[No message]
a site page everyone here should read..
- Thread starter shimmering
- Start date
Haha, and a very good article it is. I have noticed a lot of these things myself, but as a self-declared "vitamin pusher", I'd be remiss if I didn't say something in our defense.
This is 100% true and I have no arguments with this one. Ethical supplement retailers will tell you supplements are there to help you reach your goals, they don't make the foundation of a healthy lifestyle.
Vitamins won't help the problems with the American diet, it's true. The problems include nutrient sources that contain too many sugars, too many fats, and too much cholesterol. So the average American isn't poorly nourished in the sense that they don't get enough nutrients, they're poorly nourished in the sense they get their nutrients from unhealthy sources.
Supplements (though not necessarily vitamins) can help combat the health issues that arise from this poor eating.
So does the American Medical Association. Fancy that!
Chiropractors think that all diseases can be traced back to the spine and can be treated by spinal adjustments. This is total quackery.
It is quackery to say that it removes all nutrients, but it definitely removes a great deal. White rice, for example, is a product of modern processing that removes the outer fibrous casing of normally brown rice.
I don't see why this was included really because the enriched food is filled with supplemental vitamins.
Though it should be noted that not everyone buys enriched foods.
I don't know anyone who claims this much anymore. In the 1970's a study came out linking hyperactivity to food additives, but this has been discredited for over 20 years now.
Anyone who makes such claims is, indeed, a quack.
I'm on the fence about this one because I really don't know. Flouridation of water is supposed to be one of the great medical enhancements of the last century because it's supposed anti-cavity protection. What you don't usually hear is that unflouridated areas have a lower occurrence of calories that flouridated places.
In April of 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, the head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, apologized for 15 years of supporting water flouridation in Canada. You can read the full details here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
Flouride, like mercury, is a toxin that accumulates throughout your lifetime in your body and causes problems in your later years.
There is roughly the same amount of evidence on both sides of the camp supporting and villifying water flouridation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes and certifies the safety and nutritional value of organic foods.
A quote from the chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri:
"A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception."
Not true - of course I've never had to run into this personally because I've never sold organic foods myself. It's worth noting however that every few years, another food additive/preservative is taken off the market for being dangerous or carcinogenic due to limitations in research prior to release of the additive.
The government raises the USRDA frequently which in its own right is evidence that historically the US has shown its own recommended nutritional values to be underestimated.
For everday stress, no. Pure quackery. It would have to be far more extreme, and even then, therapy and rest is a better solution.
Again, the AMA does the same thing
Are we supposed to not believe them? Or, rather, why don't you?
I do however agree that your normal food groups are key to good health. Most Americans get too many fats and not enough fruits and vegetables, however.
When you get a nutrient in its natural form, you're getting it with synergistic nutrients that improve the absorption and utilization of that nutrient. This is a well researched fact.
When you get a nutrient in pill form, you aren't guaranteed an adequate delivery system because those synergist nutrients may not be present. That is why the U.S. government issues patents to supplement manufacturers for effective nutrient delivery systems.
I've never encountered this, but it does sound pretty stupid.
It is easy to lose weight! But no ethical supplement retailer will tell you that a pill is the end-all to weight loss. It's there to help you, not fix the problem entirely. Weight loss usually requires a lifestyle change, healthy eating, and regular exercise.
Here you deal with people who give the industry a bad name - the kind you see spamming, etc. In reality most weight loss supplements are made of a few select ingredients. Generally they're thermogenics using caffeine, synephrine, and until recently, ephedra.
These can help, but their contribution is minimal -- especially in spite of the fundamentals of a good diet and active lifestyle.
This is definitely quackery. Again, no ethical retailer will tell you this about the majority of their lines, except for in the case of certain supplements (many of which are no longer legal, unfortunately, like M-One-T, Ephedra). Some do have quick, dramatic results - but in the case of most nutrients the results come in the form of homeostasis, and in the case of all herbs, it can take months for results to be forthcoming.
This is just a stupid criteria for quackery. It's more an unfortunate side effect of quackery than an indication of it.
The FDA doesn't allow supplement retailers and manufacturers to make any curative claims. Pseudo-anything jargon is a side-effect of any retail business where you have to deal with laymen.
However I will say this - the majority of supplement retailers do not know the scientific principles behind some of their products (and in some cases, most of their products) and tend to rely on anecdotal evidence from professionals they've worked with in the past. Because nutritional supplements are generally considered safe when used as recommended, there is little oversight as far as necessary training to dispense them (unlike in the case of retail pharmacy). Therefore, you end up with vendors relying on unreliable or unfounded information.
