Vitamin D-Fect

For many years vitamin and mineral supplement sales have continued to rise, in spite of the science-based medicine that says they have no benefit. Unless you have been told by a doctor, they are proven to have no extra health benefits (note, a naturopath/homeopath is not a doctor, I mean one with a board approved medical degree). I got into scepticism from learning mostly the ‘benefits’ of vitamin supplements, which really don’t exist. When I tell people this, backed up by actual science, they say ‘well, what is the harm?’. That is, they are seeing it as some sort of support for their body, should they need it. But why would you need it? You wouldn’t carry crutches around just in case your legs decide to stop working, would you?

Is there a harm?

When I started out researching these things, for many years I didn’t believe there was a harm. It was just a money-making scheme. However, as research evolves, and I obtained a better understanding of how biochemistry works, it is suggested that there are issues with vitamin supplementation and yes, in some cases, it can lead to fatal outcomes. There is an overwhelming amount of reviews that state that these things have no meaningful health benefits to the consumer. 

Source

Most of the issues here come from the isolation of the vitamin and the adage of more must be good, because they are good for you, right? Think about that though, you wouldn’t take aspirin after aspirin to get rid of pain because its ‘good for you’ as it is having a positive result on the body. 

"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."

This is true for everything, even the vitamins you consume. One study found that there are as many 60,000 vitamin toxicity incidents reported in the US, each year. Many of this is owed to the bioaccumulation of fat-soluble vitamins and iron containing vitamins. These events are not rare, and are seen around the world.

Vitamin D

Let’s look at an isolated vitamin, D. I know many people who take vitamin D supplements because of some headlines a few years ago, saying that people in the UK are all deficient in vitamin D. The deficiency leads to rickets and helps with fracture prevention in people with bone wasting diseases. However, there is no end to what vitamin D cannot cure, according to, well, almost everyone. Most the evidence that this is based on is through observational studies, and not actual science-based medicine. This type of hype happens all the time. The media claims something, the masses jump on it without question. There is not a lack of studies on vitamin D. People array a lot of their medical conditions with low vitamin D levels, which caused this rise in vitamin D supplementation intake. But what happens when you take too much vitamin D?

A recent study looked at the effect of vitamin D and omega 3 at a 1,000mg/day dose in 25,871 subjects. Participants were chosen to equalise gender, ethnicity and sex with no history of any cardiovascular issues or cancer. The double-blind trial gave the subjects either vitamin D with placebo, omega 3 with placebo, placebo or vitamin D with omega 3. The main aim of the study was to assess the development of any cancer in the future, type of cancer and any heart issues. They found that there was an increase in vitamin D levels. They also found no other differences between any of the groups. Like, nothing, no increased mortality, cancer or cardiovascular events. That is, that the vitamin D and omega-3 takers had no major benefit (in terms of heart health and cancer) compared to the group receiving neither. In this study, the subjects took 400mg more than what is recommended, and they had NO extra benefits than the people who didn’t take any. 

Conclusion

Vitamins do not do anything, unless you have actual registered deficiencies. Vitamins are not an ‘insurance’. Collectively spending millions of pounds each year in the UK on supplements, just because of a fearmongering market is ridiculous. There is also a cultural problem in this day and age. People think they can get away with not consuming the correct, or right foods because they take a multi-vitamin. But these things do not compensate for poor dieting. Also, there is a risk of toxicity from supplementation, and it isn’t all too rare. To conclude: vitamin purchasing is just supporting a massive industry that doesn’t provide any benefit, provides a false sense of security in terms of health, and can cause some serious harm.

The Gluten Age

It is upon us, the dawn of gluten-free everything. Well, more accurately, it has been upon us for quite some time. I imagine celiacs everywhere being happy about the wider range of food choice, given the trend. However, there is a noticeable cost-drive towards these products, which can be annoying for those actually affected by gluten intolerance. The trend of not consuming gluten has risen tremendously over the years however, the focus of this blog is not oriented at the radical misplaced hatred for consuming a harmless substance, but rather the use of it outside the body. People of the will be familiar with this particular advert. This advert is a link to Herbal Essences shampoo, a popular brand of hair cleaner. This particular advert is eye grabbing, but not for the reasons you think. 

Gluten free wahhh?

