It is true that multivitamins are mostly bunk, and it has a lot to do with the absorption and metabolism of the substances as they are presented in tablet/capsule form. There is significant controversy over whether "natural" or food-based vitamins, or synthetic types, are better, as well.
I try to take supplements as separately as possible. I do have a B-complex, which is typical, but I don't go in for multis, or "proprietary formulations" or special mixes for "men 40+" or a particular type of health issue.
As a result, I do end up with about 10 bottles and a lot of supplements to take throughout the day. I have them mostly divided into morning, midday, and evening batches. It's admittedly a lot to manage, but I feel good about it--a lot better than the drugs that used to be deceptively forced on me!
I don’t think the op meant that in the literal sense of the word “forced”. I took it to mean that arguments were used as a scare tactic to get you to take the multi-vitamin. I don’t think anyone can force people to take anything, but some doctors might be upset after seeing test results if some vitamin levels are low.
So there were several scare tactics used, some half-truths, and some blatant lies to cover up adverse side effects.
I eventually made a spreadsheet wherein I drew up a matrix of side effects from each medication I was currently prescribed (about 5 total) and it very clearly demonstrated that these drugs were working together to enhance and magnify those adverse effects. There's no term for that, of course: they're not "interacting"; it's more like a malevolent synergy.
So I quit all the meds and I rely on a few authoritative sources for which supplements to take. I do inform all my physicians about what I take; I keep them up-to-date, and in turn they do nothing to monitor or test, because allopathy doesn't/can't do that. They typically just solemnly inform me that it's not regulated and I should probably have some professional guidance on it. Yeah, I'm working on that.
In terms of forced drugging, I've been incarcerated in hospitals and they basically expect you to take the drugs they present, or else. "Or else" usually starts with a petition to the court to order the forced drugging. I noticed in my records that someone had written "beware of cheeking" -- it turns out that "cheeking" is a way that inmates pretend to take pills but put 'em in their cheeks like a squirrel instead.
Typically, if I was incarcerated, I'd just go along with the drugging regimen and pretend that it helps, because that avenue meets much less resistance than the others. Last October I simply refused, and they weren't too fussed about that, because I was voluntary anyway, so all the treatments were my choice, my right. And I've been 100% voluntary treatment for over 20 years: nobody can say that I haven't relentlessly pursued every possible treatment at every opportunity. I merely disagree with the proposition that drugs make it better or easier.
My step-dad and ex-fiancee really struggle with paranoid schizophrenia (my step-dad ended up on the street in another country with a criminal record before we were able to find him and intervene), and they've both really struggled with being medicated, from pills to injectables. Whatever it is that ails you, I really hope you're doing a lot better these days, and I hope it continues forevermore. I completely empathize with what you wrote, it's very painful to watch someone go through and not be able to help in a meaningful way.
May you be in excellent health, mate, both physically and mentally.
I'm newly in the PNW after living in Texas for a decade. I was hitting some walls on energy and mood, and a coworker suggested it might be seasonal affective disorder. They suggested I grab some vitamin D, and I grabbed a multivitamin as well.
Could be the vitamins, the placebo effect, or some other change, but I've felt remarkably more energized and motivated since starting. I'm inclined to keep taking them.
How's your hydration? One thing that I overlooked for years with what I called SAD was my Winter hydration, which was actually pretty crappy if you tracked every millilitre across a week.
I'm more of the opinion that most people don't benefit from multi-vitamins because they're in a range where they're not in deficit or the body cannot absorb it when taken orally.
D for sure is actively endorsed by doctors. B6 I think plays a role in absorption as well.
One thing worth considering for males is testosterone production boosters (not to be confused with direct testosterone). They have a positive effect on my sleep quality as well as progress with my workouts.
In my experience vitamin-D supplementation does not help mitigate SAD. The specialized light-therapy devices can have a marginal effect. Direct natural sunlight does help a lott. Tanning beds work as well but those are not recommended for different reasons.
