Final Thoughts
The whole idea behind this book, “Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? - Your Guide to Understanding Dietary Supplements” was to provide a critical look at the dietary supplement industry and the scientific evidence for (or against) the hundreds of supplement ingredients currently on the market – and to do so from a consumer’s perspective by providing education and guidance in deciding whether or not to try a given supplement.
Despite the large number of supplements outlined in the following chapters, this guide barely scratches the surface of the thousands of products presently available in the marketplace. As much as possible, I have attempted to distill the most directly relevant information about each supplement in an effort to clarify the primary (substantiated) benefit for a particular ingredient. In many cases, supplements may have overlapping indications, such as vitamin E, which has benefits in the heart, brain, eyes and skin – so although this book covers specific supplements in specific chapters, it is important to note that many “multi-function” supplements exist (see Master Supplement Chart for the extent of each overlap).
One final note needs to be made about the clear limitations of any book dealing with health, disease and self-care issues – that being the obvious fact that no two people are alike and that each person has specific health needs that must be addressed on an individual basis in consultation with his or her own health care provider. In no way should the information presented in this book be construed as medical advice or as an alternative to professional medical care. Instead, this book is meant as a first step in exposing the reader to the pros and cons of using dietary supplements as well as an attempt to raise the public awareness of the level of scientific substantiation behind these products – and the need for more research.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A version of this monograph can be found in A Guide to Understanding Dietary Supplements (Haworth Press) by Shawn M. Talbott, PhD.
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
Showing posts with label Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil. Show all posts
Monday, December 27, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? #5
Clearing up the Confusion
Within the past couple of years, several media outlets, public universities and private companies have started to address the growing public confusion surrounding dietary supplements. Unfortunately, much of the dietary supplement coverage in the popular press has only added to the confusion by raising hypothetical questions about the “dangers” of dietary supplements. It is clear from the scientific and medical literature, however, that the vast majority of dietary supplements, when used as directed, have an outstanding safety profile.
Private health education companies such as Supplement Watch (www.supplementwatch.com) have done a tremendous job of bringing the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) for various supplements from the research journals to the public. Both companies accomplish their mission of educating and guiding lay-consumers about the pros and cons of using dietary supplements – and they both do so with no financial ties to the supplement industry. Through the educational efforts of these and other organizations, consumers are achieving a higher degree of what I refer to as “open-minded skepticism” about which supplements may provide benefits, which ones seem to be ineffective, and which others may be downright dangerous.
From even a casual glance at the current state of the dietary supplement landscape, it is abundantly clear that we need far more research and scientific substantiation of product/ingredient claims. When asked the obvious question regarding “How much research is enough” for dietary supplements, however, it may well be that the answer will ultimately come from consumers and marketers, rather than from scientists. As reliably as the sun comes up each morning, scientists and health professionals will insist on “more” research for a particular supplement – a critically important position that will undoubtedly help to refine our understanding of the mechanisms by which supplements work (or don’t). Unfortunately, “more” research is not necessarily the most prudent approach when viewed in light of the market pressures under which supplement companies operate. From one viewpoint, “enough” research could be defined as that amount needed to convince a skeptical consumer to become a regular user.
For some of the most popular nutritional supplements (e.g. calcium/vitamin D for bone health) the evidence for benefits is so clearly established for certain populations that they should be “automatically” be included in the diet. For many other supplements, including most herbal supplements, the existing data is tantalizing enough to put some scientists and most self-care enthusiasts into the “might help” frame of mind – which means that many consumers will try the supplement before all the data is in. The final category where a handful of supplements reside is the neighborhood of “might hurt” – and primarily includes hormone precursors, glandular extracts, central nervous system stimulants and others with direct toxic effects on the liver, kidneys or other body systems. Unfortunately, this last category of supplements will continue to be available until educated consumers begin to assert their “open-minded skepticism” and demand that supplement manufacturers demonstrate that their products satisfy scientific standards for safety and efficacy. I hope that this book can be a part of that effort.
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com
Within the past couple of years, several media outlets, public universities and private companies have started to address the growing public confusion surrounding dietary supplements. Unfortunately, much of the dietary supplement coverage in the popular press has only added to the confusion by raising hypothetical questions about the “dangers” of dietary supplements. It is clear from the scientific and medical literature, however, that the vast majority of dietary supplements, when used as directed, have an outstanding safety profile.
