Your Second Opinion

May 14, 2010

Vitamins: not magic beans

Filed under: Snake Oil — drsecondopinion @ 11:26 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

There is more magic associated with vitamins than any other pharmaceutical, including antibiotics. All people like magic, including me, and are hopeful that somewhere there is a panacea that will protect us from things we fear – with vitamins, it is disease, aging, death – and grant us restored youth, strength, sexual performance.

Unfortunately, vitamins are not the magic beans.

We Already Get Enough Vitamins

Vitamins are organic molecules (organic in the chemical sense – they are mostly synthesized in factories) that are necessary for life and/or health, and that we are unable to produce in our own bodies and must therefore be supplied with from outside. (The exception is vitamin D, which we can synthesize in our skin when exposed to sunlight.) Vitamins are defined by deficiency states; that is, what happens to you if you don’t get them. If there is no deficiency state, the molecule is not a vitamin, even though it might be useful to you for other reasons.

These deficiency states can be really awful. Scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) would routinely kill one-half of the sailors in long ocean voyages. It wasn’t limited to sailors, either – in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was very common in people who did not have access to either fresh meat, milk, or fruit/vegetables, which was a substantial portion of the urban population. Pellagra (niacin deficiency) was a scourge of the American south in the late 1800’s and early parts of the 1900’s. It was known as the “4D’s disease” – dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia, and death. Beriberi, Korsakoff’s encephalopathy, pernicious anemia (called that because everybody who got it died) were terrible illnesses.

The elimination of these deficiency-caused “diseases” by simple changes in diet or cheap supplementation was miraculous to the people who suffered them. Today, in industrialized countries, these diseases are very rare, usually only seen in people with serious drug/alcohol problems. For example, in my many years of practice, I have only seen scurvy and pellagra three times each – scurvy and pellagra in two people seeking enlightenment through the macrobiotic diet known as “stage IV”, another case of pellagra in a woman with a jejeunal-illeal bypass (due to malabsorbtion caused by the bypass), and another case of scurvy in a severe alcoholic. I have read of (though not seen) pernicious anemia and neurologic disease in people on vegan diets who did not supplement B12.

As this demonstrates, everyone in our society with the exception of those on extreme diets or with other extreme conditions is already getting enough vitamins to avoid deficiency states. And with two exceptions, there is to date no evidence that taking vitamins in excess of what is needed is helpful (though there is substantial evidence that several of them are harmful in large amounts). The exceptions are niacin, which can be used in high dose to lower cholesterol and LDL cholesterol (“bad cholesterol”), and folic acid, which, when taken by women at the time of conception and the first weeks to early months of pregnancy in moderately high dosage, will decrease the likelihood of neural tube defects (a particularly terrible group of birth defects) from 1/10,000 to about 1/50,000, with no toxicity. Of course, since the woman needs to be taking this at the time of pregnancy and very early in the pregnancy to make a difference, it’s quite likely that the woman may not know to take the folic acid until too late in the pregnancy to be effective. But given its low cost and safety, it is recommended that women who are planning a pregnancy begin taking folic acid prior to trying. The dose would be 1mg/day.

There is no proven benefit to taking excess amounts of any other vitamin.  For the group of vitamins that are soluble in water, most of them, amounts in excess of need are rapidly eliminated, usually in the urine – some have said it is like pissing away money. In general, we do not store these vitamins, and with those we do store, once the storage is filled, any additional amounts are eliminated. Fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K) we can store in various places, but that is actually worse, since these can build up to levels causing problems (particularly vitamins A and D).

Despite these well-known facts, fads in vitamin use have been part of life for the last 150 years. Exactly why one or another becomes the vitamin of the day is often unclear, although frequently it is because some person of fame (think Linus Pauling) decides that s/he will save the world through increases in some vitamin or other. Sometimes it is the result of an expert committee finding, without evidence, that some vitamin needs to be taken in huge amounts and publicizing that unsupported conclusion. (It should be noted that in all expert committee recommendations, inevitably, a great increase in the use of one or another pharmaceutical is recommended. And just as inevitably, when evidence becomes available, the experts advice always turns out to be incorrect, and good, or better, results are found with less intervention.)

