Vitamin supplements - Again seem to be pointless

[Justforfun000]

I have seen many encouraging studies over the decades and it seemed for awhile that many "superstars" like Omega 3's, Vitamin C, A...E...etc...all had solid studies at the very least suggesting beneficial effects..but lately mega-analysis studies and long term results are coming up disappointing...

One of the latest:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Stu ... story.html

Snippet:

Multivitamins are America's favourite dietary supplement. About one-third of adults take them. Yet no government agency recommends their routine use for preventing chronic diseases, and few studies have tested them to see if they can.

A leading preventive medicine task force even recommends against beta-carotene supplements, alone or with other vitamins, to prevent cancer or heart disease because some studies have found them harmful. And vitamin K can affect bleeding and interfere with some commonly used heart drugs.

Sesso's study involved nearly 15,000 healthy male doctors given monthly packets of Centrum Silver or fake multivitamins. After about 11 years, there were no differences between the groups in heart attacks, strokes, chest pain, heart failure or heart-related deaths.

So all in all, the magic bullet pill is unlikely to be in the cards..but I'm posting this as a question to you doctors, scientists, biochemists, biologists...etc. I know there's a couple of you floating around here..

Why wouldn't the taking of a needed set of vitamins and minerals proven to be essential to health and in (for example) cases like B vitamins or Omega 3's that are ,

A) Not stored

B) Supposed to be provided every day

C) Taken in measured, appropriate dosages for optimal effect..

NOT be beneficial? It doesn't seem to make any sense! How can being deficient in things for years and decades off an on not be measurably different in health status? I have no illusions whatsover that I get regular daily percentages of many vitamins. My diet is simply too specific and varied between days. I might have a wonderfully high day in magnesium and Vitamin K Monday, Tuesday I could be on the go and eating no veggies...mostly meat with protein and iron...bread and such..etc. etc. But no way in hell do I eat the perfect balanced diet that gives me a little bit of everything and covers all the bases daily. Likely not even weekly as healthy as I do eat in the main.

Why isn't supplementation being helpful?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Reread the article, it specifically refers to heart health, not general health. There are more ways to be unhealthy than a bad ticker.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Reread the article, it specifically refers to heart health, not general health. There are more ways to be unhealthy than a bad ticker.

None of which vitamin supplements actually seem to have any tangible benefits for. The only people who should be taking vitamin supplements are people suffering from specific, medically diagnosed, deficiencies; and those should be prescribed by proper medical authorities. The problem with taking a vitamin pill is this: It's the modern snake oil. They're frequently not required to be tested by their manufacturers for the effects they allegedly provide . . . and they're alleged to provide a lot of effects, just like the "patent medicines" of the 19th century. You get all the micronutrients and minerals you need from eating a balanced diet. When you get it in food, you get it in small doses throughout the day, in combinations that your body has evolved to expect. When you introduce a concentrated vitamin pill that dumps everything in a single shot at a high dosage, much of it is either wasted, or the chemicals within interact in ways that we don't yet fully understand (to the point where taking such supplements actually seem to slightly increase mortality from all causes, not just heart disease.)

[Broomstick]

Why wouldn't the taking of a needed set of vitamins and minerals proven to be essential to health and in (for example) cases like B vitamins or Omega 3's that are ,

A) Not stored

B) Supposed to be provided every day

C) Taken in measured, appropriate dosages for optimal effect.

I think part of your difficulty starts from these three assumptions. Water-soluable vitamins such as C are not stored long term. Your body has some capacity to "store" them short term, which is why one day without vitamin C does not result in scurvy.

So... no, there is no micronutrient you must take every single day. We never evolved in a milieu with "measured, appropriate dosages" so the body doesn't actually require optimal dosages.

It doesn't seem to make any sense! How can being deficient in things for years and decades off an on not be measurably different in health status?

Most people in the First World are not, in fact, deficient even with less than perfect diets. They would do better to cut down on total fats and calories than take a multivitamin if they want to improve their health.

I might have a wonderfully high day in magnesium and Vitamin K Monday, Tuesday I could be on the go and eating no veggies...mostly meat with protein and iron...bread and such..etc. etc. But no way in hell do I eat the perfect balanced diet that gives me a little bit of everything and covers all the bases daily.

