Cancer Myths Debunked: Antioxidant Supplements Protect You From Cancer
Ask 10 random women on the street today if antioxidants like vitamin E and vitamin C help protect them against cancer and 9.5 of them will answer: Yes.
It’s not their fault; it has been drilled into them by countless magazines, product ads, and television commercials. Vitamin C, pomegranate, resveratrol, coffeeberry: Eat them! Apply them to your face! Add them to your cereal! Surely soaking up bad free radicals must protect you against cancer, no?
Well, if you are standing right now, then I suggest you sit. I have bad news. There is little if any good data to show that taking antioxidant supplements protect you against against cancer. In fact, the best data seems to suggest just the opposite — it increases your risk for cancer. Are you sitting now?
A study last year published in the Journal of Nutrition found that women who took a vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium, and zinc supplement (thats one mega antioxidant pill) developed skin cancer at a rate of 1.3%.
In contrast, the women who were not taking the supplement developed skin cancer at a rate of only 0.7%; this was significantly less.
In particular, the study found that the rate of melanoma was 0.3% in women on the antioxidant pills and 0.08% in women not taking the pills. Again, significantly higher in the women taking antioxidants.
This is not the first study to show an increased risk of cancer in patients taking antioxidant supplements. A large trial of smokers several years ago showed that those taking high does of vitamin A actually had increased risk of lung cancer compared to those not taking vitamin A. A different study showed that patients taking vitamin E had increased mortality as compared to those not taking vitamin E. Another study has shown that taking dietary supplements of antioxidants leads to increased risk of colon cancer. Several aggregated analyses (studies that look at all published studies together) have concluded that beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E all increase the risk of death, while vitamin C seems to have no effect either way.
How can this possibly be?
It is plausible that cancer cells are at increased risk of damage from oxidative stress compared to your normal, healthy cells. In other words, taking antioxidants might ironically be protecting your cancer cells, allowing them to survive more than anything else.
It is likely that because cancer develops from long term damage to your cells, as in the case of skin and lung cancer, that trying to limit damage for a relatively short period of time by taking antioxidants like vitamin E or vitamin A probably has little or no effect. It is analogous to a car that is already rusted when you apply a protective sealant to it. The damage has already been done. Just as the sealant is protecting the already rusted car, the antioxidant is protecting the already cancerous cells.
Here are some recommendations that have stood the test of time and clinical study in preventing cancer:
- Eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables every day (in contrast to supplements).
- Limit your intake of simple sugary carbohydrates such as white bread, chips, etc.
- Exercise every day and keep your weight down.
- Protect yourself from the sun with broad spectrum sunscreens and protective clothing.
- If you decide to take a daily supplement, the only vitamin that I recommend taking everyday is vitamin D. There is good evidence that vitamin D supplements can be protective against certain cancers. Taking 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day is the best way (much better than sun exposure) for elevating your vitamin D levels. More on this in a later post.
You might like:
How to stop a shaving nick from bleeding
The proper way to pop a pimple
Why do women bruise more easily then men?
Like this blog? Grab The Derm Feed
Comments
36 Responses to “Cancer Myths Debunked: Antioxidant Supplements Protect You From Cancer”
Leave a Reply
-
-
About
A new dermatology blog from Dr. Benabio.
-
Categories
- Acne
- Allergies
- Cosmetics
- Dermatology News
- Dry Skin
- Hair Loss
- Health and Beauty
- Healthcare
- Melanoma
- Men's Skin Care
- Mini Med School: Basic Science
- Mini Med School: Derm 101
- Moles and Nevi
- Nails
- Natural Skin Remedies
- Rashes
- Recommended Products
- Skin and Pregnancy
- Skin Cancer
- Skin Infections
- Skincare Myths
- Uncategorized
- Women's Skin Care
I know you are talking about antioxidants but what about B vitamins? minerals? etc. I know we alledgedly get them from food but the way things are grown these days…hard to believe we actually get the vitamins from food. thanks
Great post! It’s so nice to see a voice of reason in a sea of hysteria. Of course, the last time I was appalled by something that was seemingly all gain, no pain, I was accused of being Calvinist.
Great article…can you please post links to sources? Thanks for encouraging everyone to research further.
From Dr. Benabio - Added. As I said below, I had no idea this article would be so popular. I’ll try to tighten it up and add links over the course of the day.
