Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

UCare generously supports MinnPost’s Second Opinion coverage; learn why.

Americans' use of dietary supplements remains constant, despite evidence of negligible benefits and possible harm

Americans' use of dietary supplements remains constant
REUTERS/David Gray
Researchers found that 52 percent of U.S. adults reported in 2011-2012 having used supplements during the previous 30 days — the same percentage who reported doing so in 1999-2000.

Despite substantial research in recent years that shows dietary supplements offer no benefit to most healthy people and can often be harmful, slightly more than half of American adults use such supplements — about the same percentage who used them in 1999, according to a study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

A second study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Heart Association, underscores why many experts are concerned about this steady, widespread use of dietary supplements. It found an association between calcium supplements — but not calcium-rich foods — and an increased risk of developing heart disease.

Let’s start with the calcium study.

Calcium's source matters

For the study, researchers at Johns Hopkins University analyzed 10 years of data on more than 2,700 individuals, aged 45 to 84, who had volunteered to be part of the long-running Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. The participants had filled out questionnaires about their dietary habits and had been interviewed about what drugs and supplements they took daily. They had also undergone two cardiac computed tomography (CT) scans (one when they entered the study and another 10 years later), which measured calcification in the heart’s arteries — a marker of heart disease risk.

After adjusting the data for such factors as weight, exercise habits, education and income, the researchers found that participants in the top fifth in terms of how much calcium they consumed (greater than 1,400 milligrams of calcium daily) — no matter what the source — had a 27 percent lower risk of heart disease, compared to those in the bottom one-fifth (less than 400 milligrams of calcium daily).

The researchers then calculated the risk based on the source of the calcium: food or supplements. 

They found that people who took calcium supplements (and 46 percent of the study’s population reported doing so) were 22 percent more likely to have a coronary artery calcification score that rose over the decade of the study to a level that indicated the development of heart disease. 

No increase in heart disease risk was observed, however, among the study’s participants with the highest intake of calcium from food alone (more than 1,022 milligrams daily).

"When it comes to using vitamin and mineral supplements, particularly calcium supplements being taken for bone health, many Americans think that more is always better," said study co-author Dr. Erin Michos, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, in a released statement. "But our study adds to the body of evidence that excess calcium in the form of supplements may harm the heart and vascular system."

Caveats and concerns

It’s important to point out that this was an observational study. Its findings, therefore, do not prove that taking calcium supplements increases the risk of heart disease.

Yet, as background information in the study points out, other studies — including findings from the large Women’s Health Initiative — have also raised concerns about a possible link between calcium supplements and an increased risk of heart disease-related events, such as strokes and heart attacks.

Furthermore, research has shown that calcium (and vitamin D) supplements are not effective at preventing osteoporosis, which is the primary reason 43 percent of U.S. adults take them.

Indeed, the JAMA study published this week, which examined trends in supplement use, found that the use of calcium supplements has fallen only slightly in recent years.

A constant trend

But, then, that study discovered that the use of dietary supplements in general has remained constant since the late 1990s and early 2000s. Using data from a series of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), researchers found that 52 percent of U.S. adults reported in 2011-2012 having used supplements during the previous 30 days — the same percentage who reported doing so in 1999-2000.

Multivitamin use did decline a bit (from 37 percent to 31 percent), as did the use of several “one-off” supplements, such as vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, ginseng, ginkgo biloba and garlic — perhaps because of research showing they offered no benefit. But other dietary supplements found to be ineffective — such as glucosamine and chondroitin — continue to be popular.

And several supplements increased in use between 1999 and 2012, including omega-3 fatty acids, lycopene, vitamin D and probiotics.

‘The supplement paradox’

"Why would consumers continue to use supplements after high-quality trials found many of these products to be no more effective than placebo?” asks Dr. Pieter Cohen of Harvard Medical School in an accompanying editorial.

“One factor may simply be that consumers are not aware of these negative results, and so continue to use the products they have been using for years,” he writes. “… Another factor may be that these findings are counter-intuitive: avoiding a multivitamin seems to run counter to everything patioents have been taught about the importance of consuming enough vitamins and minerals.”

But a major known reason for this “supplement paradox” — the continuing robust use of supplements despite their negligible benefits — he says, “is that the law affords manufacturers significant leeway to advertise supplements for a broad spectrum of conditions … even after high-quality studies that show no meaningful clinical differences between supplements and placebos are published.”

Cohen calls on legislators to “focus on developing regulatory reforms that provide consumers with accurate information about the efficacy and safety of supplements and on improving mechanisms for identifying products that are causing more harm than good.”

FMI: You can find links to the JAMA study and Cohen's editorial in the October 11 issue of JAMA. The calcium study can be read in full on the website of the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (4)

Supplement form

Calcium supplements come in a variety of forms, including calcium carbonate, calcium citrate, calcium acetate, calcium lactate, calcium gluconate and calcium ascorbate (the first two listed are the most common).

It would be useful if studies like this didn't just lump them all together as they can have different rates of absorption and therefore, one would think, potentially different longterm effects.

Look at the research

I agree with Pat: lumping all supplements and dismissing them entirely is not an useful strategy.

Consumerlab.com (and probably others) have made it their business to examine the research on supplements and point out which ones--and what dosage--have proven effective. And, as with most standard drugs, it's a complicated story.

I tend to be very supportive of traditional medicine. However, the medical profession is not without an agenda when it dismisses non-traditional remedies.

In future, I'd like to see this column's author more objectively examine the various sides of this issue.

Consumerlab is a for-profit

Consumerlab is a for-profit company. A more objective source is the nonprofit Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/vitamins-supplements/the-truth-about-supp...). Also, even though most consumers believe that supplements represent "traditional" vs. "non-traditional" medicine, most major brands are now owned and marketed by big  pharmaceutical companies, including Wyeth, Bayer HealthCare, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. 

This does not respond . . .

This does not respond to the concern about lumping ALL forms of calcium supplementation under a single cautionary umbrella. When there is a statement like "a possible link between calcium supplements and an increased risk of heart disease-related events, such as strokes and heart attacks", and I know that different forms of calcium have different absorption rates, then I really need to know WHICH forms of calcium supplements have been included in the analysis. And that information is simply not here, nor in the Consumer Reports article you linked to.