Vitamin B6 And B12 Supplements Appear To Cause Cancer In Men

[francoislinkus]

Energy-Promising Vitamins Appear to Be Causing Lung Cancer

Is this to do with the manufacture and base source of the supplement rather than B6/B12?

 

[tankasnowgod]

When you look at the studies, one was observational, the other was a combination of two RCTs. Being that, I think they are trying to make a link between B vitamins and cancer, when there are some better explanations.

First, the link wasn't seen in women, only men. Second, the biggest difference was seen in Lung Cancer. If you read the report, it appears that smoking is still the biggest driver in lung cancer (70% were current smokers, 24% former, and only 6% never). More so than B Vitamins, Iron is a more potent carcinogen, and again, researchers completely gloss over this. The effect is seen in men (who tend to have higher iron levels), and smokers (who inhale significant iron when they smoke). I would again think that is the bigger driver.

Having said that, there is certainly a role these B vitamins can play. Folate and B12 both increase methylation, which Peat and Haidut both point out increase the risk of cancer.

My takeaway from this is that excess Folate, B12, and B6 can be problematic, especially in an iron rich environment. The folic acid version (as opposed to naturally occurring folate or 5MTHF) might be problematic in and of itself. Probably wisest to avoid supplementation of these vitamins, unless you have a good reason to supplement them. Those cases would be a low serum B12 test, cases of anemia, and when donating blood (all listed B vitamins are necessary in making hemoglobin).

 

[Tarmander]

This was basically a Dr. Oz/alternative medicine ***t piece. Fluff, politics, tabloid, FDA propaganda. "Appears" to cause cancer? The Sun appears to be rotating the earth.

 

[tankasnowgod]

This was basically a Dr. Oz/alternative medicine ***t piece. Fluff, politics, tabloid, FDA propaganda. "Appears" to cause cancer? The Sun appears to be rotating the earth.

Yeah, The Atlantic ain't exactly a great source, but it did link directly to the studies.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I read the study by Brasky.

"Participants reported their regular intake (≥ 1 per week for ≥ 1 year) of multivitamins, individual vitamin supplements, and mixtures (eg, B complex) over the 10 years before baseline. For all supplement questions, a close-ended format was used to inquire about current versus past use, frequency and duration of use in the past 10 years, and usual dose per day (for individual supplements and mixtures containing B6, B9 [folic acid], and B12), and brand or exact nutrient formulations for multivitamins."

That is pretty rough.

"Relative to participants without lung cancer, participants with lung cancer tended to be older, male, and less educated at baseline. Participants with lung cancer also tended to have lower body mass and consumed less alcohol."

These studies rely upon the researchers somehow using statistical analysis to isolate correlates of behavior.

In this case, I doubt there is anything to it.

Men are different than women here. How? Maybe these men take more supplements than women. Maybe men who feel unhealthy take more supplements. That makes sense to me.

I think if you look at the behavior here, and the recall and how this was structured, it is entirely worthless.

It uses recall of what people took over the past 10 years. I doubt this is accurate at all.

 

[Frankdee20]

When you look at the studies, one was observational, the other was a combination of two RCTs. Being that, I think they are trying to make a link between B vitamins and cancer, when there are some better explanations.

First, the link wasn't seen in women, only men. Second, the biggest difference was seen in Lung Cancer. If you read the report, it appears that smoking is still the biggest driver in lung cancer (70% were current smokers, 24% former, and only 6% never). More so than B Vitamins, Iron is a more potent carcinogen, and again, researchers completely gloss over this. The effect is seen in men (who tend to have higher iron levels), and smokers (who inhale significant iron when they smoke). I would again think that is the bigger driver.

Having said that, there is certainly a role these B vitamins can play. Folate and B12 both increase methylation, which Peat and Haidut both point out increase the risk of cancer.

My takeaway from this is that excess Folate, B12, and B6 can be problematic, especially in an iron rich environment. The folic acid version (as opposed to naturally occurring folate or 5MTHF) might be problematic in and of itself. Probably wisest to avoid supplementation of these vitamins, unless you have a good reason to supplement them. Those cases would be a low serum B12 test, cases of anemia, and when donating blood (all listed B vitamins are necessary in making hemoglobin).

Thank you for differentiating Folic Acid vs Folate

 

[tara]

Maybe men who feel unhealthy take more supplements. That makes sense to me.

Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Frankdee20]

Okay, I eat a ton of mussels. They’re ridiculously high in B12. So what, I’ll get cancer due to methylation?

 

[GAF]

I would bet my psyclops hat that "studies" linking fundamental vitamins and cancer are productions of marketing departments of the cancer industry.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I also think the primary investigator is a rude putz, by the way. Maybe that means something.

Strangely the funding source is listed as an individual.

 

[Frankdee20]

I would bet my psyclops hat that "studies" linking fundamental vitamins and cancer are productions of marketing departments of the cancer industry.

It’s likely true, the pharmecuetical industry doesn’t want people to rely on vitamins

 

[Frankdee20]

A lot of money is prospectively lost if people do that

 

[Frankdee20]

Funny how I eat low fat diet, yet, they want to put me on cholesterol lowering meds. My trigs were 500

 

[Frankdee20]

So what if my pancreas explodes, I was happy to see the beauty in life before I die tonight

 

[Tarmander]

I read the study by Brasky.

"Participants reported their regular intake (≥ 1 per week for ≥ 1 year) of multivitamins, individual vitamin supplements, and mixtures (eg, B complex) over the 10 years before baseline. For all supplement questions, a close-ended format was used to inquire about current versus past use, frequency and duration of use in the past 10 years, and usual dose per day (for individual supplements and mixtures containing B6, B9 [folic acid], and B12), and brand or exact nutrient formulations for multivitamins."

That is pretty rough.

"Relative to participants without lung cancer, participants with lung cancer tended to be older, male, and less educated at baseline. Participants with lung cancer also tended to have lower body mass and consumed less alcohol."

These studies rely upon the researchers somehow using statistical analysis to isolate correlates of behavior.

In this case, I doubt there is anything to it.

Men are different than women here. How? Maybe these men take more supplements than women. Maybe men who feel unhealthy take more supplements. That makes sense to me.

I think if you look at the behavior here, and the recall and how this was structured, it is entirely worthless.

It uses recall of what people took over the past 10 years. I doubt this is accurate at all.

Questionnaire studies...the $2 wine of study structures...goes down terrible.