Lies, darned lies and statistics
A new study released by the French claims that antioxidant supplements may raise the risk of skin cancer in women.
Of all the numb-skulled, harebrained things to come out recently in the fervent anti- supplement (witch hunt), this one is really in its own league.
This study was just a slice of a larger one that's looking at antioxidants in relation to both cancer and cardiovascular disease. The study was composed of 7,900 women and 5,100 men. They were given either a daily antioxidant in capsule form or a placebo.
The antioxidant capsule included 120 mg of vitamin C, 30 mg of vitamin E, 6 mg of beta- carotene, 20 mg of zinc and 100 mcg of selenium. These are not very high doses, which even the researchers readily admitted.
Participants were followed for a little over seven years, in which time 157 cases of skin cancer were diagnosed—including 25 melanomas.
The researchers say that the incidence of all skin cancers and melanoma was higher in the antioxidant group, specifically among women. Fifty-one women developed skin cancer in the antioxidant group, compared to 30 in the placebo group. With the men, 43 in the placebo group and 33 in the antioxidant group got skin cancer.
And that's where we start to see the smoke and the mirrors.
To conclude that the female group got skin cancer because of the antioxidant use—and remember, these were low doses to begin with, but not the men smacks of 4th grade scientific reasoning. As the numbers show, more men in the placebo group than the antioxidant group got skin cancer—but that fact is simply overlooked.
Add to that, the researchers did not look at the amount of sunscreen use among any of the participants or how much sun exposure they typically had—which could account in huge part as to why some got skin cancer and others didn't. In fact, the failure to account for this potentially confounding factor should have been good reason not to attempt the analysis in the first place.
This isn't the first time researchers have interpreted test results to say that nutrient-based supplements can cause disease. Every time I read a study that comes up with this type of foolhardy conclusion, I'm going to get out my bow of scientific reasoning and shoot down such nonsense with an arrow of common sense.
As usual, a big part of the problem is a poorly informed, mainstream media that likes to jump on studies like this as further proof that this supplement, that nutrient or another antioxidant doesn't work, or worse—causes harm. In this case, the study authors themselves stated that the findings are by no means conclusive and further studies are warranted.
When it comes to antioxidants, always look to whole foods first. They supply a broad palette of hundreds—if not thousands—of health-supporting antioxidants. The few antioxidants used in this study can easily be supplied by a high quality multivitamin— just make it includes vitamin E with mixed tocopherols and not more than 5,000 IUs of preformed vitamin A (retinol).
Indeed, one of the problems with this study was its use of just one form of vitamin E— the alpha-tocopherol form. When taken alone, it causes a relative deficiency of the important gamma-tocopherol form, which is one good reason you should always used a mixed tocopherol vitamin E that includes both. Perque, New Chapter, Megafood and Life Extension all offer such products. My favorite antioxidant is actually a combination of whole plant botanical extracts including turmeric, green tea, ginger and rosemary. It's called Supercritical Antioxidants and is available from New Chapter. Go to www.new-chapter.com.