I'm taking a pill containing vitamin D plus zinc from time to time when I remember and I'm in the mood. Like parsley in soup, it probably doesn't hurt, doesn't help (much) either.
One thing you might wanna check is your B12 vitamin blood level. I paid some 20$ once to get that checked and was on the low side. A colleague of mine tested herself after hearing me and was well below limit, doctor straight went to inject her with vitamin shots.
Apparently it causes irreversible neurological damage if too low for too long.
And I'm no vegetarian (B12 is only found in meat). But seems like a lot of people don't absorb it well. There's more in liver than regular meat so I make myself liver with onion stew from time to time (only way I can eat it, grilled liver I find repulsive). Also... don't exagerate on the liver coze you might get hypervitaminosis A for a change :) Oh, and when you eat your liver for B12, avoid side dish salad. Vitamin C blocks absorbtion of B12 it seems so you'd be eating that liver in vain (for the intended purpose, it still fills you up).
I choose the foods people die for. You've tricked yourself into thinking veggies taste good because they're good for you. Would you eat broccoli if it made you fat and gave you cancer? Doubt it. I haven't eaten anything green for years, and my blood work always comes back fine, thanks to the supplements I take.
I love broccoli. Even as a kid, I liked to add broccoli to mac and cheese along with chilli powder because it was otherwise fairly bland.
You never crave greens? Sometimes I sit there and crave spinach, I'm all about the iron, baby! Perhaps not a coincidence though, I found out last year I have MTHFR polymorphism, so my ability to absorb iron is below average.
"Blood work comes back fine" is a very low bar, unless you pay for a high-end analysis (things that even many doctors wouldn't think to look at).
You didn't disclose your diet. There's a huge difference between a diet of meat (from animals raised on their natural diets, because artificial diets can change chemical composition of fats and ratios of proteins to be less healthy), berries, and nuts, and a diet of pizza, sweets and (refined-grain-based) baked goods.
It's not a "trick". We all love and hate foods based on more than their taste. The ones that taste the best are not even properly called "food"; they're distant relatives of natural foods, and they're objectively unhealthy. (Unless you're metabolically starving, in which case "bad" calories are the least-bad option.)
Have a friend like this. He's 50. Just got diagnosed with haemorrhoids. And that's no joke. He can't run or do any weights whatsoever. He can have an operation to try to fix it but the success rate isn't great. He lived a life of being in good shape through exercise and limiting intake, and he took his multivitamins. But his actual diet was not good. Very very few vegetables and not much fruit.
He's not gonna die of a heart attack, but I wouldn't rule out the big C (particularly bowel).
I have not tricked myself into liking healthy food. But even if I have, isn't that a good thing? Like using some mental conditioning to enjoy running or the buzz you get from solving puzzles for a living. A life long bad diet catches up with you.
I love the texture and taste of a salad that has crunchy vegetables finely chopped, grilled low fat halloumi, roasted hazelnuts, pomegranate or other fruit and some dressing I concocted. It's zero effort to love it. Did I "learn to like it" or do people learn to stomach deep fried foods? Why one and not the other?
For your friend, having lived and recovered from the 'rhoids—a cheap bidet seat, or bidet attachment for the ol' porcelain throne. Using one also sorted my old man's 'rhoids, and he'd suffered with them before I was even born.
I suggest a book called "How Not to Die" by Michael Greger. Given you don't seem to be the vegetable eating type, you're increasing your likelihood of all cause mortality.
Meh he’s such a quack. Followed his advice and it took a while but I got sick beyond comprehension. Later I found out he’s always talking about 1 out of a 1000 compounds in every plant and for example if that one compound seems to be doing good, let’s ignore the 999 other ones.
It’s not even good for the planet. Veggies don’t even grow up here in the northern hemisphere for half of the year so everything is imported.
