Scientific Methods

It is long past time for the Scientific community to start living up to their own scientific protocols. If a study uses synthetic vitamin E, the results cannot be connected to natural vitamin E. This is due to the fact that natural vitamin E is very different structurally and activity level from synthetic vitamin E.  While the body acknowledges this fact, mainstream medicine refuses to own up that they made a mistake many years ago when they thought they had equalized the differences between the two. ref ref  Yet this is found throughout the scientific and media comments about vitamin study results. Plus, when vitamin study results are announced, a percentage is often the only statistic given. This unfortunately gives very little insight into the reality of the result.

Numbers versus Percentages in Results

Here is an example to show how this percentage to real numbers might play out. A heart attack vitamin E study found that in the non vitamin E control group there were 9 heart attacks out of 1000 people, while in the vitamin E group there were only 6. That is 3 less out of 1000, not such a large amount. But reported as a percentage, it would be 33% less heart attacks in the vitamin E group which sounds more impressive. Where the numbers per 1000 do become significant is when you consider the Public at large of say 10 million, then that 3 out of 1000 becomes 30,000 out of 10 million, but that is still just a small fraction at .33 of 1% of the 10 million people.

The Scientific Method should only compare or associate study results of apples to apples instead of apples to oranges. Unfortunately, many vitamin studies fail to mention form differences of the vitamin under study and overstate results to refer to all forms. Unless all the different vitamin forms are in the study, they cannot be inferred to be part of the results. The vitamins with form differences include Vitamins A, C, D, E, K, B1, B2, B6, B12, Folic Acid, Pantothenic Acid, Choline, and Beta Carotene. Some differences are slight while others are major.

CHAOS STUDY RESULTS CONFUSING

The CHAOS study actually found 71% less nonfatal heart attacks in their study on vitamin E. ref That is a very significant percentage, but one would need to see the per 1000 difference in numbers to picture how significant. One fact from the study said of the total 59 heart attacks, only 6 were in the vitamin E group. Now that is pretty significant. But, look at the overall CVD death rate, not exactly a vitamin E benefit as there were more. So, all factors need to be evaluated for impact which is difficult to achieve. And, like in prostate disease, there are different vitamin E family members that could play significant roles other than just d-alpha tocopherol. To add greater diversity, many vitamin E studies only use the synthetic form of dl-alpha tocopherol. Just 17% of synthetic vitamin E contains an exact structural match to the natural form in d-alpha tocopherol. But half of synthetic E parts are close enough to give synthetic E about 67% activity of natural vitamin E.

ATTEMPT TO UNCONFUSE study results

Because study results are often expressed in confusing terms and numbers, a simple method was developed to help simplify results. The NNT system stands for the Number (of people) Needed to Treat to prevent the increase of one person from coming down with the disease or condition under study. A calcium vitamin D study on preventing bone fractures might have a NNT of 450. That means for every 450 people that take calcium and vitamin D, just one bone fracture would be prevented. That is just one below the normal number of bone fractures that would normally occur in 450 people who did not take calcium and vitamin D.

The following study results are given as an example of how results are written. This is an analysis of many studies put into one result. Not always exact since each study might have had unique parameters and subject selecting criteria.

FYI: Scientists can manipulate study procedures, sample group sizes and criteria, plus twist data to tilt results in different directions. Conflicts of interest are not always evident and source of money grants could go unmentioned. One could find 100 studies on the same topic with a dozen different outcomes. This is one reason that Government Health Agencies fail to reach similar conclusions or recommendations.

Example of how study results are listed

Study Selection  Randomized clinical trials comparing calcium, vitamin D, or combined calcium and vitamin D supplements with a placebo or no treatment for fracture incidence in community-dwelling adults older than 50 years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios (RRs), absolute risk differences (ARDs), and 95% CIs using random-effects models.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Hip fracture was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were nonvertebral fracture, vertebral fracture, and total fracture.