You don't need to. We did not evolve in an environment where nutrients were doled out in perfectly balanced meals three times a day. Our ancestors would have vegee heavy days and meat heavy days and some days where they might not have eaten at all. Our bodies do have the ability to cope with this sort of thing. Arguably, how the various nutrients average out over a week could be more important than hitting all bases every day.

Why isn't supplementation being helpful?

Because it's not needed.

I take vitamin C during the winter when I eat far less fruit and fresh vegetables because there is some anecdotal evidence it benefits people with allergies and those prone to cold sores - both of which apply to me. November-February I take a low dose of vitamin D because of lack of sunlight which, even for those of vampiric complexion such as myself, can result in low D levels. My doctor has specifically warned me away from any supplement containing potassium, including the typical multivitamin, because my potassium levels (for some reason) are borderline too high (excessive potassium is hazardous to your heart). Based on analysis of my typical eating habits (which has been done several times due to my food allergies) I don't need anything else. My normal diet has all the A, B, E, K, etc. needed, I've long eaten fish a couple times a week and like the ones heavy in omega-3's, etc., etc. This results in arguments with my father when I visit, who is old enough to suffer from "thoughts in a rut" syndrome, who keeps trying to push multi-vitamins on me.

So... how many people chugging down multivitamins are like me: people who shouldn't take them because one of their nutrient levels is already high and it may be enough to push them into an area of bad effect? How many are eating well enough that the result of multivitamins is basically expensive urine? (What you don't need you piss away - lots of B vitamins can make your piss an amazingly vivid shade of yellow). And, again, how many would really do better lowering their total calories and losing some weight rather than relying on pills to keep them healthy?

Fortunately, for the average person, multivitamins are medically harmless but the money would be better spent elsewhere. If you're worried about your nutrient intake keep a food diary for a week (or even a month) then get it analyzed by someone impartial who isn't peddling pills, that's the only way to know for sure. A real dietician will then probably suggest you eat more of certain foods rather than add a multivitamin.

[Justforfun000]

Thanks Broomstick! That clears up a lot. I wish this was discussed more comprehensively in the media and a clear explanation like you gave would go a long way in helping people resist slick marketing techniques.

Good No-God...Just today another study that demonstrates AGAIN how pointless it seems to be to try supplementing:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the ... le4941542/

Low vitamin D levels may be a factor in living longer

Dave McGinn

The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 05 2012, 5:22 PM EST


Ask any health nut what supplements you should be taking every day and vitamin D will surely be on the list. Low levels of it have been linked to increased rates of just about everything you want to avoid: diabetes, allergies, cancer, heart disease, mental illness and death.

But a new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal says low levels of vitamin D may be associated with something many of us want: longevity.
More Related to this Story

Too good to be true: Vitamin D won’t fight colds, study says


Dutch researchers looked at 380 families with at least two siblings over 90 years old, their offspring and their offspring’s partners, who could help researchers understand the influence of genetics compared with that of environmental factors, since spouses would share the latter but not the former.

Researchers measured vitamin D levels and examined the influence of genetic variation in a handful of genes linked to vitamin D levels.

After controlling for age, sex, body mass index, time of year, kidney function and supplement use, which can all influence a person’s vitamin D levels, researchers discovered that low levels of vitamin D may be a good thing, at least when it comes to living longer.

“We found that familial longevity was associated with lower levels of vitamin D and a lower frequency of allelic variation in the CYP2R1 gene, which was associated with higher levels of vitamin D,” Dr. Diana van Heemst, one of the study’s authors, said in a release.

Specifically, researchers found that offspring of people in their 90s with at least one nonagenarian sibling had lower levels of vitamin D than people in the control group “independent of possible confounding factors.” Those same offspring also had less of a genetic variant that predisposes people to high levels of vitamin D.

Although low levels of vitamin D have been associated with so many ills, it is not known if low levels cause them or are instead a consequence of such conditions.

The study’s authors say their findings clearly support a connection between low levels of vitamin D and familial longevity, although they also noted that more research needs to be done in order to better understand that link.

[Broomstick]

The whole issue of optimal nutrition is quite complex.

It's long been known that too much vitamin D can be toxic, even fatal. Too little also causes problems. The argument these days is "what is optimal?" We also stumble over other factors regarding vitamin D: gender, age and race, or more precisely, skin color.