On the flipside, many supplement retailers know a great deal about what they're selling, and trust them enough to spend their own money generously on them.
Unfortunately, these are what sells! Customers don't rely on scientific research as much as they do real life stories.
As far as how the author elaborates - almost every supplement in the market right now has research to support it, and most of them double-blind clinical trials. At the same time, there are studies that refute the effectiveness of supplements. It becomes largely a personal decision on which studies to believe at that point.
I've never heard this one. It is true, however, that the average American gets more sugar in their diet than is recommended by the FDA.
Right, like phD's. It's true that you don't need accreditation to sell or manufacture nutritional supplements -- but supplementation is supported by a strong segment of the scientific and medical community. It is certainly not the majority, but then, nutritional supplements aren't decried by the majority either.
Again, see above, I've never heard of this. This would definitely be quackery.
Given the number of injustices and the amount of quackery by the pharmaceutical and medical industries (don't forget that they are industries, especially in a country without universal health care), I do believe this strongly.
Several years back, big pharma sued to pull Red Yeast Rice from the market because its natural composition was too similar to an anti-cholesterol supplement they manufactured. Up until recent bioprospecting laws went into effect, pharmaceutical companies were regularly guilty of biopiracy.
When nutritional supplement manufacturers find a natural way to treat a condition that is cheaper and has fewer side effects than a money-making pharmaceutical drugs, it's in their entire industry's best interests to discredit the supplement.
"Any physician who found a vitamin or other preparation that could cure sterility, heart disease, arthritis, cancer, or the like, could make an enormous fortune."
And many do. Unfortunately, there's more money in pharmaceuticals because of patents on drug formulations.
Read these articles about doctors written by a doctor:
Doctors are 3rd Leading Cause of Death in US
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
Why Death Rates Decrease When Doctors Go on Strike
http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/26/doctors_death.htm
I again don't see why this is indicative of quackery, but I know it happens and I do it myself.
CONCLUSION
There are a lot of quacks out there in EVERY field of health. Don't be hating.
This is 100% true and I have no arguments with this one. Ethical supplement retailers will tell you supplements are there to help you reach your goals, they don't make the foundation of a healthy lifestyle.
Vitamins won't help the problems with the American diet, it's true. The problems include nutrient sources that contain too many sugars, too many fats, and too much cholesterol. So the average American isn't poorly nourished in the sense that they don't get enough nutrients, they're poorly nourished in the sense they get their nutrients from unhealthy sources.
Supplements (though not necessarily vitamins) can help combat the health issues that arise from this poor eating.
So does the American Medical Association. Fancy that!
Chiropractors think that all diseases can be traced back to the spine and can be treated by spinal adjustments. This is total quackery.
It is quackery to say that it removes all nutrients, but it definitely removes a great deal. White rice, for example, is a product of modern processing that removes the outer fibrous casing of normally brown rice.
I don't see why this was included really because the enriched food is filled with supplemental vitamins.
Though it should be noted that not everyone buys enriched foods.
I don't know anyone who claims this much anymore. In the 1970's a study came out linking hyperactivity to food additives, but this has been discredited for over 20 years now.
Anyone who makes such claims is, indeed, a quack.
I'm on the fence about this one because I really don't know. Flouridation of water is supposed to be one of the great medical enhancements of the last century because it's supposed anti-cavity protection. What you don't usually hear is that unflouridated areas have a lower occurrence of calories that flouridated places.
In April of 1999, Dr. Hardy Limeback, the head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, apologized for 15 years of supporting water flouridation in Canada. You can read the full details here:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
Flouride, like mercury, is a toxin that accumulates throughout your lifetime in your body and causes problems in your later years.
There is roughly the same amount of evidence on both sides of the camp supporting and villifying water flouridation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes and certifies the safety and nutritional value of organic foods.
A quote from the chairman of the Department of Soils at the University of Missouri:
"A declining soil fertility, due to a lack of organic material, major elements, and trace minerals, is responsible for poor crops and in turn for pathological conditions in animals fed deficient foods from such soils, and that mankind is no exception."
Not true - of course I've never had to run into this personally because I've never sold organic foods myself. It's worth noting however that every few years, another food additive/preservative is taken off the market for being dangerous or carcinogenic due to limitations in research prior to release of the additive.
The government raises the USRDA frequently which in its own right is evidence that historically the US has shown its own recommended nutritional values to be underestimated.
For everday stress, no. Pure quackery. It would have to be far more extreme, and even then, therapy and rest is a better solution.
