Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–55 of 55 posts

Re: Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007)

#51

Post by SamBam »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #48
TheLarch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes. After Linus Pauling advocated high vitamin C doses, lots of people started taking synthetic vitamin C, which turns out to be carcinogenic. A product called Geritol was marketed to the elderly for many years on the premise that they were iron deficient. Geritol was behind lots of cases of iron poisoning. We laugh at the quaintness of the snake oil salesman or yore -- but he never left, not really. ==== Edit ==…

Synthetic vitamin C is exactly the same as real vitamin C. [1] When I Googled "synthetic vitamin C carcinogenic" I found a bunch of quackery and the Scientific American article. Mostly the sites were screaming "IT'S A CHEMICAL!! CHEMICALS ARE BAD!!!!" as if water and foods aren't also made up of chemicals... :| [1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-sy...

Yes, but there has been plenty of well-researched, highly-repeatable evidence linking taking supplements of the antioxidant vitamins (A, C & E) with higher cancer risk.

Not to do with synthetic vitamins, of course, but certainly to do with the selling of vitamins as something you need to supplement.

Re: Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007)

#52

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

SamBam wrote: post #51
SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synthetic vitamin C is exactly the same as real vitamin C. [1] When I Googled "synthetic vitamin C carcinogenic" I found a bunch of quackery and the Scientific American article. Mostly the sites were screaming "IT'S A CHEMICAL!! CHEMICALS ARE BAD!!!!" as if water and foods aren't also made up of chemicals... :| [1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-sy...

Yes, but there has been plenty of well-researched, highly-repeatable evidence linking taking supplements of the antioxidant vitamins (A, C & E) with higher cancer risk. Not to do with synthetic vitamins, of course, but certainly to do with the selling of vitamins as something you need to supplement.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to say [Citation Needed]. From what I can tell, large doses of Beta Carotene (one kind of Vitamin A) and Folic Acid (a vitamin in the B family) are correlated with higher cancer risk. But if you avoid mega-doses of those, it's all good.

Here's my reference: [1] Key Quote:

>One of the largest, longest, and most carefully conducted human trials on multivitamins, the Physicians’ Health Study II, showed that the daily consumption of these supplements over 11 years reduced total cancer incidence by 8%, better than any pharmaceutical drug to date. This could translate into 130,000 fewer cancer cases in the U.S. every year.

[1] http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/feature-story/vitamins-do-not-cau...

Re: Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007)

#53

Post by SamBam »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #52
SamBam wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but there has been plenty of well-researched, highly-repeatable evidence linking taking supplements of the antioxidant vitamins (A, C & E) with higher cancer risk. Not to do with synthetic vitamins, of course, but certainly to do with the selling of vitamins as something you need to supplement.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to say [Citation Needed]. From what I can tell, large doses of Beta Carotene (one kind of Vitamin A) and Folic Acid (a vitamin in the B family) are correlated with higher cancer risk. But if you avoid mega-doses of those, it's all good. Here's my reference: [1] Key Quote: >One of the largest, longest, and most carefully conducted human trials on multivitamins, the Physicians’ Health Study…

1. Your article is from the Linus Pauling Institute, which, as has been noted upthread, is the biggest pusher of the high-dose vitamin C myth, which has been pretty much debunked by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Medical_research...

2. One of the whole arguments against supplements (which is what we're talking about here, not the quantities found in an every-day diet) is that they tend to mega-dose. But not "mega-dose" in some scary, doping type way. The vast majority of bottles of supplements list RDA values of 200%-1000%, as if that's a good thing.

3. The studies that show cancer link do so with double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using normal, grocery-store supplement levels of antioxidants. e.g. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104493

4. When you look at reviews that are not pushed by the Linus Pauling Institute, you get quotes like

> A recent review of the last 20 years of literature on the subject, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research 2015 meeting, found an overall increased risk of cancer among vitamin users.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-ris...

Re: Are we getting enough sulfur in our diet? (2007)

#55

Post by TheLarch »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #48
TheLarch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes. After Linus Pauling advocated high vitamin C doses, lots of people started taking synthetic vitamin C, which turns out to be carcinogenic. A product called Geritol was marketed to the elderly for many years on the premise that they were iron deficient. Geritol was behind lots of cases of iron poisoning. We laugh at the quaintness of the snake oil salesman or yore -- but he never left, not really. ==== Edit ==…

Synthetic vitamin C is exactly the same as real vitamin C. [1] When I Googled "synthetic vitamin C carcinogenic" I found a bunch of quackery and the Scientific American article. Mostly the sites were screaming "IT'S A CHEMICAL!! CHEMICALS ARE BAD!!!!" as if water and foods aren't also made up of chemicals... :| [1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-sy...

I don't remember where I picked up the bit about synthetic C. Thanks for pointing this out.
Post reply on HN