Private health education companies such as Supplement Watch (www.supplementwatch.com) have done a tremendous job of bringing the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) for various supplements from the research journals to the public. Both companies accomplish their mission of educating and guiding lay-consumers about the pros and cons of using dietary supplements – and they both do so with no financial ties to the supplement industry. Through the educational efforts of these and other organizations, consumers are achieving a higher degree of what I refer to as “open-minded skepticism” about which supplements may provide benefits, which ones seem to be ineffective, and which others may be downright dangerous.
From even a casual glance at the current state of the dietary supplement landscape, it is abundantly clear that we need far more research and scientific substantiation of product/ingredient claims. When asked the obvious question regarding “How much research is enough” for dietary supplements, however, it may well be that the answer will ultimately come from consumers and marketers, rather than from scientists. As reliably as the sun comes up each morning, scientists and health professionals will insist on “more” research for a particular supplement – a critically important position that will undoubtedly help to refine our understanding of the mechanisms by which supplements work (or don’t). Unfortunately, “more” research is not necessarily the most prudent approach when viewed in light of the market pressures under which supplement companies operate. From one viewpoint, “enough” research could be defined as that amount needed to convince a skeptical consumer to become a regular user.
For some of the most popular nutritional supplements (e.g. calcium/vitamin D for bone health) the evidence for benefits is so clearly established for certain populations that they should be “automatically” be included in the diet. For many other supplements, including most herbal supplements, the existing data is tantalizing enough to put some scientists and most self-care enthusiasts into the “might help” frame of mind – which means that many consumers will try the supplement before all the data is in. The final category where a handful of supplements reside is the neighborhood of “might hurt” – and primarily includes hormone precursors, glandular extracts, central nervous system stimulants and others with direct toxic effects on the liver, kidneys or other body systems. Unfortunately, this last category of supplements will continue to be available until educated consumers begin to assert their “open-minded skepticism” and demand that supplement manufacturers demonstrate that their products satisfy scientific standards for safety and efficacy. I hope that this book can be a part of that effort.
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? #4
Does the Product Actually Work?
At this point in the evolution of dietary supplements, for better or worse, a simple structure/function claim is often enough “evidence” for enthusiastic “early adopters” to take the plunge and start using a new supplement – even though many aspects of safety and efficacy may not be fully addressed. As consumers become more highly educated, however, and learn to ask the “right” questions (about ingredients, dosages, and mechanisms) they will also become more skeptical (of product claims) and more demanding (for the actual clinical evidence from human studies), which will force supplement companies to conduct more research to prove their products to potential customers.
Only a handful of supplement companies take the initiative (and spend the money) to go beyond the basic structure/function claims and support their product or ingredient claims with solid research, including both safety/toxicity studies (in animals) and well-designed clinical trials (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies conducted in an appropriate population of human subjects). Anything less is clearly of questionable value from a scientific perspective and (hopefully) will soon be of little value from a marketing/business perspective as well.
Achieving the right balance between the business/marketing objectives of a supplement company and the scientific/regulatory considerations of a health professional or government agency is always a difficult task. On the one hand, government regulations are quite flexible in their allowance of claims that can be made for dietary supplements, so most companies are reluctant to commit large financial investments for research that can be “poached” by competitors. On the other hand, consumers of dietary supplements are beginning to ask for (demand) high-quality, well-controlled scientific evidence of a product’s safety and efficacy before they will make a purchase. The very idea of “science” as a compelling marketing tool has become quite popular within the past few years – and it is likely to become a much more important consideration as consumers become further educated about supplements and the supplements themselves become more sophisticated in their mechanism and mode of action.
Continued tomorrow
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com
At this point in the evolution of dietary supplements, for better or worse, a simple structure/function claim is often enough “evidence” for enthusiastic “early adopters” to take the plunge and start using a new supplement – even though many aspects of safety and efficacy may not be fully addressed. As consumers become more highly educated, however, and learn to ask the “right” questions (about ingredients, dosages, and mechanisms) they will also become more skeptical (of product claims) and more demanding (for the actual clinical evidence from human studies), which will force supplement companies to conduct more research to prove their products to potential customers.
Only a handful of supplement companies take the initiative (and spend the money) to go beyond the basic structure/function claims and support their product or ingredient claims with solid research, including both safety/toxicity studies (in animals) and well-designed clinical trials (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies conducted in an appropriate population of human subjects). Anything less is clearly of questionable value from a scientific perspective and (hopefully) will soon be of little value from a marketing/business perspective as well.
Achieving the right balance between the business/marketing objectives of a supplement company and the scientific/regulatory considerations of a health professional or government agency is always a difficult task. On the one hand, government regulations are quite flexible in their allowance of claims that can be made for dietary supplements, so most companies are reluctant to commit large financial investments for research that can be “poached” by competitors. On the other hand, consumers of dietary supplements are beginning to ask for (demand) high-quality, well-controlled scientific evidence of a product’s safety and efficacy before they will make a purchase. The very idea of “science” as a compelling marketing tool has become quite popular within the past few years – and it is likely to become a much more important consideration as consumers become further educated about supplements and the supplements themselves become more sophisticated in their mechanism and mode of action.
Continued tomorrow
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com
Friday, December 24, 2010
Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? #3
Reasons for the Confusion
The vast majority of American consumers, as much as 80% of the population, feel that they do not consume adequate levels of vitamins and minerals in their diets. National nutrition surveys tend to support this perception, with USDA statistics indicating that less than 1% of U.S. adults regularly consume 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily and more than 70% of the population fails to achieve even RDA levels for many vitamins and minerals. National and regional surveys clearly indicate that millions of American consumers are using dietary supplements on a regular basis. When queried regarding their reasons for selecting a particular supplement, however, responses tend gravitate towards the more general benefits such as, “for more energy,” or “as nutritional insurance” rather than for specific health concerns.
Over the past 3 decades, there has been an explosion in the amount of scientific evidence linking nutrition and health. Unfortunately, the sheer amount of nutrition information, and the conflicting health messages that are generated in response to each new study, serves only to compound the confusion faced by consumers. In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) established a framework for the U.S. regulation of dietary supplements. Depending on your perspective, DSHEA is either “good” because it enables the delivery of information to consumers that enables them to make their own decisions about supplements, or it is “bad” because it permits manufacturers and marketers to make unsubstantiated claims for particular ingredients based on their “structure” or “function” in the body (e.g. glucosamine for joints or amino acids for muscle building). The reality of the situation, is that DSHEA is neither “good” nor “bad” and consumers need to have at least a superficial understanding of the law in order to fully appreciate and evaluate the claims made for various supplements. For example, the types of “structure/function” claims permitted by DSHEA require little to no actual research – and a good biochemistry text is the only “tool” needed for generating many claims.
Finally, the popular press has perpetuated a common public misconception; that the dietary supplement industry is “unregulated.” The truth of the matter is that although the FDA does not expressly approve the introduction of specific supplements, there are numerous regulations in place that require FDA notification of new products, require product claims to be “clear and not misleading” and require companies to have adequate evidence of safety and efficacy for all products and ingredients. The “trick” of course, is that FDA has neither the resources nor the public mandate to aggressively police the claims language used to promote the hundreds of thousands of supplement products that are on the market.
Continued Tomorrow
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
The vast majority of American consumers, as much as 80% of the population, feel that they do not consume adequate levels of vitamins and minerals in their diets. National nutrition surveys tend to support this perception, with USDA statistics indicating that less than 1% of U.S. adults regularly consume 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables daily and more than 70% of the population fails to achieve even RDA levels for many vitamins and minerals. National and regional surveys clearly indicate that millions of American consumers are using dietary supplements on a regular basis. When queried regarding their reasons for selecting a particular supplement, however, responses tend gravitate towards the more general benefits such as, “for more energy,” or “as nutritional insurance” rather than for specific health concerns.
Over the past 3 decades, there has been an explosion in the amount of scientific evidence linking nutrition and health. Unfortunately, the sheer amount of nutrition information, and the conflicting health messages that are generated in response to each new study, serves only to compound the confusion faced by consumers. In 1994, the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act (DSHEA) established a framework for the U.S. regulation of dietary supplements. Depending on your perspective, DSHEA is either “good” because it enables the delivery of information to consumers that enables them to make their own decisions about supplements, or it is “bad” because it permits manufacturers and marketers to make unsubstantiated claims for particular ingredients based on their “structure” or “function” in the body (e.g. glucosamine for joints or amino acids for muscle building). The reality of the situation, is that DSHEA is neither “good” nor “bad” and consumers need to have at least a superficial understanding of the law in order to fully appreciate and evaluate the claims made for various supplements. For example, the types of “structure/function” claims permitted by DSHEA require little to no actual research – and a good biochemistry text is the only “tool” needed for generating many claims.
Finally, the popular press has perpetuated a common public misconception; that the dietary supplement industry is “unregulated.” The truth of the matter is that although the FDA does not expressly approve the introduction of specific supplements, there are numerous regulations in place that require FDA notification of new products, require product claims to be “clear and not misleading” and require companies to have adequate evidence of safety and efficacy for all products and ingredients. The “trick” of course, is that FDA has neither the resources nor the public mandate to aggressively police the claims language used to promote the hundreds of thousands of supplement products that are on the market.
Continued Tomorrow
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? #2
Widespread Confusion
Unfortunately, right along with the enthusiastic public acceptance of dietary supplements has also come a great deal of confusion. The dizzying array of product claims, marketing pitches and late night testimonials is understandably bewildering to consumers, health professionals and even nutritionists/dieticians. In many cases, a substantial percentage of potential supplement users (people who might have benefited from a judicious use of supplements), have instead become so confused that they’ve decided to forgo supplement usage at all.
This is unfortunate, because for many people, the regular use of certain nutritional supplements can be a cost-effective strategy for both promoting short-term health and reducing longer-term disease risks. A large and growing body of scientific evidence exists to show a clear health benefit of certain dietary supplements, such as calcium and vitamin D for bone health, folic acid for preventing neural tube defects, and B-complex vitamins for reducing the risk of heart disease. However, the relationship between other dietary supplements and purported health benefits is less clear, such as the equivocal evidence for the effects of vitamin E and fiber in preventing heart disease and colon cancer, respectively. Likewise, the scientific evidence is conflicting on the potential role of antioxidant nutrients, such as vitamin C, selenium and beta-carotene in the prevention of certain cancers and in slowing the very process of aging itself.
Continued tomorrow:
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
Unfortunately, right along with the enthusiastic public acceptance of dietary supplements has also come a great deal of confusion. The dizzying array of product claims, marketing pitches and late night testimonials is understandably bewildering to consumers, health professionals and even nutritionists/dieticians. In many cases, a substantial percentage of potential supplement users (people who might have benefited from a judicious use of supplements), have instead become so confused that they’ve decided to forgo supplement usage at all.
This is unfortunate, because for many people, the regular use of certain nutritional supplements can be a cost-effective strategy for both promoting short-term health and reducing longer-term disease risks. A large and growing body of scientific evidence exists to show a clear health benefit of certain dietary supplements, such as calcium and vitamin D for bone health, folic acid for preventing neural tube defects, and B-complex vitamins for reducing the risk of heart disease. However, the relationship between other dietary supplements and purported health benefits is less clear, such as the equivocal evidence for the effects of vitamin E and fiber in preventing heart disease and colon cancer, respectively. Likewise, the scientific evidence is conflicting on the potential role of antioxidant nutrients, such as vitamin C, selenium and beta-carotene in the prevention of certain cancers and in slowing the very process of aging itself.
Continued tomorrow:
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? #1
Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil?
This Preface is from my early text on dietary supplements - “Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? - Your Guide to Understanding Dietary Supplements” published by Haworth Press. There is some good information in this book - which has ben used as a college-level textbook in nutrition courses around the country and can be found in the reference section of most libraries.
Preface
Widespread Use of Supplements
At no other time in our history, has the public interest in “self-care” and the use of “natural” health remedies been so widespread. According to several public health surveys, as much as 50-60% of the American adult population consumes a dietary supplement on a regular basis. The reasons for the widespread use of supplements is addressed in other parts of this book, but it is abundantly clear that the era of using dietary supplements to promote health and reduce disease is here to stay.
Continued Tomorrow
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
This Preface is from my early text on dietary supplements - “Magic Bullets or Modern Snake Oil? - Your Guide to Understanding Dietary Supplements” published by Haworth Press. There is some good information in this book - which has ben used as a college-level textbook in nutrition courses around the country and can be found in the reference section of most libraries.
Preface
Widespread Use of Supplements
At no other time in our history, has the public interest in “self-care” and the use of “natural” health remedies been so widespread. According to several public health surveys, as much as 50-60% of the American adult population consumes a dietary supplement on a regular basis. The reasons for the widespread use of supplements is addressed in other parts of this book, but it is abundantly clear that the era of using dietary supplements to promote health and reduce disease is here to stay.
Continued Tomorrow
http://www.supplementwatch.com/SupplementWatch/Blog/Entries/2009/5/13_Magic_Bullets_or_Modern_Snake_Oil.html
www.DEPSYL.com
http://back2basicnutrition.com
http://bionutritionalresearch.olhblogspace.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
