Article: Vitamin Risk Overblown

  1. Registered User
    The Press's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,222
    Rep Power
    3062

    Article: Vitamin Risk Overblown



  2. Registered User
    Torobestia's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  250 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,199
    Rep Power
    141049

    And this was published in a well known journal? Sad. Good post, though, whoever posts ergo articles.
  3. Registered User
    compudog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    47
    Posts
    959
    Rep Power
    49938

    When this all came out before I was skeptical. I think they overlooked a potential correlation between exercise and diet; specifically, I think it's probably true that while a good number of people who take vitamins also exercise, I also think it's likely that a good number do not, simply because they feel that by taking vitamins they've "done their part". In any case, what they've done is *not* science. They've taken a set of data that was generated for a different study, and attempted to glean the information they want from it. The original study was intended to gather data about:"1) Determine if the distribution of body fat (waist/hip) predicts incidence of chronic diseases, with the primary endpoints being total mortality, and incident cancers of the breast, endometrium, and ovaries, and2) Determine to what degree diet and other lifestyle factors influence risk of chronic disease."So obviously the Iowa Women's Study was not designed to discern the effect of supplements on mortality. If the authors of the second "epidemiological" study want to learn about the effects of supplements on mortality then they would need to construct some tests designed to gather that data, then perform them. However, in today's world that's apparently too much work for a poor researcher, so we see these sorts of attempts at recycling data more and more often. I suppose it keeps the budget afloat, but it doesn't really contribute anything to the existing body of scientific knowledge.
    •   
       

  4. Administrator
    Board Administrator
    Admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,574
    Rep Power
    1000000

    Dr. Weil commented on this as well.

    Supplements and Research - YouTube
  5. Registered User
    Torobestia's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  250 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,199
    Rep Power
    141049

    Originally Posted by compudog View Post
    When this all came out before I was skeptical. I think they overlooked a potential correlation between exercise and diet; specifically, I think it's probably true that while a good number of people who take vitamins also exercise, I also think it's likely that a good number do not, simply because they feel that by taking vitamins they've "done their part". In any case, what they've done is *not* science. They've taken a set of data that was generated for a different study, and attempted to glean the information they want from it. The original study was intended to gather data about:"1) Determine if the distribution of body fat (waist/hip) predicts incidence of chronic diseases, with the primary endpoints being total mortality, and incident cancers of the breast, endometrium, and ovaries, and2) Determine to what degree diet and other lifestyle factors influence risk of chronic disease."So obviously the Iowa Women's Study was not designed to discern the effect of supplements on mortality. If the authors of the second "epidemiological" study want to learn about the effects of supplements on mortality then they would need to construct some tests designed to gather that data, then perform them. However, in today's world that's apparently too much work for a poor researcher, so we see these sorts of attempts at recycling data more and more often. I suppose it keeps the budget afloat, but it doesn't really contribute anything to the existing body of scientific knowledge.
    Absolutely. It's really bad how so much research being discussed in public media has absolutely no scientific foundation. That is, it's not conducting according to the scientific method (hello? didn't we go to middle and high school, guys?). I mean how many independent variables do you have to have before you're rejected from publishing these days? Lol
  6. Registered User
    MotorDoc's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  320 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    1
    Rep Power
    34

    Unfortunately it is a requirement of researchers and academia to publish and get research grants. The best way to do that is raise an alarm and get attention. Alternately, a lot of 'research' is funded by legal groups with the intention of using such 'research' in legal cases. I left academia after being asked to alter study results (energy engineering) because: a) it wasn't what the grantor wanted in results; and, b) my conclusions were conclusions and not a lead to more grant money. I felt my credibility and reputation were more important. After that experience I refuse to believe research unless I can review the premises and be able to come to my own conclusions. Also, I am wary of studies that conclude with: "more research is required," or some variation.

    Thank you for this article. It was excellent. Also, great link admin. thanks.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Vitamin D May Cut Multiple Sclerosis Risk
    By yeahright in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2006, 03:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in