Nutritional Suppliments question

[icerat]

This is utterly wrong. It is not difficult to eat properly. The resources for doing so are readily available, as is the ability to lead an active lifestyle.

Depends how you define "difficult", nevertheless it is indisputable that very, very few people do eat properly on a consistent basis. I'd suggest that is evidence it's not easy as you claim.

Re the Cochrane paper, you've quite obviously put a lot more study into it than I have, or am willing to do for the sake of this discussion. I will put a reread of it on my list of things to do, as well as shake out my statistical rust and brush up on modern meta-study techniques, of which your knowledge is also clearly superior.

Either way, I'm sure you'll agree that no one study, nor meta-analysis, proves anything either way, they just contribute further to our expanding knowledge and chance of ultimately getting it right. What's more no study is flawless, so we could argue over any and all of them for eternity. The Cochrane study clearly falls in the category of not supporting isolated anti-oxidants as an effective measure to decrease morbidity, and may even be dangerous. Considering that's actually my position too, I think we can probably spend our time more profitably on other topics!

 

[dlorde]

This is utterly wrong. It is not difficult to eat properly. The resources for doing so are readily available, as is the ability to lead an active lifestyle.

For you maybe. If there is no good nourishing food available or affordable, as is the case for millions around the world, it is impossible to eat properly. Even in our relatively wealthy Western societies there are sink estates where the majority are unemployed and have only junk food and fast-food outlets within walking distance, and single mothers choose between paying rent and buying food. And if you're working 8 or 10 hrs or more, 6 or 7 days a week, in a backstreet sweatshop, where's your active lifestyle then?

 

[casebro]

An Amway commercial on TV this evening gave a couple stats. IIRC, 3,000,000 "business owners" made $7,000,000,000 in sales. That's $2,333 average. Sounds like real easy money. Hound your friends for $45/week in sales. Before cost of merchandise? and franchise fees? Where do I sign up?

 

[fls]

For you maybe. If there is no good nourishing food available or affordable, as is the case for millions around the world, it is impossible to eat properly. Even in our relatively wealthy Western societies there are sink estates where the majority are unemployed and have only junk food and fast-food outlets within walking distance, and single mothers choose between paying rent and buying food. And if you're working 8 or 10 hrs or more, 6 or 7 days a week, in a backstreet sweatshop, where's your active lifestyle then?

The issues of access that I regularly had to deal with were for my patients that lived in Northern Canada. Without roads, food had to be flown in on a sporadic basis, making stuff like fresh produce almost impossible to obtain.

Putting aside those issues found in developing and non-developed countries (which is still worthy of discussion, it's just a different set of issues than we have been talking about), we do find pockets of limited access. Limited resources are a larger problem, and if you consider that resources like education, social support, and health are often limited in conjunction with financial resources, it can be difficult for some people to make the best use of their limited resources. Even if you have access to a reasonable range of food products, food which gives you the most calories per dollar (a superficial way to be efficient) tends to otherwise be poor in essential nutrients. That's why programs like community kitchens are valuable, as they fill some of those resource gaps. But a more judicious use of your resources can make it cheaper to eat well, rather than poorly. For example, even taking my investment in a bread machine into account, it is much cheaper and easier for me to make my own bread than to depend upon going to the store for a fresh supply. And it is usually way healthier.

However, the people buying and using nutritional supplements aren't really those who have limited access or limited resources. And 48 to 70 hour work weeks don't prevent opportunities for regular physical activity. I still maintained regular physical activity with 80+ hour work weeks and others do this as well. I agree that you can find areas/groups where access and/or resources are the main issue, but the majority of people in the US do have the access and the resources to eat a balanced diet and maintain regular physical activity.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

For example, even taking my investment in a bread machine into account, it is much cheaper and easier for me to make my own bread than to depend upon going to the store for a fresh supply.

I doubt that. Presumably you have to go to the store anyway for other food items, so it is certainly not easier to faff around weighing out flour, water and other ingredients (and trying to get the loaf out of the bread maker in one piece), than walking up to a counter and picking up a loaf.

