http://www.multivitaminguide.
rating of the top 100 multivitamins.
Some of your were a bit surprised by the comparisons
and have asked me whether they were valid.
I have seen many ratings of multivitamins over the
years. Most of them come from questionable sources and
have little or no validity.
So I reviewed this web site with a healthy skepticism.
The opening paragraphs sounded impressive. For example,
they said:
"The guide offers scientific comparison of 100
multivitamin brands, including popular supplements such
as Centrum, One-A-Day, Kirkland, Herbalife, Shaklee,
Nutrilite/Amway, Equate, Nature Made, NOW Foods,
Melaleuca, Puritan's Pride, TwinLab, and Walgreens."
"The information on this site is the result of over 6
years of scientific research and analysis. Each of the
reviewed multivitamins is evaluated against 14 key
parameters, such as potency, bioavailability, and
antioxidant strength."
"Then each supplement is assigned a score ranging from
0 to 10, which enables you to easily compare the
effectiveness of the different brands and helps you
determine for yourself what the best multivitamin to
take is."
While that sounded good I found it a bit unsettling
that their was no "About Us" page to identify the group
who was making these comparisons; no list of scientific
advisors; and no list of the published studies on which
they based their recommendations.
When I looked at their ratings I found it a bit curious
that Centrum, which most people consider the best of
the drug store brands, received a rating of 0.6 (99th
out of the 100 multivitamins rated).
In addition, several multivitamins that I considered to
be quite good received only mediocre ratings, while
multivitamins that I had mostly never heard of were
rated near the top.
I was really curious by this point at just how they had
arrived at these ratings.
So when I got to the bottom of the page I clicked on
the link "How were these vitamin reviews made" with
some anticipation.
Again, I was disappointed. There was no information on
how they assessed things like bioavailability or
toxicity (which were listed among their 14 comparison
criteria) and no list of scientific references.
It appears that their sole comparison criterion was a
list of what they considered to be the optimal doses of
each vitamin and mineral.
And when I reviewed that list it was pretty obvious why
there were no scientific references listed. There was
no sound scientific basis for the "optimal" dose list.
For example, their recommendation was for 7500 IU of
vitamin A. The DV recommendation for vitamin A is 5,000
IU, and most experts recommend that half of that come
from beta-carotene to avoid the risk of bone fractures
caused by high doses of vitamin A.
They recommended over 50 mg of vitamins B1, B2, niacin,
pantothenic acid and B6. That is up to a 33-fold excess
of DV recommendations.
There is no scientific rationale for such a huge excess
of B vitamins.
On the other hand their recommendations were
significantly below current DV recommendations for
other nutrients like vitamin D, biotin and iodine.
In summary their recommended "optimal doses" made no
scientific sense, and they provided no published
clinical studies supporting their recommendations.
In my opinion the entire comparison is bogus.
It is impossible to say who is behind this misleading
comparison, but when these types of comparisons have
surfaced in the past it usually turned out that they
were designed to make a particular product look good -
and the easiest way to do that is to make the
ingredient list of that product the standard against
which all others are compared.
I'll let you do your own research as to which product
that might be.
In the meantime it is important to remember that the
Internet is the electronic equivalent of the wild west.
Just because you see it on the web doesn't make it
true.
You need to view what you see online with a bit of
skepticism. Ask the hard questions. Look for the
scientific evidence.
Adapted from Dr. Stephen Chaney
Tips From the Professor
