There’s no way to know if there’s a difference between natural and synthetic products and their ability to prevent and treat diseases until they’re actually tested on people. Take the case of one of the best and largest vitamin E supplement trials in the world, called SELECT. In it, researchers found that 400 IU of synthetic vitamin E significantly increased the risk of prostate cancer in healthy men. Another group, in the Physicians’ Health Study II trial, tested 400 IU of synthetic vitamin E in healthy men and found no impact on reducing the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease but a significantly increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke.
Some critics suggested that it was the synthetic source that caused the negative and/or neutral findings. But another major study—called HOPE-TOO—used the same dosage of natural vitamin E (400 IU) and found it did not prevent cancer or major cardiovascular disease and appeared to significantly increase the risk of heart failure and hospitalizations for heart failure (these were patients with vascular disease or diabetes). So, yes, there could be a difference between natural and synthetic vitamin E; one might increase your risk of prostate cancer and the other might increase your risk of heart failure in different populations of people. People want to believe that “natural” is always better, but our cells may not see it that way. It all comes down to the research.
Now, I’ve heard some critics say that the real problem is not one form of natural or synthetic vitamin E but more expensive and, at times, complex forms (gammatocopherol or the mixed tocotrienols). And I wonder, How many more hundreds of millions of dollars should we waste on this issue? The truth is, we know enough: The cheapest high-dose (2,000 IU/day) form of synthetic vitamin E can help some Alzheimer’s patients and the cheapest high-dose form of natural vitamin E (800 IU/day) can help some NASH (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) patients, so just try to copy what worked in the clinical research.
When people in the supplement industry continue to fight for a product that has been adequately tested with consistently negative results, they’re no different than someone in the pharmaceutical industry who fights for a drug that has failed many times or who illegally promotes an off-label use that does not have proof. The line between natural and synthetic can be a fuzzy one. In reality, drugs are derived from natural sources in at least one-third of cases, and most supplements are really a hodgepodge of natural and synthetic ingredients.
Finally, the argument about natural versus synthetic is rarely an objective one; it’s more about getting you to spend your money. I think it’s ridiculous to tell people that bioidentical hormones—like estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone—are better than synthetic or FDA-approved drugs. They have not been tested head-to-head, and almost all of the research is on the FDA-approved versions. If you want to use bioidenticals, then you should educate yourself on the benefit versus the risk. Bioidentical hormones have no proven long-term safety and efficacy and no FDA oversight; the dosage may not be accurate (I have seen so many cases of overexposure); and the purity is not monitored. I think people should use synthetic drugs or bioidenticals based on personal choice and an objective overview; if you use bioidenticals, it should be at your own risk.
The Supplement Handbook - Mark Moyad
