Multivitamins Useless - Just a Media Attention-Grabber?

[Virucyde]

Every time I go searching for multivitamin information or studies I'm bombarded by articles showing new studies that seem to show multivitamins as useless. Now, I know the common response on these forums to this idea is something like this:

I can’t dignify posting a serious response to this. Dude, you obviously haven’t researched this have you lol. Just take a multivitamin. Bodybuilders are also humans and subject to the same laws and principals of biology, et al.

The only difference is that we’re just fighting a war against normality and conformity, exploiting our knowledge and using it to get HYOOOGE!

I think less than about 1-2% of the people here would argue that a multivitamin is useless. And their outlandish theology comes from a bunch of hippy, far-out ideals that don’t really take place in the real world. Bottom line is that it’s damn near impossible to find a perfectly balanced diet and not sacrifice a whole boatload of scrilla, not spend hours upon hours needlessly preparing a stupid variety of meals and not go insane trying to acquire these nutrients from different food sources. It just doesn’t make sense.

Don’t neglect the importance of nutrition, and don’t forget to take your multi.

Now I find it funny that this response has the audacity to say "you obviously haven't researched this have you." Since as far as I can see all the research shows that the multivitamin fails to absorb properly, and ultimately ends up unused by the body. My response to this type of post is this: the question isn't whether or not our bodies need nutrition, or whether the multivitamins CONTAIN the nutrition, the question is whether multivitamins are capable of DELIVERING that nutrition.

Now, I want to make it clear that I really WANT multivitamins to work. I would love it if it were possible for me to eat a poorly balanced diet, and as long as I hit my macros(with the help of protein/fiber supplements, most likely) and took my multivitamin, I wouldn't have any malnutrition issues.

So I suppose that's my question. Are multivitamins effective enough to fix a poor diet, or are they just an expensive placebo/waste? Most of the studies that seem to say no are admittedly testing if they help prevent disease or major health issues. If anyone knows any studies focused on healthy people, or multivitamin use in third world countries, I'd love to see them. My searches with Google Scholar aren't turning up any good results.

[donwayne]

Every time I go searching for multivitamin information or studies I'm bombarded by articles showing new studies that seem to show multivitamins as useless. Now, I know the common response on these forums to this idea is something like this:



Now I find it funny that this response has the audacity to say "you obviously haven't researched this have you." Since as far as I can see all the research shows that the multivitamin fails to absorb properly, and ultimately ends up unused by the body. My response to this type of post is this: the question isn't whether or not our bodies need nutrition, or whether the multivitamins CONTAIN the nutrition, the question is whether multivitamins are capable of DELIVERING that nutrition.

Now, I want to make it clear that I really WANT multivitamins to work. I would love it if it were possible for me to eat a poorly balanced diet, and as long as I hit my macros(with the help of protein/fiber supplements, most likely) and took my multivitamin, I wouldn't have any malnutrition issues.

So I suppose that's my question. Are multivitamins effective enough to fix a poor diet, or are they just an expensive placebo/waste? Most of the studies that seem to say no are admittedly testing if they help prevent disease or major health issues. If anyone knows any studies focused on healthy people, or multivitamin use in third world countries, I'd love to see them. My searches with Google Scholar aren't turning up any good results.

Multivitamins are ABSOLUTELY effective. There are so many micronutrients that are valuable to your body though that no multivitamin alone can truly replace a balanced diet though. I don't think anyone can answer exactly what you would be missing only eating cheeseburgers and taking multivitamins but I suggest taking note of what areas you don't feel optimal in and than compensating with either a good food that supplements that or a vitamin. Check out examine.com if you ever have specific questions on which nutrients are important for what!

[Virucyde]

Multivitamins are ABSOLUTELY effective.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=multivitamins+effectiveness

I suppose that was really the core question of this thread. Just read the first few results and you'll understand my confusion. I'd like evidence to support the claim that appears to be the basis of your argument.