If you wanna follow anybody follow Bryan Johnson. He takes over 100 supplements and I figure that’s probably what it takes if you wanna live off plants.
I wish there was study based on whether multi-vitamins help for those of us who are professional sitters (eg, in tech, so we sit on our ass all day), and who most of the time do NOT eat healthy diets, and do not get enough exercise.
In those circumstances, does a multi-vitamin a day improve things?
There's so many variables at play to give blanket statements.
MTHFR mutations are interesting to research. I've got polymorphism (checked via a DNA test), and once I cut out the folic acid supplements and fortified cereals, I started feeling much better. The missus also has polymorphism, and whilst her blood results made her seem anemic, the prescribed B12 shots gave her a mental health crisis due to elevated homocysteine as a consequence.
That's not to say "supplements = bad", but having a good understanding, self-awareness and figuring out your own physiology is more important than following blanket statements said by others. This is also why some people with ADHD respond well to stimulants and others don't. People vary wildly.
It doesn't "diagnose", you look at what the genes express in terms of alleles. Lots of information publicly available from reputable sources.
I'm not here to push recommendations of DNA services, but the better ones allow you to export your raw DNA data for further scrutiny if they don't allow you to just browse it by gene number via a web app. If you're interested, look it up. Likewise, watch out for the one that handled a security breach crappily recently.
Multiple mutations of the MTHFR gene means that a lot of blanket statement health advice doesn't necessarily apply. It's also not all that uncommon, and it's something that most docs in the UK aren't familiar with. High incidence in Ashkenazi Jews (which I am).
As a vegetarian who thus far hasn't invested in a nutritionist, I figured a daily Centrum For Men multivitamin pill might be an inexpensive safety net for a potential unknown deficit.
I dislike having to swallow a pill every day, though, so I'd be very happy if some expert could tell me that this is completely worthless.
It's frustrating that all these are about risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease, and then generate these blanket statements like "stop wasting money".
Admitting that most people might not need supplementation that much, and that the industry is making money to make you pee fancy urine, Not everything is about preventing problems. Supplementation is also about having more energy and quality of life.
I eat well for a vegetarian. We cook most meals from scratch every day and use Nutracheck (app) to make sure calories, fat and protein are in the right ratio. The only vitamins we take are B12 (because vegetarian) and D in the winter. Mrs Raffraffraff takes a low dose of iron because she's female (menstruation).
I notice other people's diets whenever I'm shopping. I put my heap of fresh fruit, vegetables, rice, nuts, lentils, spice, herbs, cans of various beans, pasta and low fat cheese onto the conveyor belt casually. I might have one or two cheeky "convenience meals" if the label tells me it's something I might make at home. And it's mind-boggling to glance around and see an entire pile devoid of anything our ancestors would recognise as edible. Pop tarts, biscuits, crisps, a cake. Frozen section: chips, pizza, breaded fried fish, chicken nuggets. Microwave meals (probably not too bad). Bacon, and ah! Potatoes! But they don't count in your 5-a-day because they're mainly starch. Finally, and a healthy breakfast cereal! But that's just grain with a very high sugar content and multivitamins.
I don't think people have bad diets because of a lack of vitamins. It's the high proportion of fats and carbs (with high sugar content) and lack of unprocessed fruit and veg. But then again I sometimes look at these unhealthy piles of trash and wonder what astronauts have to eat, on a mission to the international space station.
Is the article just propaganda for this diet the researcher suggests? I mean from a mainstream perspective it sounds healthy and probably better than 95% of Americans. But the demonization of red meat and saturated fat seem totally unjustified.
The sum of money mentioned at the start of the article corresponds to about 10 cents per person per day for the US population. But that includes the people who don't take them at all, so it's about 20 cents per person per day for the people taking them. People are paying too much, I think.
Multivitimin tablets from a UK supermarket cost about two pence each, which makes me think it's worth taking them just in case one's dificient.