Young people need vitamin D not only for the usual maintenance needs all human share, but also because they're building their skeletons. This is not news. Lack of vitamin D can result in rickets. This is also not news. In the US, milk is fortified with D under the assumption children will consume the milk (and other fortified dairy products). When the US was majority Causasian this worked pretty well. However...

Children with dark skin need either more sunlight or more D in their diet than pale skinned children. Between higher latitudes having less daylight in winter (often, insufficient at times even for the needs of the pale) and most ethnic groups outside of Europe having lactose intolerance past weaning this is a double-whammy for the dark skinned children, which are comprising more and more of the US population. Historically, rickets has also been most common in the dark skinned, those who live in the north of the US, and urban populations (they have always spent more time indoors). (Note: the correlation between dark skin an lactose intolerance is not absolute. There are several African groups, such as the Masai, who retain the ability to consume milk in adulthood. Many people from India also have dark skin and the ability to digest milk past weaning. There are definitely Europeans who are lactose intolerant, regardless of skin color. Most African-Americans, though are descendants of Africans who lacked the "milk digestion past weaning" trait, and Indians are a very small sub-set of the US population, and still suffer at high latitudes due to their dark skins being less efficient at the sunlight conversion that yields D. Now add in the fact that there is a lot of ethnic mixing in the US, and more with each passing year, and the correlation can be expected to lessen even more in the future.) So... a dark skinned child living in, say, New York City in winter may well need a vitamin D supplement in pill form for optimal health, whereas a pale-skinned child living in rural Alabama in the summer probably has zero need for that. Inuit who may be dark skinned and live near enough to the pole to have days or weeks of continual night might not need a supplement if they still eat a diet very heavy in traditional seafood, because they'll get sufficient D from their diet (there's a theory they didn't pale like other northern peoples because their diet meant they didn't need to in order to get sufficient D). The extremes are easy... but what of those between? The only way to know for sure is to get a blood test to measure vitamin D levels.

If we lived in a Vulcan society (that is, sane and logical) we'd screen individuals for vital nutrient levels and prescribed supplements where needed, and refrain from them where not needed. We don't do that. Partly it's expense and partly it's that humans aren't Vulcans (that is, often act insanely and illogically).

That's just for kids - women need more vitamin D than men due to their increased needs during pregnancy. It is theorized that this is why, throughout the world, women of any given group tend to be slightly paler than the men of that group, it might be a sex-specific adaption to accommodate that need. Elderly people may or may not need more, that is still being argued.

That's just for ONE nutrient.

Rinse and repeat for all sorts of other vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients.

Then we get into the media hype. Take lycopene, for example. From various ads you'd think tomatoes were the sole source of lycopene in the world. They aren't. Fresh tomatoes aren't even the best source. Despite the hype of the raw foodists that raw is best in fact crushed and processed tomatoes have more bio-avilable lycopene than fresh ones. On top of that, there is no solid evidence that lycopene is vital to humanity, can prevent cancer, or really do anything other than look red. Even if it is, no one has any clue how much we should be eating.

That's why I said if you're really seeking advice you need to find an actual, trained dietician who isn't peddling anything. Someone who won't say "eat more tomatoes" but give you a range of foods, such as "eat more food with X, which include this, this, this, and this." Someone who won't recommend a pill unless truly needed - such as someone darkskinned living in a northern city who can't tolerate dairy who needs a vitamin D boost - based on actual medical need.

For us mere mortals, the best advice still comes down to eat a varied diet. Here are some quick and easy rules:

1) Eat a lot of different things
2) Eat real (minimally processed) food
3) Eat mostly plants
4) Don't eat too much of anything
5) Eat as many different (natural) colors of food as possible

Follow those rules and you will most likely get everything you need.

[Terralthra]

Most people in the First World are not, in fact, deficient even with less than perfect diets. They would do better to cut down on total fats and calories than take a multivitamin if they want to improve their health.

Cutting down on dietary fat intake to improve health is not scientifically supported, and is correlatively shown to be the inverse, actually.

Over the past 40 years, the FDA has recommended people eat less fat, and by and large - they have. Since 1976, fats as a macronutrient have decrease from 38% to 32% of the average diet, with the difference made up with increased carbohydrates. The result? Vastly increased obesity, overweightness, and metabolic disorder.


