MLM Math

[icerat]

Hopefully, none. I can't evaluate your quote without a cite.

Sorry, forgot the link -

Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits

Seriously, I can't believe I'm having to provide evidence of the health benefits of fruit & vegetables over and above multivitamin supplements.

some quotes from that paper, a literature review. These are from epidemiological studies -

• In the early 1990's, researchers examined well over one hundred epidemiological studies relating to diet and cancer, and in 128 of 156 dietary studies, fruits and vegetables had a significant protective effect against a variety of different cancers
  
• those who consumed low amounts of fruits and vegetables were twice as likely to have cancer compared to those who ate high amounts of fruits and vegetables.
  
• a study linked intake of fruits and vegetables with a reduced risk in breast cancer in woman in China. In this population based, case-control study of women in Shanghai, pre-menopausal women who ate more dark yellow-orange vegetables and more citrus fruits tended to have lower breast cancer risk.
  
• Approximately 84,000 women were followed for 14 years and 42,000 men were followed for 8 years. They found that people who ate the highest amount of fruits and vegetables had a 20% lower risk for coronary heart disease, and the lowest risks were seen in people who consumed more green leafy vegetables, and fruits rich in vitamin C
  
• a diet high in fruits and vegetables may help protect against cataracts, diabetes, Alzheimer disease, and even asthma
  
• phytochemicals may inhibit cancer cell proliferation, regulate inflammatory and immune response, and protect against lipid oxidation
  
• In a Finnish study of approximately 10,000 people, flavonoid intake was associated with a lower total mortality
  
• Several studies have specifically linked apple consumption with a reduced risk for cancer, especially lung cancer
  
• it was found that apple and onion intake was associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer in both males and females
  
• There was a 40–50% decreased risk in lung cancer in participants with the highest intake of apples, onions, and white grapefruit when compared to those who consumed the lowest amount of these fruits
  
• the Zutphen Elderly study showed an inverse association between fruit and vegetable flavonoids and total cancer incidence and tumors of the alimentary and respiratory tract
  
• Women ingesting the highest amounts of flavonoids had a 35% reduction in risk of cardiovascular events
  
• apple intake and broccoli intake were associated with reductions in the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular events. Women ingesting apples had a 13–22% decrease in cardiovascular disease risk
  
• total flavonoid intake was significantly inversely associated with coronary mortality in women
  
• Apple and wine consumption was also inversely associated with death from coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women in a study of nearly 35,000 women in Iowa
  
• Flavonoid intake was strongly correlated with a decreased mortality from heart disease in elderly men and also negatively correlated with myocardial infarction
  
• apple and pear intake was associated with a decreased risk of asthma and a decrease in bronchial hypersensitivity .. Specific antioxidants, such as vitamin E, vitamin C, retinol, and β-carotene, were not associated with asthma or bronchial hypersensitivity
  
• Apple intake and orange intake were both associated with a reduced incidence of asthma in the Finnish study involving 10, 000 men and women
  
• Flavonoid intake in general was associated with a lower risk of asthma, and the association was attributed mainly to quercetin, hesperitin, and naringenin
  
• Apple and pear intake was positively associated with pulmonary function and negatively associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
  
• Catechin intake was also associated with pulmonary function and negatively associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  
• In a Finnish study involving 10,000 men and women and a 24-year follow-up, a strong inverse association was seen between flavonoid intake and lung cancer development
  
• A study of approximately 2500 middle aged (45–59 yrs) Welsh men also demonstrated a beneficial effect of apple consumption on lung function
  
• Higher quercetin intake, a major component of apple peels, was also associated with a decreased risk in type II diabetes

So the challenge would be to show that A) multivitamins are worth taking outside of diagnosed deficiency

There's increasing research on the issue of insufficiency vs deficiency - ie the amounts needed for optimal health vs an obvious clinical deficiency. You may then want to consider how many people are not insufficient in at least one or more essential nutrients on any given day (particularly water soluble ones, which the body stores poorly)

Or read this paper from JAMA, 2002, and in particular the conclusion -

We recommend that all adults take one multivitamin daily.​

Having said that, there is also little scientific doubt that fruit & vegetables are better sources of nutrients that standard multivitamins. A significant reason for that is all the additional phytonutrients that are not typically available in standard multivitamins. As per the paper I cited earlier (and a mountain of other research) a great many of these nutrients have health benefits above and beyond those we've deemed "vitamins". Not to mention the influence of commercial factors - Vitamin E for example is a whole family of nutrients, but the industry successfully lobbied to be able to label products as containing "Vitamin E" when it contained just one form, alpha-tocopherol, the cheapest to synthesize. We now know other forms are probably more vital, and even more importantly, they have synergistic effects.

and B) that vegetable extracts specifically offer something even more.

