Can some supplements help reduce stress levels after a natural disaster? Study suggests the answer may be yes. I found it interesting finding
•This randomized trial shows nutrient treatment mitigates psychological distress.
•Multinutrient formulas were most beneficial, with large between group effect sizes.
•Nutrients could be used to improve people’s ability to cope with natural disasters.
A randomised trial of nutrient supplements to minimise psychological stress after a natural disaster
Abstract
After devastating flooding in southern Alberta in June 2013, we attempted to replicate a New Zealand randomised trial that showed that micronutrient (minerals, vitamins) consumption after the earthquakes of 2010–11 resulted in improved mental health. Residents of southern Alberta were invited to participate in a study on the potential benefit of nutrient supplements following a natural disaster.
Fifty-six adults aged 23–66 were randomised to receive a single nutrient (vitamin D, n=17), a few-nutrients formula (B-Complex, n=21), or a broad-spectrum mineral/vitamin formula (BSMV, n=18). Self-reported changes in depression, anxiety and stress were monitored for six weeks. Although all groups showed substantial decreases on all measures, those consuming the B-Complex and the BSMV formulas showed significantly greater improvement in stress and anxiety compared with those consuming the single nutrient, with large effect sizes (Cohen’s d range 0.76–1.08).
There were no group differences between those consuming the B-Complex and BSMV. The use of nutrient formulas with multiple minerals and/or vitamins to minimise stress associated with natural disasters is now supported by three studies. Further research should be carried out to evaluate the potential population benefit that might accrue if such formulas were distributed as a post-disaster public health measure.
I expect most of those folks in the studies took no multivitamin prior to the study. It would be interesting to compare responses between the stressed groups and a new group of unstressed folks. I bet there would be little difference in self reported improvements between the multivit-stressed and multivit-unstressed.
In short, take a multivitamin daily. It will help you.
This is really an interesting article. I would have to assume that Vic303 is accurate in saying that most of them more than likely did not take a multivitamin on a daily basis.
I know that, for me personally, taking a multivitamin is something that does help reduce stress levels, etc.
Will I know you have a lot of background in this area, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on some of the massive and well publicized scientific studies the last 2 to 3 years suggesting that common supplements (multivitamins, targeted supplements for things like vitamin C, and other items like fish oil) are not proven to have any positive health outcomes. I realize here you’re focusing on a more specialized topic which is supplements when you can NOT get a normal healthy diet. Lately I myself am still taking a basic multi and vitamin d because my levels are low, but everything else I now get through food. For instance I get omega 3 by eating a fair amount of fatty fish, flax seed, walnuts, eggs, etc. I’m not completely throwing supplements overboard, but severely reducing them and so far with regular annual blood tests and checkups, no ill effects. I may even eventually drop the multi.
This seems to be a difficult area, a lot of churning in the scientific community with many studies for and against, and it’s hard to decide what to do. Perhaps for natural disasters supplements could be a good thing to boost nutrition that you’re otherwise lacking. For general use, I’m starting to question (for myself at least) how much difference they make as long as I have access to healthy food.
Is a good Q I may not have a fully satisfactory answer for. I’d say it’s important to always keep in mind supplements are supplemental (hence the name…) to a good diet. Having said that, I think the evidence favors the use of some supplements regardless of how good the diet is. The science does give conflicting messages some times, especially for those who don’t spend time really digging into the topic. What one tends to look at is what’s referred to as “the bulk of the data” which is a simple way of saying (without going into details on issues such as type of study, methodology used, etc) what do most studies to date say most of the time on an issue?
We all know you can find a study to support/deny just about any topic, but if 3 studies suggest X has no benefits and 300 suggest it does (without over complicating the discussion again on details on issues such as type of study, methodology used, etc) than one can generally conclude most studies support X has having a benefit.
It would be my view the bulk of the data strongly suggests some supplements are worth taking regardless of diet. Hence, I will not be giving up my multi, fish oil, creatine, etc any time soon personally.