“A study last year published in the Journal of Nutrition…”
Link?
From Dr. Benabio - Added.
Since when have we been living our lives trying to NOT get cancer? I mean sure, no one wants tumours (cancer cells are formed daily in our body and eradicated by our healthy immune system), but I’ve never eaten supplements to lower my cancer risk, rather because it makes me feel healthier and more acute to my surroundings.
A 0.5% hike in cancer risk by a study shouldn’t be a reason to hold the study as fact and as reason to shy away from supplements. That is not science.
From Dr. Benabio-
Thanks for your comments. It is a good point that people take supplements for many reasons, not just to ward off cancer.
The size of the difference is science. Differences can be small, yet can be statistically significant. That is, it is likely that the difference is not caused by chance, but rather by the variable in question. You wouldn’t expect there to be a large increase risk associated with something like taking a dietary supplement; however, the fact that it is not protective at all and in fact might be doing the opposite, is important.
References to studies named?
From Dr. Benabio-
Added.
I hope your a doctor or you better post up your sources.
IMO your spreading of bunch of FUD. .5% is a % of error in most tests.
From Dr. Benabio -
I can see how you might think that, but in fact % error is complicated than that. The question is: Are the differences statistically significant? Put simply, are the differences likely due to chance or due to some factor being measured (antioxidant supplements in this case). It can be a small difference, say 0.04%, but can be significant, meaning that this is a real, but small difference. See some of my other comments.
Your article would have much greater weight if it referenced the studies you use as a basis to make your statement. It is very easy to pick studies to support your own line of thought when in fact these studies may have credibility problems.
Would you be able to do so? I am quite interested.
From Dr. Benabio -
I agree with your sentiment. I have added some links and will try to get them all today. Thanks for the comment.
also, you need to look at the demographic being examined in the case of melanoma. Sample characteristics may be partly to blame. That is, perhaps people who spend more time in the sun are more likely to take supplements. Confounding variables my friend, they’re all over the place.
Would you reveal your sources for “the best data” that supports this conclusion?
It is an interesting find. Thanks for sharing.
I’m sorry but .4% is so small.
What about an error margin or other factors such as people who take suppliments may have started because of a poor lifestyle
I don’t know if I agree with you. Why hasn’t this been extensively researched in more well-regarded journals such as Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine? Also, it states that women who take antioxidants are 0.6% more likely to get cancer. What is their sample size in determining this? A 0.6% difference is generally not significant, especially if the sample set isn’t large.
You failed to mention how resveratrol increases the risk of cancer? I believe studies have shown the opposite. It would be good journalism to reference your sources.
They are referring to antioxidant “supplements”. Getting them from natural sources (fresh blueberries, green tea, pomegranates) has PROVEN positive effects on all sorts of aspects of health.
Our body isn’t made to take pills.
I guess a slightly inaccurate headline does make for better hype.
It would be nice if there were a link or reference to the actual study/article so you could read the results for yourself…
I also like the study by the cigarrete companies that tested a vitmin suppliment to reduce lung cancer. there results showed that taking this supliment actualy increased the chance of lung cancer and not reduced it, they shelved that report.
I theorise that unatural suppliments (ie not broken down by the body) do indeed give a unatural hit in the area, ise take a vit C and you have a high vit C level. Now the body uses these `fuels` to help maintain and run the body. A sudden spike in a level will cause things to go esew, such as having a set of gears with one running faster than the others. this logicaly would reduce and also lean towards errors of a higher rate than normal. Cell replacement that goes on in the body is the cause of cancer, one replicates but is deformed, now if the body is in a sudo turbo mode in one area induced by vitimins then this would in these situations yeild a higher deformed/replicated cell count than normal rates and yeild a higher chance of a build up of these cells and as such we have what is known as cancer.
Now here is a thought for you, if cancer is natural and one mans cancer is another mans evolution, would the church of england and indeed all religious groups be against any form of cancer as its natural evolution or would the non-religous types be contradicting themselves by trying to stamp out what they aspire towards. ie evolution over a snake, apple and a tree.
Bottom line you need to take a step forward to take a step back and that was one costly apple :).
But back to cancer, if somebody grew a 3rd arm say, would that be cancerous as its not defined as `normal`, its a build up of cells that isn;t supposed to be there. Bottom line one mans cancer is another mans evolution.
Nice article, and of course tip of the iceberg.