Since I have become involved in medicine, I have seen seven different vitamins become the elixir of the day, usually for a period of a few years, then yield to the next new thing. Sometimes the change occurs because actual studies show the drug to be useless, or even harmful, sometimes just because of fashion. When the parade moves on, there are always a number of true believers who stick with the old med, sometimes they add the new meds, and everyone is certain that these chemicals are necessary to them in whatever dose they take. The bottom line is, when thinking of the population in general, one really needs to see if there is any hard evidence to support the use.

Vitamin Fads

The first vitamin fad I became aware of was B12 – this is present in animal products and yeast. It is stored in the body, but once the storage spaces are filled, any additional is almost immediately excreted in urine. In the 1960’s and early 70’s (it might be earlier, but I was not around then, medically), it was extremely common for people to go to the doctor for a shot of B12 (it is given as an injection, although tablets can be used) as a “pick-me-up”, to increase their energy, fight fatigue, improve mood, strength, etc. Of course, in reality it wasn’t doing anything biologically except being filtered out, but seemed to help. Since the doctors got paid for giving it, and it couldn’t hurt anyone, it continued to be a popular treatment for decades.

Next was vitamin C – this was related to Linus Pauling, who won a Nobel prize for determining the secondary structure of proteins (though he was mistaken on his theories regarding DNA structure). Pauling promoted taking vitamin C in huge doses, 4-5 grams a day (125mg is more than you need), to prevent cancer, cure or prevent viral illnesses, restore youth and prevent death. The only things one can actually demonstrate as resulting from these doses in studies is an increase in diarrhea and kidney stones. There is no evidence for anything more for these high doses, and anyone who eats fresh meat, fruits/vegetable, gets plenty of this vitamin. It was also quite inexpensive, so it rapidly gave way to other fad vitamins.

Beta-carotene (vitamin A) was the next in line. This was the first of the vitamins ascribed to have anti-oxidant properties, and was also supposed to protect from cancer and disease by improving immune function (presumably through its anti-oxidant properties). When this was studied, sadly it was found that it actually increased the risk of lung cancer in smokers, and did not have any other effect on other cancers. It was originally put in a mixture of chemicals that may help in slowing macular degeneration, but now has been removed in these formulas for smokers.

Vitamin E came next. It was a bit unusual because as well as having the usual claims for it curing/preventing myriad ills, the claims have been made sequentially, and so it has had a longer time as a prime vitamin de jour than some of the others. The first claim was that it improved/restored sexual function in men, because in rats fed a lab diet deficient in vitamin E, males developed testicular atrophy. This claim did not last long, however, because it quickly became apparent to everyone that this was not Viagra (which didn’t exist at that time).

Then it was supposed to help wound healing, and people would apply it directly to wounds. This didn’t last long either, because it didn’t help.

Next came its beneficial effect on heart disease. There was a little more evidence for this, because in two fairly large observational studies people who were taking the vitamin E seemed to have less in the way of heart attacks. This was widely publicized, and vitamin E sales soared. But again, sadly, when it was actually specifically studied for this use, it was found to be either useless, or actually correlated with slightly (i.e. not statistically significantly, the increase could be chance) increased risk.

Next, it was postulated that very high doses of vitamin E could prevent/treat Alzheimer’s disease. This would be wonderful, if true, since nothing else does, really – but this too has not panned out.

In fact, to date, the only use of high dose vitamin E that has been demonstrated to have a positive effect is intravenous use in premature infants, where it can help prevent oxygen related blindness. It is very difficult to get a vitamin E free diet (though some of the alcoholics I see have managed it), so supplementation is unnecessary – just eat some vegetables and whole grains.

After that, the fad vitamin was a combination of pyridoxine/folic acid/B12. This was because a particular big man in science had been trying for years to excite people about the levels of homocysteine in blood, as a risk factor for several different things, including heart disease (there are now about 50 separate independent “risk factors” for heart disease that have been identified, including ear creases and college education, the relevance of each is somewhat uncertain). He suggested, loudly, that reducing homocysteine with these vitamins would all but eliminate coronary artery disease, and a mixture of these very cheap ingredients was consequently introduced to the market, with a huge mark-up in price. As you might expect, when this was actually studied, it appears you can lower the homocysteine levels, but this has no effect on heart disease, and this mix faded.