Results  A total of 33 randomized trials involving 51 145 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant association of calcium or vitamin D with risk of hip fracture compared with placebo or no treatment (calcium: RR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.42]; ARD, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.01]; vitamin D: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.47]; ARD, 0.00 [95% CI, −0.00 to 0.01]. There was no significant association of combined calcium and vitamin D with hip fracture compared with placebo or no treatment (RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.39]; ARD, 0.00 [95% CI, −0.00 to 0.00]). No significant associations were found between calcium, vitamin D, or combined calcium and vitamin D supplements and the incidence of nonvertebral, vertebral, or total fractures. Subgroup analyses showed that these results were generally consistent regardless of the calcium or vitamin D dose, sex, fracture history, dietary calcium intake, and baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration.

Breakdown

calcium: RR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.42]

For calcium on Risk Ratio of 1.53. > a RR of 1.00 represents no action either positive or negative. Generally, over 1 starts to increase risk. 2.00 is double the risk. Under 1 is less risk,  .50 is half the risk. 

The 0.97 to 2.42 is the range that the test subjects exhibited. A few had lower risk at .97 while some had a much higher risk at 2.42. Since RR listed ata 1.53, more were at lower end than higher as the overall average was 1.53.

For ARD, the absolute risk differences ( ARD, 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.01]

at .01, this represents very little if any differences between the test subjects taking calcium and the group not taking calcium on bone fractures rates.

No NNT given since not pertinent for thse results.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM a PROSTATE STUDY

These results list a slightly different way to report, as a percentage.

"Among the 643 men who were randomly assigned to placebo or supplementation with folic acid, the estimated probability of being diagnosed with prostate cancer over a 10-year period was 9.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.5% to 14.5%) in the folic acid group and 3.3% (95% CI = 1.7% to 6.4%) in the placebo group (age-adjusted hazard ratio = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.23 to 5.65, Wald test P = .01)"

FOLIC ACID increased prostate cancer rate in this study.

Test subjects taking folic acid develped prostate cancer at 9.7% compared to those not taking folic acid in the placebo group at just 3.3%. Using the typical way as mentioned in the first study, the risk would be 2.63, 95% CI. While a very significant difference, this was from a rather small study group with very few cases of prostate cancers in either group. Larger study groups needed to verify. This small study will get lots of different articles using this data so a certain amount of caution is needed not to think there are many different studies. article article ref

A number of later studies only added inconsistencies to these results. Folic acid deficiencies increase cancer risks, while too much may be questionable as well.  Here is a recent work to summarize what may really be happening, using results from numerous studies with analysis. ref < this link has been lost and another way to access study has to be found. This is typical as reference links get older and journals change formats or move older work.

"Junk Food" Vitamins

In order to make sense of the current lot of Multiple Vitamin Products in the Marketplace coupled with some adverse study resuslts, a new description has sprung to life. Multiple Vitamins today are now over-flowing with "Junk Food" Vitamins.

What are "Junk Food" Vitamins?

Simply, "junk Food" Vitamins are low quality isolated vitamins missing Nature's related synergistic nutrients or preferred forms, at more or less than healthy dosages. They are the white flour of whole wheat or the polished white kernals of brown rice. While junk food vitamins have some value, there are better choices to maximize health. Perhaps some clarification will explain this concept.

