This is an interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading and learning from those within the medical profession. Thanks all for sharing.
Broadly on topic...
For those who have time (90 mins), this is a very interesting video.
Dr. Jeffrey Tice is a
Board Certified MD, Internal Medicine. He has been involved in numerous
research publications.
Summary: all popular supplements studied (
Vitamins A,
C &
E;
beta-carotene;
calcium;
antioxidants) are
harmful or
unhelpful or
unknown;
Vitamin D3 and
Omega 3s are
unknown (future tests are around the corner);
CoQ10 &
Glucomsamine don't appear beneficial, but are yet
unknown.
It is worth noting that his examples are referring to
synthetic supplements only, since these make up such a large portion of North American consumption.
According to Dr. Tice, according to the evidence, a diet containing a variety of "real" foods full of
naturally occurring nutrients is
always better (notwithstanding individuals with specific health concerns requiring a supplemental nutrient dose unattainable through diet alone, where the risks of non-supplementation outweigh the risks of supplementation) for long-term health than one supplemented by synthetic drugs. They don't know why, but for some reason, humans appear to be generally more healthy when getting somewhat less-than-"optimal" daily nutrition from raw sources, compared to "optimal" daily nutrition from artificial or processed sources.
I've never seen/heard evidence for such claims before, but his arguments a fairly compelling. Despite the strange breach in logic (why wouldn't the identical synthetic supplement act the same way in the body as its natural counterpart?), there is actually a modicum of intuition here, I think.
It's certainly simpler (and debatably cheaper; though not necessarily
easier) to stick to eating real food and forgetting about supplements all together... if this research holds weight.
Thoughts?