Why vitamin supplements are of no value to most

Over half of Americans take supplements for a variety of reasons, most of which are based upon a wide variety of misconceptions.

This past May, the American College of Cardiology published yet another review of the best studies available regarding the effectiveness of supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction or stroke. The findings were negative, as has been the case for well-controlled studies the past 10 years.

This raises the question: If most Americans follow abysmal dietary habits, which they do, why are these studies not presenting a more positive picture for the purported benefits of vitamin and mineral supplements, which more than half the U.S. population consumes?

The answer is related to three specifically designed biological mechanisms God created that help to maintain nutrient homeostasis (balance) over a broad range of intakes. These mechanisms enable population groups who do not have the readily available food sources, as most Americans are accustomed to, to maintain normal physiological functions, even though they may be only consuming a fraction of the daily recommended levels for many nutrients.

These mechanisms are:

1. Storage capacity of nutrients

2. Changes in absorption rate of nutrients when needs increase

3. The fact excretion rates of nutrients decline when needs increase or availability is decreased

Storage capacity of nutrients

Contrary to popular belief, the body stores enough vitamins and minerals to provide a reserve that lasts for a few weeks to months or even longer in some cases. As an example, vitamin C storage capacity is roughly 1500 mg, and consuming just 60 mg a day will maintain this. If vitamin C is absent from the diet, you will utilize roughly 3 percent of the stored 1500 mg per day.

However, consumers have the misimpression that to maintain optimal health, they must maintain the maximum level of nutrient concentration in body tissue and therefore they must take a supplement daily. This is false. Tissue saturation point of any nutrient is simply the body's designed maximum retention for the nutrient, which does not have to be maintained to support all the physiological functions that rely on any given nutrient. The saturation point, or maximum storage capacity, is simply present to allow for normal physiological activity to remain constant over periods of time when food availability has diminished. This is a significant issue for many population groups around the world with limited food sources. A simple analogy is the fuel tank of your vehicle. Your vehicle will run just as well on a quarter tank of gas at it will on a full tank.

Changes in absorption rate of nutrients when needs increase

Your small intestine is the major site for the absorption of nutrients. The term small is used to describe its diameter, which is only 1 inch. However, its length is approximately 20 feet long and covered with finger-like projections called villi. This results in an absorptive surface area 600 times beyond that of a simple 20-foot tube. In short, the surface area to digest and absorb the required nutrients is enormous, and the transport of nutrients across the intestinal wall into the bloodstream can vary dramatically depending upon need and availability. Absorption efficiency increases with need.

Excretion rates of nutrients decline when needs increase or availability is decreased

Most consumers have the misimpression that the body uses up nutrients and then quickly excretes or catabolizes what's left. This is a myth. Nutrient excretion rates readily change from rapid when intakes are excessive to very low when intake is low. Nutrient turnover is significantly reduced during times of increased need or decreased availability. This mechanism, as well as the other two, illustrates the body's capacity to allow for considerable latitude in daily nutrient intake, contrary to the advertisements of the supplement industry. Greater detail of these mechanisms can be found in my book "Muscles, Speed and Lies – What the Sport Supplement Industry Does Not Want Athletes or Consumers to Know."

These three mechanisms are certainly not without their limitations. Millions of people certainly struggle with malnutrition issues because of poverty, neglect, poor lifestyle habits, ignorance, or by choice. However, for the average household in America, with its vast quantities of healthy food available, being well-nourished, versus just overfed, should not be an issue. With reasonable effort, it is easy to achieve a nutrient intake level, which will maintain all physiological functions that rely on any nutrient, except for possibly iron for many women, due to a heavy menses. This is even true when intense physical training or heavy labor are part of daily activities. If a poor diet is selected over extended periods of time – weeks at least – these mechanisms will have obvious limitations, of course. Moreover, bear in mind that poor food choices also eliminate the thousands of other plant chemicals (phytochemicals) that play just as important a role in long-term health as the major nutrients most are familiar with.

Lastly, it is important to remember that media reports or advertisements purporting that surveys have shown that most American diets are deficient in various nutrients must be interpreted with caution. Deficiency estimates of any dietary nutrient based solely upon intake data is unwarranted. Evidence shows that individuals can adapt to chronically low intakes and achieve a proper nutrient balance for a period of time, several weeks to months, by increasing absorption or reducing excretion rates. Therefore, you do not have to achieve a specified intake of any nutrient each day, a common fallacy believed by most. The average intake over time is what is important. The established RDAs are set to maintain the maximum storage for nutrients for most individuals and are misunderstood to mean that if you do not achieve these recommendations daily, it may precipitate a health issue.