# Here's what I'm talking about, supplement boys



## Bill Mattocks

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...ontain-toxin/?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto



> Shark cartilage, which has been hyped as a cancer preventive and joint-health supplement, may contain a neurotoxin that has been linked with Alzheimers and Lou Gehrigs disease.
> ...
> The findings are important because of the growing popularity of supplements that contain cartilage from shark fins. The products are widely sold and remain popular with consumers who view them as cancer fighters or as a remedy for joint and bone problems. The notion that shark cartilage can prevent cancer grew largely from the popularity of the 1992 book Sharks Dont Get Cancer.
> 
> Although a number of studies have discredited shark cartilage as a cancer fighter, supplement makers have nonetheless made bold claims. In 2000, two supplement makers settled a federal suit as a result of hyping shark cartilage and paid restitution to customers.



People get all hyped up about things like this and they become popular.  Once people decide that they have felt a positive affect from it - anything at all, from magnetic bracelets to this - you can't convince them it does not work and might even be dangerous.  They'll point to ads and claim that if the ads were wrong, the government would stop them from making the claims.  They'll mention so-and-so, a friend of a friend, who was miraculously cured of whatever ailment.  They'll cling to shady studies done by organizations founded by or supported by the companies selling the supplements.

Hey, cram anything down your throats that you want; it's a free country.  But I really think it's a waste of money, and might even harm you.


----------



## Nomad

Strongly agree, and would like to point out that the placebo effect has made an awful lot of people rich hawking such snake oil miracle cures.

This is why we have a gold standard of the double-blind clinical trial (where neither the patient nor the doctor are aware of who is receiving the medicine/supplement/etc and who is getting the placebo. If you can't show that something provides a statistically relevant therapeutic effect *Above that exhibited by the placebo*, then you're a snake-oil salesman and nothing more.


----------



## K-man

About 15 years ago there was a lot of hype about 'anti-oxidants'. These were meant to reduce the chance of you suffering a heart attack or stroke. These were marketed as ACE products. (Vit A, Vit C and Vit E plus a few other things.) It was one of the few supplements that I thought had a factual basis and actually took myself.  A couple of years later and medical research showed that far from reducing the risk, it was actually the other way around. Taking the supplement actually increased the chances of heart attack and stroke.  

Even in the last few weeks the 'Statins' used to reduce cholesterol and thought to be reasonably safe have been shown to increase the rate of diabetes and cause reversible memory loss. All this from a 'safe' drug.

Don't get me started on the pharmaceutical industry!


----------



## Kinghercules

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...ontain-toxin/?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto
> 
> 
> 
> People get all hyped up about things like this and they become popular.  Once people decide that they have felt a positive affect from it - anything at all, from magnetic bracelets to this - you can't convince them it does not work and might even be dangerous.  They'll point to ads and claim that if the ads were wrong, the government would stop them from making the claims.  They'll mention so-and-so, a friend of a friend, who was miraculously cured of whatever ailment.  They'll cling to shady studies done by organizations founded by or supported by the companies selling the supplements.
> 
> Hey, cram anything down your throats that you want; it's a free country.  But I really think it's a waste of money, and might even harm you.



If you're for pharma and drugs then you wont believe that there are natural ways to kill cancer.
But if you're against pharma and drugs then you will believe in takin natural medicine.
Plane and simple.


----------



## Kinghercules

K-man said:


> About 15 years ago there was a lot of hype about 'anti-oxidants'. These were meant to reduce the chance of you suffering a heart attack or stroke. These were marketed as ACE products. (Vit A, Vit C and Vit E plus a few other things.) It was one of the few supplements that I thought had a factual basis and actually took myself.  A couple of years later and medical research showed that far from reducing the risk, it was actually the other way around. Taking the supplement actually increased the chances of heart attack and stroke.
> 
> Even in the last few weeks the 'Statins' used to reduce cholesterol and thought to be reasonably safe have been shown to increase the rate of diabetes and cause reversible memory loss. All this from a 'safe' drug.
> 
> Don't get me started on the pharmaceutical industry!



Takin what supplements (A, C & E)?
Who did the research?
Who paid for the research?
What were the guide lines behind the research?

These are the things you have to look at when it comes to these studies.  Most of the negative views about vitamins are funded by pharma amd of they're not then they dont use a good amount of the supplement in the study.  I recall talkin to someone about how supplements are not useful and they pointed out some study that showed Vit C didnt do anything to improve overall health.  After readin the study I saw that the researchers only used 30mg of Vit C!!  LOL!!
At that amount you aint gonna stop crap!  So of course their results were negative about Vit C.  I think it was last year that on the Today Show that they were sayin that Vit D doesnt do anything for over all health and that there were no studies to prove that it does.  I was discussed by their lack of research on the behalf of the reporters.  I just typed in Vit D and several studies came up sayin how it is helpful and beneficial if taken.


----------



## Kinghercules

I take supplements and I believe ppl should.  How else are you gonna stop oxidative stress and free radical damage?

Here's just a few abstracts:

HUMAN RESEARCH
    13. Am J Cardiol. 1995 Dec 15;76(17):1233-8.
    Dietary intake, plasma levels of antioxidant vitamins, and oxidative stress      in relation to coronary artery disease in elderly subjects.
    Singh RB, Ghosh S, Niaz MA, Singh R, Beegum R, Chibo H, Shoumin Z, Postiglione      A.
    India.
    A survey of 595 elderly subjects with coronary artery disease (CAD) indicated      that the blood levels of antioxidants (vitamins E, C, A and beta-carotene)      were low.

 Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;9(1):49-80.
    The Roche European American Cataract Trial (REACT): a randomized clinical      trial to investigate the efficacy of an oral antioxidant micronutrient      mixture to slow progression of age-related cataract.
    USA
    An antioxidant combination of vitamins E and C and beta-carotene was administered      to 445 cataract patients from the U.S. and the U.K. to determine whether      the supplement would hinder the progression of cataracts. *After 3 years,      a small positive effect was evident in the U.S. group indicating that      the antioxidant mixture could hinder growth of cataracts.*

Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Apr;96(4):1080-4.
    Successful and sustained treatment of chronic radiation proctitis with      antioxidant vitamins E and C.
    Kennedy M, Bruninga K, Mutlu EA, Losurdo J, Choudhary S, Keshavarzian      A.
    USA.
    In this pilot study, 20 patients who had received pelvic radiation and      were diagnosed with radiation proctitis (rectal bleeding, pain, diarrhea,      fecal urgency) were treated with antioxidants (vitamins E and C). The      severity and frequency of the symptoms were documented before and after      treatment. There was a significant improvement in the symptoms and these      improvements were sustained at a one-year follow-up. The authors recommend      that a double-blind placebo controlled study be conducted to verify results.

