História da "Vitamina" D e necessidade ou não da suplementação

Depois das notícias (p.e. da Time) sobre como evitar constipações (R: Tomando vitamina D), algumas críticas à recomendação e um pouco de história:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/definitive-vitamin-d/517302/

Citando:
"The scientific process behind the health claims was ethically fraught, too, in that it came from University of Wisconsin researchers who owned the patent on producing the compound that had recently been named “vitamin D.” The term started as a colloquialism for what chemists know as cholecalciferol and ergocalciferol, which are not structurally or functionally similar to the other compounds widely known as “vitamins.”

D is technically a pre-hormone involved in multiple metabolic processes but mainly known to affect the levels of calcium and phosphorus in our bodies. Though little was known in the 1930s about exactly how “vitamin D” worked to prevent people’s bones from warping, the biochemist who patented the process of synthesizing the compound said, “If the public should demand vitamin D in its beer, there is no reason why [we] should not provide it.”

The demanding people weren’t ready for vitamin beer, apparently, and Schlitz took it off the market two years later. Instead cow’s milk became the delivery vehicle for vitamin D supplements in the United States. A milk-fortification law was passed to combat the scourge of rickets. So arose the belief that drinking cow’s milk was necessary for strong bones. As the dairy industry made the case in government-sponsored advertising, vitamin D actually became a primary selling point for milk—the reason that many Americans believe drinking cow’s milk is necessary still today. (Even though adult cows don’t drink it.)"

Médico insinua que Vitaminas são uma boa maneira de fazermos xixi caro

Sem papas na língua (mas também não sei se completamente com razão) médico com responsabilidades na Austrália insinua que, num país com acesso a uma alimentação equilibrada (frutas e legumes) as vitaminas e os minerais (em suplementos) são dispensáveis e só nos fazem "mijar caro":
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/multivitamins-expensive-urine-waste-of-money-vitamins-australian-medical-association-chief-michael-a7578961.html

Números da indústria (citando):

"Nearly half of adults in the UK take multivitamins, with 46 per cent saying they use them daily or occasionally, according to Mintel.

In Australia, the vitamin pill market has doubled over the last decade and seven out of every ten people take some form of supplement, reported ABC.

Industry bodies have said the tablets are useful because many people have poor diets (...)"

Citando:

"“Many of these products have 50 or more ingredients,” he said. “It really is crazy stuff."

"If that’s what you want to do, and you want to give some profits to the companies that produce those products, well good on you. That’s not what I want to do.”"

Dúvidas nas recomendações para prolongar tratamento cancro da mama

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20160606/longer-use-of-certain-drugs-cuts-recurrence-for-breast-cancer-survivors (relacionado com este artigo anterior)

Citando:
"Many survivors of breast cancers that are sensitive to estrogen are advised to take hormone-suppressing drugs such as tamoxifen for five years, to cut their odds for a recurrence.
Tamoxifen can have onerous side effects, however. Now, new research finds that taking an alternative, and less troublesome, class of medications for a full decade can reduce the risk for recurrence even more -- without affecting a woman's quality of life.
The newer class of hormone-suppressing drugs are called aromatase inhibitors, and include drugs such as letrozole (Femara), anastrozole (Arimidex) and exemestane (Aromasin)."


Críticas / reservas:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/elaineschattner/2016/06/08/major-report-touts-benefits-of-prolonged-femara-use-after-breast-cancer-im-not-convinced/#55fdca8134ff


"

Relatório que ataca linhas orientadoras da alimentação no RU (NHS)

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/05May/Pages/Report-attacks-official-guidance-on-low-fat-diets-eat-more-fat.aspx


Citando:
"Low-fat diet bad for your health and cutting back on meat, dairy and eggs a disastrous mistake," the Daily Mirror reports.
That is the main message of a controversial report attacking official UK guidelines on diet and weight loss."


Desconhece-se autores e financiamento. Falta de peer review:


"It is unclear where Public Health Collaboration's funding comes from. Nor is it clear who wrote the report.
No author or authors are named, and it does not appear to have been peer-reviewed by independent experts.
The aim of the report is said to be to raise concerns about the government's current recommendations about healthy eating and weight loss, and also provide new evidence-based solutions to help people obtain healthy lifestyles and improve public health. "


"The Real Food Lifestyle"
(oposto ao Eatwell Guide - NHS)

Intolerância à lactose e a indústria?

Está aqui uma senhora a dizer que a intolerância à lactose é uma história mal contada (talvez originária da indústria alimentar da soja) que pode estar a ser paga pela indústria do leite (muito subsidiada). Confusos? Leiam (entre as linhas também):
http://www.jn.pt/PaginaInicial/Nacional/Saude/Interior.aspx?content_id=4977914&page=-1