[SoloX5]

Multivitamins are ABSOLUTELY effective. There are so many micronutrients that are valuable to your body though that no multivitamin alone can truly replace a balanced diet though. I don't think anyone can answer exactly what you would be missing only eating cheeseburgers and taking multivitamins but I suggest taking note of what areas you don't feel optimal in and than compensating with either a good food that supplements that or a vitamin. Check out examine.com if you ever have specific questions on which nutrients are important for what!

Here we go: http://examine.com/faq/do-i-need-a-multivitamin.html

[Virucyde]

To quote what was useful from that article:

Multivitamins are very good if you have a horrible diet, but they lose much of their benefit when you have a good diet; unfortunately, many people with good diets take them needlessly. Just supplement with the nutrients you need

The citations at the bottom also linked me to the kinds of studies I was looking for, however, none of them really seem to be answering my question, the first one was along the lines, but it looked like all it showed was the abstract, and not the actual research results. The rest were just studies on multivitamin's effects on disease rates. Still, I think the quote above is a reasonable statement.

[tjwessksu]

Read any book by a nutritionally oriented doctor and they will support the use of multivitamins if needed (very few have perfect diets, we don't rotate crops anymore, soil is blasted with toxins, etc..). Read anything from mark hyman, joseph mercola, jonny bowden, or stephen sinatra. Most multivitamin studies are worthless.

[Virucyde]

Read any book by a nutritionally oriented doctor and they will support the use of multivitamins if needed (very few have perfect diets, we don't rotate crops anymore, soil is blasted with toxins, etc..). Read anything from mark hyman, joseph mercola, jonny bowden, or stephen sinatra. Most multivitamin studies are worthless.

So... Random opinions from authors are clearly true, while studies with large populations, control groups and double blind tests are worthless. Any other gems of genius you have to provide? Logically multivitamins make sense, until you consider that they may not be delivering the nutrients they contain. That's probably why these authors have supported them so much. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, but admittedly they don't have any proof.

[HY314]

So... Random opinions from authors are clearly true, while studies with large populations, control groups and double blind tests are worthless. Any other gems of genius you have to provide? Logically multivitamins make sense, until you consider that they may not be delivering the nutrients they contain. That's probably why these authors have supported them so much. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, but admittedly they don't have any proof.

Multi-vitamins are dietary supplements. To answer your original question, no they are not "effective enough to fix a poor diet". As anyone will tell you, whole foods are better than supplements and the only reason to supplement is if you cannot or are not getting enough of something from whole foods. So, although a multi-v is not a panacea for a poor diet, it is an effective supplement to any diet.

Are they a waste of money? Well the answer to that is going to depend on your diet and your perception of monetary value.

[tjwessksu]

Virucyde, many studies to "prove" one way or another if supplements are worth it have major ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Follow the money trail..

[Virucyde]

Virucyde, many studies to "prove" one way or another if supplements are worth it have major ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Follow the money trail..

Except the majority of them are "proving" (??) that they don't work. I don't see how pharmaceutical's could possibly benefit from that.

[tjwessksu]

"Proving"-ex: using a very large population study of overage women, not accounting for many other factors such as what medications they are taking, to prove that multivitamins increase the risk of death, also not taking into consideration the absorption of the multivitamin, are the minerals chelated, what kind of delivery mechanism did the multi use, etc.. this was the Iowa Women's health study that was released last year by JAMA. (major ties to the pharmaceutical industry, if you cannot see this you're blind).

Really? You don't see how they can benefit? Making us sick by telling us not to live healthy and take vitamins to support the fundamental minerals that big agribusiness fails to provide us with, hence we will end up needing more medications when something goes wrong from that one mineral you can be deficient in for a long time.. You need to do a little more research and stop following the media

[Mmats]

Except the majority of them are "proving" (??) that they don't work. I don't see how pharmaceutical's could possibly benefit from that.

You dont see how big pharma would benefit from people being unhealthy?...

Why dont you test out the theory you seem to be pushing? Avoid any food/drink with vitamin C until you get scurvy, then start supplementing vitamin C in your diet. If you dont die, then supplementing vitamins is effective.

[tjwessksu]

You dont see how big pharma would benefit from people being unhealthy?...

