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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (μmol/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]

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]

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 (μmol/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]

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]

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: