Why do you imagine I didn’t read carefully……and consider his rationale (WRT vit D supplements)? For as much as nutritional science is a data poor area, I don’t think vit D toxicity secondary to rapid fat loss is likely to be a major concern for most folk who’re opting for judicious and mindful supplementation.
Edit: Mind you, now I think about it, I guess there might be a potential for hypervitaminosis with use of high dose supplements in someone obese who suddenly decides to take themselves in hand and follow a rapid fat loss diet. Maybe it’s something that ought to be (maybe even is) looked for with bariatric surgery or successful use of GLP-1 receptor agonists and concurrent use of a higher than recommended vitamin supplementation. That requires the individuals to be making a lot of choices that don’t comport to judicious and mindful use of supplements.
Do I? I wasn’t aware of that. Apologies. From my perspective I thought I was simply joining in a thread that implied that vitamin usage might be discussed. I can’t imagine why anyone would be surprised by that…..or that, if they’re uninterested, they’d just move along to one of the threads where vitamin usage isn’t being discussed.
Here you go, @WendyBG (not that I assume you’re the only person interested….or even that you are, come to that ) but here’s an interesting take on VitD supplementation from a cardiologist/electrophysiologist who I’ve followed since the early days of his blog….which is long before I realised he was talking about me. Anyways, it’s a take that appears to be contrary to ours (I knew that a priori, so knew what/who to look for and what I’d find…..like any good lawyer🤭) ……. but I would contend for the reasons I’ve mentioned upstream. That is, seemingly valid data and conclusions……but on populations and for a time frame different from our intetest. Now, it’s a long read…..especially if you follow up on the various hyperlinks…..and an even longer “think about” if you’re going to do that. I think it illustrates pretty well the difficulty in answering the sort of simple questions often asked on the topic of “does it work”…..especially in data poor areas.
P.S…… from the same site. How enlightened thinking can change over time, with more data.
It’s worth remembering (or simply being aware if one didn’t know in the first place) statin usage in primary prevention of ASCVD was a data poor area once upon a time.
Not to push you down the rabbit hole (as if) but I first read of John Mandrola and his blog on the Running Fools board over a decade ago. One of the Old Lags had posted an interesting article from Runner’s World on the effects of super high volumes of exercise and Afib…..mainly in Masters Athletes (as many of us were back then). It might’ve been this one although I thought it was earlier than dated…
I found his blog super interesting …… especially his change in attitude to the use of ablation in Afib as the field moved from data poor to data rich with the passage of time. I think the article was designed to promote his soon to be released book “The Haywire Heart” ….. which I did actually purchase when I joined him in the ranks of Afibbers.
No, “too much exercise” cannot be blamed for my experience…..quite the reverse.
Additionally, the conclusion in the “not a statin” article mentions joint decision making between a patient and their physician (with a nod to patient preferences and personal risk tolerance etc) This is very reminiscent of the visit my husband had after his spell of more aggressive anticoagulation therapy because of his problem with HALT…..and where I first heard “data poor” and “data rich” used in such a context. Dr M (our Dr M) emphasized that he didn’t have much evidence to offer for decision making.
His feelings were that it’s possible that late stage clot formation……such as happened with my husband…..could well be responsible for a chunk of the20% or so bio valves “going bad”. The reason why on their unit, close observation during the 5 year post op period was the norm. Manifestly no long term studies on comparing standard aspirin only therapy moving forward or whether to stick with double anticoagulation that had been used for clot reversal.
Since dh had no issues with the double acting regimen, he opted to stick with that …..since conditions that presumably favored clot formation hadn’t changed as far as he could tell.
Details relatively unimportant, but an example of two practising physicians who’re used to exercising enlightened thinking in a field with constantly changing/newly emergent data to contend with.
Not suspicious at all. Folks certainly are free to do it. It’s their money, and their bodies. I’ve just seen too many BS claims that people then cite as “proof”. Social media is really bad about that. I have personally known people who thought mayo in their hair reduces dandruff (if anything, probably had the opposite effect), taking a few grains of crystal borax (I think it was borax) improved their gastric health (which is actually dangerous), mega-doses of vitamins (probably mostly harmless, but expensive), and then there was the nonsense during COVID around bogus treatments instead of an actual vaccine, etc.
I think most people are too credulous. Granted, as a physicist I was trained to be skeptical of everything. If you have no data, then you don’t know. No matter how careful you think you are being. But, as you imply, sometimes you don’t have the data to make an informed decision. In which case, just know you are running an experiment on yourself. Usually harmless, but can be expensive (a lot of supplements aren’t cheap).
Skepticism is good….no, seriously. Requiring some degree of evidence for, or plausible explanation why interventions might be beneficial is the essence of scientific thinking. However, it’s very easy to drift into close-mindedness without being fully aware. Your own words betray you a little bit here.
Thus far in this thread, I don’t see anyone promoting anything like the ridiculous examples you cite here, or anything that could be inferred to be megadoses of anything….or a strategy that is data free. These false dichotomies suggest a sort of binary thinking along the lines of responding only after a deficiency can be detected by such testing as is currently available, or reckless self experimentation….without the perfectly reasonable middle ground (from my perspective, of course) of applying the knowledge that is available in a rational way.
I don’t recall such studies that’ve been mentioned on vitamin D or collagen supplementation in this thread noting harmful effects.
P.S…..and a quick add on, because I just remembered: vaccine “skeptics” have routinely chosen the better safe than sorry gambit to defend their choice to avoid not just the Covid vaccine, but flu….. along with MMR and TDaP shots for their kids.
Sorry if I implied that. Not my intent. No, in this thread no one has done that.
I do take supplements. Not many, but a few. Some recommended by PCP, and one I dug up studies on my own indicating at least some efficacy. All I was advocating was caution and skepticism.
Remind us again what you mean by vitamin believers?
For sure, folk who have one strange idea….a “belief” they’ve arrived at in an evidence free/evidence proof way……tend to hold other strange beliefs, and refuse to consider any evidence to refute their beliefs as it comes along. They also tend to hind behind false dichotomies in a disingenuous sort of way…..along with appeals to false authority as justification. There’s a shed load of that in this thread and no mistake.
If you’re confident that you’re doing everything possible…..or you can be arsed to do……in order to help your healthspan along (with or without guarantees) well, that’s AbFab. Have at it. However, it’s a mistake to portray those who’re making judicious and mindful efforts based on reasonable extrapolations of current knowledge (including, but not limited to safety data) ….. it only serves to highlight gaps in your knowledge and understanding of the topic.
The prompt, “why do most doctors dismiss vitamins”?
VeeEnn, my take any nonsense can be in a research study. You need to dismiss the research you are studying. More experienced people are constantly dismissing the research. That does not mean the NIH won’t keep it online or that snakeoil salesmen won’t use you.
AI Overview
Doctors are often cautious about vitamins because
a balanced diet is the best source of nutrients, and supplements can pose risks like negative drug interactions, harmful contaminants, and false promises due to a lack of stringent regulation. They also highlight that for most healthy adults, multivitamins show little to no clear benefit, and in some cases, high doses can be harmful.
Why doctors are cautious
Diet is superior: The most significant reason is that a balanced diet provides a full spectrum of nutrients, including phytonutrients and fiber, that supplements cannot replicate.
Lack of regulation: Supplements are regulated as a subcategory of food, not drugs, meaning they don’t undergo the same rigorous testing for safety and effectiveness that medications do. This can lead to products containing harmful contaminants or not having the potency listed on the label.
Potential for harm:
Drug interactions: Supplements can negatively interact with prescription medications, and many users, especially those on multiple drugs, are unaware of these risks.
Nutrient imbalance: Taking high doses of one nutrient can interfere with the body’s ability to absorb others. For example, calcium can block iron absorption.
Harmful effects: Some supplements have been shown to be harmful, such as high-dose vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E.
Lack of proven benefit for most people:
For well-nourished adults, there is little evidence that multivitamins provide a clear benefit.
Studies have shown no difference between those who took dietary supplements and those who did not, after years of follow-up.
Lack of formal education: Many doctors have received little formal education in alternative or complementary medicine.
Commercial influence: Marketing can be misleading, creating an assumption that supplements are a replacement for a healthy diet or that they are more beneficial than they are.
When vitamins can be beneficial
Specific deficiencies: Supplements can be very beneficial if a person has a confirmed vitamin deficiency.
During pregnancy: Supplemental folic acid is crucial for pregnant women.
Older adults: Supplements like calcium and vitamin D may be helpful for older adults to prevent fractures and falls.
How to safely use vitamins
Consult your doctor: Always talk to your doctor or pharmacist before starting a supplement, especially if you take other medications or have health concerns.
Look for verification: Choose products with third-party verification marks like the USP Verified mark to ensure the product contains what the label says it does.
Avoid using them as a substitute for food: Do not use supplements to replace a healthy diet.
Again, I’ll point out that nowhere in this thread have those of us who’ve pretty much nailed the bullet points with the commonly accepted strategies outlined in the second half of the false dichotomy gambit AI overview has gifted you, resemble making the sort of decisions suggested in the first.
I’ll also point out…..and it really does only apply to folk who are nailing the good dietary/other lifestyle habits…..my example, cited frequently over the last 3+ years, demonstrates how relying on standard tests (what I call The Usual Suspects in a lipid profile) can leave one at the mercy of the shortcomings in what’s currently understood/accepted. Finding out that I have pretty advanced coronary artery disease at the age of 69. A very obvious example of a failure to intervene at an appropriate point because of the seemingly low risk over the short term without thought to the longer term.
For sure, I doubt that topping up my Vitamin D levels marginally, for but one example, will have quite the impact……but it’s as foolish to assume no benefit over say 20 -30 years (because studies haven’t run that long) as it would have been to squawk something similar back in the 1980s/90s because of the lack of long term data on statin at that time (or even now….as some are wont to do…..because of denialism/ignorance)
) but here’s an interesting take on VitD supplementation from a cardiologist/electrophysiologist who I’ve followed since the early days of his blog….which is long before I realised he was talking about me. Anyways, it’s a take that appears to be contrary to ours (I knew that a priori, so knew what/who to look for and what I’d find…..like any good lawyer🤭) ……. but I would contend for the reasons I’ve mentioned upstream. That is, seemingly valid data and conclusions……but on populations and for a time frame different from our intetest. Now, it’s a long read…..especially if you follow up on the various hyperlinks…..and an even longer “think about” if you’re going to do that. I think it illustrates pretty well the difficulty in answering the sort of simple questions often asked on the topic of “does it work”…..especially in data poor areas.