This study by Nutrilite put out a few years ago is an easy read that covers the benefits of various phytonutrients, and the lack in the American diet. It includes referencing to peer-reviewed publications.

 

[marplots]

From your JAMA cite, which I thought was very good:

Vitamin deficiency syndromes such as scurvy and beriberi are uncommon in Western societies. However, suboptimal intake of some vitamins, above levels causing classic vitamin deficiency, is a risk factor for chronic diseases and common in the general population, especially the elderly. Suboptimal folic acid levels, along with suboptimal levels of vitamins B6 and B12, are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, neural tube defects, and colon and breast cancer; low levels of vitamin D contribute to osteopenia and fractures; and low levels of the antioxidant vitamins (vitamins A, E, and C) may increase risk for several chronic diseases. Most people do not consume an optimal amount of all vitamins by diet alone. Pending strong evidence of effectiveness from randomized trials, it appears prudent for all adults to take vitamin supplements.

I highlighted those sections I thought supported my position, especially the last bit. This recommendation is from 2002 and plainly says, "pending strong evidence from randomized trials" - and that's precisely what's missing in you long list of supporting documents.

As with all epidemological studies we run the risk of confounding those who use supplements with the same set that also attempts to exercise and eat more "healthy." My contention is that plant extracts have not been demonstrated to provide any benefit beyond what might be obtained by a multivitamin, and note that even JAMA only says it's "prudent" based on suboptimal consumption and only then for a few nutrients.

But we can cut to the chase. Does Amway make any health claims about its plant extracts or not? If they do not, why don't they?

In fact, the report you linked to about Nutralite has this in the executive summary:

Because phytonutrients are not considered "essential" to human health, there are no Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), as there are for the macro and micronutrients. This report is not designed to establish DRIs for phytonutrients. [They then go on to define "prudent intake" as a calculation based on consumption of whole fruits and vegetables, attempting to come up with a number they can then use for sales purposes.]

So... can we agree it's woo after all? Or would the more polite skeptical term, "unproven" suffice instead?

Here's an easy study to do. Test the incidence of a laundry list of chronic disease states in users of a product against users of other, similar products and the general population. Do it for enough people so it's a robust study. Amway might have the funds to pull it off. Or, what's cheaper, just keep playing on people's fears and a willingness to accept a kind of "herd knowledge."

 

[icerat]

I highlighted those sections I thought supported my position, especially the last bit. This recommendation is from 2002 and plainly says, "pending strong evidence from randomized trials" - and that's precisely what's missing in you long list of supporting documents.

The fact remains, based on the accumulated evidence they recommend taking a broad-based supplement.

I recommend this article regarding randomised trials and nutrition - Are clinical trials really the answer?

My contention is that plant extracts have not been demonstrated to provide any benefit beyond what might be obtained by a multivitamin

Utter, utter rubbish. The amount of research on the benefits of fruit & vegetables is overwhelming. You may as well be arguing that water doesn't make things wet.

and note that even JAMA only says it's "prudent" based on suboptimal consumption and only then for a few nutrients.

Yes, and the reality is hardly anyone has optimal consumption. I'd be interested in seeing why you think people have optimal consumption of the nutrients with less research.

But we can cut to the chase. Does Amway make any health claims about its plant extracts or not? If they do not, why don't they?

It's illegal to make health claims without FDA approval. That requires ridiculous amounts of investment into trials and you then can't change (read:improve) the product without having to do it all again.

For more on the problem of trials, here's a nice rant by Marc Lemay on Quora about it (Marc is a Nutrilite Clincial Research scientist). Some of the other answers are a useful read too.

So... can we agree it's woo after all? Or would the more polite skeptical term, "unproven" suffice instead?

We can agree you haven't bothered to actually read the article and supporting references.

