Ask Dr. Mike: Do You Need a Multivitamin & More

Additional Info

• Segment Number: 4
• Audio File: healthy_talk/1515ht5d.mp3
• Organization: Life Extension
• Guest Website: Healthy Talk MD
• Transcription: RadioMD Presents: Healthy Talk | Original Air Date: April 10, 2015
  Host: Michael Smith, MD
  
  It's time for you to be a part of the show. Email or call with questions for Dr. Mike now. Email: AskDrMikeSmith@RadioMD.com or call: 877-711-5211. What are you waiting for? The doctor is in.
  
  DR. MIKE: So, my first question relates to this episode that I was on with Fox News. Their main medical correspondent is Dr. Manning. I think his last name is Alvarerro? But, they call him "Dr. Manning". I was on his show and we were talking about some supplement myths and so this person saw that and they say:
  
  "I saw you on Fox News with Dr. Manning. You said that we all need to take a multivitamin, even if we eat healthy. Can you provide specific references or studies that conclude a multivitamin can improve overall health?"
  
  This is a common type question we get or the argument that is made against multivitamins that there's no evidence that a daily multivitamin in somebody who is healthy and eating well is going to help them in any way, shape or form. So, I do have some specific references. Now, we have to define first, though. Let's be fair. We have to define what we mean by "health".
  
  I mean, this person says, "Provide me with some studies that conclude a multivitamin can improve health." Well, we have to define what we mean by health, you know? No. There are no studies showing that a multivitamin will make you wake up more energized and don't need coffee and you just skip out your door in the morning singing or whatever. No. What do we mean by health? There's no studies showing a multivitamin is going to just help you tackle your issues for the day. No. But there are specific studies looking at things like cancer, heart disease, cognition and there are studies that show people who take multivitamins do better in those categories, okay?
  
  So, I pulled up a couple here. This first one is from the Physicians' Health Study-II. PSH-II. And, they found that a multivitamin supplement was associated with an 8% reduction in overall cancer incidence and a 12% reduction in cancer death after 11.2 years of follow up. Physicians Health Study-II. By the way, that was a study looking at a bunch of physicians. It was all men and there you go. I mean, it was a nice long study. They followed these doctors who did these surveys and, again, we know you can't draw any definite conclusions from surveys, but you would think this population is a little more keen and a little more understanding about the importance of being truthful on these surveys, so maybe there's a little more confidence in this study and we have a 12% reduction in cancer death.
  
  There you go. How about that one? Physician Health Study-II. From that same study, by the way, they found a 39% reduction in fatal heart risk in those taking a multivitamin. How about that? That's pretty good. Okay. I've got another one for you. Let's see. The supplementation in vitamins and mineral oxidants study, and if you want to look it up, it's usually abbreviated "SU.VI.MAX". SU.VI.MAX study. This study found a 30% reduction in total cancer incidence in men that supplemented with a multivitamin. When the SU.VI.MAX results in men were combined with the Physician Health Study-II results, the risk for all cancer incidence was reduced over 10 years of follow up. You know what was interesting about this, though? There was a group of doctors who got together and combined the results from the Physician Health Study and the supplementation in vitamins and mineral antioxidant study.
  
  They were absolutely biased against taking a multivitamin. In their analysis—in this combined data pool which showed a reduced risk of cancer incidence over a ten year follow up, even though it was right there in their analysis, it was nowhere to be found in the conclusion. Bias. Hmm. In addition, one trial also found a—how about this one? A 58% reduced incidence of cancer for those just taking Vitamin D and calcium for over 4 years. That's not really a multivitamin, but that's just another, you know, adding some credibility to the basic vitamins and minerals. I mean, I'm not going to keep going. There are studies showing benefit to cognition, to memory. You just saw a couple here with cancer and heart disease.
  
  So, yes. If you eat healthy, great. Exercise, great. But, taking a multivitamin, providing some additional levels of these antioxidants—these vitamins and minerals---can make a major impact on your health. That's why, in my book, The Supplement Pyramid, I put a multivitamin as the very first supplement that everybody should be taking.
  
  Okay. Next question. Alright. I think I'm doing pretty good here on time. Next question.
  
  "Hi Dr. Mike. Wondering if you can comment on the agreement that was reached between the New York Attorney General and GNC? In the article I read, the reporter said that nutrition president, Steve Mister, called the move 'face-saving' by the Attorney General. Do you think the damage has been done? Or, will consumers who, perhaps, had some doubt feel reassured that supplements are safe and effective? Sincerely, Sylvia."
  
  Well, first of all, so this goes back to the fact that the New York Attorney General, a couple of months ago, tested some herbal products right off the market at GNC, Walgreens, Target. I don't remember all of them and the headlines read that these herbal supplements don't have the active ingredients. There's some extra stuff thrown in there. They're not safe.
  
  Then, we heard this whole thing go on and on and on. We now know, though, when we investigated how this guy from New York tested these products, he did the wrong test. He did what is called "DNA bar coding" which is a test you do for raw materials, not the final product. So, he used the wrong material. As a matter of fact, some very outspoken anti-supplement researchers even admitted he did the wrong test. And, GNC brought this out. GNC fought him and now they came out with this agreement.
  
  Basically, the agreement, from what I understand, is that the Attorney General has to admit, which he's done in public already, but I think he has to do it like in a paper—formal paper—that the herbs, because of the way he tested, his results are not valid and that these herbs are in compliance following the FDA regulation of GMP manufacturing. So, he has to admit that these products he pulled off, he tested them wrong and these products actually were manufactured the exact way the United States Government says they should be manufactured. The caveat, though, for him was that further testing would have to be done and that testing, of course, would have to be the appropriate way to test a final product and, of course, GNC said, "Sure. Let's do some extra testing," and that's where we're at, I think, at this point in the agreement. So, ultimately, to summarize: the herbs are in compliance. New testing required.
  
  So, to answer Sylvia's question about, "Do you think the damage has been done?" No, I don't. Personally, Sylvia, this is my take on this. Supplement users understood the problems with this kind of testing. They understood the biasness. It doesn't stop people from taking their supplements, especially people who are serious about quality. They stick with good companies, companies that product certificates of analysis for their products. I mean, that didn't change anybody's mind. The only people that may have been influenced by this guy in this report were people who were already against supplements in the first place and they're not our consumers anyway. I wish they were, but they're not. So, I think that this is just a wash out.That's my opinion.
  
  This is Health Talk on RadioMD. I'm Dr. Mike.
• Length (mins): 10
• Waiver Received: No
• Internal Notes: NO GUEST
• Host: Mike Smith, MD