Why dont you test out the theory you seem to be pushing? Avoid any food/drink with vitamin C until you get scurvy, then start supplementing vitamin C in your diet. If you dont die, then supplementing vitamins is effective.

Hahaha, yeah i thought that was funny. He could use a few vitamins in his diet to support his brain.

[tjwessksu]

A great quote from Dr. Bob Rakowski-"Trying to live on the RDA levels of nutrients is like trying to live on minimum wage." You'll barely avoid death, but it doesn't set you up for optimal health and vitality.

[nic9212]

I need my Multivitamins everyday

[Virucyde]

You dont see how big pharma would benefit from people being unhealthy?...

Why dont you test out the theory you seem to be pushing? Avoid any food/drink with vitamin C until you get scurvy, then start supplementing vitamin C in your diet. If you dont die, then supplementing vitamins is effective.

And you don't see how big pharmacies would benefit from selling over half of Americans useless clumps of vitamins? I actually would be quite interested to see someone attempt what you're saying, actually, because at least it would give some sort of proof they do something. Please click the link to the Google search I posted and check out some of the studies.

[Mmats]

And you don't see how big pharmacies would benefit from selling over half of Americans useless clumps of vitamins? I actually would be quite interested to see someone attempt what you're saying, actually, because at least it would give some sort of proof they do something. Please click the link to the Google search I posted and check out some of the studies.

How exactly would big pharma profit from vitamins? You cant hold a patent on a god dam vitamin, they hold patents on the stuff they are creating in labs....(prozac, ******, etc). When people talk about big pharma, they arent talking about walgreens you know?

If you cant find a good pubmed study which shows that oral vitamins are indeed absorbed, then I dont know what to tell you. Stick to reading newspapers I guess.

Edit: Ill give you one - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18326608

[SpaethCO]

How exactly would big pharma profit from vitamins? You cant hold a patent on a god dam vitamin, they hold patents on the stuff they are creating in labs....(prozac, ******, etc). When people talk about big pharma, they arent talking about walgreens you know?

One a Day is a brand produced by pharma company Bayer.

Centrum is a brand produced by pharma company Pfizer.

To get the other drugs you are talking about you have to see a medical professional, be diagnosed with a specific illness/condition, and get prescribed that medication to treat that very specific ailment. The sales potential of patented drugs is limited both by medical screening and economics. Meanwhile, anyone can go and freely purchase a multivitamin from any variety of retail establishment without having to incur the expense of a medical consult. If there was definitive proof that multivitamins could prevent cancer, you don't think Bayer and Pfizer would rake in tons of cash from the extra sales?

When gauging their importance, also keep in mind that multivitamin supplements have only been in existence for less than 100 years. Somehow our ancestors managed to carry civilization forward to this point without pills that contained xxxx% of the RDA of each important nutrient.

[w8killer]

How exactly would big pharma profit from vitamins? You cant hold a patent on a god dam vitamin, they hold patents on the stuff they are creating in labs....(prozac, ******, etc). When people talk about big pharma, they arent talking about walgreens you know?

If you cant find a good pubmed study which shows that oral vitamins are indeed absorbed, then I dont know what to tell you. Stick to reading newspapers I guess.

Edit: Ill give you one - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18326608

^ Bingo. ^

[Mmats]

One a Day is a brand produced by pharma company Bayer.

Centrum is a brand produced by pharma company Pfizer.

To get the other drugs you are talking about you have to see a medical professional, be diagnosed with a specific illness/condition, and get prescribed that medication to treat that very specific ailment. The sales potential of patented drugs is limited both by medical screening and economics. Meanwhile, anyone can go and freely purchase a multivitamin from any variety of retail establishment without having to incur the expense of a medical consult. If there was definitive proof that multivitamins could prevent cancer, you don't think Bayer and Pfizer would rake in tons of cash from the extra sales?

Nevertheless, the individual components of the multivitamins cannot be patented by Bayer or Pfizer, and thus can be replicated by anyone and everyone at little cost. These companies stand to make much more from their patented compounds.

Multivitamins can prevent many serious diseases, given that individuals had otherwise poor diets over long periods of time. For bodybuilders and most other people though, multivitamins are simply a safety net. You seem to suggest that oral vitamins are worthless, yet I just posted a study proving they can be very effective when warranted.

When gauging their importance, also keep in mind that multivitamin supplements have only been in existence for less than 100 years. Somehow our ancestors managed to carry civilization forward to this point without pills that contained xxxx% of the RDA of each important nutrient.

Huh? Life expectancy has risen dramatically the last 100 years. Though this is most certainly not due to supplemental vitamins alone, its going to be impossible for you to prove they had no part in the matter. Many of our foods have been fortified you know, was that by mistake?

[Virucyde]

The article you posted was not about multivitamins, it was about Vitamin D supplementation(a vitamin I can get from being outside). Although it does give some proof that it's at least doable with certain vitamins. I still don't see it as solid support for a multivitamin, considering you'd have to take some massive multivitamins to receive similar dosage.

Nevertheless, the individual components of the multivitamins cannot be patented by Bayer or Pfizer, and thus can be replicated by anyone and everyone at little cost. These companies stand to make much more from their patented compounds.

If you think a patent is necessary to profit, you're horribly mistaken. Large companies have manufacturing advantages, advertising advantages, and distribution advantages that small companies can't hope to compete with.

Multivitamins can prevent many serious diseases

Yet all the studies I've seen come out lately seem to disagree with this statement. They haven't seemed to have any effect on heart disease.

[TomTrain]

what about fish oil?

[SpaethCO]

Nevertheless, the individual components of the multivitamins cannot be patented by Bayer or Pfizer, and thus can be replicated by anyone and everyone at little cost. These companies stand to make much more from their patented compounds.

These products already exist so Bayer and Pfizer have a substantial advantage when it comes to the problem of time to market -- R&D expenses are minimal, all of the production and distribution channels already exist, and the brands are well established to be recognized by a broad consumer base. If circumstances could crank up their appeal to people and increase sales, it just results in pure profit.

Huh? Life expectancy has risen dramatically the last 100 years. Though this is most certainly not due to supplemental vitamins alone, its going to be impossible for you to prove they had no part in the matter.

This stat is somewhat misleading because the key factors that brings down historical life expectancy numbers are infant and child mortality. History is not without tons of old people; 200 years ago if you lived to age 25 you would most likely live to a ripe old age because you would have developed an immune system that had achieved success at warding off diseases. What has changed in the last 100 years is we have dramatically improved pre and post-natal care, and we've been able to dramatically cut down child mortality rates by developing an effective child immunization program.

Many of our foods have been fortified you know, was that by mistake?

Given the studies that are now linking things like folic acid to increases in cancer rates, perhaps.

The key problem I see with multivitamins, particularly as they're discussed here in the supplement section, is that people will blindly increase their intake of vitamins through high potency supplements without ever determining if they were deficient in the first place. Megadosing is one of the common factors present in every study that shows a correlation between vitamin intake and a negative outcomes.

[Mmats]

The article you posted was not about multivitamins, it was about Vitamin D supplementation(a vitamin I can get from being outside). Although it does give some proof that it's at least doable with certain vitamins. I still don't see it as solid support for a multivitamin, considering you'd have to take some massive multivitamins to receive similar dosage.

Its much easier to prove results from individual vitamins rather than something as complex as a multi, is this so hard to understand? And now your issue isnt about the DELIVERY of vitamins as you clearly posted in the OP, instead its about DOSAGE? You might want to raise your choline levels so that you can decide what issue it is that you would LIKE to debate.

If you think a patent is necessary to profit, you're horribly mistaken. Large companies have manufacturing advantages, advertising advantages, and distribution advantages that small companies can't hope to compete with.

Way to miss the point on that one. Where did I say a patent was necessary to profit?

Yet all the studies I've seen come out lately seem to disagree with this statement. They haven't seemed to have any effect on heart disease.

Cherry picking a disease? How about scurvy then? Like I mentioned before, maybe researching just isnt your forte. Why dont you wait for the right studies to find you while reading the funny papers.

