Let me fix your statement:
Supplements should not be considered detrimental in every situation. Unfortunately, we don't know what is detrimental, and we don't know what our situation is.
We *think* we know what our situation is, and what the supplements do for it, because we want to believe we are in control.
For prostate cancer, the multi-vitamins are harmless right up until the point a tumor starts -- and then they become deadly.
Mr Pollan in the NYT arcitle:
Quote:
|
Also, people don’t eat nutrients, they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently than the nutrients they contain. Researchers have long believed, based on epidemiological comparisons of different populations, that a diet high in fruits and vegetables confers some protection against cancer. So naturally they ask, What nutrients in those plant foods are responsible for that effect? One hypothesis is that the antioxidants in fresh produce — compounds like beta carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, etc. — are the X factor. It makes good sense: these molecules (which plants produce to protect themselves from the highly reactive oxygen atoms produced in photosynthesis) vanquish the free radicals in our bodies, which can damage DNA and initiate cancers. At least that’s how it seems to work in the test tube. Yet as soon as you remove these useful molecules from the context of the whole foods they’re found in, as we’ve done in creating antioxidant supplements, they don’t work at all. Indeed, in the case of beta carotene ingested as a supplement, scientists have discovered that it actually increases the risk of certain cancers. Big oops.
|
Bold mine.