Vites and Minerals are Dietary Supplements; but Not all Dietary Supplements are Vites and Minerals
Unless you’ve been living in a cave the last week or so, I’m sure you’ve heard about the latest study on dietary supplements. If you go by the headlines (as many folks simply scanning the news do), I wouldn’t blame you for concluding that dietary supplements are dangerous, in general – at least for older women. After all, that’s what the news articles proclaim: “Dietary Supplements Risky for Older Women, Study Finds” – or words to this effect.
For now, I’m inclined to leave the detailed critiques of this study to others – epidemiological study design and stats aren’t my strong suits. But I would like to register one objection: the constant switching between “dietary supplements” and “vitamin and mineral supplements” in the news reports (as well as in the text of the study); as if they were equivalent terms.
They aren’t. The study authors looked at…
…multivitamins; vitamins A, beta-carotene, B6, folic acid, B complex, C, D, and E; and minerals iron, calcium, copper, magnesium, selenium and zinc.
And found small increases in mortality associated with multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc and copper (calcium was associated with a decreased risk).
Given the prevalence of vitamin and mineral supplementation, certainly this is a finding that’s worth looking deeper into (although, for the record, I’m not too surprised about iron or copper… or the multis, many of which contain iron and copper). But do I need to remind anyone that this is a very limited and specific group of supps? The category “dietary supplements” includes a LOT of compounds that are definitely NOT vitamins or minerals. Thus, statements – like the headline quoted above – that broadly condemn “dietary supplements” go way too far, and could easily confuse casual readers/listeners.
I suppose it’s not entirely the fault of the media – as mentioned above, the study authors do this too. But this is imprecise at best, and alarmist at worst.
October 12, 2011
I’m not really sure what to make of this. The report specifically studied some vitamins and minerals. It stated that they could not prove they were directly associated with the deaths, only that the women were taking them.
It did’nt really explain if the doasages were monitored, or what their diets or activities were.
I really would have to argue about the headline being justified: “Dietary Supplements Risky for Older Women.”