You will notice on the bottles and at the end of some adverts you will see this note:

Free from:

• Colourants
• Paraben
• Gluten

Gluten? I don’t understand the paraben and silicone colourant avoidance at the best of time (I’ve written about this previously here). But gluten? Surely people are not worried about having gluten on them? Well, they are. And what avenue are Procter and Gamble jumping on here? Do they believe that gluten is going to damage their clients? Well, I put this to them. I asked herbal essences three key questions:

• Why do you not have gluten in your products?
• Is gluten harmful to the outside of the body?
• Is there gluten in shampoos normally?

Shockingly, the response from Herbal Essence was relatively swift and to the point. Most companies at this point would (and have previously) combine the two first questions to tell me the dangers of gluten, which are based on pseudoscience. However, Herbal Essences responded with this:

 

What that basically reads as is: People don’t like gluten, we can make money off of that. Our shampoos don’t contain gluten, nor have they ever. That is fine, I suppose. They’re not wrong, they have not specifically removed gluten from their products to cater to a market of moronic people. But what is slightly ever so wrong here, is the price difference between their bottles which state ‘gluten free’ and those that don’t. At Boots, the standard bottle of herbal essences is around £3. For the branding of ‘bio-renew gluten free’ the price is 100% more at £6. Again, at Superdrug, standard bottles cost £4 whilst the gluten free branding costs £6. Their take on this? Well, if people are willing to pay more, why not?

What is the difference?

So, what is the difference between the two products. Well, types and flavours are the main thing. Take the first two I can find, the first is the standard bottle of £3 ‘ignite my colour’ shampoo. The second is the gluten free tagged ‘argon bio-renew’ shampoo (right). You will notice on that no mention of gluten is present in the bottles description for the standard shampoo, but plays heavily in the 'bio-renew'.

Normal

Aqua, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Xylenesulfonate, Parfum, Cocamide MEA, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Benzoate, Tetrasodium EDTA, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Glycerin, Propylene Glycol, Linoleamidopropyl PG-Dimonium Chloride Phosphate, Limonene, Hexyl Cinnamal, Magnesium Nitrate, Zea Mays Silk Extract, Rosa Centifolia Flower Extract, Passiflora Incarnata Fruit Extract, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Magnesium Chloride, CI 17200, Methylisothiazolinone, Tocopheryl Acetate, CI 19140, Potassium Sorbate

Gluten-free branded

Aqua, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Glycol Distearate, Dimethicone, Sodium Citrate, Cocamide MEA, Sodium Xylenesulfonate, Parfum, Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Chloride, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, Glycerin, Tetrasodium EDTA, Polyquaternium-6, Sodium Hydroxide, Benzyl Benzoate, Hexyl Cinnamal, Limonene, Histidine, Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone, Coumarin, Butylene Glycol, Magnesium Nitrate, Ecklonia Radiata Extract, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice, Argania Spinosa Kernel Oil, Alcohol Denaturated, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Magnesium Chloride, Methylisothiazolinone

 

 

The highlighted sections show the ingredient crossovers between the two products. Towards the back end of the lists, most of what we are seeing is additives to give it colour and smell, nothing wrong with that. And you will notice, none of which, contain any actual gluten as they have stated. The make up of most of these products are the same, with the differences being mostly between the scents and flavours of the shampoos.Yes, there are slight changes with what appear to be stabilising agents, but overall, the major make up of the solutions are very similar.

Conclusion

I am sure there are difference between the two shampoos, don’t get me wrong. The higher priced ‘gluten-free’ branded ones may have nices and more luxurious scents. But if you are buying your shampoo based on the ‘gluten free’ marking, then you would be better targeting your money at the lower cost product. On the back of that, if you are buying the gluten free version for the purpose of it being gluten free, you are severely uneducated in the facts of gluten and are just wasting money. Is what Procter and Gamble doing wrong? You could argue not, they're not wrong - there is no gluten in their products at all, and they can justify the price hike as a 'luxury product' due to the more affluent flavours they are using. However, it is quite misleading. You could say 'oh well, if you are stupid enough to pay for it, you deserve to be ripped off'. But there is a whole other side to this. That is, it sends the message that gluten is something to be avoided, it's harmful and you should pay more for products that do not have it in. Which is seriously not the case. When companies like this jump on these avenues to make money, there is usually a dark cloud surrounding it, and in this case they're not just making money, they're jumping on the gluten fearmongering bandwagon and contributing to scientific ignorance.