Today’s magic bean: Vitamin D

Vitamin D is the current darling. This is a substance that is manufactured in your skin with exposure to sunlight. The initial molecule is then processed first by the liver and next by the kidney to an active material. The amount made depends on the amount of exposed skin, the intensity of the sunlight, the degree of pigmentation in the skin. In Boston, 2 hours of sunlight in February is roughly equivalent to 10 minutes in July (this was actually studied in volunteers). The deficiency state of vitamin D is rickets, a disease of developing bone in children, which used to be very common in poor areas of cities in Europe and the United states, but is virtually eliminated now. There have been observations that in people on dialysis for kidney failure, and in nursing home populations, low levels of vitamin D seem to correlate with decreased survival, but whether this is due to the vitamin D, or simply because people who are sicker tend to have lower vitamin D levels (possibly because dying people in nursing homes seldom go out in the sun), is unclear. In at least one very well done study of people in the community, there was no difference shown in survival over 5 years between the highest and lowest quarters of vitamin D levels.

Exactly what level of vitamin D is necessary is unclear. The World Health Organization in the past has said that deficiency is less than 10 nanograms/ml (if I were in Europe I would be speaking about nanomoles). Levels greater than 15 were considered low, but not deficient. There were no other recommendations. In 2007 there was an expert panel consensus in the United States that less than 15 was deficient, 15-30 was inadequate, and greater than 30 was ideal, and recommended that everyone in the US take between 1500 and 2000 units of vitamin D a day, much more than anyone else thought of. There was no evidence to support this, it is in the area of belief. As a result, vitamin D use in the US increased 4 fold in dollars spent, with the pharmaceutical houses predicting an additional twofold increase in the future.

Vitamin D is proposed to influence depression, protect from cancer (particularly colon cancer), heart disease, and dementia. But while receptors for vitamin D are found on many different types of tissue, the only place where it is clearly active is in bone metabolism – the marker for deficiency is an elevated parathyroid hormone, also important in bone metabolism, but this is never measured on a routine basis. In other words, there is no evidence that vitamin D makes a difference in anything but bones. In my unit the psychiatrists are checking vitamin D levels on everyone with depression, and are amazed to find that virtually everyone has a vitamin D level of about 25, apparently proving a relationship – except that everybody in Minnesota (where I am) has levels like this during the winter. There is no evidence that increasing the level will do anything beneficial, as is true of all of the other claims made for increased vitamin D use.

There is some evidence for the use of vitamin D and calcium in post-menopausal women to help prevent osteopenia (not osteoporosis), and good evidence that it is beneficial to administer to people with kidney failure on dialysis (though because their kidneys cannot properly process vitamin D normally, they are given a special formulation). There is also a rationale for supplementation in people who are taking steroids, who are housebound, or who are in nursing homes. There is not much vitamin D in foods, and it is therefore not practical to replace it from the diet. But about one-half hour of sun exposure here in July will produce about 15,000 units in a Caucasian person wearing a short sleeved shirt. There is no evidence that a blood level of over 30 will be any better for you than a lower one, and maintaining such a level would require you to take a pharmaceutical from October to the end of May, longer if you don’t go out in the sun.

To summarize, vitamin D is the latest panacea to cure all ills, with no more evidence that it cures those ills than any of the others promoted in the past.

Bottom Line

  1. Get your vitamins through what you eat – fruits, vegetables, whole grains are good, meat isn’t bad. If you have a restricted diet, know what you are missing(such as B12 in vegan diets) and replace that, in the proper amount – for B12 it is about 2mcg/day, not 1000.
  2. If you are a woman contemplating pregnancy, it makes sense to start some folic acid before you actually begin an attempt – 1mg a day is sufficient. Neural tube defects are very rare, but they range from really bad to truly terrible, and folic acid has been shown to make a difference to reduce such defects when taken in very early pregnancy.
  3. There are no magic beans – the more that is promised, the less likely it is.
  4. If you do take vitamins, it makes no sense to take anything other than the least expensive, since most of them are going into the toilet anyway.
  5. People who have serious illness are different. People on dialysis, chemotherapy for cancer, some type of immune suppression, bad bowel disease and so on, require vitamin supplementation, not because of magical properties, but because they may not be able to get what they need through their diet as a healthy person would.
  6. Being a serious, practicing alcoholic is not good for your health, vitamins or not.


  1. Vitamins: not magic beans…

    My father-in-law is a doctor. He has started a blog. His first post is ready for reading. You can read it via LJ here: drsecondopinion*…

    Trackback by Patrick — May 17, 2010 @ 3:25 pm | Reply

    • same as Hannah’s

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:29 pm | Reply

  2. I’m an athlete, do resistance training, and play a violent sport that has caused broken numerous bones (roller derby). Combined with living in Minnesota, and working an indoor job, I think that makes it a no-brainer to take vitamin D supplements from late Autumn to early Spring.