Here's an easy study to do. Test the incidence of a laundry list of chronic disease states in users of a product against users of other, similar products and the general population. Do it for enough people so it's a robust study. Amway might have the funds to pull it off. Or, what's cheaper, just keep playing on people's fears and a willingness to accept a kind of "herd knowledge."

Easy?

Right. Have you any idea how much time and money it costs?

And then you can use it because new research discovers a different ingredient would be more effective, so you use it instead, and your FDA approval is gone.

Yes, I'm willing to accept the "herd knowledge" of an enormous body of research. It's the best we can expect.

 

[xjx388]

Is there though? Look at the Amway statistics. 46% of IBOs earn a bonus. How many have expenses? That's harder to tell.

Anyone trying to run a business has expenses. Gas, telephone, their time, etc.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could ask them, or get an independent consultant to find it?

As it happens, that happened for the Pokorny Class Action settlement. An independent consultant was hired to look at the books of all the companies dedicated to selling training materials, seminars etc etc to IBOs (BSM - Business Support Materials).

After looking at Amway's and the BSM companies data, the consultant estimated that only between 16% and 23% of all IBOs over a 10 year period spent more than $100 total.

These people were eligible for money from the cash settlement if they made a loss.

97% of them were successfully contacted.

How many requested the cash? "between 3.7% and 5.3%" of those eligible. In other words, less than about 1% made a loss.

If your analysis is accurate, that only includes expenses on "business materials." That's not the only business expense an IBO would have. And since the average IBO made $200 and we know that there are a few at the top who rake in millions and a handful under them that make hundreds of thousands, we also know that the vast majority of IBOs who got a bonus got significantly less than $200. So that paltry income would be more than wiped out in gas alone.

Umm, they do. (Not that "chance" has much to do with it). The income disclosure statements make it very clear that few people make significant money. Amway's typical plan talks about taking 5 years to reach "Diamond", putting in at least 5000 hours - most of it on top of your existing job.

That's a "ton of work" in anybody's book

There is no Disclosure Statement in the US. Regardless of that, most prospective IBOs don't get the benefit of that information. Their friend or family member who's trying to enroll them focuses on the potential positives. I've heard the spiel myself. When I refused, the upline IBO came in. They told me things like, "Yeah, that's the average. Are you going to be average?" That's just high pressure sales tactics not an honest discussion of the facts.

That has nothing to do with MLM per se. Avon, before it became an MLM, certainly encouraged people to sell to friends and family. I've owned several businesses (not MLM) and I can assure you I let me friends and family know what I was selling, and indeed I did provide products and services to many of them.

MLM is not retail sales. If I own a store, I'm not going to try and convince my F&F to open their own store but I will certainly encourage them to patronize me and I'll even give them a F&F discount. MLM success, OTOH, requires me to hit them up to join and make them my downline. Ultimately, who are we supposed to sell to if not each other?

If you're doing "sales" properly, you're not "preying" on anyone. You're providing a product or service to people who want. ´"guilting" people in to buying your stuff is stupid no matter what industry you're in.

You know that's not what I mean by preying. If all it was was buying a franchise to sell a certain product, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But recruiting into downline is the problematic area and the one where families and friendships are sometimes torn apart.

There's probably hundreds of thousands of products marketed through MLM, I doubt this assertion is correct.

It is correct. Unless you can show me that one special product that is available nowhere else.

The idea that fruit & vegetables are better for you than isolated vitamins (particularly synthetics) is woo?

Fruits and vegetables? No. Pills derived from processed fruits and vegetables? Yes. A molecule of Vitamin C or what have you is the same no matter where it comes from. Elements are elements.

And there is no proven benefit from taking trace amounts of processed fruits and vegetables in pill form.

Good grief you might want to have a think about that.

You might want to provide proof for the idea that Double X has actual benefits that go beyond what one could get from plain old multivitamins.

Of course, you've also done the typical "critic" thing and gone and picked the most "exclusive" product you could find (I've been unable to find any competitor to Double X).

How about a balanced diet? Or a multivitamin and the actual fruits and vegetables used in Double X?

You conveniently ignored Nutrilite Daily, which is still better than GNC (contains real plant extracts) and is only $15.55 for a 3 month supply.