 Clin Excell Nurse Pract. 1998 Jan;2(1):10-22.
    A review of vitamins A, C, and E and their relationship to cardiovascular      disease.
    Brown DJ, Goodman J.
    USA
    The authors of this review of studies of vitamins E, C and A and cardiovascular      disease (CVD) find significant evidence to support the supplementation      of vitamins E, C and A to lower the risk of death from CVD. *They also      concluded that diabetics, smokers and those with hypertension would benefit      from taking vitamin C.*

 J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep;36(3):758-65.
    Effect of folic acid and antioxidant vitamins on endothelial dysfunction      in patients with coronary artery disease.
    Title LM, Cummings PM, Giddens K, Genest JJ Jr, Nassar BA. 
    Canada
    High homocysteine levels in the blood can contribute to atherosclerosis      by damaging blood vessels. In this double-blind placebo controlled study,      folic acid, folic acid plus antioxidants (vitamins E and C) or placebo      was administered to 75 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Folic      acid increased plasma folate by 475%, improved flow-mediated dilation      (FMD), and reduced homocysteine in the blood. *Folic acid plus antioxidants      had similar positive results.*

 Free Radic Biol Med. 2000 Jun 15;28(12):1806-14
*The role of natural antioxidants* in preserving the biological activity      of endothelium-derived nitric oxide.
    Carr A, Frei B.
    USA
    Most cases of coronary artery disease (CAD) are linked with oxidative      stress. The presence of endothelium-derived nitric oxide (EDNO), a vaso      relaxant can control the progress of atherosclerosis. Supplementation      with antioxidants (vitamins E and C) can stabilize EDNO, a positive therapy      in the prevention of CAD.


----------



## Nomad

If you're looking for evidence to support a theoretical use for a given supplement, it's not hard to find a study that will support it. Likewise for most supplements it's not difficult to find a study saying that there is no benefit. Much depends on the study details; how it was conducted, the size of the group studied, and so on. 

This is why the gold standard is and remains the double-blind clinical trial... If you don't have this, then it's fairly easy for a study to tell you what you already want to know: that is, if you believe in the efficacy of a certain entity, it's very easy to end with biased results showing what you expected and vice-versa.

In terms of supplements, the best website I've come across is this one. It has a ton of information starting from the visual representation showing how how many studies have been conducted and the weight of information on the pro and con side of the argument. Delving into individual supplements links you directly to the various studies done so you can see for yourself. Their "worth-it" line is a pretty good indicator of the current literature for or against specific supplements with specific indications.


----------



## K-man

Kinghercules said:


> Takin what supplements (A, C & E)?
> Who did the research?
> Who paid for the research?
> What were the guide lines behind the research?
> 
> These are the things you have to look at when it comes to these studies.  Most of the negative views about vitamins are funded by pharma amd of they're not then they dont use a good amount of the supplement in the study.  I recall talkin to someone about how supplements are not useful and they pointed out some study that showed Vit C didnt do anything to improve overall health.  After readin the study I saw that the researchers only used 30mg of Vit C!!  LOL!!
> At that amount you aint gonna stop crap!  So of course their results were negative about Vit C.  I think it was last year that on the Today Show that they were sayin that Vit D doesn't do anything for over all health and that there were no studies to prove that it does.  I was discussed by their lack of research on the behalf of the reporters.  I just typed in Vit D and several studies came up sayin how it is helpful and beneficial if taken.


Unfortunately we are now experiencing a massive epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in Australia because of the successful campaign against Melanama advising people to stay out of strong sunlight. As a result a lot, more people should be taking Vit D supplement.  However the real villain appears to be Vit E.    

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/732017 

This meta analysis was conducted at Harvard University.  Most articles quoted showing benefit will be prior to 2010.

As to Vit C. Linus Pauling got it wrong, intentionally or not I could not say. When I was involved in the Health Care Industry I looked for evidence to support the use of Vit C and in over 40 years saw no verifiable studies to back up the folk law promoted by the Vitamin industry, which is no different to the drug companies, but with less regulation. 

http://infernalmedicine.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/vitamin-c-miracle-or-hoax/

If you have any double blind clinical trials to support the use of Vit C in normal or megadose, I would love to read it. It certainly hasn't been published in the medical or pharmaceutical journals in Australia.

Glucosamine is the other supplement that gets up my nose. The company involved in the original research employed a rheumatologist to conduct the studies, not double blind, and surprise, surprise, the results were amazing. I believed the trial was legitimate as it was conducted by an expert in the field and, along with many others, started recommending Glucosamine.  Not one trial since then has been able to reproduce those first trial results. It was a classic placebo effect. Unfortunately, despite all evidence to the contrary, people are still wasting their hard earned to purchase a product that is no better than placebo.

For anyone taking statins,    

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/29/fda-warns-statin-users-of-memory-loss-and-diabetes-risks/ 

The quote that comes to mind is, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".


----------



## K-man

Nomad said:


> If you're looking for evidence to support a theoretical use for a given supplement, it's not hard to find a study that will support it. Likewise for most supplements it's not difficult to find a study saying that there is no benefit. Much depends on the study details; how it was conducted, the size of the group studied, and so on.
> 
> This is why the gold standard is and remains the double-blind clinical trial... If you don't have this, then it's fairly easy for a study to tell you what you already want to know: that is, if you believe in the efficacy of a certain entity, it's very easy to end with biased results showing what you expected and vice-versa.
> 
> In terms of supplements, the best website I've come across is this one. It has a ton of information starting from the visual representation showing how how many studies have been conducted and the weight of information on the pro and con side of the argument. Delving into individual supplements links you directly to the various studies done so you can see for yourself. Their "worth-it" line is a pretty good indicator of the current literature for or against specific supplements with specific indications.


Hear, hear! Well said.

And, the website you recommend supports what I have stated for all products.  Thank you.


----------



## Dirty Dog

The vast majority of supplements are nothing more than a recipe for expensive urine.

Ones such as the shark cartilage mentioned by the OP bother me more than others, since obtaining them requires killing some really amazing animals that are already harvested wayyyyyy too much. Sharks are badly over fished, and many are endangered. It saddens me to dive in a place like Playa del Carmen, where at one time during the mating season you could find hundreds of bull sharks, and see only 15-20.

One supplement that DOES work is raw garlic, to prevent colds and flu. It's simple. If you eat enough of it, nobody will get close enough to infect you...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dirty Dog said:


> One supplement that DOES work is raw garlic, to prevent colds and flu. It's simple. If you eat enough of it, nobody will get close enough to infect you...



That would be the one thing I would never have a problem with.  I grew up thinking that garlic came in little dry flakes in a bottle on the spice rack.  I had never had 'raw' aka 'fresh' garlic in my life until I got out in the world on my own.  I love it - it tastes AMAZING!  However, I cannot digest it.  If I eat food with fresh garlic on it in more than small amounts, I will spend the rest of the day in the bathroom being very wretched indeed; and making the place uninhabitable as a side-effect of the side-effect.  Which is really a shame, garlic is terrific.  But my body has no idea what to do with it except to get rid of it pronto.


----------



## seasoned

Although I am an advocate for supplements, I have cut back a bit. I do feel better with them whether placebo effect or actual effect. There is a lot of money to be made if it's pharmaceutical, or nutritional vitamins, and we as humans are pawns in this folly. 

I don't feel you could live off of just popping pills, but, a clean diet, plenty of good water, and a few vitamins mixed in with that good diet will go a lot farther then that burger and fries, with the milk shake or soft drink, that is a main stay in the normal everyday diet. Just saying.....


----------



## Kinghercules

K-man said:


> As to Vit C. Linus Pauling got it wrong, intentionally or not I could not say. When I was involved in the Health Care Industry I looked for evidence to support the use of Vit C and in over 40 years saw no verifiable studies to back up the folk law promoted by the Vitamin industry, which is no different to the drug companies, but with less regulation.
> 
> http://infernalmedicine.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/vitamin-c-miracle-or-hoax/
> 
> If you have any double blind clinical trials to support the use of Vit C in normal or megadose, I would love to read it. It certainly hasn't been published in the medical or pharmaceutical journals in Australia.



I find it hard to believe that you couldnt find any info on Vit C.

 Am J Ther. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):289-93. 
A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of vitamin C in the management of
hypertension and lipids.
Hajjar IM, George V, Sasse EA, Kochar MS.
USA.
In  this double blind control study, 31 patients were given either 500mg,  1000 mg or 2000 mg of vitamin C daily for 8 months. While taking  supplements blood pressure decreased significantly despite the dose of  vitamin C. Thus, a 500 mg daily dose of vitamin C is seen as being an  effective treatment in mild hypertension
PMID: 12115017

Adv Ther. 2002 May-Jun;19(3):151-9. 
Preventing the common cold with a vitamin C supplement: a double-blind,placebo-controlled survey.
Van Straten M, Josling P.
United Kingdom.
In  this study, 168 subjects received either a placebo or vitamin C  supplement for 60 days during the winter months to determine the effects  of vitamin C on the common cold. Those receiving vitamin C had  significantly fewer colds, if they got a cold, the severity and duration  of symptoms were less than the placebo group. *The authors conclude that  vitamin C was effective in dealing with the common cold.*
PMID: 12201356 

Mutat Res. 2002 Jun 27;518(1):1-7. 
In vivo antimutagenic effect of vitamins C and E against rifampicin-induced
chromosome aberrations in mouse bone-marrow cells.
Aly FA, Donya SM.
Egypt.
This  study measures the genotoxic effect of the drug rifampicin (RMP) and  whether vitamin C and vitamin E can protect the DNA from the toxic  effect of RMP. Mice were fed either RMP, or RMP with vitamins C and/or  E. The results indicated that there was a significant decrease in  chromosome abnormalities in the mice treated with RMP and vitamin C.  Vitamin C significantly protected bone marrow from the damaging effects  of RMP.
PMID: 12063062 

 Indian J Exp Biol. 2002 Jun;40(6):735-8. 
Effect of antioxidants (vitamin C, E and turmeric extract) on methimazole-induced hypothyroidism in rats.
Deshpande UR, Joseph LJ, Patwardhan UN, Samuel AM.
India.
The  degree to which antioxidants protect against the effects of methimazole  (MMI) was the subject of this study on rats. Rats were fed either MMI,  MMI plus vitamin C, MMI plus vitamin E or MMI plus turmeric extract.  Rats, which were fed MMI plus vitamins or turmeric had reduced thyroid  gland weight, had less suppressed T3 and T4 levels and less increase in  cholesterol levels. Thus, antioxidants were found to have positive  effects on the thyroid gland.
PMID: 12587721 

Biochem Pharmacol. 2002 May 15;63(10):1773-83. 
Autoschizis: a novel cell death.
Jamison JM, Gilloteaux J, Taper HS, Calderon PB, Summers JL.
USA
According  to this review, *a combination of vitamin C and vitamin K kills tumor  cells.* It also states that a combination of vitamin C and vitamin K  increasing the life span of mice with tumors.
PMID: 12034362 

Diabetes Metab. 2002 Apr;28(2):107-14. 
Effects  of young barley leaf extract and antioxidative vitamins on LDL  oxidation and free radical scavenging activities in type 2 diabetes.
Yu YM, Chang WC, Chang CT, Hsieh CL, Tsai CE.
Taiwan.
Diabetic  patients (36) received either barley leaf extract (BL), or vitamin C  and vitamin E (CE), or BL +CE daily for 4 weeks. The effect of the  treatment on LDL levels was measured. The results indicated that vitamin  C and E with BL are more effective antioxidants and my help prevent  vascular diseases in type II diabetics.
PMID: 11976562

Like I said...its about where you want to look and what you want to believe.


----------



## K-man

Kinghercules said:


> I find it hard to believe that you couldnt find any info on Vit C.
> 
> Am J Ther. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):289-93.
> A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of vitamin C in the management of
> hypertension and lipids.
> Hajjar IM, George V, Sasse EA, Kochar MS.
> USA.
> In  this double blind control study, 31 patients were given either 500mg,  1000 mg or 2000 mg of vitamin C daily for 8 months. While taking  supplements blood pressure decreased significantly despite the dose of  vitamin C. Thus, a 500 mg daily dose of vitamin C is seen as being an  effective treatment in mild hypertension
> PMID: 12115017
> 
> Adv Ther. 2002 May-Jun;19(3):151-9.
> Preventing the common cold with a vitamin C supplement: a double-blind,placebo-controlled survey.
> Van Straten M, Josling P.
> United Kingdom.
> In  this study, 168 subjects received either a placebo or vitamin C  supplement for 60 days during the winter months to determine the effects  of vitamin C on the common cold. Those receiving vitamin C had  significantly fewer colds, if they got a cold, the severity and duration  of symptoms were less than the placebo group. *The authors conclude that  vitamin C was effective in dealing with the common cold.*
> PMID: 12201356
> 
> Mutat Res. 2002 Jun 27;518(1):1-7.
> In vivo antimutagenic effect of vitamins C and E against rifampicin-induced
> chromosome aberrations in mouse bone-marrow cells.
> Aly FA, Donya SM.
> Egypt.
> This  study measures the genotoxic effect of the drug rifampicin (RMP) and  whether vitamin C and vitamin E can protect the DNA from the toxic  effect of RMP. Mice were fed either RMP, or RMP with vitamins C and/or  E. The results indicated that there was a significant decrease in  chromosome abnormalities in the mice treated with RMP and vitamin C.  Vitamin C significantly protected bone marrow from the damaging effects  of RMP.
> PMID: 12063062
> 
> Indian J Exp Biol. 2002 Jun;40(6):735-8.
> Effect of antioxidants (vitamin C, E and turmeric extract) on methimazole-induced hypothyroidism in rats.
> Deshpande UR, Joseph LJ, Patwardhan UN, Samuel AM.
> India.
> The  degree to which antioxidants protect against the effects of methimazole  (MMI) was the subject of this study on rats. Rats were fed either MMI,  MMI plus vitamin C, MMI plus vitamin E or MMI plus turmeric extract.  Rats, which were fed MMI plus vitamins or turmeric had reduced thyroid  gland weight, had less suppressed T3 and T4 levels and less increase in  cholesterol levels. Thus, antioxidants were found to have positive  effects on the thyroid gland.
> PMID: 12587721
> 
> Biochem Pharmacol. 2002 May 15;63(10):1773-83.
> Autoschizis: a novel cell death.
> Jamison JM, Gilloteaux J, Taper HS, Calderon PB, Summers JL.
> USA
> According  to this review, *a combination of vitamin C and vitamin K kills tumor  cells.* It also states that a combination of vitamin C and vitamin K  increasing the life span of mice with tumors.
> PMID: 12034362
> 
> Diabetes Metab. 2002 Apr;28(2):107-14.
> Effects  of young barley leaf extract and antioxidative vitamins on LDL  oxidation and free radical scavenging activities in type 2 diabetes.
> Yu YM, Chang WC, Chang CT, Hsieh CL, Tsai CE.
> Taiwan.
> Diabetic  patients (36) received either barley leaf extract (BL), or vitamin C  and vitamin E (CE), or BL +CE daily for 4 weeks. The effect of the  treatment on LDL levels was measured. The results indicated that vitamin  C and E with BL are more effective antioxidants and my help prevent  vascular diseases in type II diabetics.
> PMID: 11976562
> 
> Like I said...its about where you want to look and what you want to believe.