    I’ll be pleasantly surprised if any of the current outlandish claims pan out for Vitamin D, but its low price and very high UL mean that there’s very little actual downside for taking vitamin D pills – at worst, I’m out a few cents a day. And if it helps strengthen or rebuild my bones (when combined with a small calcium supplement), then it’s all worth it.

    I do agree with the general gist of this post, though – and I wish that more doctors would point out that vitamin supplements have pretty negligible benefits for anybody who eats even a remotely balanced diet.

    Comment by April King — May 17, 2010 @ 8:04 pm | Reply

    • You are right in all you say – You would do best, thought, to keep the vitamin D intake under 2000units a day – remember that an hour out in the sun in summer wearing a tshirt and shorts will produce about 10000units of this (maybe more, depending on your skin pigment level) – the darker your skin, the less you make – the calcium level shoudl be 1000 to 1200 mg of elemental calcium, the amount you have to take varies with what salt it is

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:28 pm | Reply

  3. look pa a blog…

    his blog is him being pointed about medical things. He rolls his eyes at pharmaceutical manipulation of experts, fad science and corrupt academics, and thinks about what would be the best way to provide health care. His first entry is Vitamins: not mag…

    Trackback by eyelid — May 17, 2010 @ 9:10 pm | Reply

    • Okay, I am answering the replies – love you babe

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:25 pm | Reply

      • :) just fyi, that wasn’t a comment from me, just a trackback (a comment that shows a page that’s linking to your site).

        Comment by Hannah — May 20, 2010 @ 10:46 am

      • love you too!

        Comment by Hannah — May 20, 2010 @ 11:03 am

  4. Got here via Hannah’s page.

    Love this post. Thanks for all the info.

    What do you think about all the urgin by pediatrician this last year to give infants cut d supplements? I have chosen to ignore it because my son goes outside enough (without sunscreen – I found that sunscreens block vit d production by 95%), but am often asked by other moms in our la leche league group. They are urged most often because vit d does not pass through breastmilk. I typically suggest they go outdoors with ther babies. But I am also always wary of the need to supplement a nursing baby. Thoughts?

    Sorry if this is amok with typos. iPod touch. Can’t scroll up to edit. :-S

    Comment by Christen — May 17, 2010 @ 10:33 pm | Reply

    • Christen – it’s my understanding that infants have very lower tolerable Upper Limits when it comes to Vitamin D. Given that you can’t overdose on vitamin D produced through sun exposure, I think that you’re making the right call by telling parents to take their babies outdoors. That said, I’m sure the best way to do that when it’s -10F in the middle of January. Hmmm!

      Of course, I’m just a laywoman, so hopefully the doctor will speak up soon. :)

      Comment by April King — May 18, 2010 @ 8:58 am | Reply

      • I would suggest sitting by a window in winter but I think windows, newer ones, are now filtering uv rays. (??) so I suppose that would be a good time to supplement. But I’d try it through a whole food. Like, maybe cod liver oil? I feel bad for a lot of moms who come to meetings feeling bullied by their pediatricians.

        Comment by Christen — May 18, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

      • Cod liver oil is a huge supplier of vitamin D, about 3000 units per teaspoon – whether one need that much is unclear, but Mom may have been right.

        Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

      • Actually, I understand that most glass filters out the UV that is necessary, and tanning beds aren’t much help either – the cod liver oil tastes yucky, but is probably the most potent source of vitamin D that is readily available – some degree of supplementation during the winter in high latitidues, north or south, is quite reasonable – the amount for an infant/child I do not know(the mean age of my patients is about 70), but I am sure is readily available

        Comment by drsecondopinion — May 23, 2010 @ 10:33 pm

      • I agree with just taking the kids outside when the weather is decent – but 10 below (or colder, it gets that here)? If the baby is breast feeding, it will get much of what it needs from Mom – if not, infant formula is heavily fortified with various vitamins – a standard infant vitamin supplement will carry them through the winter

        Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

    • I certainly cannot complain aobut typos – doctors are just as susceptible to fads as anybody else – as I said, suddenly all the mental health people in my unit are getting vitamin D levels -, which are all normal per WHO, margially low per the consensus committe, with NO evidence that changing this will make any difference in anything(sorry about the rant)

      you are right about the sunscreen – taking your child into the sun without it for 15 minutes during the summer will produce adequate (more than adequate) vitamin D – in the winter, if his only source is nursng, you might consider some supplement , but the only children int the old days who got ricketts were in absolutly terrible situations, very poor, in Dickensian orphanages or similar situations – I doubt there ever was a Minnesota farm kid with this

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:24 pm | Reply

      • Cod liver oil certainly is ick, but my son – for reasons I’ll never undestand – LOVES it. Bonkers, right? Thanks for the replies. Looking forward to more posts. :)

        Comment by Christen — May 24, 2010 @ 9:24 am

      • I know – but I do remember, when I was very young, that I drank a whole bottle of this(my mom used it on us) because I liked the taste(go figure)

        Comment by drsecondopinion — May 24, 2010 @ 9:25 pm

  5. I also got here from Hannah’s page.

    My mother, who is a nurse, has me taking 1,000 units of vitamin D a day (how she achieves this when she lives on the other side of the world has, I believe, something to do with the magic of mothers).

    My maternal grandfather died of colon cancer in 1990, when he was barely 60. My mother had it in 2007, when she was 51. She’s all clear now as far as she can be at this stage. But she got involved with the Centre for Integrated Healing in Vancouver while she was having her chemo. While there, she was exposed to a study, apparently from the States, and she said a very good study (I have never read it and do not know who conducted it, but trust her, as a nurse, to filter out junk science), which claimed that taking 1,000 units of vitamin D daily reduces the risk of cancer (generally) by 30%. She said this study was so persuasive that the Centre for Integrated Healing (oh — apparently they’re InspireHealth now) recommended that all of their employees — not patients, she emphasised, but employees — take 1,000 units a day.

    So, I duly swallow my little vitamin pill every day with breakfast as that’s usally my fattiest meal of the day. I guess maybe I’d like to see the study though. My mother’s fear of me getting her genetic cancer has got me taking vitamin supplements when being vegan never did. (I cheat frequently and eat copious amounts of Marmite, so I think I’m OK for Vitamin B12, and I never seem to get anywhere close to anaemic unless something else is going on.)

    Comment by Bronwen — May 18, 2010 @ 2:16 am | Reply

    • The best studies of vitamin D and cancer actually came from the women’s health study, which had a bit over 14000 people in the study – the specific report concerning colon cancer could be found at “Calcium and Vitamin D Supplementation and the Risk of Colon Cancer”, Waktawiski-Wende et al, New England Journal of Medicine 2006 2/16:35497) 684-696.

      They did not find any improvement with vitamin D.

      An additional report, same group of subjects , “Calcium Plus Vitamin D Supplemntation and the Risk of Breat Cancer” – Chrebowksi – J Natl Ca Inst 2008 11/19:100(22)1581-1591.

      They found no difference either.

      However, given that the person in your family with the cancer was a grandfather, not a first degree relative, you would be considered at average (not increased) risk of colon cancer – the vitamin D at 1000uints a day, at least during winter months (I assume you experience winter where you are) is certainly reasonable; if you go outside at all during the summer, it is most likely unncecessary, but won’t hurt you.

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:18 pm | Reply

      • Well, my mother had it too, that’s why she worries. I think she worries more about me getting it than about herself relapsing!

        Comment by Bronwen — May 20, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

      • If your mother had colon cancer, that is an entirely different thing – she is a first degree relative – current thinking would be that you should have colonosopy done for screening beginning at age 40, not 50, as for people wit usual risk

        Comment by drsecondopinion — May 24, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

  6. Here, Hannah’s page, etc etc. Good post. I’d like to see something from the studies citing poor absorption rates with vitamin supplements vs in your diet.

    :) If that’s not too much to ask! welcome to blogging!

    Comment by Chris — May 18, 2010 @ 8:51 am | Reply

    • Thanks for the welcome! The issue is not poor absorption from added vitamins – to my knowledge, there is nothing that actually looks to that except data on vitamin B12 in health and in pernicious anaemia – the issue is whether or not it is necessary to take additional vitamins, as opposed to getting what you need through a balanced diet, or supplementing what you know is deficient in a restricted diet – I do not think there is any data to support that – I have many references concerning the uselessness of increased vitamins of one sort or the other for anything other than preventing deficiency states, except as I have noted in the earlier article – is there anything in particular you are interested in?