[Mmats]

These products already exist so Bayer and Pfizer have a substantial advantage when it comes to the problem of time to market -- R&D expenses are minimal, all of the production and distribution channels already exist, and the brands are well established to be recognized by a broad consumer base. If circumstances could crank up their appeal to people and increase sales, it just results in pure profit.

The point is, these companies stand to make much more on the treatment side than on the prevention side. You need proof of that? Heres the numbers straight from the horses mouth - http://www.pfizer.com/files/investor...nce_013112.pdf . Look at the chart on page 2 and note that your beloved centrum is just a small part of the "Consumer Healthcare" category, along with advil, caltrate, robitussin, etc. Now compare profits from "Consumer Healthcare" with the "Biopharmaceutical" category.

This stat is somewhat misleading because the key factors that brings down historical life expectancy numbers are infant and child mortality. History is not without tons of old people; 200 years ago if you lived to age 25 you would most likely live to a ripe old age because you would have developed an immune system that had achieved success at warding off diseases. What has changed in the last 100 years is we have dramatically improved pre and post-natal care, and we've been able to dramatically cut down child mortality rates by developing an effective child immunization program.

Oh so the only area in healthcare where advances were made in the last hundred years is pre/post natal care? Got it thanks.

Given the studies that are now linking things like folic acid to increases in cancer rates, perhaps.

The key problem I see with multivitamins, particularly as they're discussed here in the supplement section, is that people will blindly increase their intake of vitamins through high potency supplements without ever determining if they were deficient in the first place. Megadosing is one of the common factors present in every study that shows a correlation between vitamin intake and a negative outcomes.

People megadose anything they can get their hands on, if theyre so inclined. This is not a problem exclusive to multivitamins. There are plenty of people out there who take them properly.

[tjwessksu]

Let virucyde die a slow, painful death if he chooses not to believe in proper nutrition and supplementation to fill in the requirements we can't obtain with our poor quality of food supply today. There's over 325 biochemical reactions involved with magnesium, and medications like acid blockers deplete magnesium levels. If you go to a doctor and ask for your magnesium to be checked, you're going to get a serum magnesium check which will only show up as defiicent if you're on your death bed. RBC magnesium is the better indicator and is used by none of the doctors I've seen. They don't learn this in medical school. Why? So they can poly-pharm the entire population on expensive medications and create a burden on society.

[DR_P]

So far, all positive evidence for supplemental vitamins is constrained to their use in specific vitamin deficiency states. For example, people with macrozytic anemia due to Vit B12 deficiency NEED and will BENEFIT from parenteral Vit B12 supplementation. Same goes with Supplementation in Vit. C deficiency (scurvy), Niacin deficiency (Pellagra) etc.

However, things look completely different in populations that are largely NOT deficient in vitamins:
All large epidemiological studies have failed to show any associations between supplemental vitamin intake and health benefits in the normal population. Even worse, some interventional/prospective trials even suggest that supplemental intake of some vitamins might even increase the risk for some cancers (folate supplementation -> increased rate of prostate cancer, supplemental beta carotene -> increased risk of lung cancer in smokers etc.).

So, we are left with the question about potential benefits of supplemental vitamins in states of RELATIVE vitamin deficiency and in certain pathological states where supraphysiological vitamin levels may cause specific health benefits. The latter is documented for diabetic polyneuropathy, where excess of blood glucose levels cause excess Maillard reaction products, which in turn are associated with damage to peripheral nerves. From a nutritional vantage point, this state represents a relative deficiency in Thamine (Vit B1), and indeed, replenishment of thiamine up to supraphysiological levels (accomplished with the lipophilic prodrug benfotiamine) is indeed deemed helpful for diabetic polyneuropathy.
However, this is one of the rare cases where very solid evidence exists (multiple randomized controlled double blind trials) for a relative deficiency and therapeutic effects due to supraphysiological supplementation of a specific vitamin.
Now, from a purely mechanistic point of view, it can be speculated that bodybuilders with excess intake of protein might have a relative deficiency of Vit. B6, and it might also be speculated that athletes eating tons of carbs (e.g. marathon runners etc.) might have a relative B1 deficit etc. I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever for these associations, this is just derived from an assumed higher turnover of these vitamins due to higher load of protein and carbohydrate metabolism, respectively - alongside an imbalanced diet (e.g. lots of protein powders or lots of sugars/carb powders/white pasta etc deficient in micronutrients).

Supraphysiological levels of any vitamins in people without ANY kind of (absolute or relative) vitamin deficiency or without any pathological metabolic state seem to bear more risks than benefits. The potential risks are: a) eating away hormetic upregulation of antioxidant defense mechanisms (e.g. Vit. C/antioxidant supplementation before training in young healthy subjects counteracts upregulation of antioxidative enzymes); b) causing an imbalance in antioxidant or metabolic pathways; c) causing increased burden on excretory pathways such as kidneys (or liver) [some studies show that people with kidney damage have a worse outcome if they supplement with multivitamins).

My personal current stance on that matter is that "multivitamins" are very last decade! From a mere health persepctive (anti-ageing), instead of multis, I would rather pay maximum attention to a great diet (and sorry, guys, but the typical "you need to ingest 500g/d of proteins per day if you lift" -kind of diet is neither helpful nor healthy in my book) providing all the healthy micronutrients and that is lower rather than higher in total caloric intake (yes I know, this is not what Bodybuilders want to hear). I would also rather go for herbal supplements with specific antioxidant, antiinflammatory etc actions (e.g. green tea) since mother nature usually provides stuff with pleiotropic effects: in other words: natural complex stuff generally uses to improve and not to deteriorate optimal balance states in the body (e.g. by activating antagonistic pathways in parallel or by activating feedback loops etc.).

Some smaller trials are suggestive of potential benefits of pharmacological doses of some vitamins in the treatment specific conditions (e.g. high dose metafolin supplementation in therapy resistant major depression) but the jury is still out.
Having said that, I do use larger Vit C + zinc doses when I feel that I am getting a cold because I feel that it helps me fight the cold. However, this is my own opinion based on observations in myself (N=1) only. I think everybody here has some kind of vitamin/mineral he or she feels benefits from taking it. But all this is pure anecdotal and is not a suitable point in general discussions on whether multis are recommendable or not.

Every time I go searching for multivitamin information or studies I'm bombarded by articles showing new studies that seem to show multivitamins as useless. Now, I know the common response on these forums to this idea is something like this:



Now I find it funny that this response has the audacity to say "you obviously haven't researched this have you." Since as far as I can see all the research shows that the multivitamin fails to absorb properly, and ultimately ends up unused by the body. My response to this type of post is this: the question isn't whether or not our bodies need nutrition, or whether the multivitamins CONTAIN the nutrition, the question is whether multivitamins are capable of DELIVERING that nutrition.

Now, I want to make it clear that I really WANT multivitamins to work. I would love it if it were possible for me to eat a poorly balanced diet, and as long as I hit my macros(with the help of protein/fiber supplements, most likely) and took my multivitamin, I wouldn't have any malnutrition issues.

So I suppose that's my question. Are multivitamins effective enough to fix a poor diet, or are they just an expensive placebo/waste? Most of the studies that seem to say no are admittedly testing if they help prevent disease or major health issues. If anyone knows any studies focused on healthy people, or multivitamin use in third world countries, I'd love to see them. My searches with Google Scholar aren't turning up any good results.

[tjwessksu]

So far, all positive evidence for supplemental vitamins is constrained to their use in specific vitamin deficiency states. For example, people with macrozytic anemia due to Vit B12 deficiency NEED and will BENEFIT from parenteral Vit B12 supplementation. Same goes with Supplementation in Vit. C deficiency (scurvy), Niacin deficiency (Pellagra) etc.

However, things look completely different in populations that are largely NOT deficient in vitamins:
All large epidemiological studies have failed to show any associations between supplemental vitamin intake and health benefits in the normal population. Even worse, some interventional/prospective trials even suggest that supplemental intake of some vitamins might even increase the risk for some cancers (folate supplementation -> increased rate of prostate cancer, supplemental beta carotene -> increased risk of lung cancer in smokers etc.).