Thank you for posting these references.
The first on on BP is very small (31 patients). These results are just not supported by meta analysis. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12468560

Next one, pretty much the same.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15495002

Next one on Rifampicin induced chromosome aberrations in mice bone marrow cells does not send me rushing to the pharmacy. Not the reason most people are likely to take Vit C.

Same goes for Methimazole-induced hyperthyroidism in rats.

The next one was interesting but once again an experiment on mice with unspecified type of tumor. Not what most people are using vitamins for.

The next one is an interesting one again.  This time it is Barley leaf being examined in combination with Vit C in diabetes and the conclusion is that it MAY help. 

I have no doubt that Vit C may be beneficial in some treatments or some combinations but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that taking Vit C does anything for the general population.

Like you said;  "It's about where you want to look and what you want to believe".


----------



## Steve

Come on, guys.  We are bombarded by waves and rays all friggin day long now.  What DOESN'T cause cancer these days?

As far as I'm concerned, try to eat food that existed over 100 years ago.  Take supplements that make you feel better, if you want.  Or don't.  Take prescription drugs instead, if you want.  But remember that some of those may cause anal leakage or any of the other side effects that they are required by law to mention on the commercials. 

Chances are pretty good that you'll live to around 75 or 80 if you aren't stupid or unlucky or genetically predisposed.  

I exercise and eat well not because i think it will help me live longer.  Instead, I eat well and exercise in order to feel as good as I can while I'm alive.


----------



## K-man

Kinghercules said:


> I take supplements and I believe ppl should.  How else are you gonna stop oxidative stress and free radical damage?   .


Eat well, don't smoke and exercise regularly. My recipe for a long and healthy life. ;-)

Here is an interesting article that points out, among other things, that eating fresh fruit and vegetables helps in protecting against damage from free radicals but taking supplements doesn't.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jun/23/vitamin-supplements-antioxidants-freeradicals

I don't take supplements and I don't believe MOST people should.  

There are times when vitamin supplementation is essential like taking folic acid if you are on methotrexate or if you are contemplating pregnancy.  Vit B can be beneficial in some mouth disorders if you are deficient and Vit C is indicated if you are silly enough to smoke.  Vit D is required to maintain good bone density, either from sunlight or supplement.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Steve said:


> Come on, guys.  We are bombarded by waves and rays all friggin day long now.  What DOESN'T cause cancer these days?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, try to eat food that existed over 100 years ago.  Take supplements that make you feel better, if you want.  Or don't.  Take prescription drugs instead, if you want.  But remember that some of those may cause anal leakage or any of the other side effects that they are required by law to mention on the commercials.
> 
> Chances are pretty good that you'll live to around 75 or 80 if you aren't stupid or unlucky or genetically predisposed.
> 
> I exercise and eat well not because i think it will help me live longer.  Instead, I eat well and exercise in order to feel as good as I can while I'm alive.



100-year-old food is NASTY, is what.  Except maybe cheese.  They say 100-year-old cheese is still good.  I'm not going to eat any, though.  Just sayin'...


----------



## K-man

Steve said:


> I exercise and eat well not because i think it will help me live longer.  Instead, I eat well and exercise in order to feel as good as I can while I'm alive.


Great philosophy! 
(You slipped it in while I was writing.)


----------



## seasoned

Steve, at your 41yrs your not giving me a whole lot of hope here. By your post I'm looking at 10 more years, heck with all the supplements I take I was hoping for at least 20...............


----------



## Kinghercules

K-man said:


> Eat well, don't smoke and exercise regularly. My recipe for a long and healthy life. ;-)
> 
> Here is an interesting article that points out, among other things, *that eating fresh fruit and vegetables helps in protecting against damage from free radicals but taking supplements doesn't.*



See now this is where the argument dont make sense (not YOU in particular but in general).
People always make this argument.

So you're sayin eatin fruits works _but_ juicin fruits, where you extract the pulp and have only the minerals, vitamins, flavonoids and phytochemicals, dosent work.
Eatin fruits work but extractin the pulp and juice so you only have the powder form where you would have access to 100% of the phytochemicals and vitamins in that fruit wont work?  Seriously?

Eatin fruits and veggies is fine but when you are tryin to stop free radical damage (FRD), DNA damage, cancer tumors, Alzheimer's...etc, I say its not enough.  You have to counter cytotoxicity through oxidative stress      and     apoptosis.  Every time you step outside (for those of us that live in cities) you come in contact with 200 different chemicals that causes FRD.  To stop the damage you have to have at lest 10,000mg of VC (vitamin C) thru out the day.  How is it that lions, goats & horses dont get sick?  Their bodies produce 20,000mg of VC a day.  Humans cant produce VC in the body.

And again, as you can find articles that show vitamins dont work (never mind that it was from the Guardian)....I can find some that show they do.  From the  Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835284) 

_Each 20 micromole/liter (&#956;mol/L) of vitamin  C in the blood reduced the heart failure death rate by nine percent. It  may take only 500 mgs of vitamin C to achieve 80 micromoles/liter.  Since  vitamin C is not produced by the human body, and absorption rates vary  among individuals, *it's apparent that taking more even more vitamin C is  a good heart health investment.*_
​


----------



## seasoned

Normal American diet:

Breakfast:             Cup of coffee
                                            Bagel with butter

Mid-morning:      Coffee and donut

Lunch:                     Some kind of sandwich on white bread
                                          Bag of chips
                                          Can of soda

Afternoon:           Candy bar, or something from the vending machine


Diner:                       Meatloaf
                Mash potato's
                Can corn
                Brownie or piece of pie

Evening:    Dish of ice cream with chocolate sauce.

Bed and next day start all over again.........................


----------



## Bill Mattocks

So much of the debate is framed on the basis of emotionally-laden buzzwords or terms that have no true descriptive value, that it makes me tend to believe it's about belief more than science.  It's a religion, folks.

