Are you flushing money—and your health—down the drain

with vitamins? Stick around as we uncover shocking truths about a recent article on supplements that gets it all wrong! An article from Focus Online claims to reveal which vitamins are worth it and which are just making your urine expensive. But here’s the catch—it’s riddled with misinformation, outdated science, and alarmist advice. Let’s break it down!

Outdated Perspective on Nutritional Content

1. Decreased Nutritional Value in Modern Foods: The article assumes a “well-balanced diet” today provides sufficient nutrients, but it ignores substantial research indicating that modern agricultural practices, soil depletion, and food processing have reduced the nutrient content of many foods compared to 50 years ago. For example:
   • Evidence: Studies have documented declines in magnesium, calcium, and vitamins in crops due to soil depletion and high-yield cultivars (Mayer et al., 2021) and shifts from natural to chemical farming (Bhardwaj et al., 2024).
   • Nutrient dilution occurs in crops bred for higher yields, reducing essential minerals in food (Davis, 2009).

Lack of References and Evidence

1. No Scientific Citations: The article refers to studies and findings (e.g., a large US study, a metanalysis, and trials on Vitamin A or Vitamin E) but fails to provide proper citations or hyperlinks to these studies. This makes it impossible for readers to verify claims or delve deeper into the research.
2. Unsubstantiated Claims: While it mentions potential harms of over-supplementation (e.g., increased cancer risk, kidney stones, or liver damage), these are anecdotal without detailed data or named studies.
3. Generalizations like “Vitamin C doesn’t protect against colds” lack nuance. Specific research supports modest benefits of Vitamin C in reducing cold duration for certain populations and related to that also improved recovery from severe physical exercise Hemilä and Chalker, 2013.

Misrepresentation of Vitamin B12

1. B12 Source Error: The article perpetuates a common misconception by implying that animal products are the “natural” source of Vitamin B12. In reality, Vitamin B12 is produced exclusively by bacteria and archaea, not animals Fang et al., 2017. Animals accumulate B12 by consuming bacteria-laden soil, water, or through bacterial synthesis in their digestive systems. This point is particularly relevant for:
   • Modern farming practices that eliminate natural exposure to bacteria (e.g., sterilized feed and water), often necessitating the fortification of animal feed with synthetic B12.
   • Plant-based eaters who may miss out on B12 due to the lack of natural bacterial sources in modern, sanitized food systems.
   • In summary, the more contaminated our food is with bacteria, the higher the B12 amount in the food. It could make one cringe to hear that animal products are high in B12 (from fecal contamination during processing?).
2. Misleading Statement on Veganism: While the article acknowledges that vegans require B12 supplementation, it oversimplifies the issue by ignoring that even non-vegans can be at risk. For instance:
   • Older adults often experience reduced B12 absorption due to lower stomach acid production, regardless of diet. Evidence: Absorption issues affect over 20% of adults over 60 (Hepperly & Seidel, 2018).
   • Individuals with gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., Crohn’s disease or celiac disease) or those on certain medications (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors) may also struggle to absorb B12.
3. Fun fact: Bacteria in the human gut also produce Vitamin B12. Unfortunately, it is produced too far down in the gut, and we cannot take it up from the gut anymore.

Failure to Address Real-World Dietary Challenges

1. Lifestyle and Accessibility: The article doesn’t consider the challenges many people face in consistently achieving a “well-balanced” diet:
   • Time constraints and socioeconomic factors often lead to reliance on processed foods, which may lack sufficient micronutrients.
   • Seasonal availability of fresh produce can impact dietary diversity and nutrient intake.
2. Individual Variability: It fails to address how individual metabolic and genetic factors (e.g., MTHFR gene mutations affecting folate metabolism) may necessitate supplementation for optimal health, even in those eating varied diets.
3. A global meta-analysis highlights the widespread deficiencies of essential nutrients like Vitamin A and folate Herrero et al., 2017.