So, we are left with the question about potential benefits of supplemental vitamins in states of RELATIVE vitamin deficiency and in certain pathological states where supraphysiological vitamin levels may cause specific health benefits. The latter is documented for diabetic polyneuropathy, where excess of blood glucose levels cause excess Maillard reaction products, which in turn are associated with damage to peripheral nerves. From a nutritional vantage point, this state represents a relative deficiency in Thamine (Vit B1), and indeed, replenishment of thiamine up to supraphysiological levels (accomplished with the lipophilic prodrug benfotiamine) is indeed deemed helpful for diabetic polyneuropathy.
However, this is one of the rare cases where very solid evidence exists (multiple randomized controlled double blind trials) for a relative deficiency and therapeutic effects due to supraphysiological supplementation of a specific vitamin.
Now, from a purely mechanistic point of view, it can be speculated that bodybuilders with excess intake of protein might have a relative deficiency of Vit. B6, and it might also be speculated that athletes eating tons of carbs (e.g. marathon runners etc.) might have a relative B1 deficit etc. I am not aware of any evidence whatsoever for these associations, this is just derived from an assumed higher turnover of these vitamins due to higher load of protein and carbohydrate metabolism, respectively - alongside an imbalanced diet (e.g. lots of protein powders or lots of sugars/carb powders/white pasta etc deficient in micronutrients).

Supraphysiological levels of any vitamins in people without ANY kind of (absolute or relative) vitamin deficiency or without any pathological metabolic state seem to bear more risks than benefits. The potential risks are: a) eating away hormetic upregulation of antioxidant defense mechanisms (e.g. Vit. C/antioxidant supplementation before training in young healthy subjects counteracts upregulation of antioxidative enzymes); b) causing an imbalance in antioxidant or metabolic pathways; c) causing increased burden on excretory pathways such as kidneys (or liver) [some studies show that people with kidney damage have a worse outcome if they supplement with multivitamins).

My personal current stance on that matter is that "multivitamins" are very last decade! From a mere health persepctive (anti-ageing), instead of multis, I would rather pay maximum attention to a great diet (and sorry, guys, but the typical "you need to ingest 500g/d of proteins per day if you lift" -kind of diet is neither helpful nor healthy in my book) providing all the healthy micronutrients and that is lower rather than higher in total caloric intake (yes I know, this is not what Bodybuilders want to hear). I would also rather go for herbal supplements with specific antioxidant, antiinflammatory etc actions (e.g. green tea) since mother nature usually provides stuff with pleiotropic effects: in other words: natural complex stuff generally uses to improve and not to deteriorate optimal balance states in the body (e.g. by activating antagonistic pathways in parallel or by activating feedback loops etc.).

Some smaller trials are suggestive of potential benefits of pharmacological doses of some vitamins in the treatment specific conditions (e.g. high dose metafolin supplementation in therapy resistant major depression) but the jury is still out.
Having said that, I do use larger Vit C + zinc doses when I feel that I am getting a cold because I feel that it helps me fight the cold. However, this is my own opinion based on observations in myself (N=1) only. I think everybody here has some kind of vitamin/mineral he or she feels benefits from taking it. But all this is pure anecdotal and is not a suitable point in general discussions on whether multis are recommendable or not.

Yes, follow the money trail on these studies on vitamins. They could care less about giving people optimal health and a zest for life, they are only going to give us the info to avoid death. Allopathic medicine.
That folate study also probably took into factor synthetic folic acid, and not 5 MTHF, or methyltetrahydrafolate, the folate used for brain development and a big contributor to the methylation cycle. Many people have MTHFR, the inability to convert folic acid to methyl folate and will show up high in serum folic acid because it's not getting into the cells. So this is why folate is bad for you.

[tjwessksu]

Here is a great radio show debunking the flawed Iowa women's health study: http://coachrouse.wordpress.com/2011...risk-of-death/

[eldawg]

Too many crappy multis out there...especially the stuff you see in drugstores. My view is that a decent multi is helpful for overall health as long as its combined with diet, exercise and other supps.