The nutrition study the $30B supplement industry doesn’t want you to see
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
First, structural, flaw in the study: its actually just a statistical analysis of another study...which was based on self-reporting of diets and exercise habits.
Second, fatal, flaw in the study: they actually found a positive correlation between supplements and health...until they "adjusted" for demographic data and activity levels. In other words, they p-hacked until they found the result they wanted. The big problem? They filtered out everyone who uses supplements because they derive health benefits from using them. Obviously, once you filter out all the people who benefit from supplements you're left with the people who didn't...
Supplements do have benefits with respect to addressing nutrition deficiencies related to diet, which is the whole point of using supplements in the first place. And that's the reason that people with higher incomes and activity levels use them...
All in all, this is just another case of bad science issued by researchers needing more grant money (or tenure) and being promulgated by the media .
That kind of adjustment is necessary to get meaningful results.
Like many men my age, I have developed an autoimmune reaction to the bits that are supposed to absorb B12, so I have to take 5000ug to absorb the 2ug I need. Should I be counted as benefiting from supplements? Lab tests showed an elevated homocysteine level, an indication of B12 deficiency. I would say not.
Testing everybody for every possible deficiency, or need for a more than normal amount, of any particular thing would be very expensive, and inconclusive. Taking a multi supplement might take care of many such problems without the analysis, but there is now plenty of evidence for harm in megadoses. (Maybe I got my auroimmune reaction from megadoses?) In any case, a multi doesn't have enough to fix my problem.
What is clear from many, many careful studies is that many particular supplements utterly fail to provide the benefits expected, for most people, and actually harm some people. That includes particularly vitamins C, D, and E, and fish oil extracts.
Look at the ingredients used in the 'Impossible Burger' to replicate the vitamins and minerals found in real meat:
Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12
Or the additives found in products like Soylent.
If these vitamins and minerals don't work with pills, do they work with processed food?
Its already clear that you should take supplement pills at the same time as eating - so these processed foods at least avoid that problem.
There's also countless manufacturers, with wildly varying degrees of reputability.
To make sweeping claims about "supplements" is kind of like making claims about "Europeans" or "Asians" or whatever. It's such a ridiculously broad term.
The full text is behind a paywall.
edit:Can I have feedback about what I have wrong or have misunderstood?
The problem is, that communicates you've pre-supposed the outcome of the study, and projects the image that you're not really as interested in the answer as you are in a quick dopamine hit from getting in a zinger.
That's just off the top of my head mind.
It also leaves out the fact that industry isn't actually incentivized to fund studies to work out when supplements won't do anything for you. They want to increase sales, not give you an easy out of buying them.
At the end of the day, that leaves a consumer with mediocre capability to generate what we'd call substantive data to reach their own subjective conclusions. That people do so, and feel better by doing so certainly doesn't seem to be worthy of derision in my opinion. I just wish the industry's incentives were more in line with improving quality of life rather than straight up profit mongering.