Eating a high-fat, high-protein, low-carb diet tends to increase resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure, while eating high-carb, low-fat tends to decrease REE and TEE.


Eating low-fat, high-carb food also raises LDL-P (low-density lipoprotein particle count), the most directly correlated cholesterol-carrying lipoprotein to atherosclerosis, while eating high-fat, high-protein, low-carb diets directly decreases LDL-P while increasing HDL-P.

In short, eating high-fat, high-protein is better for you than cutting out fats and replacing them with carbs.

[Broomstick]

I guess you totally missed the part about total lower calories?

Those two parts are linked. You lower fats AND calories, and you do that by either eating less over all, or eating more high fiber/bulk fruits and vegetables. The goal here is to reduce weight, as being overweight and/or obese is arguably one of THE leading causes of poor health in the first world today.

So, thank you for totally missing the point of what I was saying, which can be summed up as "eat healthier and lose some weight".

And, to be honest, reducing fats from 38% of total calories to 32% of calories isn't that impressive.

[Terralthra]

I guess you totally missed the part about total lower calories?

Those two parts are linked. You lower fats AND calories, and you do that by either eating less over all, or eating more high fiber/bulk fruits and vegetables. The goal here is to reduce weight, as being overweight and/or obese is arguably one of THE leading causes of poor health in the first world today.

So, thank you for totally missing the point of what I was saying, which can be summed up as "eat healthier and lose some weight".

And, to be honest, reducing fats from 38% of total calories to 32% of calories isn't that impressive.

Lowering fats doesn't help, by itself, and makes lowering caloric intake harder. It makes things worse in health effects directly, and it makes calorie reduction harder by decreasing your REE and TEE. That means the same caloric intake goes from being maintenance weight to a calorie excess. So you have to reduce caloric intake just to get to maintenance from what you were eating before, and then reduce it more to actual lower your weight.

Also, the study involved had calorie reduction as part of the intervention for all three dietary paths. So your post is wrong on multiple levels. Congratulations, you're the onion of being wrong.

Reducing fats is what we, as a society, have been doing, and it has not decreased obesity. It's increased it, measurably.

[Broomstick]

Again, you are missing my point.

American EAT TOO MANY CALORIES. Period. That is why they gain weight, and why weight-related problems are such a problem.

I would also suggest reducing alcohol consumption and "empty calories" (which are usually carbs).

If you go to a minimally processed, mostly plant diet guess what - you automatically lower both fats AND total calories and add lots of filling fiber so you don't have that great urge to fill up on processed shit.

Fat is as much an essential nutrient as anything else, but eating too much of it is bad for you, just as an all-carb or all-protein diet is bad for you.

NOWHERE did I say just "reduce fat by itself", or did you not read my entire post? Did you miss the part about increasing plant-based foods, eating minimally processed foods, eating foods that are naturally colorful (which automatically leads you to fruits and vegetables that are both low fat and low carb, as well as high fiber and high nutrient), and all the OTHER points I included?

Fuck off if you just want to score points in a debate. I was trying to answer the OP's question and discuss why this is a complex issue with a few examples. Why don't you contribute rather than attempting to start an argument, or do you have nothing to bring to the table other than confrontation?

"Reduce fats" by itself is no more helpful than "take a multi-vitamin" by itself or "eat tomatoes" by itself. Funny though - I've been pointing out that you have to look at diet and nutrients in a large context, from where you live to your ethnic background to your personal medical issues - but I guess you missed that, too.

[Terralthra]

Unlike you, I have data and graphs to illustrate and support my points. Until you do likewise, your post is so much bleating about how you're being "constructive" by asserting without evidence, and I'm being "confrontational" by showing data that contradicts your assertions. You've now posted 3 posts asserting the same things, yet no evidence has been forthcoming. When you get around to showing some evidence, I'll reply. Until then, bleat bleat bleat.

[Broomstick]

Nevermind that none of what you said actually went anywhere near answering the OP's question, not to mention focusing on just one small point in my posts instead of considering the whole.

Again, what have you contributed?