People keep claiming that absorption of vitimins in pill form is not good but they never seem to make that claim more precise: Which vitimins in particular? What aspect of pills makes absorption difficult? Is it the chemical form, the physical form, the fact they're all entering the body at one time? Without a bit more specificity it sounds to me like the sort of story people like to invent or massively overgeneralise.
> “If you follow a healthy diet, you can get all of the vitamins and minerals you need from food.”
This is not completely true.
For those who do heavy physical work, so they can eat a lot, it is indeed easy to get all of the vitamins and minerals you need from food.
This is no longer true for those with a sedentary lifestyle, who must restrict their daily energy intake to somewhere around 2000 kcal, to avoid gaining weight.
When the energy intake is restricted, the necessary daily intakes of proteins and vitamins are reduced much less than proportionally, so a healthy diet must reduce mainly the carbohydrates and the fats, while still providing the recommended daily intakes of proteins and vitamins and essential fatty acids.
With reduced amounts of food, for some vitamins it remains easy to ensure adequate quantities, but for others the recommended intake can be achieved only when you plan carefully the combinations of food ingredients. Such a complex planning makes difficult to achieve enough variation in what you eat.
Instead of being forced to make complicated plans about how to make combinations of various food ingredients, it is far easier when you eat little to compensate by taking e.g. a capsule of B-complex vitamins from time to time.
This allows freedom in the choice of food, and if you take them seldom enough to not exceed the recommended average intakes, the vitamins will not be harmful even if they do not provide any benefit whenever the food happens to contain enough vitamins.
Moreover, for many vitamins it has become much cheaper to take them as supplements than to buy enough of certain vegetables or fruits that would provide the same amount of vitamins.
For example, eating a raw red bell pepper per day would easily provide an adequate daily intake of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Nevertheless, where I live such a bell pepper is more than ten times more expensive than the same amount of pure powder of ascorbic acid (where the main processing steps are done by bacterial fermentation).
Where I live (in Europe) a bell pepper or any other source with high content of ascorbic acid, like kiwi fruits, would cost about the same as the food ingredients that would provide 75% of the daily protein intake, and for the proteins there are no alternatives.
So for someone who would need to achieve a healthy diet at a minimum cost, taking vitamin supplements can be significantly cheaper.
What I don't understand is this: Out of the thousands and thousands of participants in the study, some of them are sure to have unknown deficits. You'd think then that in studies like these, even assuming multivitamins are useless to the vast, vast majority of people, you'd see some slight reduced risk for things like heart disease and mental decline. Yet, the studies claim there is no benefit.
Unless people get sick from taking the vitamins and almost exactly offset the number of people that get better from them, I feel like something is missing. They clearly also state that multivitamins ARE in fact beneficial for some groups. If those groups were excluded from the studies (which I don't think should be that hard for them to do), shouldn't we then see an increased risk associated with taking multivitamins for people not in those groups?
Maybe it's vanishingly unlikely one has unknown deficits.
One problem with daily recommended/minimum/maximum doses is that they come without bandwidths. What's high for person X maybe dangerously low for Y. Knowing your optimal levels is basically impossible to know. And perhaps there is no such thing, maybe there are multitudes of optima, and maybe it person specific bandwidths are enormous as well. It seems evolutionary likely that we can deal well with huge variety.
Checking wikipedia vitamin entries there are lots of specific diseases and conditions which are not addressed in the article, not sure if the studies cover them or not. Two multivitamin gummies a day costs 10 cents and is cheap insurance.
I wonder to what extent this is for Americans, whose bread and cereals are so loaded that they're effectively multivitamins anyway.
I live in Norway and just realized that they don't put iodine in their salt. (Actually a lot of minerals I would have normally gotten from enriched bread back home may or may not be added here). Locals eat a lot of white fish and get their iodine that way. But I don't and have started supplementing just in case.
