Clipping Board » Dangerous Medicinal Tonics ─ Nutrients should be moderate in the body—excessive supplementation only becomes a burden.
Mirror Media | Mirror Weekly – December 15, 2016
In 1992, *Time* magazine published a cover story titled "The Real Power of Vitamins." The article, largely based on the beliefs of American Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, fervently promoted the miraculous effects of vitamins, claiming they could treat cardiovascular diseases, cataracts, and even cancer.
"Even more intriguing, vitamins might slow down aging," the article stated. Born in 1901, Pauling began adding high doses of vitamin C to his orange juice every morning at the age of 65. In his 1970 bestseller *How to Live Longer and Feel Better*, he argued that vitamin C could treat the common cold and flu. In the 1980s, when AIDS ravaged the U.S., Pauling even claimed that vitamin C could combat what was then considered an incurable disease.
**A Giant in Biochemistry’s Zealous Advocacy for Vitamins**
He personally consumed 18 grams of vitamin C daily—50 times the recommended intake. He developed his own "orthomolecular" therapy, which referred to high doses of vitamins, believing it could extend life.
Though Pauling was a giant in biochemistry, with contributions to 20th-century chemistry unmatched by any other, his obsession with vitamins, according to the international nonprofit Quackwatch—dedicated to debunking medical myths—was entirely unworthy of praise. "No responsible medical or nutritional scientist endorses these views," Quackwatch stated.
**Who Was Linus Pauling?**
"Pauling was a titan of 20th-century science whose work laid the foundation for modern chemistry," wrote biochemist Nick Lane of University College London in his book. By the age of 30, Pauling had merged chemistry and quantum mechanics to propose innovative concepts like "valence bond theory" and "electronegativity." Two decades later, his research on protein structures helped James Watson and Francis Crick unravel the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. The following year, Pauling won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on chemical bonds.
In 1962, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vigorous advocacy against nuclear testing and his anti-war stance, making him the only person to win two unshared Nobel Prizes in different fields.
After *Time* published its article, sales of multivitamins and other supplements skyrocketed, and Pauling became a household name. Yet his academic reputation plummeted, as over the years, scientific research found little to no evidence supporting the health benefits of vitamin C and other supplements.
According to the BBC, every spoonful of supplements Pauling added to his orange juice likely harmed his body more than it helped. His fervent beliefs not only proved wrong but may have even been dangerous.
Pauling’s theory was based on the idea that vitamin C is an antioxidant. Antioxidants were thought to neutralize highly reactive molecules called "free radicals." In 1954, Rebeca Gerschman of the University of Rochester first suggested that free radicals could be dangerous. In 1956, Denham Harman of the University of California, Berkeley, expanded on this, claiming that free radicals might cause disease and aging.Throughout the 20th century, scientists developed more theories based on this concept, which were quickly widely accepted by the academic community. In addition to vitamin C, other well-known antioxidant vitamins include vitamin E, beta-carotene, and folic acid.
Different experimental methods yielded the same results: no amount of antioxidants could stop aging, let alone halt the onset of disease.
Once free radicals were equated with aging and disease, they were immediately seen as enemies that must be eliminated from the human body. "It is hoped that this theory will lead to fruitful experiments aimed at extending human lifespan," Harman wrote in 1972.
In the decades that followed, the experiments he envisioned were tried repeatedly but yielded almost no results.
In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers added various antioxidant supplements to the diets of many lab mice and even injected them directly into their bloodstreams. Despite different methods, the results were the same: no amount of antioxidants could stop aging, let alone halt the onset of disease.
"These experiments have never proven that antioxidants can extend lifespan," said Antonio Enriquez from the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Center.
If antioxidants don’t work in mice, what about humans? Scientists certainly can’t lock human subjects in labs like lab mice, controlling all external factors that might affect results while monitoring their health for a lifetime. But what scientists can do is conduct long-term clinical trials.
The premise is quite simple. First, find a group of people with similar ages, locations, and lifestyles. Second, divide them into two groups, giving antioxidants to one half and placebos to the other. Third, to avoid bias, no one knows who gets what—even those administering the pills are kept in the dark.
Since the 1970s, countless experiments following the gold standard of pharmaceutical research have been conducted. The results showed not only no benefit in extending lifespan but even an increased risk of cancer.
For example, a 1994 study tracked 29,133 Finnish people aged 50–60, all of whom smoked. Only some were given beta-carotene, and among those who took it, the incidence of pneumonia increased by 16%.
A U.S. study found similar results: a group of postmenopausal women who took folic acid (a B vitamin) for ten years had a 20% higher risk of breast cancer compared to those who didn’t take it.
It gets worse. A 1996 study had to be halted two years early because over 1,000 heavy smokers who took beta-carotene and vitamin A for four years saw a 28% increase in pneumonia incidence and a 17% higher death rate.
