If you search through online journals looking at the vast number of research articles, it becomes apparent that many papers show no effects for the nutrients they test. These studies are chalked up as negative findings, and often we see mainstream sources claim that this is proof that certain nutrients lack efficacy against particular diseases. In many cases this may be true, but in others poorly designed studies not suitable to test nutrient effects expose the findings as meaningless. Synergistic effects between nutrients are rarely mentioned in discussions or conclusions, much less investigated with real science. Further, there is a tendency to think of nutrients in the same way research considers pharmaceuticals but this is not how vitamins, minerals or phytonutrients work . Nutrient effects are often small, subtle, synergistic and require a lifetime to manifest as changes.
For example, a paper published in the Journal of Nutrition in 20101 showed that fair skinned subjects need upwards of 1300 (32.5 µg) iu per day of supplemental vitamin D3 in the winter to maintain blood levels of cholecalciferol. The same paper showed that dark skinned subjects of African descent may require as much as 2100 (52.5 µg) to 3100 iu (77.5 µg) per day. In the same journal another paper2 found that up to 600 iu (15 µg) per day of vitamin D3 during winter was not enough to affect bone turnover in healthy young individuals. The research probably found no benefit to bone turnover with the supplementation of individuals with vitamin D because the dose they administered was too low. This is fairly common in nutritional research, particularly amongst investigations into sports supplements and athletic performance.
Another case in point is vitamin E and its effects on the cardiovascular system. While some research finds positive effects to the supplementation with vitamin E, other studies find no benefit. The problem is likely due to the form of vitamin E used and a lack of understanding of its chemistry. Vitamin E is not a single substance, but is made up of eight isomers (α-, β-, γ- and δ-tocopherol; and α-, β-, γ- and δ-tocotrienol). All of these compounds have overlapping but distinct function in vivo. The situation is complicated further by the fact that α-tocopherol is available in supplements as a synthetic DL-α-tocopherol form, or a naturally occurring D-α-tocopherol form, which have different biological activities. A failure to address these differences in chemistry leads to wildly different results regarding the efficacy of vitamin E against cardiovascular disease.
Consensus is never fully attained in science because experimental errors and methodological differences will always throw up contradictory results. In some cases negative findings are justified. However, bad science is unfortunately rife in scientific circles. It took the British navy decades to accept the evidence that fruits and vegetables could prevent the development of scurvy amongst sailors. Three hundred years later the same dogmatic attitude and egotistical arrogance can be seen as mainstream healthcare practitioners totally ignore the finding reported by Kilmer McCully showing that homocysteine is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Those who wish to denigrate the benefits of certain foods and individual nutrients in the prevention of disease will always be able to find negative results in oversimplified or poorly designed studies to support their cause. Those interested in optimum health should therefore do their own research.
RdB
