Initiative study provided convincing evidence that multivitamin use has little or no influence on the risk of common cancers, CVD, or total mortality in postmenopausal women
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Feb 16, 2009, 10:49 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



News Keeps Getting Worse for Vitamins

The best efforts of the scientific community to prove the health benefits of vitamins keep falling short.


Consumers don’t want to give up their vitamins. (Tony Cenicola/The New York Times)

This week, researchers reported the disappointing results from a large clinical trial of almost 15,000 male doctors taking vitamins E and C for a decade. The study showed no meaningful effect on cancer rates.

Another recent study found no benefit of vitamins E and C for heart disease.

In October, a major trial studying whether vitamin E and selenium could lower a man’s risk for prostate cancer ended amidst worries that the treatments may do more harm than good.

And recently, doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York warned that vitamin C seems to protect not just healthy cells but cancer cells, too.

Everyone needs vitamins, which are critical for the body. But for most people, the micronutrients we get from foods usually are adequate to prevent vitamin deficiency, which is rare in the United States. That said, some extra vitamins have proven benefits, such as vitamin B12 supplements for the elderly and folic acid for women of child-bearing age. And calcium and vitamin D in women over 65 appear to protect bone health.

But many people gobble down large doses of vitamins believing that they boost the body’s ability to mop up damaging free radicals that lead to cancer and heart disease. In addition to the more recent research, several reports in recent years have challenged the notion that megadoses of vitamins are good for you.

A Johns Hopkins School of Medicine review of 19 vitamin E clinical trials of more than 135,000 people showed high doses of vitamin E (greater than 400 IUs) increased a person’s risk for dying during the study period by 4 percent. Taking vitamin E with other vitamins and minerals resulted in a 6 percent higher risk of dying. Another study of daily vitamin E showed vitamin E takers had a 13 percent higher risk for heart failure.

The Journal of Clinical Oncology published a study of 540 patients with head and neck cancer who were being treated with radiation therapy. Vitamin E reduced side effects, but cancer recurrence rates among the vitamin users were higher, although the increase didn’t reach statistical significance.

A 1994 Finland study of smokers taking 20 milligrams a day of beta carotene showed an 18 percent higher incidence of lung cancer among beta carotene users. In 1996, a study called Caret looked at beta carotene and vitamin A use among smokers and workers exposed to asbestos, but the study was stopped when the vitamin users showed a 28 percent higher risk for lung cancer and a 26 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease.

A 2002 Harvard study of more than 72,000 nurses showed that those who consumed high levels of vitamin A from foods, multivitamins and supplements had a 48 percent higher risk for hip fractures than nurses who had the lowest intake of vitamin A.

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews looked at vitamin C studies for treating colds. Among more than two dozen studies, there was no overall benefit for preventing colds, although the vitamin was linked with a 50 percent reduction in colds among people who engaged in extreme activities, such as marathon runners, skiers and soldiers, who were exposed to significant cold or physical stress. The data also suggested vitamin C use was linked with less severe and slightly shorter colds.

In October 2004, Copenhagen researchers reviewed seven randomized trials of beta carotene, selenium and vitamins A, C and E (alone or in combination) in colon, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver cancer. The antioxidant users had a 6 percent higher death rate than placebo users.

Two studies presented to the American College of Cardiology in 2006 showed that vitamin B doesn’t prevent heart attacks, leading The New England Journal of Medicine to say that the consistency of the results “leads to the unequivocal conclusion” that the vitamins don’t help patients with established vascular disease.

The British Medical Journal looked at multivitamin use among elderly people for a year but found no difference in infection rates or visits to doctors.

Despite a lack of evidence that vitamins actually work, consumers appear largely unwilling to give them up. Many readers of the Well blog say the problem is not the vitamin but poorly designed studies that use the wrong type of vitamin, setting the vitamin up to fail. Industry groups such as the Council for Responsible Nutrition also say the research isn’t well designed to detect benefits in healthy vitamin users.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
orangesand
post May 30, 2011, 09:24 AM
Post #3


Unregistered









Not consuming vitals leads to internal breakdown and death.
Vitamins are required for life, the right amount is required,
not over super doses or over small doses,
different times in life require different amounts of food.
Consume no vital E, dead simple,
Consume right amount, best,(very hard to know what this
is in a special cohort)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post May 31, 2011, 02:24 PM
Post #4


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Lol none of these studies are conclusive about anything... An indepth review of the literature tells a very different story. It tells of the best efforts of the scientific community to prevent knowledge of the benefits of vitamins and alternative therapies.

If the research indicated otherwise, there wouldn't be over 60% of doctors taking vitamins.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
orangesand
post Jun 01, 2011, 12:40 AM
Post #5


Unregistered









If you know more about how something works, you may act different, as in a nutritionist making supplements, after seeing what happens to people in deficient states.
There are so many variables in such studies,a large scale meta analysis with proper inclusion/exclusion criteria yields more prudent answers.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Jun 01, 2011, 10:07 AM
Post #6


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



The fact that foods are fortified nullifies the studies. This was made government policy for a reason... Vitamins are called vitamins because they are essential to consume. We cannot synthesize them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2017 - 10:25 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles