Did anyone watch the BBC Horizon programme last night?
He never mentioned b12 deficiency once but simply denigrated the taking of vitamins and minerals - thus feeding GP prejudices about b12.
One doctor claimed that a woman in the trial received 50% of her folate from a portion of curly fries - I understood that both folate and b12 were removed from the cooking of food to a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount of cooking.
The presenter also kept denigrating the oft used phrase not beneficial for all or something similar.
However, the over riding claim that we get more than enough vitamins from our daily food intake including junk food that vitamin supplements are unnecessary. He didn’t mention people on special diets like vegetarians and especially vegans who must supplement.
Written by
Alfabeta
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Absolutely agree . When the programme started , I hade a bet with myself that Vitamin B12 would not be mentioned . I was unfortunately right. Very poor programme in many respects . I wonder how many people rushed out to get a portion of “curly fries”? ( I’ve never heard of them I’m glad to say !)
Very poor programme all round . Not scientific enough . I felt like writing to the BBC , but couldn’t raise the energy ( B12 deficiency probably ! )
It was clear that they were not looking at the small group of people who have specific problems with vitamins and minerals - and there was actually reference to the fact that there are some people who do need to take supplements.
The presenter himself recognised that he was slightly deficient in vitamin D and probably needed to supplement.
The messages I took away were that for the general population
a) there is no scientific evidence that supplementing just for the sake of it, and in particular, supplementing in high doses is actually helpful. There are instances where supplementation can be harmful. Although this is far from the case for the majority of people it is, nevertheless a risk.
b) If you are deficient or have absorption problems supplementing will help to correct those but in general most people get all they need from their diet - though diet for some could definitely do with improvement. The wording 'not beneficial for all' is a way that the companies producing supplements use to hide the full extent of their duty to point out that in most instances the effects they claim only relate to correcting deficiencies.
c) Fruit and veg are good not just for their vitamin content but for their roughage content which is vital to maintaining a healthy gut.
d) Where companies use research to promote products they have frequently being selective in the studies they have chosen to present and this is misleading.
e) the supplement industry is not regulated in the same way that the pharmaceutical industry is so it is caveat emptor (buyer beware).
I agree with you as far as the overt message is concerned but the sub text fed the prejudice that people taking vitamin supplements are health freaks and that is how, according to what I read on this site, many gps feel about their b12 deficit patients.
Furthermore - it was often exaggerating the problem of vitamin supplement- the presenter had to go to the states to find a person who had liver failure and potential kidney failure and a so called scientific study that registered a 4% rise in death rates of people who took antioxidants.
It was very poor science and stated quite clearly that everyone can get all they need from a balanced diet including curly fries as a satisfactory source of folate!
It did not mention vegans who must have b12 supplementation not to mention alcoholics or other groups who must supplement with exception of pregnant women who need iiron and folate supplements and the rest of us who need vitamin d in winter.
I really didn't get the messages that you were getting at all.
I though that the study which showed a 4% increase in death rates whilst taking anti-oxidants (AEC) was actually before he went to the states. The scientist being interviewed certainly wasn't American by birth. The trip to the states was around one particular strand of studies into the effects of anti-oxidants. The example with green-tea supplementation was not one that I felt came out of the US particularly. To give you a different example - many people use kelp supplements for iodine. It is almost impossible to regulate the actual dosage of iodine from these supplements because the means of manufacture just doesn't warrant this with the result that people can easily end up taking much higher doses of iodine than they intended - and high iodine intake is known to be one factor in the development of autoimmune thyroidosis (hashi's),
I go back to the programme being about the general population and the need for supplementation. Whilst we are the majroity on this forum, people with B12 absorption problems are not the norm. Daily in take for people without problems is very low and it was quite obvious from the discussions that they were not looking at any particular dietary choices in relation.
I felt it came across that the presenter rather set out to rubbish supplement producers and I felt that that was the tone of the program that anyone casually watching would take away, so I do understand the frustration it evoked,
BUT in actual fact it was really just questioning media hype and marketing and did show all the balanced points that Gambit62 identified - they just didn't come across very well in the attitude.
To me the content was balanced and factual, the presentation less so. The script did not clearly deliver the message.
Why did they have to go to a junk yard for a section from one of the main contributiors? To me it subliminally said "rubbish" rather than "scientifically sound information", which was a shame as he was very interesting.
I am often aware of too many people condemning foodstuffs as "junk" and pseudo guilt-tripping the consumers with unbalanced and often incorrect comments. The program was clear to set the record straight by saying that these foods do provide plenty of vitamins and minerals so are positive sources of nutrients. It added that the problems with them are of energy intake - as they often also have lots of oil and simple carbohydrates giving "empty calories", and low fibre.
A portion of boiled organic white rice will be seen by many as a "healthy" foodstuff... But in fact has minimal vitamins and minerals or fibre and so provides just empty calories, whereas a cheap "junk" burger has iron, including heme iron, B12 and many other vitamins and minerals and - thanks to the "filler" - is a source of fibre!
My mind hates cheap burgers and likes rice - my body is the other way round! I can retrain my mind...
Thank you for your explanation, Denise you explained it much better than the programme but there were some things very wrong about the programme more through ineptness than anything else. Equating the diet of a processed food eater (won’t say junk) with the diet of a vegan/vegetarian and implying that they are equally healthy is just plain wrong and feeds the prejudices of food cynics. Curly fries are not a healthy source of folate - that’s a simple fact - the potato is so processed that they can only have any usable folate if it has been added let alone the destruction of any folate once cooked.
The vegetarian/vegan will have to supplement with b12 or, over time, will become b12 deficient and the other women’s diet is carcinogenic as well as likely to cause pancreatic and liver/gall bladder problems. I have two friends either side of 70 who ate out regularly and had take away food on a regular basis both are being treated for pancreatitis and both have had their gall bladders removed.
The core issue of the programme was to attack health food companies who promote vitamin/mineral supplements making out that they were charlatans. The way they set out to prove this was highly flawed to say the least and was more worthy of the Tabloid press rather than the BBC.
It would have served a better purpose if it made a programme about the importance of supplements for those who are viatamin deficient such as everyone on this site and the prejudice they fight against because of cynicism surrounding supplements including the myth that supplementation can be more harmful than the condition one is trying to correct.
It was even worse than that, because if you look closely on her screen there was a B12 result and they simply didn’t even discuss it(you couldn’t see the result) and considering there was a vegan/vegetarian on the show I would have at least expected a “nod” to this particular vitamin/mineral!!
I never noticed that - well spotted! Also, all the time on this site we are told that b12 results in blood tests are meaningless as it doesn’t assess the b12 getting to the cells and that we should be assessed and treated on our symptoms. Yet the veggie/vegan and the Curly Fries were assessed to be almost equally healthy on their blood tests based on the vitamins and minerals present. A really poor programme with more crap science than they were denigrating in the vitamin industry!
From memory when the lady in the white coat was pointing at the graphs - she consistently repeated that the population at large had good levels. Were we told what those good levels were ? - I think not. As we know most medics are happy to have us bumping along the bottom.
Very true! Another reason why the programme was so bad. You can imagine it can’t you, sitting there at the doctors - memory loss, suffering from nominal aphasia, unable to balance, aching all over etc and the doctor simply says according to the rad out your b12 levels are fine!
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
B12 and nerve regeneration 
Do B12 injections deplete iron/folate &/or other B vitamins?
Absorption and vitamins deficiency?
Which vitamins alongside SI?