[PainRack]

Lowering fats doesn't help, by itself, and makes lowering caloric intake harder. It makes things worse in health effects directly, and it makes calorie reduction harder by decreasing your REE and TEE. That means the same caloric intake goes from being maintenance weight to a calorie excess. So you have to reduce caloric intake just to get to maintenance from what you were eating before, and then reduce it more to actual lower your weight.

Also, the study involved had calorie reduction as part of the intervention for all three dietary paths. So your post is wrong on multiple levels. Congratulations, you're the onion of being wrong.

Reducing fats is what we, as a society, have been doing, and it has not decreased obesity. It's increased it, measurably.

No it didn't. In the context of the 60s which was when the advice was given, most high fat foods were high calorific. Bacon & eggs are high in fat sure, but the real killers was all the fried greasy buffalo wings and the like.

Removing high fat foods WOULD had removed high calories.

But the world moved on. Granted, its because of the delay in medical advice too as the trend already started in the 50s but to put it simply, the Green Revolution also allowed us to put tons of sugar into everything. Just go ask your grandparents how much sweets they ate as a child, or how much soda pop. Anyone STILL remembers an era when soda drinks were a treat and not part of a daily meal? You're misrepresenting the statistics and using false correlation.

Its also annoying because you're assuming Broomstick is saying cut out fats and replace them with calories, which is NOT what she advocated. Yes, its what Americans have done, its what the food companies have done(I still remember a sales gig where a diet replacement food had the same calories but promoted itself based on low fats.... Boy was that stuff hard to shift without the sin of omission) but its NOT what Broomstick advocated. She advocated cutting out fats, and reducing calories. She didn't say cut out fats= replace it with carbs. Another quick history lesson. The advice in the 60s was that due to increasing prosperity post WW2, the intake of meat has soared, and with it, high fat in the form of fried, greasy food, to the extent that most people were eating more than the recommended amount of saturated fat in their diet.

Despite the vagueness of the data, dietary fat is currently still linked to the development of breast and colon cancer(yes yes, I know that the data is now being overturned and etc) and that increased levels of cholesterol/saturated fats/trans fat is still linked to heart disease, which a high diet in sat fat/trans fat still promoted. Remember that whole fried, greasy diet from the 50s, aka as good Southern food?

Granted, I don't know much about the US in its current time, but I will still point out that most probably, Americans STILL don't meet the dietary guidelines for sat fat.
The Dietary Guidelines of Americans 2010 spells out recommendations for most Americans afterall, to cut the consumption of sat fats still, on top of recommendations to cut transfat. And it notes that 34% of calories is from fat intake and recommends that Americans consume only 10% of calories for sat fat, which since sat fat is found in most fatty foods, suggests that Americans STILL consume too much fat.

[PainRack]

Accck.... Apparently, I missed the edit window. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 states that most Americans consume too much sat fat(11% vs recommended 10%). The range of fat consumption is from 20%-35%, as from the IOM and the average American intake is 34%, which is on the higher end range.

Since the HSA echoes Broomstick advice on reducing fat and calories(although it reinforces the need to cut refined sugar and sodium as well), I really see no valid objections to Broomstick advice here. It seems that you seized studies on dietary intervention to reduce obesity and took it out of context in terms of nutritional advice instead.

[Terralthra]

The guidelines for dietary fat intake are not based on rigorous science, and indeed, not much in the way of science at all. Peter Attia, M.D., co-founder of the Nutritional Science Institute, gave a talk on just this topic, if you have an hour to learn about it.

Click here

[Broomstick]

MOST recommendations on nutrition are not based on rigorous science, and chose any nutrition topic and you'll get contradictory studies as pointed out by the OP with his puzzlement over whether or not multivitamins are of any use or not.

So, once again - for some inexplicable reason you are focusing on fat intake to the exclusion of everything else brought up.

Perhaps it is the focusing on just one thing, without consideration of context, which is part of the problem when it comes to nutrition. People do not eat nutrients in isolation, or in the same combinations, and synergistic reactions are not accounted for. Context is important - hence the recommendation to take vitamins and supplements with food. Some vitamins interfere with the uptake of certain minerals (vitamin C and iron are a known combination) whereas others facilitate that uptake (lycopene and fats).

All of which might have something to do with the recommendation to eat a varied diet.

But rather than consider the matter holistically you insist on a reductionist approach. Why is that?