Ahaha yes, I discovered this after writing :) I think the main argument is still that Europeans don't get as much vitamins/minerals artificially added and 'may' (though not necessarily) be better poised to benefit.
I say may because these things are complicated. I also suspect people here give better respect to food and might be eating a more balanced diet naturally
77 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadI try to take supplements as separately as possible. I do have a B-complex, which is typical, but I don't go in for multis, or "proprietary formulations" or special mixes for "men 40+" or a particular type of health issue.
As a result, I do end up with about 10 bottles and a lot of supplements to take throughout the day. I have them mostly divided into morning, midday, and evening batches. It's admittedly a lot to manage, but I feel good about it--a lot better than the drugs that used to be deceptively forced on me!
I eventually made a spreadsheet wherein I drew up a matrix of side effects from each medication I was currently prescribed (about 5 total) and it very clearly demonstrated that these drugs were working together to enhance and magnify those adverse effects. There's no term for that, of course: they're not "interacting"; it's more like a malevolent synergy.
So I quit all the meds and I rely on a few authoritative sources for which supplements to take. I do inform all my physicians about what I take; I keep them up-to-date, and in turn they do nothing to monitor or test, because allopathy doesn't/can't do that. They typically just solemnly inform me that it's not regulated and I should probably have some professional guidance on it. Yeah, I'm working on that.
In terms of forced drugging, I've been incarcerated in hospitals and they basically expect you to take the drugs they present, or else. "Or else" usually starts with a petition to the court to order the forced drugging. I noticed in my records that someone had written "beware of cheeking" -- it turns out that "cheeking" is a way that inmates pretend to take pills but put 'em in their cheeks like a squirrel instead.
Typically, if I was incarcerated, I'd just go along with the drugging regimen and pretend that it helps, because that avenue meets much less resistance than the others. Last October I simply refused, and they weren't too fussed about that, because I was voluntary anyway, so all the treatments were my choice, my right. And I've been 100% voluntary treatment for over 20 years: nobody can say that I haven't relentlessly pursued every possible treatment at every opportunity. I merely disagree with the proposition that drugs make it better or easier.
May you be in excellent health, mate, both physically and mentally.
Could be the vitamins, the placebo effect, or some other change, but I've felt remarkably more energized and motivated since starting. I'm inclined to keep taking them.
One thing worth considering for males is testosterone production boosters (not to be confused with direct testosterone). They have a positive effect on my sleep quality as well as progress with my workouts.
One thing you might wanna check is your B12 vitamin blood level. I paid some 20$ once to get that checked and was on the low side. A colleague of mine tested herself after hearing me and was well below limit, doctor straight went to inject her with vitamin shots.
Apparently it causes irreversible neurological damage if too low for too long.
And I'm no vegetarian (B12 is only found in meat). But seems like a lot of people don't absorb it well. There's more in liver than regular meat so I make myself liver with onion stew from time to time (only way I can eat it, grilled liver I find repulsive). Also... don't exagerate on the liver coze you might get hypervitaminosis A for a change :) Oh, and when you eat your liver for B12, avoid side dish salad. Vitamin C blocks absorbtion of B12 it seems so you'd be eating that liver in vain (for the intended purpose, it still fills you up).
You never crave greens? Sometimes I sit there and crave spinach, I'm all about the iron, baby! Perhaps not a coincidence though, I found out last year I have MTHFR polymorphism, so my ability to absorb iron is below average.
You didn't disclose your diet. There's a huge difference between a diet of meat (from animals raised on their natural diets, because artificial diets can change chemical composition of fats and ratios of proteins to be less healthy), berries, and nuts, and a diet of pizza, sweets and (refined-grain-based) baked goods.
It's not a "trick". We all love and hate foods based on more than their taste. The ones that taste the best are not even properly called "food"; they're distant relatives of natural foods, and they're objectively unhealthy. (Unless you're metabolically starving, in which case "bad" calories are the least-bad option.)
