Multi-Vitamins are useless and harmful

The ingredients should list the foods it came from, as well as have "100% whole food" on the label. No names such as HCI (Chloride) cyano-cobalim, ascorbic, acetate which are all synthetic counterparts. Apart from just missing cofactors the synthetic form of vitamins are not even geometrically the same..and even if they do get absorbed(stealing cofactors from the REAL vitamins so making you nutrient deficient) they don't do anything anyway.

I disagree. They are good for your health and someone which lifts weights or an athlete requires more than enough vitamins and minerals for their own well being.

You, just like everyone else, are anecdotal evidence. Don't take this as an insult -- it merely means that one subject alone has zero meaning in a scientific study.

Furthermore, "I've never felt healthier" is a lousy measure of anything in scientific terms. You would need to take your twin brother which has exactly the same health parameters as you, and one of you starts taking the multi and the other doesn't. Even then, it's not a perfect study since no two people are alike, even twins...

This is why these studies have hundreds or thousands of test subjects, double-blind control groups, etc.

Current scientific knowledge (which is always subject to change as new studies are published) states that there is no evidence that multis are helpful (even for people with poor diets), and there is also no evidence that they are safe. Apart from specific supplementation for specific subsets of the population (I always state this example: post-menopause women benefit from calcium supplements to help prevent osteoporosis), there is no medical reason to take these supplements.

In some cases, supplements actually hurt. For example, beta-carotene is very harmful for smokers. And beta-carotene is present in most multi-vitamin supplements. Have you ever seen a big warning "DON'T TAKE THIS IF YOU SMOKE" on a Centrum bottle? Neither have I. That's what made me stop taking them.

Remember, those guys have zero incentive to make pills that actually work, and 100% incentive to make a profit...

stripes, your logic is not correct. I fully agree that having healthy levels of <insert favorite micro-nutrient here> is better than having a deficiency if everything else is kept equal. The thing is, those healthy subjects have a healthy level due to a good diet and/or other reasons (which might include genetics, sun exposure, etc) which usually do NOT include multivitamin supplementation.

To argue for their use, you'd need a study in which you'd take half of those patients with vitamin D deficiency and give them a multi-vitamin such as Centrum daily for a period of time (say, five years), while the other half doesn't take it, and then see effects on mortality. You can NOT:

1) Give them vitamin D supplements only. Interactions between multiple drugs exist, and since Centrum and other multis have loads of active ingredients, their combined effect must be tested.
2) Use anecdotal evidence. A high number of subjects has to be studied.
3) Use higher vitamin D levels in the blood as the objective. When these drug cocktails are given, one thing matters only: mortality rate. This is why long periods are needed. You can exclude outlier subjects, such as people who die from being hit by a truck or so.

Just like you found references arguing for multis (check for sponsors...), I found several arguing against when I checked some time ago. If I ever have time to re-check soon (unlikely), I'll forward them to you.

Finally, note that the FDA recommends a certain level of Vitamin D intake, acknowledges that it is hard to have that intake from food alone, yet does not recommend multivitamin supplements (at least the Portuguese FDA doesn't -- I don't know about the US one). I wonder why? Could it be because those supplements rarely subject themselves to the rigorous tests those entities require?

(In the particular case of vitamin D sun exposure plays an important role BTW)

(my sarcasm isn't targeted at you BTW, rather at those companies which are STILL not regulated by governments... pisses me off)

Ah, I never heard of such a thing. I definitely don't like Monsanto though. I will have a look at that if I have the time.

These claims all refer to OVERDOSING on vitamins. Of course too much of ANYTHING can be bad for you including water.

Ok, well I have been taking vitamins for years and havent had any medical issues yet. I also have a 'day off' from time to time too where I dont take a MV just to make sure I dont carry an excess of any particular vitamin in my system.

As a side note, I also found this interesting article which emphasises its better to get your vitamins from food: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/dietandnutrition/feature/vitamins.htm

"The apples contained many other naturally occurring chemicals in addition to vitamin C, including antioxidants called flavanoids and polyphenols that are thought to protect against cancer. This meant that eating a small apple (100g) gave an antioxidant effect equivalent to taking 1500mg of vitamin C – and you'd have to take a mega-dose supplement to achieve that."

And

"The following groups of people may need to take vitamin supplements:

Women who are planning to get pregnant or have just become pregnant should take a daily supplement of 400mcg folic acid to help prevent spina bifida.

Women who cover up in black robes and have only a limited exposure to sunlight may lack vitamin D, which could be taken in supplement form. This could also apply to housebound people.

Vegans who never eat meat or dairy products may need to take vitamin B12 in tablet form.

People who are malnourished: this may be because they have been ill, or have difficulty eating or swallowing for medical reasons. It can include people who have been on a weight-loss diet. Slimmers should think of eating more fruit and vegetables to avoid possible vitamin deficiencies.

People who are doing intense training for sport."