Vitamins and supplements are a waste of money, expert says

by Brian White (Subscribe to Brian White's posts)
Oct 18th 2006 3:02PM

Categories: Vitamins and Supplements, Nutrition & Supplements

It's always been a surprise to me to see such a huge price disparity between many popular vitamins and minerals. From bottom-level grocery stores to high-end nutritional supplement stores, the prices for vitamins like Vitamin C and Folic Acid are all over the map. Naturally, the quality and efficacy of vitamins is all over the map as well.

But Jane Clarke, Britain's leading nutritionist (not sure how that title was determined), says vitamins and supplements are a waste of money for most of us, which strikes at the very heart of even the high-end nutritional supplement industry -- with many manufacturers having clinical evidence and double-blind studies that show many vitamins and minerals -- when combined in a synergistic fashion in the correct proportions are are of high quality -- are very good for many of us.

So -- who to believe? Mounds of medical evidence or Britain's leading nutritionist? After reading some of Clarke's suggestions, I disagree with many of them from the onset -- like the supposition that milk is a good source of calcium.

Calcium is much better delivered into a human's digestive system outside of cow's milk, which has many negative nutritional aspects from research I've done -- and I don't drink cow's milk at all myself. Clarke does make some good points, but without detailed medical backup sources and studies, I'm not sure how much stock I would put into her recommendations.

Source

Comments (4)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Brent 10-18-2006 @ 9:25PM

What do you have against cow's milk? Just curious. I've heard several nutritionists recommend skim milk and yogurt as good sources of both protein and calcium. Since we -- most of us, at least -- evolved the ability to make use of lactose, it seems odd that it would not be advantageous as a food source.

My only worry about dairy products is the antibiotics and growth hormones that were pumped into the cows...

Frank Gilroy 10-19-2006 @ 11:31AM

I've got to agree with your comment on cow's milk. Cows milk is meant to make baby cows very fat in a very short period of time. Probably not the best idea for humans.

John F. 12-12-2006 @ 2:51PM

"Calcium is much better delivered into a human's digestive system outside of cow's milk"

I keep seeing this claim, but it is never accompanied with research citations. So I went looking for them myself. What I found were a lot of studies measuring calcium absorption, comparing milk with other calcium-rich foods like spinach. Milk always seems to come out looking much better, partly because the oxalates in other calcium sources bind to the calcium, making it less bioavailable.

Here's one example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1729463

Search for other research on milk, calcium, and other calcium sources. It all points to milk being a good source of calcium, and good for bones.

I've seen many claims to the contrary, but it all seems to be hearsay. Where's the real research to support it?

Soliel 12-06-2006 @ 1:43PM

The biggest problem with cows milk is that even with it's attendant calcium content, it sucks CA out of our bones. Countries with the highest Calcium intake have the highest osteoporosis.

How is this so if milk contains so much calcium? It's because intense protein, animal protein, is not good for our bones. When we ingest too much protein, or intense protein, it acidifies our blood and in order for our body to counteract that acidity, it takes CA out of the bones to do so. Thus, there is a calcium loss when we eat these foods. It doesn't seem to matter how much calcium we ingest, it does not counteract this calcium loss effect.

Research it yourself. Type in "Calcium dairy osteoporosis". You will find the research yourself.