Linda, her mother, & unidentified friend. 1987
A brief and airy blurb in Quest, the quarterly magazine of Fred Hutch, drives what should be the final few nails in the coffin of food supplements as a preventative for cancer. Well, maybe some will work, but the following don’t.
Multivitamins: Of no earthly use (for cancer prevention.)
Vitamins E and D: Likewise
Vitamin D + selenium: Downright dangerous if taken in enough quanitity. (Of course, you can say that about anything.)
Fish oil: Jury still out. Noted that Eskimos, who eat ~20 times as much ometa-3 fats as we southerners have fewer instances of diabetes and heart disease. Another study suggests, but cannot yet prove, that the same fat is associated with less incidence of cancer. Of course, Eskimos also are smaller than us, wear much more fur, probably eat less, live closely with dogs, and are generally cold. So which difference is key? Stay tuned, I guess.
The bottom line: Shop in the produce section and not in the drugstore.
The bottom line: Shop in the produce section and not in the drugstore.
Love those fruits & veggies! God bless the fishies!
ReplyDeleteLovely Christmas picture of Linda & Marian.
One does tend to wonder…… Previously I reported that clinical trials had demonstrated that the use of multi-vitamins did nothing to reduce cancer risk. Now results of a new study have been announced which controvert that finding. Dr. J. Michael Gaziano of Brigham & Women’s Hospital and his colleagues followed about 15,000 male doctors, all over the age of 50, for about 10 years. Half took a multi-vitamin supplied by Pfizer, one of the sponsors of the study, while the other half took a placebo. The study was “randomized, double-blind” (the gold standard) and was subjected to close statistical scrutiny. Overall, the “hazard ratio” was found to be 0.92, which means that the vitamin-takers were 8% less likely to develop cancer than the placebo group (more or less.) Curiously, there was no real reduction in the rate at which two male-type cancers – prostate and colorectal – were contracted. However, the overall reduction was significant. Sounds good, but…..
ReplyDeleteI tend to be a bit skeptical, at least with respect to the importance of this finding on cancer prevention in general. For one thing, the tested group was hardly representative: male doctors over 50 years old. Compared to the general public such persons probably eat better, are more likely to drive a Lexus, and drink a better brand of Scotch. Probably not cause-and-effect, but who knows? Alternatively, perhaps having suffered through medical school winnows out the unfit. But, as my aunt Florence said many, many times – what do I know? Maybe I’ll start taking vitamins again.