He's not gonna die of a heart attack, but I wouldn't rule out the big C (particularly bowel).
I have not tricked myself into liking healthy food. But even if I have, isn't that a good thing? Like using some mental conditioning to enjoy running or the buzz you get from solving puzzles for a living. A life long bad diet catches up with you.
I love the texture and taste of a salad that has crunchy vegetables finely chopped, grilled low fat halloumi, roasted hazelnuts, pomegranate or other fruit and some dressing I concocted. It's zero effort to love it. Did I "learn to like it" or do people learn to stomach deep fried foods? Why one and not the other?
Best £20-£50 he will ever spend.
You will find that that is . . . not a universally held opinion. Otherwise everyone would stuff their faces with them.
It’s not even good for the planet. Veggies don’t even grow up here in the northern hemisphere for half of the year so everything is imported.
If you wanna follow anybody follow Bryan Johnson. He takes over 100 supplements and I figure that’s probably what it takes if you wanna live off plants.
Can I ask from what?
> 1 out of a 1000 compounds in every plant and for example if that one compound seems to be doing good, let’s ignore the 999 other ones.
Can you be specific?
> He takes over 100 supplements and I figure that’s probably what it takes if you wanna live off plants.
Which supplements?
I misspoke and eating clean is associated with all cause mortality, not diet [1].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK578477/
In those circumstances, does a multi-vitamin a day improve things?
MTHFR mutations are interesting to research. I've got polymorphism (checked via a DNA test), and once I cut out the folic acid supplements and fortified cereals, I started feeling much better. The missus also has polymorphism, and whilst her blood results made her seem anemic, the prescribed B12 shots gave her a mental health crisis due to elevated homocysteine as a consequence.
That's not to say "supplements = bad", but having a good understanding, self-awareness and figuring out your own physiology is more important than following blanket statements said by others. This is also why some people with ADHD respond well to stimulants and others don't. People vary wildly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_polymorphism
And with respect to this gene:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6561/
I'm not here to push recommendations of DNA services, but the better ones allow you to export your raw DNA data for further scrutiny if they don't allow you to just browse it by gene number via a web app. If you're interested, look it up. Likewise, watch out for the one that handled a security breach crappily recently.
Multiple mutations of the MTHFR gene means that a lot of blanket statement health advice doesn't necessarily apply. It's also not all that uncommon, and it's something that most docs in the UK aren't familiar with. High incidence in Ashkenazi Jews (which I am).
I dislike having to swallow a pill every day, though, so I'd be very happy if some expert could tell me that this is completely worthless.
Is Dr. Larry Appel, director of the Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins not an expert?
Admitting that most people might not need supplementation that much, and that the industry is making money to make you pee fancy urine, Not everything is about preventing problems. Supplementation is also about having more energy and quality of life.
When I found out that the "control" substance was Olive Oil I became very suspicious of the study.
I also feel suspicious when someone tells me "to stop wasting money" on something that is so inexpensive in relative terms.
I eat well for a vegetarian. We cook most meals from scratch every day and use Nutracheck (app) to make sure calories, fat and protein are in the right ratio. The only vitamins we take are B12 (because vegetarian) and D in the winter. Mrs Raffraffraff takes a low dose of iron because she's female (menstruation).
I notice other people's diets whenever I'm shopping. I put my heap of fresh fruit, vegetables, rice, nuts, lentils, spice, herbs, cans of various beans, pasta and low fat cheese onto the conveyor belt casually. I might have one or two cheeky "convenience meals" if the label tells me it's something I might make at home. And it's mind-boggling to glance around and see an entire pile devoid of anything our ancestors would recognise as edible. Pop tarts, biscuits, crisps, a cake. Frozen section: chips, pizza, breaded fried fish, chicken nuggets. Microwave meals (probably not too bad). Bacon, and ah! Potatoes! But they don't count in your 5-a-day because they're mainly starch. Finally, and a healthy breakfast cereal! But that's just grain with a very high sugar content and multivitamins.
