Okay well Harvard published data recently supporting vitamin c having an impact on cold prevention and relieving symptoms.
And while yes it's unclear whether or not vitamin helps prevent colds. As it's a very hard thing to prove anyway.
Most scientific studies show it has at least a marginal benefit towards relieving symptoms and shortening the duration of a cold.
'Our bodies don't make vitamin C, but we need it for immune function, bone structure, iron absorption, and healthy skin'
It for sure helps our immune system when it's time to fight an infection. And a boosted immune system way work at eliminating colds faster.
Moreover a very convincing Harvard study showed the following
'The most convincing evidence to date comes from a 2013 review of 29 randomized trials with more than 11,000 participants. Researchers found that among extremely active people—such as marathon runners, skiers, and Army troops doing heavy exercise in subarctic conditions—taking at least 200 mg of vitamin C every day appeared to cut the risk of getting a cold in half.'
https://www.health.harvard.edu/cold-and-flu/can-vitamin-c-prevent-a-cold
I think there's a benefit tbh it may be marginal it may be impacted by the placebo effect whatever. I've found it to work for myself so I have to recommend it despite the lack of convincing evidence.
End of the day it's never harmful to have some oranges. So may as well. I'd rather be optimist than say just pray for the best you are powerless to prevent colds.
You've grossly misrepresented this study.
1. These are not Harvard data. A researcher at Harvard merely reported on this study. The data are from multiple sources, but the systematic review and metanalysis (a pooling of many studies) were conducted by researchers at the University of Helsinki and overseen by the Cochrane collaboration's Acute Respiratory Infections group.
2. It is not hard at all to determine whether vitamin C prevents colds. Indeed, it's very simple. You give one big group a vitamin C, and another group a placebo and see who catches more colds. In fact, lots of researchers have done this before; that's why there's now an enormous meta-analysis to show us that vitamin C doesn't prevent colds (my assertion above).
For the pedants, it makes an extremely marginal difference. Here's the Forrest plot:
3. Needing Vitamin C for the function of the immune system, construction of tissues etc does not mean that it supplementation is necessary. Our bodies need fat to survive, yet nobody in their right mind would recommend giving it as a supplement. This is because we get enough of it in our diet. Vitamin D, on the other hand, is sometimes supplemented (even though our bodies can make it), because studies have shown that it can be useful to certain people. Critically, in this case, studies have shown. In the case of vitamin C, they have not.
4. There is some evidence that vitamin C supplementation will reduce the duration of colds marginally. For an adult, this is by 7% and for children 14%. These data are fairly convincing; however, they are only relevant to people who regularly take Vitamin C. Starting vitamin C when cold symptoms begin makes no difference at all.
5. The results around severe physical stress/severe cold were interesting. They do appear to point to the fact that vitamin C, in this setting, will reduce the incidence (i.e. number of new cases of) cold. However, the characterisation by the Harvard article (which doesn't have a reference btw, a big warning sign) of this as convincing evidence is highly misleading. The reality is that these studies really don't apply to the normal population. They're in a very select subgroup of the population that doesn't represent the broader population. We know this, because studies in the broader population show that vitamin C is useless. I am a little bit suspicious about these studies; I'm finding it difficult to understand why someone would pick that subgroup to research. That's only speculation though, so should be taken with a grain of salt.
6. I think your conclusion here is a little more measured than the rest of your post. It's really great that you're interested and engaged in a lot of issues, but if you're going to take a high-and-mighty tone to your posts and laud your intellect over other people, you would want to be very careful to ensure that the statements you're making are accurate. You'd get away with a lot more if you demonstrated a little bit of humility. For instance, instead of getting on your high horse and assuming that your analysis of the situation is correct (it wasn't), you could ask a question. This is particularly advisable when you're challenging the views of someone who likely has a more nuanced understanding of this topic than you. I'd like to think that, despite some of my own foibles, if I were to disagree with you on a matter of jurisprudence I would be more careful not to respond in such a self-assured way.
In terms of reading science, it's always a good idea to try to find the original study. If you had read the author's conclusions, you'd see that they were fairly sceptical about vitamin C. They also felt that the evidence regarding its use in extreme exercise was fairly equivocal, probably because of how narrow the group was. At the end though, they recommended vitamin C supplementation, because it's so safe and unlikely to do any harm. Personally, I disagree with this as a course of action, because it fails to recognise the cost of vitamin C supplementation as a harm. It also fails to recognise to recognise that alternative methods of obtaining vitamin C, such as what you suggested—eating an orange—might offer added benefits, whilst also being more affordable.
Home
Help
Search
Login