The authors of the study wrote at the time: "The current findings provide ample reason to avoid beta-carotene and beta-carotene combined with vitamin A."
Of course, some studies have shown that taking supplements can be beneficial in the absence of a healthy diet, but generally, the harms seem to outweigh the benefits.
According to a 2012 review of 27 clinical trials evaluating antioxidants, only seven showed some benefits, such as reducing the risk of coronary heart disease and pancreatic cancer. The other 17 trials either showed no benefit or even increased the risk of lung and other cancers."The idea of treating antioxidants as a panacea is completely unnecessary," said Enrique from the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Center.
Pauling was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1993 and passed away the following year. He once claimed that his years of vitamin C intake delayed the onset of prostate cancer by 20 years, but this claim was never verified.
Until his death, Pauling remained a firm believer in the miraculous effects of vitamin C. Yet many studies point to a link between excessive antioxidants and cancer. For example, a 2007 study by the American Cancer Society showed that men who took multivitamins were twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as those who did not.
Antioxidants have their dark side, and free radicals are far from entirely harmful. Increasing evidence suggests that free radicals are indispensable to human health. For instance, when human cells grow and divide, free radicals are needed for regulation. Without free radicals, cells would continue to grow and divide uncontrollably—a process best described by one word: cancer.
Free radicals are also essential for activating the immune system to fight off bacterial or viral infections. Therefore, using antioxidants to eliminate all free radicals is not a good idea.
**Best Dietary Advice: Five Servings of Fruits and Vegetables a Day**
No one denies that vitamin C is crucial for a healthy lifestyle. However, if one can choose a healthy diet, relying on synthetic nutritional supplements is likely not the answer to longevity. "Only when there is a genuine deficiency of a specific antioxidant does supplementing with antioxidants make sense," said Cleva Villanueva from the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City. "The best choice is to obtain antioxidants from food because they come with a variety of interacting antioxidants."
Nick Lane, a biochemist at University College London, also stated, "A diet rich in vegetables and fruits is clearly beneficial for us." These benefits are often attributed to antioxidants, but the advantages of such a diet may also stem from the balanced effects of pro-oxidants and other compounds, the roles of which science has yet to fully unravel.
After decades of unraveling the complex biochemical interactions between free radicals and antioxidants, and following countless clinical trials involving tens of thousands of volunteers, the best dietary advice that 21st-century science can offer remains the same old adage: "Five servings of fruits and vegetables a day."
References: BBC, Quackwatch
Source: https:/ / tw. news. yahoo. com/ % E……C% 89% E5% AE% B3- 062000946. html
Study: Vitamin Pills May Not Extend Life and Could be Harmful
In 1992, *Time* magazine published a cover story titled "The Real Power of Vitamins." The article, largely based on the beliefs of American Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling, fervently promoted the miraculous effects of vitamins, claiming they could treat cardiovascular diseases, cataracts, and even cancer.
"Even more intriguing, vitamins might slow down aging," the article stated. Born in 1901, Pauling began adding high doses of vitamin C to his orange juice every morning at the age of 65. In his 1970 bestseller *How to Live Longer and Feel Better*, he argued that vitamin C could treat the common cold and flu. In the 1980s, when AIDS ravaged the U.S., Pauling even claimed that vitamin C could combat what was then considered an incurable disease.
**A Giant in Biochemistry’s Zealous Advocacy for Vitamins**
He personally consumed 18 grams of vitamin C daily—50 times the recommended intake. He developed his own "orthomolecular" therapy, which referred to high doses of vitamins, believing it could extend life.
Though Pauling was a giant in biochemistry, with contributions to 20th-century chemistry unmatched by any other, his obsession with vitamins, according to the international nonprofit Quackwatch—dedicated to debunking medical myths—was entirely unworthy of praise. "No responsible medical or nutritional scientist endorses these views," Quackwatch stated.
**Who Was Linus Pauling?**
"Pauling was a titan of 20th-century science whose work laid the foundation for modern chemistry," wrote biochemist Nick Lane of University College London in his book. By the age of 30, Pauling had merged chemistry and quantum mechanics to propose innovative concepts like "valence bond theory" and "electronegativity." Two decades later, his research on protein structures helped James Watson and Francis Crick unravel the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. The following year, Pauling won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on chemical bonds.
In 1962, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his vigorous advocacy against nuclear testing and his anti-war stance, making him the only person to win two unshared Nobel Prizes in different fields.
After *Time* published its article, sales of multivitamins and other supplements skyrocketed, and Pauling became a household name. Yet his academic reputation plummeted, as over the years, scientific research found little to no evidence supporting the health benefits of vitamin C and other supplements.
According to the BBC, every spoonful of supplements Pauling added to his orange juice likely harmed his body more than it helped. His fervent beliefs not only proved wrong but may have even been dangerous.
