Breaking News

Do We Really Need to Take Vitamins for Our Health?

Vitamins get their name because they are "essential to life," which means that if you really lose them for a long time, you're sick. One hundred years ago most of our ancestors had malnutrition. That's the age of malnutrition. Americans are living at an age of eating too much or eating too much, depending on how you look at it. Modern food distribution systems and the availability of fresh foods throughout the year mean that food shortages are no longer a problem in the country. Except for some isolated cases of people unable to absorb their food, we have not seen any cases of vitamin deficiency in the country since the pilgrimage was in a hurry.

We are just terrified or overly excited by vitamin manufacturers, processed food industries, and their supporters in the government thinking we can benefit from supplements. We do not

The link between health and vitamins may have gained momentum in 1962 when Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize. He believes that a mega dose of vitamins will be good for your health. But this claim is based solely on his own experience with vitamins; His own research had nothing to do with Vitamin C. Just because one person took the pill and they felt better (even though they were scientists who won the Nobel Prize) doesn't mean that the pill was responsible for its effects. That's why we have a placebo controlled trial. There is even no evidence to support the claim that Vitamin C in pills or fresh foods prevents colds. The best thing to say is that Vitamin C reduces symptoms by 23%, and can reduce the amount of time you experience cold symptoms by about one day. The fact that Vitamin C continues to be called for the prevention of the flu can only be attributed to the extraordinary marketing capabilities of the vitamin and supplement industry and the ability of the American people to suspend their faith.

Modern day obsessions with vitamins can be traced back to a book from 1960 called & # 39; Let's go. Let's Get Well by Adelle Davis. He authored high doses of vitamins for most modern life problems. He claims that he spent much of his time in the library reading scientific literature to find support for the statements he made in his books, which are the most influential sources of modern obsession with vitamins, supplements and nutrition in support of health. It was later found that many of the ambitions he had created were neither accurate nor grounded in reality. It seems that our current belief in vitamins and supplements is based on sand.

The USDA hedged their bets on vitamins in 1941 when they first came up with the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA). The RDA determines how much vitamins and minerals we need to take each day in our diet (this is not to be confused with the food pyramid, developed by the USDA in the 1950s, which tells us how many different food groups we need, such as fruit (fruits, vegetables, cereals, meats, and dairy products). Most of us have been accustomed to RDA since we were children reading our cereal boxes at breakfast. What most people do not understand is that the authors of the RDA only know the types of weaknesses needed to develop the disease.

The USDA doesn't know what minimum you can take and is still healthy. For example, pellagra is a deficiency of niacin (Vitamin B-3) that hit South America in the first part of the 20th Century, with associated mental weakness, fatigue, and other symptoms. Pellagra is associated with a low fat diet, cornbread and molasses. When foods with niacin and its precursors, tryptophan, such as meat and dairy products, become easier as the standard of living increases, the deficiency is eliminated along with the disease.

However, since Southern food did not have this diet, and since no clinical trials have been conducted to determine the minimum amount of niacin required, government officials are essentially hedging their bets and doubling what you may need. It's safer than sorry. They are also based on suggestions for tall, young and healthy men who exercise regularly. This means that the RDA proposal does not apply to women, children, the elderly, the minor, or the inactive. They don't know how many people they need. In fact, if people follow the USDA's recommendation, it's not possible to eat enough foods to get all the vitamins they say are needed without fat, unless they use less. Based on the fact that the RDA analysis of vitamin needs is based on false standards related to healthy young men, and estimates that start at least twice as much as needed, RDA nutrition requirements are at least four times the actual amount of vitamins and minerals, and maybe more.

Bottom line is that I think it's a waste of time and money to take vitamins. And there are some hidden risks, for example some vitamins have been shown increase the risk of cancer and heart disease, rather than reducing it.



------------------

No comments