Natural versus artificial.  What's natural, exactly?  What's artificial?  I hear terms like 'processed' and 'manufactured' to mean 'artificial', but truthfully, that doesn't mean much, or it means what you want it to mean.  And the assumption is that 'natural' means good and 'artificial' means bad.  I see some evidence of some positive effects from so-called natural foods, and some negative affects from so-called artificial foods, but not enough to make blanket condemnations or recommendations.  Organic poisons are natural; I'm not going to eat them.  Lab-grown meat, if it comes to commercial use (and it's starting to look possible) is most definitely artificial and I'll eat that with no problems.

Terms like 'big pharma'.  Yes, I get it, big companies make drugs intended to fix specific problems, and they have a huge vested interest in getting them sold.  There are also quite a few drugs sold that are made by 'big pharma' that simply save lives, and have no 'natural' counterpart.  Sure, there are people who believe that 'big pharma' just wants to kill people, and there are 'natural' alternatives for every drug that are just as effective.  They're wrong.  That's religion, not science, and deep down, they know it.  It's politics, it's religion, but it's not science.  I get that you hate big pharma.  I don't care.  It's colored your logic, and that makes you dangerously wrong.

Drugs versus supplements.  Drugs are bad.  Supplements are good.  What rubbish.  The two terms seem to mean, in use, that if big pharma makes it, it's a drug.  If a fly-by-night crap-merchant puts an 'all natural' label on it and sells it on late-night TV, it's a supplement.  The Metformin I take for my diabetes?  It's synthesized now, but it was a 'natural' cure originally, extracted from Lilac flowers.  Ooh, big pharma using a natural cure.  They're so evil.  It's so bad for me.  Now that it's synthesized instead of extracted from the actual flowers, it's no longer the same chemical, so it's bad bad bad.  Uh, no.  Wrong.

The very words used to frame the debate makes it clear to me that there isn't much science involved; just religion and politics.

Something being a drug doesn't make it bad.  Being a supplement doesn't make it good.  The reverse is also true, of course.  But we can't get to that point, because the supplement-supporters won't subject their pet drugs, oops, I mean supplements to rigorous scientific testing by independent testing facilities.  They claim efficacy they can't prove.  Do they work?  Maybe.  I'm sure in some cases, they do.  But frankly, I'm not shoving a bunch of pills down my throat because 'maybe' they work.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Bill Mattocks said:


> So much of the debate is framed on the basis of emotionally-laden buzzwords or terms that have no true descriptive value, that it makes me tend to believe it's about belief more than science.  It's a religion, folks.
> 
> Natural versus artificial.  What's natural, exactly?  What's artificial?  I hear terms like 'processed' and 'manufactured' to mean 'artificial', but truthfully, that doesn't mean much, or it means what you want it to mean.  And the assumption is that 'natural' means good and 'artificial' means bad.  I see some evidence of some positive effects from so-called natural foods, and some negative affects from so-called artificial foods, but not enough to make blanket condemnations or recommendations.  Organic poisons are natural; I'm not going to eat them.  Lab-grown meat, if it comes to commercial use (and it's starting to look possible) is most definitely artificial and I'll eat that with no problems.
> 
> Terms like 'big pharma'.  Yes, I get it, big companies make drugs intended to fix specific problems, and they have a huge vested interest in getting them sold.  There are also quite a few drugs sold that are made by 'big pharma' that simply save lives, and have no 'natural' counterpart.  Sure, there are people who believe that 'big pharma' just wants to kill people, and there are 'natural' alternatives for every drug that are just as effective.  They're wrong.  That's religion, not science, and deep down, they know it.  It's politics, it's religion, but it's not science.  I get that you hate big pharma.  I don't care.  It's colored your logic, and that makes you dangerously wrong.
> 
> Drugs versus supplements.  Drugs are bad.  Supplements are good.  What rubbish.  The two terms seem to mean, in use, that if big pharma makes it, it's a drug.  If a fly-by-night crap-merchant puts an 'all natural' label on it and sells it on late-night TV, it's a supplement.  The Metformin I take for my diabetes?  It's synthesized now, but it was a 'natural' cure originally, extracted from Lilac flowers.  Ooh, big pharma using a natural cure.  They're so evil.  It's so bad for me.  Now that it's synthesized instead of extracted from the actual flowers, it's no longer the same chemical, so it's bad bad bad.  Uh, no.  Wrong.
> 
> The very words used to frame the debate makes it clear to me that there isn't much science involved; just religion and politics.
> 
> Something being a drug doesn't make it bad.  Being a supplement doesn't make it good.  The reverse is also true, of course.  But we can't get to that point, because the supplement-supporters won't subject their pet drugs, oops, I mean supplements to rigorous scientific testing by independent testing facilities.  They claim efficacy they can't prove.  Do they work?  Maybe.  I'm sure in some cases, they do.  But frankly, I'm not shoving a bunch of pills down my throat because 'maybe' they work.



Well said, and for the most part I agree with you. 
Just a couple examples:
Alcohol, tobacco and cocaine are all natural. That doesn't make them any less destructive to the human body.
Levaquin is certainly not natural. But if I have a bacterial pneumonia, I'll sure take it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dirty Dog said:


> Well said, and for the most part I agree with you.
> Just a couple examples:
> Alcohol, tobacco and cocaine are all natural. That doesn't make them any less destructive to the human body.
> Levaquin is certainly not natural. But if I have a bacterial pneumonia, I'll sure take it.



I think a lot of people don't realize that 'big pharma' spends a lot of time and money researching 'traditional' and 'natural' cures and compounds in their search for something they can patent and sell.

There are problems with our current system; big ones.  Drug companies invest so much money into finding new drugs that are both safe and effective that they are much like the big movie companies; just a few failures and they're bankrupt.  So they pick and choose very carefully and that is not good.  They also tend to favor drugs that they can make a lot of money on before the patent runs out; that leaves them unlikely to investigate drugs which are not patented.  They've been dishonest in some cases, paying doctors to write medical papers, influencing the studies they run for FDA approval.  They don't want to invest in drugs for diseases not many people have.  All of these things are problems that need resolution.

The alternative, though is a patchwork of myth, legend, and popularity, companies of no provenance making god knows what, that fixes god knows what, and no one even sure that they contain what they say they contain, with little or no regulation. They can't promise safety, let alone efficacy.

I'd love to see real science done on many supplements; I'm sure there are some that would help many people.  But with out the science behind it, it's just politics and religion.  Very frustrating.


----------



## seasoned

Hey, you never know. Open that mind up............   

http://healthfinder.gov/

http://nccam.nih.gov/research/clinicaltrials/alltrials.htm


----------



## Nomad

Well said, Bill. 

Another very relevant point is that the vitamin and supplement industries are massive, multi-billion dollar a year industries with their own lobbyists and agendas. Sometimes they overlap with big pharma, other times they're in opposition to big pharma, but they're far from powerless "mom and pop" organizations. 

There's a reason that supplement manufacturers have been able to avoid the scrutiny of an FDA-like organization, and that's the fact that regulating supplements and making them prove efficacy will forfeit a huge chunk of this multi-billion dollar industry. 

