Scientific Status for Vitamins

Scientific Status of Vitamins

Scientific methodology dictates that when new study results challenge current existing theories, they must be diligently tested many times and either verified and accepted or disproved and discarded. But instead today, some of these new discoveries are the ones getting attacked without verification, such as the Nurses' Health Study results showing increased bone fracture risk over the long term from greater milk consumption. Have you heard this before?

SIDEBAR: One major goal of this website is to explain how controversial study results might occur, such as the finding that increased milk consumption increased bone fracture risk instead of reducing it as the Dairy Industry has promoted for so many years. 

Early vitamin research results were mostly favorable studying vitamin levels arriving just in food. The current study findings using the supplements of isolated vitamins or minerals, thought to be the active nutrient responsible for the food benefits, have not consistently shown these same positive results. Some are positive, many are neutral, and a few are reporting adverse findings. Here is where science is failing to connect the right dots.

This example illustrates the "logic" here. Vitamin E has been repeatedly tested for heart disease benefits. The anti-oxidant disease theory says increasing vitamin E levels, an anti-oxidant, should result in positive effects to protect the heart. And it often does, but the lack of consistent positive results should have either changed this theory, or added another factor, such as the major use of the synthetic form of vitamin E or using only one isolated natural vitamin E family member, d'alpha tocopherol, out of eight found in nature.

Finally, an observant Doctor decided to measure vitamin E blood levels as alpha tocopherol between heart patients and healthy people. To his amazement, the alpha tocopherol levels were nearly the same. It was another vitamin E family member, gamma tocopherol, that consistently measured lower in heart patients. Therefore, under what premise would a Scientist think that adding extra alpha tocopherol vitamin E form would be related to a heart condition? Wouldn't increasing gamma tocopherol with a balanced whole vitamin E family make more sense? article article article

FYI: Of course, the vitamin E form alpha tocopherol is still vital. Read on!

First, the anti-oxidant theory of vitamins is only half right. Anti-oxidants need to be balanced in the body with some pro-oxidation reactions. Plus, Scientists are ignoring some vitamin interactions and failing to recognize vitamin dosage characteristics between food and isolated vitamins. The exact vitamin form and dosage used in a study should be mentioned as part of the result, but are often left out. The SELECT study looking at vitamin E and selenium for prostate health failed to mention that a high dose of the synthetic form of vitamin E was used. There are major differences between synthetic vitamin E and natural E that research results with one form would not necessarily predict the results from the other form. A fact mainstream medicine still refuses to accept. This is explained here. Plus the dosage used would have also generated unbalanced conditions to jeopardize results, which they did. ref

SIDEBAR: The mentioning of these examples should not suggest that the use of synthetic vitamins is always at fault for negative study results. The misuse of isolated natural vitamins is also an issue generating some detrimental actions. Plus, related synergisms could also be in play.

90% or more of Multiple Vitamins Obsolete

For over 75 years now, vitamin Scientists have operated with vitamin theories developed with the limited knowledge at the time in the 1940's. These faulty theories that are still riddled with half truths have influenced vitamin knowledge for so long that the majority, over 90%, of multiple vitamin formulas based upon them are simply obsolete. While there are many areas of effectiveness, the few shortcomings discovered by current research are not gaining the respect they deserve. Only a few innovative companies have changed formulas to capitalize from this new research and stay within the safe nutrient windows of optimal dosages, forms, and synergisms. 

Have you heard a vitamin D expert talk about "vitamin D binding protein" and how it influences bio-availability of vitamin D? Or that the body uses certain free radicals for beneficial functions before antioxidants step in and neutralize them? This should have modified the antioxidant theory of disease long ago. Or that bones are storage sites for excess consumed calcium and chronic overworking of this storage process may be counterproductive and accelerate the aging of bone building cells? This would compromise future bone integrity. Yes, this needs more verification, but it explains the apparent contradictions observed between low calcium intake with strong bone populations versus high calcium intake but weak bones better than any other theory. It can easily be tested for validity, and in fact, already has... ref  ref  This last reference talks about telomere preservation that is associated with longer life for osteoblasts, the bone building cells.

This website will present a clear and science supported view of the necessary updates in vitamin theories to correct these past faults. Science by it's nature is very slow to change or admit mistakes. While there are still issues needing more research, the existing study results are sufficient to show a new direction for vitamin knowledge. You deserve to know now about these novel concepts so you can make informed vitamin supplement decisions. The cost of waiting for mainstream nutrition to catch up could jeopardize your health.