[Ziggy Stardust]

EDIT: Nevermind, I apparently skimmed through the post that answered my point

[Terralthra]

EDIT: Nevermind, I apparently skimmed through the post that answered my point

To a certain degree, yes. Numerous studies done recently have shown that for equal caloric intake diets, comparing low-fat, medium protein, high-carb , low glycemic index (medium fat, whole grains, little refined sugar, moderate protein), and essentially the Atkins diet (high fat intake, high protein intake, little to no sugar/carb intake), the high-fat/high-protein diet tended to increase energy expenditure, both resting and total. Low GI tended to neither raise nor lower REE/TEE. Low-fat lowered REE/TEE significantly. Effectively, this mean that someone eating a high-fat, high-protein diet can eat more and still maintain weight (or correspondingly, not have to eat as much less to create a caloric deficit to lose weight), while someone on a low-fat diet will have to eat less just to maintain their weight from a balanced diet, and cut even more if they want to lose weight.

Additional studies have shown that eating the same number of calories of high-fat, high-protein will reduce appetite more than low-fat, high-carb calories, and the appetite will stay low longer. Also, high-fat, high-protein foods lower LDL-P and raise HDL-P, decreasing their risk of atherosclerosis, while low-fat diets increase LDL-P, increasing their risk of atherosclerosis significantly.

Essentially, the upshot is that 40-50 years ago, based on poor science, the FDA and other organs of public policy advised everyone to cut back on fats and cholesterol, eating 1-2 servings of fat-containing foods per day while eating refined grains 6-8 times per day. We now know that this diet increases appetite while lowering insulin sensitivity (precursor for metabolic disorder) and lowering energy expenditure.

In essence, cutting down on fat intake (as Americans by and large have over the past 4 decades, as shown by the above graph) primes the pump for people to eat more, gain weight, and suffer from more heart attacks, metabolic disorders, and generally be in poorer shape. Which is exactly what they've done for four decades, consistently. Don't worry though, Broomstick and PainRack are right here to keep telling you to cut the fat out of your diet.

American EAT TOO MANY CALORIES. Period. That is why they gain weight, and why weight-related problems are such a problem.

But rather than consider the matter holistically you insist on a reductionist approach. Why is that?

Who's the fucking reductionist, again?

[Guardsman Bass]

I heard something similar from a friend whose studying nutrition. He said that a certain number of carbohydrates seems to trigger the body's processes that turn food into stored fat, whereas eating a low amount of carbohydrates plus a larger amount of protein and fat doesn't do that.

I'm also curious as to when the conventional wisdom on "salt = high blood pressure" is going to change. I've read that the link between salt intake and blood pressure is mixed in terms of evidence.

[Broomstick]

There are some hypothesis floating around that not only is the link between salt and hypertension dependent on individual chemistry/genetics but also ethnic background, which gets into race, which is a hot button topic.

One of the most intriguing out there is that having the genes that link salt and hypertension may have increased a person's chance of surviving the infamous Middle Passage from Africa to the Americas during the slave trade, which would account for the trait being more common in African-Americans descended from slaves than in Africans from Africa in modern times.... but the science isn't solid on that. If it were ever proven true it would be yet another example of how a trait beneficial in one circumstance can be detrimental in another.

[PainRack]

In essence, cutting down on fat intake (as Americans by and large have over the past 4 decades, as shown by the above graph) primes the pump for people to eat more, gain weight, and suffer from more heart attacks, metabolic disorders, and generally be in poorer shape. Which is exactly what they've done for four decades, consistently. Don't worry though, Broomstick and PainRack are right here to keep telling you to cut the fat out of your diet.

Continue creating a STRAWMAN argument please. Please note exactly WHERE Broomstick and myself are saying that you should eat a diet that comprises of high carbohydrates. In fact, examine exactly WHERE in my post you got that impression from. Was it when I pointed out to you how the then advice was influenced by the diet of Americans then where the main source of high calorific foods was high fat, thus, removing fat would had simplistically removed both calories as well as saturated fat but that didn't happen because changes in diet where tons of sugar was added to the American diet changed everything?