"Real plant extracts" is meaningless. Nutrilite Daily has "Nutrilite Concentrate" which amounts to 1/2 a gram of processed Fruits and Veggies. There would be absolutely no benefit to consuming such a small amount. Otherwise, Nutrilite Daily is just another multivitamin, no better than Vitamin Shoppe's One Daily which sells for $4.99 for a 60 day supply. And again, a molecule of Vitamin D is a molecule of Vitamin D.

Personally I find that kind of action - picking the most expensive product to compare rather than the most comparable one - to verge on dishonest. Why would you do that?

You miss the point. Their expensive premium product is no better than the cheap product I can get locally. Even their directly comparable product is still double the price of the cheap local option. In short, Amway is selling extremely overpriced multivitamins that have no objective benefit over the cheaper product.

And no, plant concentrates do not make the product better objectively. You may think they are better but you have no proof of that.

 

[Joecool]

So... can we agree it's woo after all? Or would the more polite skeptical term, "unproven" suffice instead?

Agreed. The effectiveness of these MLM vitamins are mostly woo. If the supplements are made from phyto nutrients, and the skin of fruits, you'd be better off just eating the fruit. In many cases, these supplements just end up in your urine and flushed down the toilet.

However, it did elicit a humorous response from icerat.

 

[xjx388]

Oh good grief. The science behind fruit & vegetables being better than standard vitamin supplements is overwhelming. Let's take one simple example, apples and vitamin C -

Seriously, I can't believe I'm having to provide evidence of the health benefits of fruit & vegetables over and above multivitamin supplements.

Utter, utter rubbish. The amount of research on the benefits of fruit & vegetables is overwhelming. You may as well be arguing that water doesn't make things wet.

Icerat, you do understand that pills are not fruits and vegetables?

And that Nutrilite pills contain milligrams worth of extracts of these fruits and vegetables?

And that there is no research that shows that consuming phytonutrients in pill form is equivalent to consuming the actual F&V that contain the phytonutrients?

Furthermore, for someone my age and size, I should be eating about 5 cups of F&V per day. Nutrilite products won't even put a dent in that daily requirement.

It's illegal to make health claims without FDA approval. That requires ridiculous amounts of investment into trials and you then can't change (read:improve) the product without having to do it all again.

And yet Amway makes them all over the Nutrilite Double X page . .

NUTRILITE® DOUBLE X® Vitamin/Mineral/Phytonutrient offers superior health protection. It was shown to improve blood nutrient levels to provide your cells with the energy they need to support a healthy heart, brain, eyes, skin, bones, and immune system.†

That is nice legal advertising. But it's still making claims.

Benefits
Heart and cardiovascular health.
A mix of vitamin E, folic acid, potassium, magnesium, copper, and selenium help to support your heart.
DOUBLE X supplement also adds natural plant nutrients, or phytonutrients, from apples, grapes, cranberries, and pomegranates for added heart protection.

Healthy bones and teeth, and calcium absorption.
Vitamins A and D, calcium, and magnesium support a strong skeletal system.
Vitamin D helps your body more easily absorb calcium to keep bones strong.

Eye and skin health.
Vitamin A and lutein, a phytonutrient found in high doses in spinach, support vision health.
Vitamin A, niacin, and grape extract help bolster the condition of your body’s largest organ – your skin.

A healthy immune system.
Make sure your body is ready for anything. Vitamins A and C, zinc, selenium, and phytonutrients from citrus fruits help support your immune system.

Just because something passes legal muster doesn't make it true.

 

[icerat]

Icerat, you do understand that pills are not fruits and vegetables?

xjx388, do you understand that dried fruit and vegetables are still fruit and vegetables, no matter what their shape?

Or do you attribute some magical properties to shape?

And that Nutrilite pills contain milligrams worth of extracts of these fruits and vegetables?

Yes. The bulk of fruit and vegetables is fiber, water, and sugars. Take that out and compress, while monitoring nutritional content, and there's not much left in terms of volume. Ever noticed what units nutrients are measured in?

And that there is no research that shows that consuming phytonutrients in pill form is equivalent to consuming the actual F&V that contain the phytonutrients?

And that nobody has made that claim? They're called supplements not replacements.

Furthermore, for someone my age and size, I should be eating about 5 cups of F&V per day. Nutrilite products won't even put a dent in that daily requirement.

In terms of micronutrient content, yes it will. But I (and Nutrilite) recommend the 5 cups of F&V as the best option. Indeed, more. How are you doing on that today? What about the breadth of phytonutrients? How about the day before? And how about everyone else?

 

[Joecool]

do you understand that dried fruit and vegetables are still fruit and vegetables, no matter what their shape?

So why bother with supplements when someone can just eat fresh fruits and vegetables? Why take a supplement that will mostly be peed out a few hours later.

 

[marplots]

Icerat, is there one study you find compelling we can look at in detail? Swamping me with a long list and then disputing what I draw from that list won't move the conversation forward much.

 

[icerat]

Icerat, is there one study you find compelling we can look at in detail? Swamping me with a long list and then disputing what I draw from that list won't move the conversation forward much.

I supplement because of the overwhelming body of research and knowledge of my own eating habits. I can't think of too many cases where I'd recommend anything based on one study.

Here's my thinking, all supported by research -

(1) The vast majority of people, including myself, do not eat as well as we should, certainly not consistently

(2) There are more beneficial chemicals in fruit & vegetables than the nutrients classified as "vitamins"

(3) Modern dietary habits and modern farming habits have significantly altered the nutrient content of typically purchased and consumed foods

(4) Nutrients we have classified as "vitamins" generally work better when accompanied by other nutrients found in food

(5) Sedentary lifestyles (myself included) make it difficult to get optimal amounts of micro-nutrients without getting to much in the way of macro-nutrients

IMHO, in general (there are exceptions) fresh, local, fruit & vegetables are better than imported fruit & vegetables, which are better than dried fruit & vegetables, which are better than fruit & vegetable concentrates, which are (way) better than isolated synthetic chemicals.

 

[Joecool]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/do-vitamins-and-supplements-actually-work_n_1510985.html

The bold is mine:

That so many people seem to believe they need to boost their intake of vitamins and supplements is a triumph of marketing. Most Americans are well-nourished (besides being amply fed). Because much of our food is fortified with nutrients, once-common deficiency diseases such as scurvy and rickets, caused by inadequate vitamin C and D, respectively, have nearly disappeared in this and other developed countries. Researchers generally believe that with a few exceptions, like pregnant women or the elderly, most people don't need supplements. Over the 22-year course of the Iowa Women's Health Study, supplemental vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, and zinc were associated with a slightly higher risk of premature death, copper to an 18 percent increased risk. Findings were published last year in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The study authors highlighted concerns about the long-term use of supplements and vitamins among those who do not have severe nutritional deficiencies. The pills, they concluded, are best used when recommended by doctors -- not for general prevention.

Alice Lichtenstein, a professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition, worries that supplements give Americans license to continue their unhealthful ways so long as they pop a pill after the steak and hot fudge sundae. A balanced diet is still the best source of nutrients. Adding supplements -- or fruits and veggies, for that matter -- to a high-calorie diet is not going to work magic. Good health begins with physical activity and a balanced diet that is heavy on fruits, veggies, whole grains, "good" fats, and fish and light on red meat, "bad" fats, and processed food -- and not too high in calories. "Nature," says Lichtenfeld, "is probably better than our manufacturers."

 

[xjx388]

xjx388, do you understand that dried fruit and vegetables are still fruit and vegetables, no matter what their shape?[\quote]Sure. But that's not necessarily what's in Double X. And even if it were, that's actually worse? How is 50 mg of dried apple going to help anyone? That's like a bite or two even dehydrated.

Unless, of course, you are trying to say that 50mg has the nutrient equivalent of a full apple...

Or do you attribute some magical properties to shape?

Yes. Starfruit makes you invincible ...

Yes. The bulk of fruit and vegetables is fiber, water, and sugars. Take that out and compress, while monitoring nutritional content, and there's not much left in terms of volume. Ever noticed what units nutrients are measured in?

So how much fruit and veggies are you getting in each pill? Not even a gram. Even dehydrated this is next to nothing in real F&V equivalent.

And that nobody has made that claim? They're called supplements not replacements.

The claim is that there is a health benefit to taking these supplements. The reality is that the amount is not enough to actually supplement anything. Thus, there is no real health benefit to be gained.

In terms of micronutrient content, yes it will. But I (and Nutrilite) recommend the 5 cups of F&V as the best option. Indeed, more. How are you doing on that today? What about the breadth of phytonutrients? How about the day before? And how about everyone else?