Limited Relevance for Consumers

1. Generalized Advice: Statements like “most people do not need supplements if they eat a balanced diet” are overly broad. They fail to address scenarios where individuals may have unique dietary restrictions, medical conditions, or lifestyle factors that necessitate supplementation.
2. Lack of Clarity on Dosages: While the article warns about overdosage risks, it doesn’t provide actionable details such as safe dosage ranges, nor does it refer to official recommendations like those from the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) or BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment).
3. Simplistic Categorization: Grouping vitamins into “good” and “bad” categories oversimplifies a complex topic. For example:
   • Vitamin C is dismissed, but for individuals with specific deficiencies or increased needs (e.g., smokers or the elderly), supplementation might be warranted.
   • Multivitamins are dismissed wholesale, ignoring specific populations who might benefit, like those with malabsorption issues.

Broader Context on Supplements

1. General Criticism Without Nuance: While the article criticizes over-supplementation, it overlooks the critical role supplements can play in specific scenarios:
   • Pregnancy, lactation, and aging increase nutrient requirements that may not always be met through food alone.
   • Certain supplements, such as iodine in regions with low natural iodine in the soil, have been instrumental in addressing public health issues.
2. Failure to Differentiate Synthetic vs. Natural Sources: For example:
   • The efficacy and bioavailability of synthetic versus natural forms of vitamins (e.g., folic acid vs. methylfolate) are not discussed.
   • A prominent example is Vitamin E, which is actually eight different compounds. One of them Alpha-tocopherol exists as one stereoisomer in nature but, when produced chemically, has several stereoisomers. Remember Contagan? The issue was that we couldn’t or didn’t separate the unnatural stereoisomers. Failure to understand such issues leads to severe outcomes (Contergan) or outcomes we do not yet understand (Vitamin E).

Missed Opportunities for Actionable Guidance

1. No Practical Recommendations: The article fails to guide readers on identifying a potential deficiency or when to consult a doctor. For example, it could suggest regular blood tests to assess vitamin levels. Blood testing and physician consultations are recommended to avoid both deficiencies and excesses Example.
2. Overlooked Populations: The nuanced needs of subpopulations (e.g., older adults, people with darker skin living in low-sunlight regions, or those with restrictive diets) are ignored. For instance, MTHFR mutations affect folate metabolism, requiring targeted intervention Zarembska et al., 2023.

Misleading and Alarmist Tone

1. Fear-Based Messaging: The article leans heavily on scare tactics, such as phrases like “teuren Urin” (expensive urine) and “im schlimmsten Fall schaden” (worst case, harm your health). This tone can alienate readers rather than educate them.
2. One-Sided Perspective: While it critiques unnecessary supplementation, it does not adequately acknowledge the prevalence of deficiencies in certain groups or provide balanced views on supplements’ potential benefits.

Suggestions for Improvement

To correct these issues, the article should:

The Curious Case of Vitamin D and Brain Health: A Study Worth Revisiting

Recently, the German journal FITBOOK ran an article discussing a study that examined the relationship between Vitamin D levels in brain tissue and cognitive function. The FITBOOK piece itself was riddled with oversimplifications and exaggerations (which I’ve dissected elsewhere), but now it’s time to look critically at the study that sparked the excitement.

At first glance, the study appears to offer intriguing insights into Vitamin D’s potential role in brain health. Upon closer inspection, however, it falls short in several ways. Here’s a breakdown of the study’s key limitations and why its findings need to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.

Response to an Article in German Journal FITBOOK

I commented earlier on another article in FITBOOK concerning the Amazing effect of vitamin D supplementation on metabolism. Now, we need to talk about another article in FITBOOK. The article entitled: “Effect of vitamin D on brain function” discusses a study on Brain Vitamin D Forms, Cognitive Decline and Neuropathology in Community-dwelling Older Adults. The article by Friederike Ostermeyer discusses a recent study examining the relationship between Vitamin D levels in the brain and cognitive function. While Vitamin D is undoubtedly important for overall health, her article exaggerates the findings of the study and misrepresents key points, leaving readers with more hype than substance.