Multivitamins Useless for Preventing Cancer and Heart Disease

I also read the article that contained the information on this "study" and in that article they at least admitted that the study was only an observational one so further studies would be required to draw conclusive information on this.
My specific questions about these conclusions are
1. Were quality of life/energy levels assessed in regard to vitamin use?
2. How long had they been using vitamins?
3. What kind of vitamin did they use (price aside, all vitamins and raw materials for vitamins are NOT created equal and some cheaper forms are more likely to cause problems in higher doses)

I do agree that nutrients should first be obtained through clean, organic (local as much as possible) food, secondly from food sourced supplements and lastly from high quality but low dose isolated nutrients.

Also, most mulitvitamins contain very little of the kind of phytonutrients known to protect against cancer so to make sweeping conclusions about "vitamins" instead of about the specific things being used by the participants of this study seems not only negligent but boarding on malicious.

I also read this article. I noticed that the study involved post menopausal woman. At that age most of the damage has already been done. Obviousley vitamins can't fix damage or reverse it. So keep taking those vitamins! even if we dont know exactley how they help.
Lana

Strange... I take Optimum Nutrition Opti-Men and it a lot more than a multi vitamin. 1st of all it is not synthetic like the ones in this study. It contains Amino Acids, Fruit Extracts, Digestive enzymes and more. Animal Pak is like Opti men but are horse pills and more expensive.

Would this also be useless?

My mother was having problems with hot flashes. I told her to take the woman's version of my vitamin and she felt a lot better.

In one of Dr. Oz's books, he says you should live like someone who takes a multivitamin; not necessarily TAKE a multivitamin every day. He mentioned studies that showed that women who take a multi generally eat more fruits/veggies, exercise more, drink less, and don't smoke vs. people who don't take a multi. I think a lot of people who take vitamin supplements probably are already pretty health-conscious, so they take the multi as insurance. Think about it...how many people who eat crap every day and smoke 2 packs of cigarettes are out there thinking: "I better take my vitamin today"? Good health is probably not at the top of their lists of priorities.

I actually take a multi every day just to cover my bases. Mine just has the 100% RDA for everything, but it has extra iron because I tend to be anemic. I also take a fish oil supplement and a calcium/D supplement because I don't eat a lot of fish and I need more calcium in my diet than I eat in my food.

The problem with most of these studies is that very poor quality low dose supplements are used. Typically one a day type products have low bioavailability and do not provide significant benefits.

I think this study has too many variables, and poor design to give it much credibility. Whether their conclusion is correct or not, I don't know. I still will take my vitamins.

The problem with multivitamins (most) is that people don't read lables and are not careful of where they buy them. If it is cheap and from the pharmacy or grocery store most likely the 'vitamins' are synthetic...which at best do next to nothing and at the worst and on the long run can actually be damaging.

Many vitamins/minerals should not be taken together because they either cancel each other out or bind in a way to prevent absorbtion of other vits/minerals.

And, of course, many of these observational studies are worded in a way that they are all conclusive and 'the final verdict'. Like other commenters here, ask:
Who is funding it/Who benefits from it.
How was the study done?
Was what was studied synthetic or natural.

I prefer to supplement with certain single vitamins and enzymes and minerals according to what I sense/know what I may be missing. Not as 'convenient' but effective for us and certainly better.

We have a multi which we occasionally take as well, but it is quite balanced and natural. You won't find calcium and iron, nor zinc in them...for all the good reasons you can find out if you take the time to study about them.

It is for this reason that traditional ways of eating were healthier (certain foods never together or naturally separate). And is the reason why I am more aware of certain food combinations.

Natural vitamins cost more. Either invest in your health or don't bother wasting money with synthetic vitamins. They ARE NOT the same, I don't care what the 'scientists' claim that molecularily they are. They are missing an important factor that the body on a cellular level senses.

Anyone want to bet that the 'study' never bothered to look into whether the multis were synthetic or not...or HOW and WHEN they were taken??

If anyone looks at my website, you'll know that I fully endorse vitamins.

All I have to say is that you should go put your daily diet into www.fitday.com - Then look at the nutrition tab.

If your diet gets enough of every vitamin and mineral, then don't take one. If your bar charts are falling short (mine typically does for thiamine), then you should take a multi.

If you're a competitive athlete, large person, or work out very hard, you probably have requirements greater than the RDA too.