Shortcomings of the vitamin E meta-analysis

<<< Back to Cures Naturally Articles

<<< Back to Cures Naturally Supplements-Vitamins

National Institutes of Health, Office of Dietary Supplements


* The authors themselves admit that the research reviewed, which was conducted with older subjects who had chronic illnesses, might not apply to younger, healthy people.

* This type of review, called a meta-analysis, was a review of other studies, some of which were more than 10 years old and of varying quality. This type of "armchair science" is only good as the research on which it is based, which in this case is questionable.

* Information was pooled together to - barely - achieve statistical significance.

* U.S. dietary guidelines, which tend to be conservative and reflect the totality of scientific evidence on a nutrient, recommend an upper limit of 1,500 IU.

* There are various types and compounds of vitamin E, including synthetic and natural forms, which research shows to have varying effects. However, the differences in the effects of varying types of vitamin E were not addressed in this study.

* This study needs to be placed in context. Vitamin E has been studied for many years and there are literally thousands of citations in the scientific literature. There is solid evidence showing the benefits of vitamin E, including double-blind clinical trials, that report 400 to 800 IU of natural vitamin E can reduce heart attacks.

Back to top of document