Of course, you note that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 DOESN"T recommends cutting down American fat intake. American fat intake of 34% on average, is NOT targeted to be reduced.
Instead, their objectives are

1.Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
2.Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible by limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as partially hydrogenated oils, and by limiting other solid fats.
3.Reduce the intake of calories from solid fats and added sugars.
4.Limit the consumption of foods that contain refined grains, especially refined grain foods that contain solid fats, added sugars, and sodium.

Hmmm... How about foods to eat/avoid instead?
Yes. It retains the "switch to low fat/skim milk" part.
But let's just see some of the other stuff shall we?

1.Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry.
2.Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.
3.Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.

In other words, eat more good, healthy fatty fish instead of chicken and other land animals which usually contain higher sources of saturated fats, especially when cooked in the traditional Southern diets.


But yeah. Keep humping the strawman that the HSA advocates replacing fats with carbohydrates. I mean, the very statement to replace saturated fats with healthy fats is right THERE in the article and that's what I'm advocating. And what I'm pointing out Broomstick is right on, because Ameircans eat 11% saturated fat as opposed to 10% saturated fat. More IMPORTANTLY, Americans saturated fat intake has NOT decreassed for 2 decades now. And considering some American diet between now and 1920s, its possible to argue that Americans consume MORE unhealthy fats in the form of trans fat than in the past.
What does that do to your pretty graphs?

And.......... Americans are eating too much saturated fat, again, 11% vs 10% recommendations. And since we know that reducing the amount of saturated fat and converting it to unsaturated, non trans fat REDUCES the rate of heart disease from over 2 decades of studies.

Are you seriously suggesting that your "high fat, high protein" diet should comprise of saturated fats higher than 10%? And that the popular 60% high fat, 30% protein diets does not have too much saturated and transfat? Hey genius. Fat intake amongst americans, even as the percentage of calories from fat decreased has remained approximately constant for the last 2 decades.

Now, granted, we don't have accurate saturated fat contents from the 60s and etc, but given the increasing consumption of refined foods and transfat in the typical American diet of now as compared to the 1920s... that trend should still hold true. The amount of unhealthy fats in the American diet has NOT reduced. What does that do to your pretty graphs?


But go on. Keep insisting on the petty myth that I'm saying oh, cut down fat and eat more SUGARS instead. I mean, yeah, the American authorities, all advocate replacing fat with sugars..... oh wait,

Note: if your INTENT was to display the evidence regarding the Atkins Diet/Zone Diet, then present it as such. Don't go creating a fucking strawman.

[PainRack]

Let's go through Broomstick initial point, shall we?
Cut down on total fats and calorie intake.

If she was saying cut down all fats, then I would disagree with her. But I leave that for her to elaborate.
But if the argument was to cut down on saturated fat(by following dietary guidelines and switching it to poly/mono unsaturated fats) and reduce calorie intake, she's absolutely RIGHT.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/4/836.full

From 1970s to 2011, percentage of calories from fat dropped YES. HOWEVER, the intake DIDN"T. In general, americans on a whole took the SAME amount of saturated fat as they did in the past, although the data as presented here showed that men reduce sat fat intake by approximately 5g over 3 decades but women INCREASED their sat fat by 6.

And before you ask, yes, this is the EXACT same dataset as presented in your pretty graphs. Just represented in absolute numbers instead of the misleading total percentage.

So, why did fat as a total percentage drop? Because Americans increased their caloric intake over the last 3 decades, primarily by increasing SUGAR content, indeed, refined sugars.


Indeed, this is one of the reasons/studies that probably prompted New York to ban supersize sodas. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to actually google the studies involved but we KNOW soda consumption provides one of the largest hits of empty sugars to the populace and restriction of sodas rapidly cut down sugar intake amongst the young.


Now. I'm not a dietician. Hell, I'm not even an American. But you're going to have to show much more convincing evidence here to show me that Americans aren't eating too much calories and that they aren't consuming too much saturated fat.

Here's a hint. Show me that Americans aren't eating too much calories as opposed to giving me details about high fat vs REE/TEE.
Also, show me evidence that completely overturn two decades of studies that shows how consumption of sat fat, transfat increase the risk of cardiac disease or how switching fats from sat/trans fat to poly/mono fat reduce the risk of cardiac disease. And don't sidestep by arguing high fat/high protein diet can prevent this via judicious food selection. That's NOT what I'm interested in since you stepped in to rebut facts, NOT promote the Atkins/Zone diet.