Cost difference is also likely to be pretty marginal, depending on how you value your free time and whether you enjoy making bread or find it a chore.

And it is usually way healthier.

<snip>

In what way is it healthier?

 

[icerat]

An Amway commercial on TV this evening gave a couple stats. IIRC, 3,000,000 "business owners" made $7,000,000,000 in sales. That's $2,333 average.

Yup, if it was normally distributed. It's not even close. Most of those businesses owners do squat and earn squat. Personally I think that's reasonable. Amazingly, some folk instead claim it's proof of a scam - that you only make money through hard work and results, and those who don't work hard don't make anything! Scam! Scam!

(Oh, and its $8.4billion now I believe.)

 

[fls]

In what way is it healthier?

Contains a greater proportion of essential nutrients.

Linda

 

[Prometheus]

Yup, if it was normally distributed. It's not even close. Most of those businesses owners do squat and earn squat. Personally I think that's reasonable. Amazingly, some folk instead claim it's proof of a scam - that you only make money through hard work and results, and those who don't work hard don't make anything! Scam! Scam!

(Oh, and its $8.4billion now I believe.)

In other words, it's just a job--like any other job working for a big company, but without the benefits or worker protections. Scam.

 

[casebro]

The scam lies in the selling of "run your own business for the tax advantages". Deduct your phone bill, home office, put "ask me how" stickers on your car, then deduct all mileage as an "advertising cost".

 

[jimbob]

<snip>

For example, even taking my investment in a bread machine into account, it is much cheaper and easier for me to make my own bread than to depend upon going to the store for a fresh supply.

I doubt that. Presumably you have to go to the store anyway for other food items, so it is certainly not easier to faff around weighing out flour, water and other ingredients (and trying to get the loaf out of the bread maker in one piece), than walking up to a counter and picking up a loaf.

Cost difference is also likely to be pretty marginal, depending on how you value your free time and whether you enjoy making bread or find it a chore.

And it is usually way healthier.

<snip>

In what way is it healthier?

I can believe fls, as her experience agrees with mine.

I make about six 800g loaves a week, (two 1.5kg bags of flour, that last year were about 90p per bag, now about £1.30each, so £2.60 per week on flour). There is also about 120g of butter a week (50p). And the cost of the electricity. My breadmaker is 550W, peak usage, and 4/hours for a standard loaf, most of which is "resting", say an average usage of half that, so that makes about 6kWh/week electricity, at (say 14p/kWh) comes to 84p (say £1.00). Yeast and salt last for about a quarter (say £1/quarter each) (20p/week)

I have been rounding up all this time, so this comes to about £4/week for
6-800g loaves (of top-quality, fresh) bread.

Timewise:

I usally buy several weeks-worh of flour, in my normal shop, so that is marginal.

It takes me about 5mins to measure/weigh out the yeast, flour, water, salt and butter.

More to the point I can get fresh bread, with a better texture ad flavour than one can buy in supermarkets (almost as good as that available in the better bakeries IMHO).

The texture depends strongly on the flour tyope, and I am using stoneground/or filing that low-pressure, very strong breadflour.

I have used the breadmachine at this level of intensity since about 1999, when it was a christmas present, my parents having got one when their local bakery shut. It is a Panasonic machine, and they sem to be ones that people actually tend to use.

As to the way healthier:

http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2001/nov/saltinbread

Crusty white bread 545mg sodium/100g.

RMM Cl = 35.5
RMM Na = 23

=> this equates to about (0.545 x (23+35.5)/23) x8g/ salt per loaf.

I use 4g/loaf and my father uses less. I also know what is in my bread.

EDIT:

Maybe not "way" healthier, but it actually tastes of bread...

Flavour and texture are the main reasons for my parents getting a breadmaker, and for me to use one too.

 

[icerat]

In other words, it's just a job--like any other job working for a big company, but without the benefits or worker protections. Scam.

Huh? No, it's just like any other business, with many of the same strengths and weaknesses. Mind you, in a job you can also get fired for non-performance.

The scam lies in the selling of "run your own business for the tax advantages". Deduct your phone bill, home office, put "ask me how" stickers on your car, then deduct all mileage as an "advertising cost".

Whether deductions can be made or not depend entirely upon whether you treat it as a business or not. If you treat it as a hobby, then the IRS will quite rightly come down on you pretty heavily. Amway actually has rules stating it shouldn't be promoted for tax benefits. Unfortunately folk don't always follow the rules. The IRS in the US and the ATO in Australia both have quite detailed guidelines for folk in direct sales/MLM on what they can and cannot do. You're right though, plenty of folk try to scam the IRS by pretending to be running a business. Having the rights to market and distribute a product do not automatically make you a business operator.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Jimbob,

Six 800g loaves of bread per week @ £4/week works out to 66p per loaf plus labour, which at £6/hour and taking 5min. per loaf gives a total of 66p + 50p = £1.16/loaf.

In a supermarket, which I have to visit for other groceries anyway, I can pick up a loaf of bread in virtually zero extra time and get a 800g granary loaf for about £1.25. I'm paid a lot more than £6/hour, as I'm sure you and Linda are as well, especially given the amount of time she spends on the forum.

Having said all that, I agree with you about the large amount of salt in bread and that freshly made bread is superior in taste and texture to most of the loaves supermarkets sell.

If you and Linda enjoy making bread then the labour costs don't really come into the equation and you are saving some money too.

 

[jimbob]

Ivor, do you get fresh bread every morning? How long would that take each day?

I *don't* go shopping every day.

EDIT: It isn't that I "enjoy" making bread (I *do* enjoy cooking,) but that I don't consider using dead time whilst waiting for my kettle to boil when making a cuppa, actually time I could spend doing anything more interesting.

Compared to the time that I spend commuting also...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I buy a freshly baked loaf from the supermarket on a Saturday morning, which lasts me through till the following Wednesday and is still soft if properly kept.

 

[littlehulkster]

Not only is eating well not that difficult, but vitamin supplements don't do much but turn your pee neon green and make you lose weight from emptying your wallet.

That being said, I do take protein powder, and while the manufactuer's claims are often exaggerated, the nutritional values of the various products (Usually whey, although sometimes soy or casein) are pretty well understood, as is their role in building and maintaining muscle mass.

 

[Prometheus]

@icerat: Please use the multi-quote button

when quoting more than one poster, so as not to mis-attribute words to the wrong person.

Like this:

In other words, it's just a job--like any other job working for a big company, but without the benefits or worker protections. Scam.

Huh? No, it's just like any other business, with many of the same strengths and weaknesses. Mind you, in a job you can also get fired for non-performance.

The scam lies in the selling of "run your own business for the tax advantages". Deduct your phone bill, home office, put "ask me how" stickers on your car, then deduct all mileage as an "advertising cost".

Whether deductions can be made or not depend entirely upon whether you treat it as a business or not. If you treat it as a hobby, then the IRS will quite rightly come down on you pretty heavily. Amway actually has rules stating it shouldn't be promoted for tax benefits. Unfortunately folk don't always follow the rules. The IRS in the US and the ATO in Australia both have quite detailed guidelines for folk in direct sales/MLM on what they can and cannot do. You're right though, plenty of folk try to scam the IRS by pretending to be running a business. Having the rights to market and distribute a product do not automatically make you a business operator.

I'm not really interested in pursuing this derail further. Suffice it to say that there have been numerous threads here in which detailed evidence has been presented supporting the claim that Amway is a scam. If you've got some actual evidence to the contrary, as opposed to unsubstantiated claims and anecdotes, feel free to start another thread.

 

[Miss_Kitt]

There is an interesting article in the most recent Skeptical Inquirer on the issue of pseudo-science in assessing needs/solutions to adult nutrition. I recommend reading it, and also looking at the online article referenced in the magazine article. (It's far too late for me to go hunt that up now.)

I also need to throw a penalty flag on the field of discussion for icerat's assertion that, because of market competition, studies showing the efficacy and harmlessness of various supplements cannot be published. If studies are not published, and the source data is not available for review, then whatever you're talking about, it's not science. For someone who keeps saying that "the company has done research" -- if you haven't seen the studies, how do you know that? How do you know the studies are valid? You're accepting the word of someone who is trying to promote their product that they've done studies that show their product is good. Hmmm, does that surprise you?

If an impartial third party hasn't looked into it; if results have not been peer-reviewed, published, and replicated...then it's reasonable to assume that it's not true, or at least, is unknown. If the benefits of a supplement are not proven, why spend money on it? Why spend time and effort bringing it into your life? Why risk finding out that it is in fact harmful? (Think tryptophan and ephedra.)

Exercise and a diet with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetable (frozen veggies when fresh not available) have been shown to be both beneficial, and non-harmful. So has getting sufficient sleep, which clearly I'm not doing tonight (it's almost 1 am local). So I will leave this thread for the moment.

One last thing to consider, icerat: people who care enough to invest money in supplements and effort in taking them appropriately are probably also able to put that same money and effort into a healthier diet without supplements. How are you going to identify what benefits are due to the supplement(s) unless you do a random-assignment, placebo-controlled, double blind study?

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have a ongoing battle with my mother about the amount of supplements she takes. At the moment she's taking:

Low dose multi-vitamin.
Calcium.
Garlic.
Cod liver oil.
Vitamin B-Complex.

And she's just spent £200 over six sessions to find out acupuncture doesn't work.

But at least I (along with Derren Brown) have mostly convinced her homoeopathy is nonsense.

Next job is convincing my brother in law the MMR does not cause or is linked to autism...

 

[icerat]

I'm not really interested in pursuing this derail further. Suffice it to say that there have been numerous threads here in which detailed evidence has been presented supporting the claim that Amway is a scam.

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

If you've got some actual evidence to the contrary, as opposed to unsubstantiated claims and anecdotes, feel free to start another thread.

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.

You'll believe what you want to believe.

 

[icerat]

I also need to throw a penalty flag on the field of discussion for icerat's assertion that, because of market competition, studies showing the efficacy and harmlessness of various supplements cannot be published.

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.

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.

If studies are not published, and the source data is not available for review, then whatever you're talking about, it's not science. For someone who keeps saying that "the company has done research" -- if you haven't seen the studies, how do you know that? How do you know the studies are valid? You're accepting the word of someone who is trying to promote their product that they've done studies that show their product is good. Hmmm, does that surprise you?

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's a legitimate problem, but it has to be understood in the context of the above. So you have to take what is available and make a best judgement about the reputations of those involved and whether you trust them or not. When it's established scientists and established research institutions providing the information, then you have reasons to believe it's a reasonably rigourous study. Now, it's not as rigorous as research you cannot check for yourself, but it's really the best that can be expected.

If an impartial third party hasn't looked into it; if results have not been peer-reviewed, published, and replicated...then it's reasonable to assume that it's not true, or at least, is unknown.

I disagree with that assertion. It's reasonable to question it, but it's not reasonable to assume it's false, or even unknown.

If the benefits of a supplement are not proven, why spend money on it? Why spend time and effort bringing it into your life? Why risk finding out that it is in fact harmful? (Think tryptophan and ephedra.)

One can still examine evidence, balance it's strengths and weaknesses, and come to reasonable conclusions. A lack of "gold standard" evidence is not a lack of evidence.

Exercise and a diet with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetable (frozen veggies when fresh not available) have been shown to be both beneficial, and non-harmful

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?

One last thing to consider, icerat: people who care enough to invest money in supplements and effort in taking them appropriately are probably also able to put that same money and effort into a healthier diet without supplements. How are you going to identify what benefits are due to the supplement(s) unless you do a random-assignment, placebo-controlled, double blind study?

To take myself as a sample of one, the supplements are cheaper and more convenient, and I have reason to believe they are effective. In my opinion, after examing reams of research in a wide range of areas, it would require more money and effort to get a similar benefit from diet alone. Which isn't to say I don't try that too!

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?