Nutritional Suppliments question

[fls]

It's not just market competition, it's regulatory restrictions. If a company makes product A, then does a study that proves product A lowers cholestorol, and tells anyone about it, they've now made a medical claim and the product is no longer considered a supplement, it's a pharmaceutical. So it can no longer be marketed.

You are conflating two different things. The company can perform a study and publish the results of that study in a peer-reviewed journal and demonstrate that product A lowers cholesterol without any change whatsoever as to whether or not that product is considered a supplement. Published clinical studies that St. Johns Wort was effective in mild to moderate depression did not change its designation as a dietary supplement. The product can continue to be marketed as a supplement. If the company wishes to make medical claims about that product on the basis of that study (regardless of who did the study), then it needs to go through the rigorous process of validating those claims (i.e. a new drug process). But just the publication of a study does not serve to change the status of that supplement.

What company in their right mind would want to prove their product works, when such prove means they can no longer continue to market it? This is a simplified description of reality, but it's essentially true, and combined with market realities puts us in the situation we are in today.

Of course the company would want to prove their product works. Doing so means that they will dramatically increase the demand for their product. There's a reason that the top selling herbals are Echinacea and St. Johns Wort - the companies that produce them published studies that showed they work (we can argue later over the strength of that evidence). Are they still considered supplements? Yes.

And this is what I don't understand - why do you think putting the same fruit and vegetables into the shape of a tablet suddenly make them non-beneficial?

Does it suddenly make them more beneficial?

Is there a point to removing the pleasure of taste and texture and making it more expensive?

If you believe dried fruit is an acceptable source of nutrition, then why isn't that dried fruit chopped into a fine powder acceptable? What makes you suddenly require (not just want, I want it too!) double blind placebo studies to confirm it?

I can buy dried cherries at a local grocery store for $7/lb. How much does your Bio-C Plus supplement cost?

Linda

 

[casebro]

Vitamin D prevents Rickets.
Vitamin C prevents Scurvy.
Folate prevents Spinal Bifida.

Supplements, or drugs? I guess the CIA has been druging my bread!

 

[littlehulkster]

Vitamin D prevents Rickets.
Vitamin C prevents Scurvy.
Folate prevents Spinal Bifida.

Supplements, or drugs? I guess the CIA has been druging my bread!

There's a reason why rickets and scurvy are almost totally unknown in the developed world.

That reason is not vitamin supplements. If you eat enough food (Most westerners eat MORE than enough) you're getting enough nutrients to prevent rickets or scurvy unless you have some bizzare diet, which is a topic for another thread.

If you lived in The Congo, I would probably reccomend a vitamin supplement, but something tells me you don't and therefore you have access to foods with ample vitamin content.

People are forgetting that vitamin pills have terrible absorption, as well. Most of those expensive nutrients are being rendered into expensive urine coloring agents. Useful, I suppose, if you were to start a new branch of art using your own urine, not so useful for health and well-being.

 

[icerat]

But just the publication of a study does not serve to change the status of that supplement.

It does if you want to talk about it.

Are they still considered supplements? Yes.

If they use that evidence to market them, they are at risk of an FDA notice. See General Mills Cheerios Warning Letter

I can buy dried cherries at a local grocery store for $7/lb. How much does your Bio-C Plus supplement cost?

How much nutritional content in your dried cherries? Are they organic and tested for all contaminents? Are they acerola cherries, which have the highest C concentration? Has every batch you buy been selected, monitored and bred for nutritional content?

If so, then it might be worth doing a comparison.

And since it's so important .... do you have clinical studies proving their benefits?

 

[fls]

People are forgetting that vitamin pills have terrible absorption, as well. Most of those expensive nutrients are being rendered into expensive urine coloring agents. Useful, I suppose, if you were to start a new branch of art using your own urine, not so useful for health and well-being.

I will probably get into trouble for admitting this, but I used to experiment with colouring my baby's urine when I was breastfeeding.

Linda

 

[icerat]

There's a reason why rickets and scurvy are almost totally unknown in the developed world.

There's also a reason why things like Rickets are on the increase in the developed world

That reason is not vitamin supplements. If you eat enough food (Most westerners eat MORE than enough) you're getting enough nutrients to prevent rickets or scurvy unless you have some bizzare diet, which is a topic for another thread.

Do you actually believe that, for example, the only use of vitamin C in the body is in the prevention of scurvy?

People are forgetting that vitamin pills have terrible absorption, as well.

And you're (incorrectly) assuming all vitamin pills are the same. There's a great deal of variation in what's available. Absorption and bioavailability depend on all sorts of factors including tablet design (esp covering/seal), rate of breakdown, the form of the vitamin (eg synthetic, chelated, plant concentrate), cofactors, and of course individual differences. In general, IMO the cheaper ones are as you suggest. Plant concentrates have similar absorption and bioavailabilty as real food, sometimes even more so as they may have necessary co-factors included - for example calcium which aids metabolism of C (and vice versa)

 

[fls]

It does if you want to talk about it.

As has been demonstrated over and over and over again, one simply needs to make sure that you are talking about it indirectly in order for those studies to directly benefit you.

If they use that evidence to market them, they are at risk of an FDA notice. See General Mills Cheerios Warning Letter

Yup. But as long as you avoid some very specific wording, those studies can be used to your benefit.

How much nutritional content in your dried cherries? Are they organic and tested for all contaminents? Are they acerola cherries, which have the highest C concentration? Has every batch you buy been selected, monitored and bred for nutritional content?

Why would any of that matter? The research showing that fruits and vegetables form part of a healthy diet involve the use of those fruits and vegetables that are available as part of a typical Western diet, not fruits that have been tested for all those things you have mentioned. This means that all that testing is not a necessary pre-condition to knowing that the inclusion of a particular fruit will be useful.

If so, then it might be worth doing a comparison.

I'll take that as a statement that your tasteless, textureless pills are substantially more expensive than my tasty bag of cherries, then.

And since it's so important .... do you have clinical studies proving their benefits?

Yes.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/prevent/h_eating/h_eating.htm

Linda

 

[Prometheus]

Right ... so anecdotal evidence, much of it from folk who've never even had experience with Amway, that's acceptable?

No, of course it isn't. Which is exactly why I never suggested accepting anything of the kind.

MMM, love it. Forum gossip is fine, but published works by notable business academics (references supplied in the other threads) is "unsubstantiated claims and anecdotes", 50 years of awards and recognitions from everyone from the UN to Chambers of Commerce - to be ignored.

No, of course it isn't. Which is exactly why I never suggested anything of the kind.

You'll believe what you want to believe.

 

[icerat]

Yup. But as long as you avoid some very specific wording, those studies can be used to your benefit.

Actually the FDA is cracking down on implications as well.

Why would any of that matter? The research showing that fruits and vegetables form part of a healthy diet involve the use of those fruits and vegetables that are available as part of a typical Western diet, not fruits that have been tested for all those things you have mentioned. This means that all that testing is not a necessary pre-condition to knowing that the inclusion of a particular fruit will be useful.

Sorry? Because fruit & vegetables in general are known to be healthy, whether the particular fruit you buy is or is not is irrelevant? Because you "know" it is? Yet you also indicate that quality controlled fruit and vegetables specifically monitored for nutrient content and concentrated into table form are not useful because they haven't been clinically studied.

Seems your standards are a little unpredictable

I'll take that as a statement that your tasteless, textureless pills are substantially more expensive than my tasty bag of cherries, then.

Personally I don't like cherries. I can't tell you whether it's more expensive or not, because I don't know what's in your bag of cherries to compare.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/prevent/h_eating/h_eating.htm

That study applies as much, if not more so, to my "tasteless, textureless pills" to your bag of cherries. Or are you back to the idea that there's some mystical negative influence about a tablet shape?

 

[fls]

Sorry? Because fruit & vegetables in general are known to be healthy, whether the particular fruit you buy is or is not is irrelevant?

The research showing the benefits of including fruits and vegetables in your diets aren't based on specially supplied fruits and vegetables, but rather whatever it is that is available to us. There's no reason to think that the potatoes or bananas I pick out to buy are somehow nutritionally different from all the other bananas and potatoes consumed by people in North America.

Because you "know" it is? Yet you also indicate that quality controlled fruit and vegetables specifically monitored for nutrient content and concentrated into table form are not useful because they haven't been clinically studied.

I'm saying that the clinical studies showing the benefits from fruit and vegetables showed those benefits in foods that weren't specifically monitored for nutrient content.

Seems your standards are a little unpredictable

They are easily predicted by making note of what the evidence shows. If the evidence shows that I can gain benefit from fruits and vegetables regardless of whether or not they were specifically monitored for nutrient content, then that is what my standards will show.

Personally I don't like cherries. I can't tell you whether it's more expensive or not, because I don't know what's in your bag of cherries to compare.

That's funny. I was going to add that the pill form would only be useful if you didn't like the taste of cherries, but thought that might be far-fetched.

That study applies as much, if not more so, to my "tasteless, textureless pills" to your bag of cherries.

How so? They didn't study your pills, but rather bags of cherries (among the rest of the fruits).

Or are you back to the idea that there's some mystical negative influence about a tablet shape?

Since I've specifically denied this several times, aren't you worried that you will look foolish pretending that I've said anything like that? People here tend to be able to read with comprehension, after all.

Linda

 

[Perpetual Student]

It doesn't matter how many studies like this (LINK, or THIS) are made. The anti-supplement mentality within the medical profession, which is reflected in these threads, will not change.

 

[jon]

It doesn't matter how many studies like this (LINK, or THIS) are made. The anti-supplement mentality within the medical profession, which is reflected in these threads, will not change.

The medical community already does recommend supplements in some cases - for example folic acid when pregnant/trying to become so, the NICE guidlines re fish oil following a heart attack, etc. Clearly, the medical community can be persuaded to recommend supplements - there is the capacity for change...

 

[fls]

It doesn't matter how many studies like this (LINK, or THIS) are made. The anti-supplement mentality within the medical profession, which is reflected in these threads, will not change.

Huh? These studies were performed by those within the medical profession and both include recommendations for specific supplements for specific populations. How on earth does one get "anti-supplement" from that???

Linda

 

[Perpetual Student]

Huh? These studies were performed by those within the medical profession and both include recommendations for specific supplements for specific populations. How on earth does one get "anti-supplement" from that???

Linda

These kinds of blanket statements are a pretty strong indication that I am correct: LINK

 

[fls]

These kinds of blanket statements are a pretty strong indication that I am correct: LINK

I like that. He gives some specific information on the potential harm from taking high doses of some specific vitamins. He then says (horror of horrors!!!) that:

"Rather than rely on vitamins, Katz recommends eating a well-balanced diet rich in vitamins, minerals and other nutrients. He also recommended taking a multivitamin."

Which gets a response of:

"Katz is part of a vast zionist, new world order community to lie people about vitamins, especially as vitamin c has been shown to aid curing cancer, preventing colds, etc. the zionist medical community he worlks for is conspiriing to make vitamins illegal without a doctors prescription, JUST, like these people put RAT POISON, or Sodium Flouride into municipal water, under the LIE, it prevents cavities, while ALL of europe bans adding flouride to tap water. Katz is a teller of big, big, lies for his power broker zionist pals. abc is a zionist controlled media firm, helping spew these lies to unedcuated masses. dr. john."

Linda

Please be sure to cite or link your sources when making quotes to avoid confusion. Your quote does not come from the link that Perpetual Student gave. It came from an ABC News story. The comments you link are part of a reader response to the story, not from the story itself.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Perpetual Student]

I like that. He gives some specific information on the potential harm from taking high doses of some specific vitamins. He then says (horror of horrors!!!) that:

"Rather than rely on vitamins, Katz recommends eating a well-balanced diet rich in vitamins, minerals and other nutrients. He also recommended taking a multivitamin."

Which gets a response of:

"Katz is part of a vast zionist, new world order community to lie people about vitamins, especially as vitamin c has been shown to aid curing cancer, preventing colds, etc. the zionist medical community he worlks for is conspiriing to make vitamins illegal without a doctors prescription, JUST, like these people put RAT POISON, or Sodium Flouride into municipal water, under the LIE, it prevents cavities, while ALL of europe bans adding flouride to tap water. Katz is a teller of big, big, lies for his power broker zionist pals. abc is a zionist controlled media firm, helping spew these lies to unedcuated masses. dr. john."

Linda

Who is dr. john? Where did that comment come from? In any case, that stupid response of "dr. john," has nothing to do with me or the comments of Katz, which I was referring to. What an unfair debating tactic that is -- to site an ignorant anti-Semitic comment like that and somehow try to associate it with me. You should be ashamed of yourself! I will report this slanderous response!

 

[fls]

Who is dr. john?

I have no idea. That's how he/she signed their comment.

Where did that comment come from?

From the link you provided.

In any case, that stupid response of "dr. john," has nothing to do with me or the comments of Katz, which I was referring to.

I just got a kick out of it - didn't you think it was way over the top, as well?

What an unfair debating tactic that is -- to site an ignorant anti-Semitic comment like that and somehow try to associate it with me. You should be ashamed of yourself! I will report this slanderous response!

Why would anyone associate it with you?

Linda

 

[Perpetual Student]

Why would anyone associate it with you?

Linda

You attempted to do exactly that!

 

[fls]

You attempted to do exactly that!

I'm confused. You made reference to what Dr. Katz had to say and provided a link to a website which led to an article outlining what he had to say. Why would I expect anyone to associate the comments on that article with you??? And I'm not even the one who provided the link.

I'm sorry that you somehow got the impression that I thought this Dr. John fellow was you, but I am completely nonplussed as to why. It never occurs to me that commenters on linked articles have anything to do with someone here (unless they specifically state otherwise), especially since it was the article you referred to, not the comments.

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you icerat.

I notice that the press release contained these statements:

"Many botanical and nutritional supplements claim to provide countless health benefits without being subjected to rigorous clinical study."

"...is one of the few controlled clinical trials that has shown the value of specific nutritional products is dependent on an individual's genetic make-up."

The study looked at whether or not a specific biochemical marker changed, but did not look at any clinical outcomes. In particular, it did not look at whether changing CRP levels leads to changes in clinical outcome. It did not compare the use of the botanical with other lifestyle and pharmaceutical interventions known to reduce CRP and known to change outcome. And it did not compare the use of a supplement with specific dietary recommendations. In other words, while the study showed that a specific botanical had a specific biochemical effect in individuals identified through genetic testing, it did not answer those questions of most interest to us - does the use of this supplement provide any benefit? is that benefit greater than or in addition to the benefit provided by following dietary recommendations? is that benefit greater than or in addition to following lifestyle recommendations? is that benefit greater than or in addition to the use of other pharmaceutical agents or medical interventions?

So, this study does not tell us whether this botanical is useful, even in the setting of genetic testing, and is not sufficient to recommend the use of this supplement without substantial additional research. And yet, even though this study is not adequate, the press release states that this is one of the few studies available that even attempts to answer these questions. If the best available is not sufficient to provide evidence-based recommendations, then it means none of what ILG offers is evidence-based. And by extension, it suggests that what Amway offers is similarly not evidence-based.

Linda

I haven't had time to look at the specifics here but I have a general comment. I have seen a repeating pattern of these for profit products. At the first inkling of a benefit producers begin marketing the product as clinically tested/clinically proven or something to that effect.

The studies used to support the claims can be like this one where an effect is noted but no follow up testing is done to see if the effect means anything.

Listerine and Lysol kill germs. That's debatable but even if true, so what? They don't have any effect on infections.

The second common tactic is to do (or more likely use the result of someone else's work of) a very small pilot study and claim that result is meaningful. Pilot studies are frequently done to support more investment in researching an hypothesis.

The oat bran craze started this way. The results of a small study were published suggesting oat bran may lower cholesterol. Marketers had a field day with the study's results that continues to this day.