[Terralthra]

PainRack, I'm trying to respond to your post, but your post is full of sentences which are literally run-ons asking questions that contradict themselves. Is English your second language? I'd appreciate it if you could rephrase your points and your questions, because I'm really unsure what you're asking for a fair number of them.

[Broomstick]

Let's go through Broomstick initial point, shall we?
Cut down on total fats and calorie intake.

If she was saying cut down all fats, then I would disagree with her. But I leave that for her to elaborate.

Fair enough.

As I said, cut down on total fats. By doing so you cut down on total calories. Nowhere did I say replace fats with carbohydrates which is what Terralthra is strawmanning. That is, in fact, what Americans overall did, but that was NOT what I suggested. Hence my "and" linking to "caloric intake". Adding in more calories in the form of carbohydrates either to achieve or exceed the same caloric total is most emphatically NOT what I said!

In past threads on food topics I have actually advocated eating a variety of fats/oils, rather than specifically target saturated fats for reduction. If you cut down on total fats, and eat a variety of fats/oils, for the average American the total of saturated fats in the diet will probably go down while the more healthful fats will probably go up as a percentage of diet, given that so many are still eating a diet skewed to saturated or, worse yet, trans fats. The human body certainly can tolerate some of those two categories but current evidence indicates we're better off with less than more. Better yet, taking the "eat fewer calories/reduce overall fat/eat a variety of fat" approach means that the reduction in saturated fats without adding in extra carbs will usually take place without having to perform endless calculations at the table. It makes it easier for the average person to do it.

I also most emphatically do not advocate eating "fat free" versions of foods as they are typically more processed and also all too often simply add carbs/sugars in place of the fats, winding up with the same amount of calories if not more. And they often taste like shit. You're better off eating a small amount of high fat food - even stuff like bacon and butter which, in moderation, aren't a problem - and actually enjoying the taste and mouthfeel than substituting crappy tasting imitations that don't satisfy.

But that gets into issues of self-control. Can you limit yourself to just one cookie, or do you feel compelled to eat the whole damn package? (This is one area where 100-calorie snack-packs might be a good thing - if have to finish a package once you open it, then only open very small packages. But that's a bit off on a tangent)

Certainly, a zero-fat diet is just as unhealthy as any other extreme diet. You NEED certain fats/oils/lipids for proper body functioning. The problem is that the typical American east too much of that needed nutrient, not that fat is somehow inherently unhealthy.

Which, trundling back to the OP, brings us back to vitamins. Too many people labor under the assumption that if some are good then more is better. That's not the case. Too much of some vitamins can be toxic, even fatal in extreme cases. At best, too many vitamins are a waste of money that could be used to improve one's health in other ways.

So... once more: A multivitamin is not what the average American needs. The average American is, assuming any sort of variety in their diet at all, probably getting all the vitamins he or she needs and then some. If you want to optimize your diet towards being healthy you need to analyze it on an individual basis. Without making any blanket recommendations, I'll offer the opinion that a lot of Americans really should look for more fiber and less total calories as just two examples. Cutting down on added sugars is often a good idea, too.

(As I pointed out to a coworker recently who chided me for putting a spoonful of sugar in my fresh-brewed tea, my tea had 15-20 calories in added sugars. Her soda she was drinking had 240. In other words, same size cup, hers had 12 times the added sugars mine did. This could be a factor in why she is struggling to loose weight and I'm not. Since I have to actually manually add the sugar to my beverage I'm very aware of it, particularly in a work context where I have to actually seek out sugar for that purpose. It's actually a little inconvenient, which helps me keep it limited. In her case she thinks about it not at all, making it all too easy to consume considerably more than I do. If we both consume 4 servings of our chosen beverage a day (a very conservative estimate for either of us) I get 80 extra calories and she gets 960 extra calories. Which person is more likely to have a weight control problem?)

[Broomstick]

PainRack, I'm trying to respond to your post, but your post is full of sentences which are literally run-ons asking questions that contradict themselves. Is English your second language? I'd appreciate it if you could rephrase your points and your questions, because I'm really unsure what you're asking for a fair number of them.

Oh, get over yourself - I had no trouble understanding him.