“A large trial of smokers several years ”
“There is good evidence ”
Links added.
Are there any supporting studies that confirm these findings?
Did the women participating in the study obtain their supplements from the same source? If so, what was the source?
Were the supplements entirely natural, or did they contain filler materials that could be or are known to be carcinogenic?
There are a number of holes in this article leaving many questions unanswered, and it could be very misleading to the uneducated as a direct result. I would hesitate to use the word “debunked” without additional supporting evidence.
This reminds me of my chameleon for some reason, supplimenting with vitamins, gut loading her feeder insects, providing vitamin D3 so she can process calcium….
to much work
before you go believing everything your read .. start telling people who commissioned the study, where is the money? how do the researchers benefit from this study?
What is the title of the study from the Journal of Nutrition?
I’ve heard that taking moderate amounts of sunlight is better than D3 supplements. And dark skinned individuals need to spend more time in the sun than white or light skinned individuals.
Take your supplements naturally, man-made alternatives are not good substitutes.
OK folks. I had no idea this post would hit. I am trying to add links to the above mentioned studies as I get a chance today. Thank you for your insightful comments.
Hey, it’s not a 0.5% difference, to alls you guyses up above. The stats are actually 0.08% and 0.3%.
That means a 300% PERCENT INCREASE IN CANCER RATES!
Ok, so there are a few questions I hope someone follows up on. What are the doses involved (I assume very large if not megadoses)? Are there any studies with smaller doses, like those of a normal vitamin suplement or slightly above? Are there any studies comparing individuals who took in an equivalent amount of antioxidents through diet alone (is this even possible)?
Oops, I forgot one. Most women forgo such supplements in their youth and only begin taking them as they age and, in many cases, age badly or suspect health problems. Could it be that the greater incidence of cancers and death is in fact related to their lifestyle and choices before they jumped on the supplement bandwagon? I’d be interested in how the researchers excluded that factor.
Dark chocolate is also a great natural source of antioxidants!
I like the information, I just don’t quite understand why people jump on the band wagon when a study like anti-oxidants comes out. It’s like the old saying, “if some is good, more must be better.” How do we promote balance in people’s lives?
Ben,
You make a good point about past life choices having a effect on usage, and it would be valid if the study was based on something like a mail-out survey and the researches did not instrament for taking the antioxidants. However, if you read the study abstract they use a “a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, primary prevention trial,” which would effectly limit any endogenity issues. in addition, the p-value for the increase incidenence of skin cancer is .03, which is commoly considered statisticly significant. However, the rest of their results are not. I find it most interesting that they only find an effect for women, which still causes me to be curious as to what is causing this effect.
In reply to antitoxins–There is no such thing–But taking Vit.c&e–will help the body-cleanse out poisions–HELP–Not get ride of them!!We need to do what Grand ma used to do–Eat Soups–Mostly Chicken-& less Beef==The Earth is so full of poisons=-AIR-Water-Foods=-It is really a wonder that We are able to even talk about this=If we don’t turn things around==We will have to venture to another Far off Earth like Planet!!We better start to plant Trees everywhere-possible==STOP Cutting them Down!!We shoil grow Fields of Clover–Corn–Anything Green–Start building up the Oxygen level–It is Now Only 20 %==ogf the earths atmosphere!!
Instead of promoting all these biological “add-ons”, those with the power (and thus responsibility) should be promoting healthy living.
Eat healthy, and avoid most of these problems entirely? Nay — eat more supplements = more money!
> Taking 1,000 mg of vitamin D3 a day
> is the best way
I suppose you meant to say 1,000 IU?
(1,000 mg would be like 40,000,000 IU which is waaaaaaaaay high)
A nice theory I suppose. What I think you’ll find interesting is what most sunscreens’ active ingredients really do to your skin.
Think about the typical vitamin/supplement/”healthy” women, and the activities she does, the work she does, how she spends her free time, etc.
Think about women who aren’t all that concerned with taking vitamins and being healthy.
Is it possible that the women in these studies knew they got a lot of sun exposure and took supplements because they were afraid of getting cancer, while the other ones who didn’t care enough to take vitamins and supplements just didn’t get a lot of sun (perhaps because they weren’t as active as the other group)
[…] read more | digg story Filed under: Announcement | Search […]
Nice Blog! good information Antioxidant Supplements is great. By using Antioxidant Supplements you can keep away from cancer