Pharmaceuticals have to *Prove* both safety and efficacy on a particular human disease/illness or condition in order to make it to market in the first place, and they are very carefully regulated to ensure homogeneity of dose. Supplements don't have to meet any of these requirements, and for some reason are able to claim unproven health benefits based on very little evidence.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Nomad said:


> Well said, Bill.
> 
> Another very relevant point is that the vitamin and supplement industries are massive, multi-billion dollar a year industries with their own lobbyists and agendas. Sometimes they overlap with big pharma, other times they're in opposition to big pharma, but they're far from powerless "mom and pop" organizations.
> 
> There's a reason that supplement manufacturers have been able to avoid the scrutiny of an FDA-like organization, and that's the fact that regulating supplements and making them prove efficacy will forfeit a huge chunk of this multi-billion dollar industry.
> 
> Pharmaceuticals have to *Prove* both safety and efficacy on a particular human disease/illness or condition in order to make it to market in the first place, and they are very carefully regulated to ensure homogeneity of dose. Supplements don't have to meet any of these requirements, and for some reason are able to claim unproven health benefits based on very little evidence.



Yes.  I also have to point out that problems with 'big pharma' do not make the 'other side' automatically right, either, but it's often seen that way.

For example, if Obama lies, does that mean Romney is honest?  No, they're both liars.

Yet when 'Big Pharma' hires lobbyists and corrupts the system to get a certain drug approved so they can start making money on it, that is see as 'proof' that supplements are therefore safe and effective.  Balderdash.  They each have lobbyists, they each would do anything they can to sell their product, and some few on either side will bend or break the law to do so.  They are not two sides of the same coin, they're the same side of two different coins.


----------



## sfs982000

The documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"  covered the supplement subject.  It was very disturbing how loose the quality control was.  The gentleman that was filming the documentary showed just how easy it was to put together your own supplement brand out of your own home.
I work with a few guys that I lift with that are all hyped up about pre and post work out supplements, which after looking at the ingredients I'll just stick to a cup or two of strong coffee for a little pick me up before I work out.


----------



## punisher73

sfs982000 said:


> The documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" covered the supplement subject. It was very disturbing how loose the quality control was. The gentleman that was filming the documentary showed just how easy it was to put together your own supplement brand out of your own home.
> I work with a few guys that I lift with that are all hyped up about pre and post work out supplements, which after looking at the ingredients I'll just stick to a cup or two of strong coffee for a little pick me up before I work out.



I remember hearing someone talk about "bodybuilding supplements".  Basically, if it really worked the way they advertise it the FDA would make it illegal.  So, in reality, you are just wasting your money.  BB supplements are advertised by bodybuilders to make you look like they do in the magazines.  In reality, they don't follow the workout programs even listed in their articles and second, the only way to look like they do is to take the same dosages of Vitamin S  (steroids) that they do and hope you have the same genetics as them.  

The problem as I see it that hasn't been pointed out yet, is that supplements are just that, they SUPPLEMENT an already healthy diet.  If you eat like crap all the time, it won't matter what vitamins you take, your body can't really use them.  I try and eat healthy and take a one a day "just in case".  But, I don't expect miracles.

Also, many supplements are destroyed in the stomach or not broken down in time to be useful.  I think the test for a multivitamin is to put it in either coke/pepsi or vinegar and it should be completely dissolved in 10 minutes.  If not, then you're not using it at all if ingested.

I also agree with Mr. Mattocks post about "emotionally charged" words.  I remember seeing a show talking about the FDA and how bad they were.  They talked about how you can't say that a food "cures" any disease, then they point out that Vitamin C will "cure" scurvey.  They use one example that is true and then make the leap that ALL things can be "cured" by natural means alone, and that it will work for everyone.  That is what the FDA is trying to prevent (FDA does have issues on many things as well), people selling things as cures to people who really need to go see a doctor.


----------



## sfs982000

punisher73 said:


> I remember hearing someone talk about "bodybuilding supplements". Basically, if it really worked the way they advertise it the FDA would make it illegal. So, in reality, you are just wasting your money. BB supplements are advertised by bodybuilders to make you look like they do in the magazines. In reality, they don't follow the workout programs even listed in their articles and second, the only way to look like they do is to take the same dosages of Vitamin S (steroids) that they do and hope you have the same genetics as them.
> 
> The problem as I see it that hasn't been pointed out yet, is that supplements are just that, they SUPPLEMENT an already healthy diet. If you eat like crap all the time, it won't matter what vitamins you take, your body can't really use them. I try and eat healthy and take a one a day "just in case". But, I don't expect miracles.
> 
> Also, many supplements are destroyed in the stomach or not broken down in time to be useful. I think the test for a multivitamin is to put it in either coke/pepsi or vinegar and it should be completely dissolved in 10 minutes. If not, then you're not using it at all if ingested.
> 
> I also agree with Mr. Mattocks post about "emotionally charged" words. I remember seeing a show talking about the FDA and how bad they were. They talked about how you can't say that a food "cures" any disease, then they point out that Vitamin C will "cure" scurvey. They use one example that is true and then make the leap that ALL things can be "cured" by natural means alone, and that it will work for everyone. That is what the FDA is trying to prevent (FDA does have issues on many things as well), people selling things as cures to people who really need to go see a doctor.




The advertising side of bodybuilding supplements was also covered in "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"  where they interview some of the models for the supplement advertisements and they (the models) actually admitted to taking steroids.  As with anything it's always buyer beware when it comes to that stuff, the majority of the folks out there though are looking for some "magic pill" thats going to make them stronger, leaner, etc.... instead of taking their butts to the gym, working hard and cleaning up their diets.  As far as the supplements go, the only one I use personnally is a whey protein supplement, but I still try to get everything I need out of my diet.


----------



## cdunn

sfs982000 said:


> The documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster"  covered the supplement subject.  It was very disturbing how loose the quality control was.  The gentleman that was filming the documentary showed just how easy it was to put together your own supplement brand out of your own home.
> I work with a few guys that I lift with that are all hyped up about pre and post work out supplements, which after looking at the ingredients I'll just stick to a cup or two of strong coffee for a little pick me up before I work out.



They've been in the business of buying congressmen for a long time. Don't expect legislation for at least another generation.


----------



## K-man

Kinghercules said:


> See now this is where the argument dont make sense (not YOU in particular but in general).
> People always make this argument.
> 
> So you're sayin eatin fruits works _but_ juicin fruits, where you extract the pulp and have only the minerals, vitamins, flavonoids and phytochemicals, dosent work.
> Eatin fruits work but extractin the pulp and juice so you only have the powder form where you would have access to 100% of the phytochemicals and vitamins in that fruit wont work?  Seriously?
> 
> Eatin fruits and veggies is fine but when you are tryin to stop free radical damage (FRD), DNA damage, cancer tumors, Alzheimer's...etc, I say its not enough.  You have to counter cytotoxicity through oxidative stress      and     apoptosis.  Every time you step outside (for those of us that live in cities) you come in contact with 200 different chemicals that causes FRD.  To stop the damage you have to have at lest 10,000mg of VC (vitamin C) thru out the day.  How is it that lions, goats & horses dont get sick?  Their bodies produce 20,000mg of VC a day.  Humans cant produce VC in the body.
> 
> And again, as you can find articles that show vitamins dont work (never mind that it was from the Guardian)....I can find some that show they do.  From the  Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835284)
> 
> _Each 20 micromole/liter (&#956;mol/L) of vitamin  C in the blood reduced the heart failure death rate by nine percent. It  may take only 500 mgs of vitamin C to achieve 80 micromoles/liter.  Since  vitamin C is not produced by the human body, and absorption rates vary  among individuals, *it's apparent that taking more even more vitamin C is  a good heart health investment.*_
> ​


I didn't say that at all! Juicing fruit is fine. Probably the whole fruit may be marginally better and it certainly contains valuable roughage.  What I said was some supplements have been shown to be non effective (Vit C) and some positively harmful (Vit E). The commercial products that you buy are not obtained by "juicin" fruit.  Believe what you like!


----------



## K-man

punisher73 said:


> I remember hearing someone talk about "bodybuilding supplements".  Basically, if it really worked the way they advertise it the FDA would make it illegal.  So, in reality, you are just wasting your money.  BB supplements are advertised by bodybuilders to make you look like they do in the magazines.  In reality, they don't follow the workout programs even listed in their articles and second, the only way to look like they do is to take the same dosages of Vitamin S  (steroids) that they do and hope you have the same genetics as them.
> 
> The problem as I see it that hasn't been pointed out yet, is that supplements are just that, they SUPPLEMENT an already healthy diet.  If you eat like crap all the time, it won't matter what vitamins you take, your body can't really use them.  I try and eat healthy and take a one a day "just in case".  But, I don't expect miracles.
> 
> Also, many supplements are destroyed in the stomach or not broken down in time to be useful.  I think the test for a multivitamin is to put it in either coke/pepsi or vinegar and it should be completely dissolved in 10 minutes.  If not, then you're not using it at all if ingested.
> 
> I also agree with Mr. Mattocks post about "emotionally charged" words.  I remember seeing a show talking about the FDA and how bad they were.  They talked about how you can't say that a food "cures" any disease, then they point out that Vitamin C will "cure" scurvey.  They use one example that is true and then make the leap that ALL things can be "cured" by natural means alone, and that it will work for everyone.  That is what the FDA is trying to prevent (FDA does have issues on many things as well), people selling things as cures to people who really need to go see a doctor.


I am in agreement with you but would point out that technically Vit C 'prevents' scurvy. Scurvy occurs with a Vit C deficient diet. The Poms were/are called 'Limies' because they found that incorporating lime juice in the diet prevented their sailors going down with scurvy.  Scurvy is an ailment that can be reversed if Vit C is given but it doen't require grams of it.  Vitamin C is a water soluble vitamin so excess to requirements is excreted. (That leads to the expensive urine referred to in a previous post.). Vitamin A on the other hand is fat soluble and is not readily eliminated. Many Polar explorers died as a result of eating polar bear liver or even sled dogs as too much Vit A is toxic.

You are also right on the money when you speak of supplements being destroyed in the stomach or intestines. Glucosamine is one of those.


----------



## K-man

Kinghercules said:


> And again, as you can find articles that show vitamins dont work (never mind that it was from the Guardian)....I can find some that show they do.  From the  Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21835284)
> 
> _Each 20 micromole/liter (&#956;mol/L) of vitamin  C in the blood reduced the heart failure death rate by nine percent. It  may take only 500 mgs of vitamin C to achieve 80 micromoles/liter.  Since  vitamin C is not produced by the human body, and absorption rates vary  among individuals, *it's apparent that taking more even more vitamin C is  a good heart health investment.*_
> ​


You have quoted an article that backs up exactly what I said.  This was a trial done by increasing cellular Vit C by eating fruit and vegetables, not by giving supplements.  
*Abstract*

*BACKGROUND:*

Fruit and vegetable intake has been associated with lower risk for cardiovascular risk factors and disease, but data on heart failure are sparse and inconsistent. The association of plasma vitamin C, a biomarker reflecting fruit and vegetable intake, with heart failure has not been studied.
*METHODS:*

We examined the prospective association of plasma vitamin C concentrations with incident fatal and nonfatal heart failure events in apparently healthy 9,187 men and 11,112 women aged 39 to 79 years participating in the "European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition" study in Norfolk.
*RESULTS:*

The risk of heart failure decreased with increasing plasma vitamin C; the hazard ratios comparing each quartile with the lowest were 0.76 (95% CI 0.65-0.88), 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.81), and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.74) in age- and sex-adjusted analyses (P for trend <.0001). Every 20 &#956;mol/L increase in plasma vitamin C concentration (1 SD) was associated with a 9% relative reduction in risk of heart failure after adjustment for age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, occupational social class, educational level, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol concentration, and body mass index, with similar result if adjusting for interim coronary heart disease.
*CONCLUSIONS:*

Plasma vitamin C, a biomarker reflecting fruit and vegetable intake, was inversely associated with the risk of heart failure in this healthy population. This observation should be regarded as hypothesis generating for further prospective trials aimed at examining the effect of a diet rich in fruit and vegetables for prevention of heart failure.
Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.




You quoted some of the results then put your opinion on the end as if it was fact!  As I said, eating well to provide adequate nutritional value is what we should be doing.  Excessive intake of supplements is just that, excessive.


----------



## K-man

Thought I'd resurrect a thread from last year in light of new research. It just restates what many health professionals have been saying for years and the general population doesn't want to believe.

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/it-cant-hurt-right-wrong-20130228-2f70w.html



> Popping a vitamin pill or supplement is often seen as the simple preventative solution to illness. It's also pitched as the perfect pick-me-up for when we feel a little flat, stressed or fluey. While we take vitamins and supplements to improve our health, new research confirms they can be more of a hindrance than a help.
> 
> A longitudinal study of more than 60,000 elderly Swedish women found those who take calcium supplements in high doses may have a higher risk of heart disease and death. This is contrary to the popular belief that calcium supplementation is beneficial to the health of the elderly.
> 
> The study, published online in the British Medical Journal in February, found women who consume 1400 milligrams or more of calcium a day in tablet form, have more than double the risk of death from heart disease. In Australia the recommended daily intake for adults aged 51 years and over is 1300 mg a day in total.


.



> Last year, TIMES' reporter, John Cloud turned himself into a human guinea pig. Over five months he popped more than 3000 vitamin pills to see whether they worked.
> He had doctors compare his blood results before and after the experiment and found little changed.



:asian:


----------



## Dirty Dog

As I've said for years. Supplements are, generally speaking, nothing more than expensive urine.


----------



## K-man

Dirty Dog said:


> As I've said for years. Supplements are, generally speaking, nothing more than expensive urine.


Oh, so true!


----------



## Drasken

I always find it funny that people use suppliments. They talk about how expensive and hard it is to eat right. But have you seen the price of suppliments!?
If you eat the proper food, exercise and live a healthy lifestyle then you won't need suppliments in the first place.

The problem is that people don't do proper research on what they put into their body. And everyone is looking for the quick fix instead of doing things the way we all know we should. Quick fixes don't work often, and never in the long run. They only cause more problems, which we then look for more quick and easy fixes for. It's a vicious cycle.


----------



## seasoned

The people that take them, talk them up, the people that don't, talk them down. The food we are eating now-a-days is not as good nutritionally as it once was because of mass production. Start here.
Supplements are just that, an add on to a "regular" diet. A lot of diseases are a product of poor diets and unhealthy living habits.


----------



## K-man

seasoned said:


> The people that take them, talk them up, the people that don't, talk them down. The food we are eating now-a-days is not as good nutritionally as it once was because of mass production. Start here.
> Supplements are just that, an add on to a "regular" diet. A lot of diseases are a product of poor diets and unhealthy living habits.


I think this is not quite right.  Certainly people who take supplements talk them up. I don't think people who don't take supplements talk them down. There is no doubt that increasing pressure on agriculture to increase productivity has lead to a decline in the nutritional value of our staple food, but the evidence is that taking supplements to replace the lost nutrition does not achieve that benefit and in fact is potentially harmful.  

Nutritional supplements were are large part of the health industry when I was involved and initially I thought that it was a good idea to take your vitamin supplement. Vitamin C was the big spinner in the early days but when I investigated the claims, the evidence wasn't there so I became a sceptic.  Over the past 40 years, more and more scientific studies have emerged to demonstrate that supplements are more a means of transferring wealth from one section of the population to another, benefiting the advertising fraternity en route, than providing a benefit to the end user.

WRT your quote from *CC*'s thread. That is food fraud. Nothing to do with reduced nutritional value. People paying for a top quality product should be entitled to receive what they pay for.  

Another problem for countries like the US, South America and Australia, and to a lesser extent the EU, is the cost of production of quality foodstuffs. Increasing yields seems like a good thing until we then find that the nutritional value is reduced. Feeding grain to livestock, for example, may produce higher quality meat but at a greatly increased cost and a greatly increased demand for grain. Asian countries can produce food at lower cost and we are finding more and more Asian produce on our shelves. Nutritionally, the food is not as good as local produce, a situation that is exacerbated by storage and transport. Even worse is the way the foods are labeled, especially packaged product. (Some foods from China are produced in ways that are not permitted in other countries.)

Unfortunately, taking supplements to shore up the lack of nutrients in certain foods is being shown to be a waste of money or worse.  Perhaps that money could be better spent in increasing the nutritional value of the food in the first place.   :asian:


----------



## seasoned

K-man said:


> I think this is not quite right.  Certainly people who take supplements talk them up. I don't think people who don't take supplements talk them down.


At least we agree on half of it.  But, people that don't take supplements fall into two categories, (1) the ones that talk down supplements, (2) the ones that are oblivious, or just don't care. 




> There is no doubt that increasing pressure on agriculture to increase productivity has lead to a decline in the nutritional value of our staple food, but the evidence is that taking supplements to replace the lost nutrition does not achieve that benefit and in fact is potentially harmful.


Anywhere on the internet we can get any answer we want pertaining to the benefit of supplements. Vitamins as well as pharmaceuticals need to be taken per the label recommendations. Also with food, not in place of food.  




> Nutritional supplements were are large part of the health industry when I was involved and initially I thought that it was a good idea to take your vitamin supplement. Vitamin C was the big spinner in the early days but when I investigated the claims, the evidence wasn't there so I became a sceptic.  Over the past 40 years, more and more scientific studies have emerged to demonstrate that supplements are more a means of transferring wealth from one section of the population to another, benefiting the advertising fraternity en route, than providing a benefit to the end user.


The alternative is a vitamin depleted food product that in some cases is genetically modified. 




> WRT your quote from *CC*'s thread. That is food fraud. Nothing to do with reduced nutritional value. People paying for a top quality product should be entitled to receive what they pay for.


Food fraud yes, void of food value and nutritional content, yes again. Pertinent to the thread, maybe, as it boosts the need for an alternative, "safe guard", perhaps vitamins fill the bill.  



> Another problem for countries like the US, South America and Australia, and to a lesser extent the EU, is the cost of production of quality foodstuffs. Increasing yields seems like a good thing until we then find that the nutritional value is reduced. Feeding grain to livestock, for example, may produce higher quality meat but at a greatly increased cost and a greatly increased demand for grain. Asian countries can produce food at lower cost and we are finding more and more Asian produce on our shelves. Nutritionally, the food is not as good as local produce, a situation that is exacerbated by storage and transport. Even worse is the way the foods are labeled, especially packaged product. (Some foods from China are produced in ways that are not permitted in other countries.)


Do you suggest "genetically modified foods"?



> Unfortunately, taking supplements to shore up the lack of nutrients in certain foods is being shown to be a waste of money or worse.  *Perhaps that money could be better spent in increasing the nutritional value of the food in the first place.   *:asian:



Great idea, but until then.....................


----------



## K-man

seasoned said:


> At least we agree on half of it.  But, people that don't take supplements fall into two categories, (1) the ones that talk down supplements, (2) the ones that are oblivious, or just don't care.
> 
> and (3). Those that don't take them because of the evidence available to suggest it is not a good thing to do, in most cases.
> 
> Anywhere on the internet we can get any answer we want pertaining to the benefit of supplements. Vitamins as well as pharmaceuticals need to be taken per the label recommendations. Also with food, not in place of food.
> 
> Maybe. I would suggest there is scientific evidence and vested interest.
> 
> The alternative is a vitamin depleted food product that in some cases is genetically modified.
> 
> Many things are genetically modified. We have been doing that for hundreds of years. I am sure that genetic modification will have an important part in the future of world agriculture.  But there will have to be stringent safeguards in place. Just as pharmaceutical companies have not always been ethical and honest, the same could be said of companies working on genetic engineering.
> 
> Food fraud yes, void of food value and nutritional content, yes again. Pertinent to the thread, maybe, as it boosts the need for an alternative, "safe guard", perhaps vitamins fill the bill.
> 
> Escolar is not void of food value and nutritional content. However it can cause a type of oily diarrhoea in up to 50% of people eating it. If you are one of the 50% affected, vitamins will not help. The problem here is substituting a cheap fish when you are paying for an expensive one.
> 
> Do you suggest "genetically modified foods"?
> 
> In the context above, no, not GM.   Antibiotics and different types of fertiliser and pesticides mainly. Also toxic additives such as we had in baby formula some years back.



As I have said previously, I have been suckered along with many others in the past and I think I am pretty objective.  When big money is involved, it seems that a lot of 'reputable' people are tempted to perjure themselves. Once something hits the market with 'reputable' information testifying to it's fantastic properties, it is hard to get people to believe otherwise.   

The problem with vitamins and supplements is that they can be advertised with claims that don't have to be scientifically verified. We had one fraudster here that made a fortune selling dietary products that did nothing. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Foster 

But try telling people who bought his products that they didn't work.      :asian:


----------



## seasoned

Just for fun!

Try here.


----------



## K-man

seasoned said:


> Just for fun!
> 
> Try here.


Mmm!  Seems about right.    :asian:


----------