So you are saying that the 800mg of dehydrated plant concentrate will contain the micronutrient content of 1183g of F&V? Sorry, that doesn't even begin to make sense. Double X contains less than 1/1000th of the recommended amount of F&V and that is in a processed and concentrated form.

I understand the nutritional role of phytonutrients, but Double X doesn't have enough to make the claims for it that they do.

 

[icerat]

Unless, of course, you are trying to say that 50mg has the nutrient equivalent of a full apple...

(1) You apparently do not understand the difference between macronutrients and micronutrients.
(2) I'm trying to say 50mg of apple concentrate has more nutrients in it that 50mg of ascorbic acid

So how much fruit and veggies are you getting in each pill? Not even a gram. Even dehydrated this is next to nothing in real F&V equivalent.

Clearly you have not even bothered to read the label

The claim is that there is a health benefit to taking these supplements. The reality is that the amount is not enough to actually supplement anything. Thus, there is no real health benefit to be gained.

Clearly you have not even bothered to read the label

So you are saying that the 800mg of dehydrated plant concentrate will contain the micronutrient content of 1183g of F&V? Sorry, that doesn't even begin to make sense. Double X contains less than 1/1000th of the recommended amount of F&V and that is in a processed and concentrated form.

Clearly you have not even bothered to read my responses.

I understand the nutritional role of phytonutrients, but Double X doesn't have enough to make the claims for it that they do.

No you don't understand phytonutrients at all. You seem to believe removing of water, fibre, and sugars is removing the bioactive micronutrients we're talking about.

This patent has some more information on the type of process we're talking about.

Not surprisingly, concentrate is concentrated, with two tablets having the phytonutrient equivalent of many, many fruits & vegetables.

Micronutrients are reallysmall, xjx388. Fruit & Vegetables are mostly fibre, water, and sugars.

 

[Joecool]

The solution is quite simple. Nutiirlite double x makes various health claims.

Can Icerat back up their claims with unbiased evidence?

Somehow I doubt it.

 

[xjx388]

(1) You apparently do not understand the difference between macronutrients and micronutrients.
(2) I'm trying to say 50mg of apple concentrate has more nutrients in it that 50mg of ascorbic acid

1)Sure I do.
2)So how many apple's worth of nutrition is in that 50mg?

Clearly you have not even bothered to read the label

I've read what's available online. What am I missing?

No you don't understand phytonutrients at all. You seem to believe removing of water, fibre, and sugars is removing the bioactive micronutrients we're talking about.

The processing certainly leaves some water, fiber and sugar behind along with protein, fat and other carbohydrates. Sure, phytonutrients remain but some are also lost as well. Sorry, but there is no magical process that can perfectly remove everything except 100% of the phytonutrients.

This patent has some more information on the type of process we're talking about.

That patent talks about a few specific phytonutrients, not all of the hundreds available in real F&V. If you are saying that Double X has high concentrations of those specific phytonutrients, then I might accept that as possible. But there is no data to support that 50mg of apple extract powder is equal to 50mg of quercetin (just as one example).

And let me not forget to mention that there is no evidence that one isolated phytonutrient is as beneficial as the combination of compounds in natural fruit. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that Double X's phytonutrients are 100% bioavailable.

Not surprisingly, concentrate is concentrated, with two tablets having the phytonutrient equivalent of many, many fruits & vegetables.

Micronutrients are reallysmall, xjx388. Fruit & Vegetables are mostly fibre, water, and sugars.

Recently researchers have examined the average concentrations of the major phenolic compounds in six cultivars of apples. They found that the average phenolic concentrations among the six cultivars were: quercetin glycosides, 13.2 mg/100 g fruit; vitamin C, 12.8 mg/100 g fruit; procyanidin B, 9.35 mg/100 g fruit; chlorogenic acid, 9.02 mg/100 g fruit; epicatechin, 8.65 mg/100 g fruit; and phloretin glycosides, 5.59 mg/100 g fruit.

Source: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-3-5.pdf

That's about 58mg of major phytonutrients per apple. Since we know 50mg of apple extract powder must contain substantial amounts macronutients and other micronutrients, that doesn't leave much room for a full complement of phytonutrients.

UNLESS, there is about 50g of quercetin in there, in which case that might be about 4 apples worth, but it would be a gross misstatement to say that 50g of quercetin is the same thing as eating 4 apples a day.