Pauling’s theory was based on the idea that vitamin C is an antioxidant. Antioxidants were thought to neutralize highly reactive molecules called "free radicals." In 1954, Rebeca Gerschman of the University of Rochester first suggested that free radicals could be dangerous. In 1956, Denham Harman of the University of California, Berkeley, expanded on this, claiming that free radicals might cause disease and aging.Throughout the 20th century, scientists developed more theories based on this concept, which were quickly widely accepted by the academic community. In addition to vitamin C, other well-known antioxidant vitamins include vitamin E, beta-carotene, and folic acid.
Different experimental methods yielded the same results: no amount of antioxidants could stop aging, let alone halt the onset of disease.
Once free radicals were equated with aging and disease, they were immediately seen as enemies that must be eliminated from the human body. "It is hoped that this theory will lead to fruitful experiments aimed at extending human lifespan," Harman wrote in 1972.
In the decades that followed, the experiments he envisioned were tried repeatedly but yielded almost no results.
In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers added various antioxidant supplements to the diets of many lab mice and even injected them directly into their bloodstreams. Despite different methods, the results were the same: no amount of antioxidants could stop aging, let alone halt the onset of disease.
"These experiments have never proven that antioxidants can extend lifespan," said Antonio Enriquez from the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Center.
If antioxidants don’t work in mice, what about humans? Scientists certainly can’t lock human subjects in labs like lab mice, controlling all external factors that might affect results while monitoring their health for a lifetime. But what scientists can do is conduct long-term clinical trials.
The premise is quite simple. First, find a group of people with similar ages, locations, and lifestyles. Second, divide them into two groups, giving antioxidants to one half and placebos to the other. Third, to avoid bias, no one knows who gets what—even those administering the pills are kept in the dark.
Since the 1970s, countless experiments following the gold standard of pharmaceutical research have been conducted. The results showed not only no benefit in extending lifespan but even an increased risk of cancer.
For example, a 1994 study tracked 29,133 Finnish people aged 50–60, all of whom smoked. Only some were given beta-carotene, and among those who took it, the incidence of pneumonia increased by 16%.
A U.S. study found similar results: a group of postmenopausal women who took folic acid (a B vitamin) for ten years had a 20% higher risk of breast cancer compared to those who didn’t take it.
It gets worse. A 1996 study had to be halted two years early because over 1,000 heavy smokers who took beta-carotene and vitamin A for four years saw a 28% increase in pneumonia incidence and a 17% higher death rate.
The authors of the study wrote at the time: "The current findings provide ample reason to avoid beta-carotene and beta-carotene combined with vitamin A."
Of course, some studies have shown that taking supplements can be beneficial in the absence of a healthy diet, but generally, the harms seem to outweigh the benefits.
According to a 2012 review of 27 clinical trials evaluating antioxidants, only seven showed some benefits, such as reducing the risk of coronary heart disease and pancreatic cancer. The other 17 trials either showed no benefit or even increased the risk of lung and other cancers."The idea of treating antioxidants as a panacea is completely unnecessary," said Enrique from the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Center.
Pauling was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1993 and passed away the following year. He once claimed that his years of vitamin C intake delayed the onset of prostate cancer by 20 years, but this claim was never verified.
Until his death, Pauling remained a firm believer in the miraculous effects of vitamin C. Yet many studies point to a link between excessive antioxidants and cancer. For example, a 2007 study by the American Cancer Society showed that men who took multivitamins were twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as those who did not.
Antioxidants have their dark side, and free radicals are far from entirely harmful. Increasing evidence suggests that free radicals are indispensable to human health. For instance, when human cells grow and divide, free radicals are needed for regulation. Without free radicals, cells would continue to grow and divide uncontrollably—a process best described by one word: cancer.
Free radicals are also essential for activating the immune system to fight off bacterial or viral infections. Therefore, using antioxidants to eliminate all free radicals is not a good idea.
**Best Dietary Advice: Five Servings of Fruits and Vegetables a Day**
No one denies that vitamin C is crucial for a healthy lifestyle. However, if one can choose a healthy diet, relying on synthetic nutritional supplements is likely not the answer to longevity. "Only when there is a genuine deficiency of a specific antioxidant does supplementing with antioxidants make sense," said Cleva Villanueva from the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City. "The best choice is to obtain antioxidants from food because they come with a variety of interacting antioxidants."
Nick Lane, a biochemist at University College London, also stated, "A diet rich in vegetables and fruits is clearly beneficial for us." These benefits are often attributed to antioxidants, but the advantages of such a diet may also stem from the balanced effects of pro-oxidants and other compounds, the roles of which science has yet to fully unravel.
After decades of unraveling the complex biochemical interactions between free radicals and antioxidants, and following countless clinical trials involving tens of thousands of volunteers, the best dietary advice that 21st-century science can offer remains the same old adage: "Five servings of fruits and vegetables a day."
References: BBC, Quackwatch
Source: https:/ / tw. news. yahoo. com/ % E……C% 89% E5% AE% B3- 062000946. html