VITAMIN E

• The term Vitamin E is only given to one form (alpha tocopherol) out of 8 related forms found in nature with similar structure and activity. When this decision originally was made, only one function of vitamin E was considered, and the alpha tocopherol form appeared to represent most of this activity.
• The other 3 tocopherols, beta, delta, and gamma, were not allowed to be called vitamin E or given vitamin E units. Plus the related tocotrienols, with the same four configurations, were blanked out as well. 
• Now, after almost 70 years and only a decade of research on the other "vitamin E" family members, the original vitamin E choice was discovered to be short-sighted. While these other forms have some similar functions with the alpha form, they also have unique functions that alpha tocopherol does not do, like tocotrienols lowering cholesterol. article
• In fact, these other E family members function in many areas that suggest a major impact on some current degenerative diseases. article
• Plus the synthetic form of vitamin E makes this decision even less effective. Synthetic vitamin E was initially considered to be only 65% as active as the same amount of natural E. But a test recently with fetal blood levels revealed it is only equal to about 50%. 
• The degree and areas of influence for alpha tocopherol are enhanced in the presence of the other tocopherols. Nature uses synergisms to increase actions. 
• Tocotrienols are superior in antioxidant and anti-inflammatory actions compared to tocopherols.
• Alpha tocopherol works best against oxygen radicals but does not touch nitrogen radicals.
• Gamma tocopherol works against nitrogen radicals. Both are needed in tandem to protect prostate.
• Gamma tocopherol is more effective than alpha for increasing superoxide dismutasse (SOD) activity.
• Alpha tocotrienol is more effective than alpha tocopherol in neutralizing lipid (fat) peroxidation.
• Gamma tocotrienol is more effective against oxidative damage in brain mitochondria than alpha tocopherol.
• There are more differences. Vitamin E is a team of 8 related forms. They ALL are vital to health.
• Synthetic vitamin E (dl'alpha tocopheryl) is a "junk Food" vitamin. And isolated by itself, natural d'alpha tocopherol misses out on many health improving opportunities when the other family forms are not included.
• This does not imply that d'alpha tocopherol is not vital, but just that all 8 forms are optimally necessary.
• Studies have not yet reached agreement on ideal ratios or balance amounts for the 8 vitamin E family players. Different cultures and resulting diets exhibit wide swings in ratios and amounts. It may relate to challenges presented by each diet and environment. 
• Tocopherols and tocotrienols should ideally be taken separately since they compete for the same absorption channels. Nature often separates them in different foods. Variety is nature's choice.

SELENIUM 

• Selenium comes in essentially two forms, an inorganic form from soil as selenates and selenites, or an organic form bound with proteins as found in plants or animals that eat plants, etc.
• While both forms are found in supplements, when the soil inorganic forms are consumed, the body has to do the work of plants to change the forms into protein combinations. Mother Nature did not intent for humans to eat dirt, although some nutrients could be of value from this source.
• all Selenium forms can become toxic at higher amounts. There is a narrow window of dosages needed. Once these amounts are reached, excesses simply increase toxic reactive oxygen species (ROS), or free radicals. Of interest, this increased ROS production is the concept of how selenium is being used against cancers. The increased oxidative stress destroys cancer cells, but it is also not that good for normal healthy body functions either.
• These therapeutic pro-oxidant applications are beyond the scope of selenium as nutrition and it's normal functioning as an anti-oxidant. This anit-oxidant action is only from the organic forms of selenium.
• In April of 2009, an injection of a vitamin mineral formulas was given to Polo horses. Within a few hours, 21 prized Polo houres died. The mixture mistakenly contained too much selenium selenite.
• This prompted the study of selenium selenite toxicity. While the horses were given 10 times too much, the toxicity of selenium was researched and limits were stresed for nutrition amounts.
• A process to reduce the toxicity of selenium forms was found- Methylation of selenium.
• These forms did not generate superoxides in test tube studies and appear to be quite liss toxic inside the body.
• The methylated forms of seleium include; selenomethione and Se-methylselenocysteine. There may still be some breakdown of these forms that can turn into toxic forms, but quite less than the other forms of selenium. 
• CAUTION: methylselenide is toxic. Also Methylselenol. Luckily, these forms are not found in supplements, but some of the above safer forms could generate into these forms. Thus the need for precaution in amounts supplemented of any form of selenium. Especially if the soil is naturally high like it is in many areas in the USA.
• The inorganic forms of selenium are "junk food" mineral forms.

 NOTE: The methylation process if metals and non-metals may be the way the body controls and generates detoxification.

This Doctors description is pretty good and looks to be the originator of the junk food vitamin concept. But, there are still some gaps in the product formulas on the site. article  The beta carotene source is not listed so mixed carotenoid content no known. The Multiple vitamin serving size should be limited to 1 or 2 per day not 3. And the B gcomplex to just one instead of two. Even though the folate form is better, it might be too high since the synthetic form is fortified in many flour, cereal, and rice foods which adds to the total per day.