 

[icerat]

UNLESS, there is about 50g of quercetin in there, in which case that might be about 4 apples worth, but it would be a gross misstatement to say that 50g of quercetin is the same thing as eating 4 apples a day.

I think you mean mg.

A daily serving of Double X has 100mg of quercetin - from actual real concentrated fruit & vegetables.

Marplots is the one suggesting eating 50g of quercetin is the same as eating 4 apples, not me.

Nutrilite has been working on the concentration process for more than 70 years. They begin with maximising the nutritional yield of their plants, then harvesting at the time of peak nutritional content. Through some very clever processes they remove the bulk of the macronutrients while maintaining as much nutritional content as possible - and they're continually improving these processes. They have well over a hundred scientists working on this stuff, and have hundreds of patents and published research articles on their work on how they do it. This includes everything from agricultural work to maximising bioavailability. It is a very impressive operation. If you're ever in California I recommend visiting their research farms and the Centre for Optimal Health, you can talk to the scientists directly. I've not yet had the opportunity but friends of mine have.

 

[xjx388]

I think you mean mg.

Yes, sorry.

A daily serving of Double X has 100mg of quercetin - from actual real concentrated fruit & vegetables.

Marplots is the one suggesting eating 50g of quercetin is the same as eating 4 apples, not me.

I don't see anything online showing 100mg of quercetin. Do you have a link to the phytonutrient content?

Nutrilite has been working on the concentration process for more than 70 years. They begin with maximising the nutritional yield of their plants, then harvesting at the time of peak nutritional content. Through some very clever processes they remove the bulk of the macronutrients while maintaining as much nutritional content as possible - and they're continually improving these processes. They have well over a hundred scientists working on this stuff, and have hundreds of patents and published research articles on their work on how they do it. This includes everything from agricultural work to maximising bioavailability. It is a very impressive operation. If you're ever in California I recommend visiting their research farms and the Centre for Optimal Health, you can talk to the scientists directly. I've not yet had the opportunity but friends of mine have.

That's all very nice, but there has been no research to show that the phytonuteients in Double X have significant beneficial effects on human health. So as impressive as all that may be, it's all for naught nutritionally speaking. It makes for great marketing though...

The bottom line is that what you pay for with Nutrilite products is all those scientists and facilities -not any enhanced nutritional benefit.

 

[icerat]

Yes, sorry.

I don't see anything online showing 100mg of quercetin. Do you have a link to the phytonutrient content?

here

That's all very nice, but there has been no research to show that the phytonuteients in Double X have significant beneficial effects on human health. So as impressive as all that may be, it's all for naught nutritionally speaking. It makes for great marketing though...

There's no research showing that if I tie a cement block to my feet and jump in to the sea near my home that I will die either.

There is enormous amounts of research on the health benefits of phytonutrients from fruit & vegetables, both epidemiological and in vitro. It is you that has the bizarre claim that if those exact same nutrients, from the exact same source, if suddenly put in the shape of a tablet magically stop having an effect.

Do you have any research to support this, to me, bizarre claim that the shape in which food is consumed affects it's health benefits?

Seriously, that is what you are saying

The bottom line is that what you pay for with Nutrilite products is all those scientists and facilities -not any enhanced nutritional benefit.

The bottom line is that you've been brainwashed in to thinking that without double blind clinical studies exist - studies which are rarely feasible for nutrition, let alone appropriate - then you should reject all other evidence.

I remember years ago someone telling me that their doctor had told them that pregnant women should not take Vitamin C supplements. I thought that was odd so I researched it, and discovered this was actually recommended in several medical textbooks. It took a while but I eventually tracked down the origin of this recommendation - a family doctor in, I think, Nova Scotia, had a patient who had twin children born with scurvy. When he questioned her he discovered that she had been taking large doses of vitamin C while pregnant. He published a case study in a journal and hypothesised that perhaps this had caused some kind of rebound effect. There is zero physiological reason to believe this could happen, and indeed later investigated discovered there was a genetic reason behind the issue. Nevertheless this "fear" that "just maybe" it might cause a problem led to it actually, and falsely, being taught in medical texts. No clinical studies, no double blind placebo studies, simply a hypothesis from a family doctor.