      The B12 issue is interesting – pernicious anemia occurs becaue of an inability to absorb food B12 – the requiremnt for B12 is 1-2 micrograms a day – in PA, if you take a lot of B12 orally, say 1000mcg (a usual otc pill), you can overcome this.

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:09 pm | Reply

  7. I would guess that for me lower levels of depression are correlated with higher levels of vitamin D, but there is no causal relationship. I am happier when I spend more time outside. More time outside equals more vitamin D, and also more physical exercise.

    As an Alaskan, I have experience with Seasonal Affective Disorder – it’s just about the only form of mental illness that even a manly man will admit to. I can say that going tanning has a bit of an effect, but again, I can’t say for sure that it is the vitamin D which is responsible. You see, I’ve never gone tanning without doing at least 30 minutes of cardio first.

    Since exercise has been shown to release brain chemicals that influence depression, I’m going with exercise as the superior “cure”, but I agree with the above poster that vitamin D can’t hurt. I do have a question, though – is there a website that I could go to which would help me calculate how much vitamin D I would synthesize at high latitude (and how much is needed for optimum calcium absorbtion)? I’m very fair skinned so I do try to wear sunscreen, and I’d also like to know what impact that might have on vitamin D production. I definitely notice a difference with my bones and joints when I get enough calcium.

    Thanks for putting this post together – if your future writings are anything like this, I’m looking forward to reading them!

    Comment by susitna — May 18, 2010 @ 11:51 am | Reply

    • There is this, although I don’t know how accurate it is:

      Comment by April King — May 18, 2010 @ 4:41 pm | Reply

      • Thanks! It seems like it might be good for getting a ballpark.

        Comment by susitna — May 19, 2010 @ 1:28 am

    • there is no question that suncscreen decreases vitamin D production in the skin – there was a professor at Harvard who held dual appointments in dermatology and endocrine, who was thrown out of derm because he advocated at least 10 minutes without sunscreen per day in the summer – in Alaska, in the winter, there is no way you will be able to get adequate sunlight for vitamin D production – whether this is a problem is uncertain, but taking about 800units of it a day won’t hurt and may help.

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 19, 2010 @ 9:02 pm | Reply

    • I think that everybody has some degeree of seasonal affective disorder, thaqt it is probalby unavoidable, since we apparently developed in areas of the world where long, dark winters didn’t exist

      Sunscreen is very effective in preventing UV absorbtion, and thus, equally so in preventing vitaimin D synthesis – however, inthe summer, at least in Boston (where it wwas studied), about 15 minutes with a short sleeved shirt and no hat is about what you need – I challenge the most rabid dermatologist to prove that that is harmful

      Comment by drsecondopinion — May 23, 2010 @ 10:37 pm | Reply

  8. The usual referral from reading your daughters blog, etc etc….

    You just made my bookmarks list for sure. Although I’m an IT geek now, a couple decades ago I was a molecular biologist spending days sequencing viruses.. add being the son of a (now retired) family doc over in the UK and working in the UK NHS during the years it was being systematically dismantled by Mrs Thatcher you’re talking about stuff where I have a real interest. Watching the machinations over healthcare on this side of the pond has only served to salt those interests with a few pretty strong opinions too.

    Looking forward to reading more.

    Comment by Dave B — May 19, 2010 @ 11:37 am | Reply

  9. then we’ll get a chinese and watch TV…

    To tide you over, here’’s some much needed common sense about vitamins…

    Trackback by Periscope Depth — May 21, 2010 @ 7:00 am | Reply


    I take the vitamins and supplements my Doc has said, “Um, Lily, you could really, *really* use more of these.” Periodically she tests my blood, makes sure I’m not scary-deficient like I used to be, and life goes on. I’m pretty good with taking the things my doctor told me were a good idea for *me.* I get in fights with my mother all the time about vitamins–she has what I feel is a very wily-nily approach, I’d rather get the urgings to take a given vitamin from my doctor.

    Admittedly, my mother nagging me into talking to my doctor about vitamin D was the one time her nagging *was* spot on.

    Comment by Lily — June 9, 2010 @ 8:36 pm | Reply

  11. This is really interesting. Thanks for posting this article!Vitamins are great but only in moderation and not as the only strategy for health. Diet and exercise are still number one when it comes to good health.

    Comment by Nutrition — July 11, 2010 @ 9:43 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: