data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/37291/37291c41241aff973da64715dceca23ee9b6b285" alt=""
In 2002, the American Medical Association (AMA), which for decades had turned thumbs down on vitamin supplements, changed its collective mind after a review of 26 years’ worth of scientific studies relating vitamin levels to the risk of chronic illness. Robert H. Fletcher and Kathleen M. Fairfield, the Harvard-based authors of the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), said, yes, true vitamin-deficiency diseases such as scurvy and beriberi are rare in Western countries. But suboptimal vitamin levels — sciencespeak for slightly less than you need — are a real problem. If “slightly less than you need” sounds slightly less than important, consider this:
- Suboptimal intake of folate and two other B vitamins (B6 and B12) raises your risk of heart disease, colon cancer, breast cancer, and birth defects.
- Suboptimal vitamin D intake means a higher risk of rickets and osteoporosis.
- Suboptimal levels of antioxidant vitamins A, E, and C are linked to a particular form of heart disease and some forms of cancer.
But just as that bit of info was settling in, a new study said, “Hold it! There’s too much Vitamin A in that pill!” That was followed by more new research on too much vitamin E. As you read this, vitamin manufacturers are tumbling over each other in the race to get new, lower formulations to market.
1 comment:
Post a Comment