I don't think people have bad diets because of a lack of vitamins. It's the high proportion of fats and carbs (with high sugar content) and lack of unprocessed fruit and veg. But then again I sometimes look at these unhealthy piles of trash and wonder what astronauts have to eat, on a mission to the international space station.
I’d love to see more discussion on this (aside from the quality of the article itself), as it’s something I’ve always felt needs to be figured out.
But it’s already fallen off the FP, so the discussion will likely be mostly done at this point.
Multivitimin tablets from a UK supermarket cost about two pence each, which makes me think it's worth taking them just in case one's dificient.
People keep claiming that absorption of vitimins in pill form is not good but they never seem to make that claim more precise: Which vitimins in particular? What aspect of pills makes absorption difficult? Is it the chemical form, the physical form, the fact they're all entering the body at one time? Without a bit more specificity it sounds to me like the sort of story people like to invent or massively overgeneralise.
This is not completely true.
For those who do heavy physical work, so they can eat a lot, it is indeed easy to get all of the vitamins and minerals you need from food.
This is no longer true for those with a sedentary lifestyle, who must restrict their daily energy intake to somewhere around 2000 kcal, to avoid gaining weight.
When the energy intake is restricted, the necessary daily intakes of proteins and vitamins are reduced much less than proportionally, so a healthy diet must reduce mainly the carbohydrates and the fats, while still providing the recommended daily intakes of proteins and vitamins and essential fatty acids.
With reduced amounts of food, for some vitamins it remains easy to ensure adequate quantities, but for others the recommended intake can be achieved only when you plan carefully the combinations of food ingredients. Such a complex planning makes difficult to achieve enough variation in what you eat.
Instead of being forced to make complicated plans about how to make combinations of various food ingredients, it is far easier when you eat little to compensate by taking e.g. a capsule of B-complex vitamins from time to time.
This allows freedom in the choice of food, and if you take them seldom enough to not exceed the recommended average intakes, the vitamins will not be harmful even if they do not provide any benefit whenever the food happens to contain enough vitamins.
Moreover, for many vitamins it has become much cheaper to take them as supplements than to buy enough of certain vegetables or fruits that would provide the same amount of vitamins.
For example, eating a raw red bell pepper per day would easily provide an adequate daily intake of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Nevertheless, where I live such a bell pepper is more than ten times more expensive than the same amount of pure powder of ascorbic acid (where the main processing steps are done by bacterial fermentation).
Where I live (in Europe) a bell pepper or any other source with high content of ascorbic acid, like kiwi fruits, would cost about the same as the food ingredients that would provide 75% of the daily protein intake, and for the proteins there are no alternatives.
So for someone who would need to achieve a healthy diet at a minimum cost, taking vitamin supplements can be significantly cheaper.
Unless people get sick from taking the vitamins and almost exactly offset the number of people that get better from them, I feel like something is missing. They clearly also state that multivitamins ARE in fact beneficial for some groups. If those groups were excluded from the studies (which I don't think should be that hard for them to do), shouldn't we then see an increased risk associated with taking multivitamins for people not in those groups?
I'm probably missing something?
One problem with daily recommended/minimum/maximum doses is that they come without bandwidths. What's high for person X maybe dangerously low for Y. Knowing your optimal levels is basically impossible to know. And perhaps there is no such thing, maybe there are multitudes of optima, and maybe it person specific bandwidths are enormous as well. It seems evolutionary likely that we can deal well with huge variety.
Personally this is convincing enough to me to take a multivitamin.
I live in Norway and just realized that they don't put iodine in their salt. (Actually a lot of minerals I would have normally gotten from enriched bread back home may or may not be added here). Locals eat a lot of white fish and get their iodine that way. But I don't and have started supplementing just in case.
I say may because these things are complicated. I also suspect people here give better respect to food and might be eating a more balanced diet naturally