Similarly you'll find warnings about taking Omega-3 while on blood thinners. The theory is that since omega-3 and drugs like warfarin both have blood-thinning type effects that it must be dangerous to combine them. A few case studies indicate it might be true for some people. A few controlled studies indicate it's not true, and in fact it may be beneficial.

Nevertheless, the standard medical position is to not combine them - even though the best science available indicates most patients would be better off.

I think comes back to the old creed of "first, do no harm". That's fair enough in certain circumstances, but in others it is not the sensible position. It's a position of covering one's ass.

I recommend you read, several times, Marc LeMay's quora post on clinical stuides and nutrition. Understand the point he is making.

I make my health decisions based on the best science available. I don't ignore that science because (theoretically) better science isn't available. I certainly don't ignore that science when the very nature of the questions being asked can't be answered by the types of studies that people like yourself believe they should be.

You're free to make your own choices, and so am I.

Strangely, I don't see people challenging the idea that fruit & vegetables are healthy despite a lack of controlled, blinded studies on health benefits. I don't see people challenging the idea that dried fruit & vegetables are healthy, despite a lack of controlled, blinded studies on their health benefits.

Yet take those same fruit & vegetables and put them in a shape of a tablet? Heaven forbid!

It's magical thinking. It's bizarre.

 

[maximara]

There's no research showing that if I tie a cement block to my feet and jump in to the sea near my home that I will die either.

This is the kind of loopy logic that results in a lot of nutritional woo. Take the whole proper nutrients prevents and can even heal dental cavities issue for example. The people supporting this can point to an insane amount of peer-reviewed literature:

Agnew, M. C.; Agnew, R. G.; Tisdall, F. F. (1933) The production and prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association, JADA 20; 193-212.

Anderson, P. G.; Williams, C. H. M.; Halderson, H.; Summerfeldt, C.; Agnew, R. (1934) Influence of vitamin D in the prevention of dental caries. Journal of the American Dental Association 21; 1349-66.

Bennett, N. G.; et al. (1931) The influence of diet on caries in children's teeth. Special Report Series - Medical Research Council, UK No. 159, 19.

Brodsky, R. H.; Schick, B.; Vollmer, H. (1941) Prevention of dental caries by massive doses of vitamin D. American Journal of Diseases of Children 62; 1183-7.

Day, C. D.; Sedwick, H. J. (1934) Fat-soluble vitamins and dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition 8; 309-28.

East, B. R. (1938) Nutrition and dental caries. American Journal of Public Health. 28; 72-6.

His Majesty's Stationery Office, London. (1936) "The influence of diet on caries in children's teeth. Report of the Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease".

Hujoel, P. P. (2013), Vitamin D and dental caries in controlled clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition Reviews, 71: 88-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00544.x

McBeath, E.C. (1938) Nutrition and diet in relation to preventive dentistry. New York Journal of Dentistry Dentistry 8; 17-21.

McBeath, E.C.; Zucker, T.F. (1938) Role of vitamin D in the control of dental caries in children. Journal of Nutrition 15; 547-64.

McBeath, F.C. (1934) Vitamin D studies, 1933-1934. American Journal of Public Health , 24 1028-30.

Mellanby, Edward (1930) The relation of Diet to Death and Disease; Some new investigations BMJ Apr 12, 1930 pg 354 ((Edward Mellanby was the discover of Vitamin D)

Mellanby, May C. Lee Pattison and C. W. Proud, (1924) "The Effect of Diet on the Development and extension of caries in the the teeth of children" BMJ Aug 1924 pg 254

Mellanby, M. (1937) The role of nutrition as a factor in resistance to dental caries. British Dental Journal, 62; 241-52.

Price, Weston (1939) Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects (1939) Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers

Tisdall, F.F. (1937) The effect of nutrition on the primary teeth. Child Development 8(1), 102-4.

But note with the exception of Hujoel this research is old. Sure these studies were good for their time but their time has long passed. How good are they by our current standards?

 

[icerat]

But note with the exception of Hujoel this research is old. Sure these studies were good for their time but their time has long passed. How good are they by our current standards?

yeah, that research on arsenic being deadly is old - how good is it?

Though I've no idea what your point is, apart from obfuscation, given google scholar comes up with over 300 papers on phytonutrients and health this year alone. (and no, before you leap on it, they're not all good science)

If you learned an MLM company said you should drink water regularly you'd be ranting against that too, maximara. You've made your perspective clear.