Here we go again!  Yet another negative study in the news and hyped up by irresponsible media, and no doubt fueled by the pharmaceutical misinformation ‘machine’.

You have probably heard about this study that has made headline news throughout the world today.

I asked Joanna our Medical Nutritionist to do some research into this report and give us the true story.  Here it is.

Findings: by Joanna (Medical Nutritionist for Xtend-Life)

This is a very similar situation to the prostate cancer/beta-carotene study scare that I did a review and we did a comment on a short while ago. Similar situation in that the Copenhagen studies have alot of unreported flaws in them, which I will come to in a moment, plus of course, as usual, the media has concentrated on a small aspect of the studies and not the whole picture, giving a very false conclusion to what the leader of the studies, Goiran Bjelakovic, actually said conducted.
 
First of all in Goran Bjelakovic's own summary writeup he tells us that the study results were actually taken from a collation of many randomised trials of a mixture of single, formulated, placebo and no intervention tests. So the actual results provided in the study are from very different tests with very different criteria, not from 1 large study. This breaks up results into much less significant negative feedback in this respect alone. We know very well how differently nutrients react when used singly or in combination, and then within the combinations what compatible or non-compatible co-factors are used in order to ensure the tested nutrients are working effectively.

Markers of the effects of the trials were also randomised, which wouldn't give a clear picture of any conclusive results. So the actual criteria of the study are flawed to begin with. In his own summary he states "When all low- and high-bias risk trials of antioxidant supplements were pooled together, there was no significant effect on mortality." This conclusion of the entire study, and his subsequent conclusive comment that simply "further study was needed" have been completely ignored by the media hype. Only when the trials are broken down into their relevant randomised groups were potential increase mortality rates found, and if we look closer at these, we can see that these also had alot of question marks by their criteria and results.
 
Ok, So here are some facts...
 
The original media articles (as printed in The Telegraph, for example, before the TV/radio took over the story and excluded this fact) it was reported in the study that it is important to understand that many "people treat it (multivitamin) like a general tonic, but there are two sides to it. Whilst certain doses can be beneficial, tilting that balance can" potentially "cause disease itself. They should only be taken under careful direction and at the right dosages". This is something that at Xtend-Life we have been advising on for some time, and are in total agreement with.

The study results are, in part, based on overuse of single, mega-doses of only A, E, beta-carotene, C, and selenium. We know, and have been advising for a long time, that overuse, or mega-dose use of these, and any individual nutrient, will have the potential for detrimental or opposite effects. So this is nothing new, but has been turned around by the media as a new revelation by these studies, and has been put across in such a manner as to make people believe that she shouldn't take nutrients AT ALL, rather than simply not overdosing on them!!! Overdosing on anything, prescription or natural, will cause health problems, and single dose nutrients work differently than lower dose ingredients in properly supervised and manufactured formulations, such as Xtend-Life products.
 
Next, the studies conducted included the use of formulations already labelled by a Government Health Commission in India as being 10 of the top 25 selling vitamin brands that are "way over the normal vitamin requirement"! Quite a flaw for an unbiassed vitamin study when we already know that mega-doses will cause negative effects and therefore flaw studies. E.g. the vitamin E studies were supposed to be conducted on the basis of using 3-4 units, whereas the capsules contained 100 units, or even 600 units in some cases. The studies were therefore based mainly on hypervitaminosis - overuse of vitamins - not proper use of nutrients for health and longevity.

So, all this aside, summarising some of the criteria for the studies:
 
We know how antioxidants can help with anti-aging, but the specific determination of to what extent antioxidants lengthen life is a difficult one to quantify. So researchers from the Copenhagen University Hospital identified antioxidant clinical trials, not their own, as long as they reported at least one death. To this end, in their statistics any death counted, whether that was from heart disease or cancer, kidney failure or hip fractures, even murders or suicides if relevant, not conclusively from vitamin overuse! Out of 747 antioxidant trials reviewed, 68 met the bill to this effect – i.e. at least one death. Meaning that out of 747 trials on the actions of antioxidants, only 68 of those trials included at least 1 death, and this death may or may not have been anything to do with supplementation! Look at the statistics this way and you get a very different picture to the media hype.
 
From this, the 68 trials were combined into what is effectively one study.
 
The second flaw in the choice of trial from the original 747 is that it seems that most of the participants in the remaining used studies were elderly. In fact, the mean age in several trials appeared to be over 80 (one participant was 103). This gives the scaremongering of vitamins causing “early death” a little bit of a contradiction and a severe flaw to conduct studies on people that are elderly and therefore more likely to pass on in the first place.
 
Diseases of these patients included: heart disease, cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, kidney failure, arthritis, diabetes, cataracts, and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Trials of heavy smokers and those with premalignant conditions were also included, as were those of people in nursing homes.
 
In stark contrast, there were only a few out of the 68 studies that were actually conducted on healthy individuals.
 
As previously mentioned, aside from the participant criteria being flawed, so was the actual vitamin exposure. Some trials gave a single vitamin; others multiple ones. Among the 68 trials, doses also varied greatly, from 10 IUs of vitamin E in some trials to 5,000IUs in others! This mega dose obviously potentially causing problems with 400IUs generally recommended, and already knowing that more than 1,500IUs may be toxic.
 
Finally, duration of use was also factor. Because different studies were combined to form the basis of this correlation, many of the participants barely tasted the supplements, whilst others were long-term, with an average of 3 years, meaning that of course individual study results within the 68 used for this “1 study” report varied in outcome.
 
One fact from the above that isn’t in any of the media hype was that one study of 13,017 middle-aged patients drawn from the general population, showed that nutritional levels of vitamins C and E and selenium supplements were associated with a 22% REDUCTION in mortality after seven years. Compare this with the study of 18,314 patients, all heavy smokers averaging 58 years of age, who took high doses of vitamin A and beta carotene (known to react with nicotine at mega doses) for four years, who consequently (and not surprisingly given this criteria) had a 16% increase in mortality.
 
Both opposite criteria, both opposite results. But rather than the media concluding that further study needed to be done on the OVERUSE of vitamins and relaying the conclusion that people need to be aware of the potential of overdosing on nutrients and only using them as directed by a professional, a different angle was presented and concentrated on the detrimental study results only, with their flawed criteria.
 
At the end of the day, where ‘pooled’ studies are going to be correlated and presented as results in one study format, the pooled studies at least need to be compatible.
 
My own conclusion: As Xtend-Life have been advising for a number of years: Don't smoke.; Consume at least five fruits and vegetables daily; go easy on the saturated fats; enjoy fish and a good quality pure fish oil supplement; and take a good supplemental multi-nutrient product. Only the whole package will help people live longer.