Again, the AMA does the same thing
Are we supposed to not believe them? Or, rather, why don't you?I do however agree that your normal food groups are key to good health. Most Americans get too many fats and not enough fruits and vegetables, however.
When you get a nutrient in its natural form, you're getting it with synergistic nutrients that improve the absorption and utilization of that nutrient. This is a well researched fact.
When you get a nutrient in pill form, you aren't guaranteed an adequate delivery system because those synergist nutrients may not be present. That is why the U.S. government issues patents to supplement manufacturers for effective nutrient delivery systems.
I've never encountered this, but it does sound pretty stupid.
It is easy to lose weight! But no ethical supplement retailer will tell you that a pill is the end-all to weight loss. It's there to help you, not fix the problem entirely. Weight loss usually requires a lifestyle change, healthy eating, and regular exercise.
Here you deal with people who give the industry a bad name - the kind you see spamming, etc. In reality most weight loss supplements are made of a few select ingredients. Generally they're thermogenics using caffeine, synephrine, and until recently, ephedra.
These can help, but their contribution is minimal -- especially in spite of the fundamentals of a good diet and active lifestyle.
This is definitely quackery. Again, no ethical retailer will tell you this about the majority of their lines, except for in the case of certain supplements (many of which are no longer legal, unfortunately, like M-One-T, Ephedra). Some do have quick, dramatic results - but in the case of most nutrients the results come in the form of homeostasis, and in the case of all herbs, it can take months for results to be forthcoming.
This is just a stupid criteria for quackery. It's more an unfortunate side effect of quackery than an indication of it.
The FDA doesn't allow supplement retailers and manufacturers to make any curative claims. Pseudo-anything jargon is a side-effect of any retail business where you have to deal with laymen.
However I will say this - the majority of supplement retailers do not know the scientific principles behind some of their products (and in some cases, most of their products) and tend to rely on anecdotal evidence from professionals they've worked with in the past. Because nutritional supplements are generally considered safe when used as recommended, there is little oversight as far as necessary training to dispense them (unlike in the case of retail pharmacy). Therefore, you end up with vendors relying on unreliable or unfounded information.
On the flipside, many supplement retailers know a great deal about what they're selling, and trust them enough to spend their own money generously on them.
Unfortunately, these are what sells! Customers don't rely on scientific research as much as they do real life stories.
As far as how the author elaborates - almost every supplement in the market right now has research to support it, and most of them double-blind clinical trials. At the same time, there are studies that refute the effectiveness of supplements. It becomes largely a personal decision on which studies to believe at that point.
I've never heard this one. It is true, however, that the average American gets more sugar in their diet than is recommended by the FDA.
Right, like phD's. It's true that you don't need accreditation to sell or manufacture nutritional supplements -- but supplementation is supported by a strong segment of the scientific and medical community. It is certainly not the majority, but then, nutritional supplements aren't decried by the majority either.
Again, see above, I've never heard of this. This would definitely be quackery.
Given the number of injustices and the amount of quackery by the pharmaceutical and medical industries (don't forget that they are industries, especially in a country without universal health care), I do believe this strongly.
Several years back, big pharma sued to pull Red Yeast Rice from the market because its natural composition was too similar to an anti-cholesterol supplement they manufactured. Up until recent bioprospecting laws went into effect, pharmaceutical companies were regularly guilty of biopiracy.
When nutritional supplement manufacturers find a natural way to treat a condition that is cheaper and has fewer side effects than a money-making pharmaceutical drugs, it's in their entire industry's best interests to discredit the supplement.
"Any physician who found a vitamin or other preparation that could cure sterility, heart disease, arthritis, cancer, or the like, could make an enormous fortune."
And many do. Unfortunately, there's more money in pharmaceuticals because of patents on drug formulations.
Read these articles about doctors written by a doctor:
Doctors are 3rd Leading Cause of Death in US
http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
Why Death Rates Decrease When Doctors Go on Strike
http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/26/doctors_death.htm
I again don't see why this is indicative of quackery, but I know it happens and I do it myself.
CONCLUSION
There are a lot of quacks out there in EVERY field of health. Don't be hating.
actually i agree with a lot of what Fil said, i dont mean the article to be the end all on supplements but.. the vast majority of the claims listed in that article are still used regularily today - just open any healthfood or workout magazine. even this site has links to places selling pills under similar promises. i've been following nutritional trends since the mid 70's and these types of claims never really change, only the names of the supplement.
and i realize that lot's of people here will believe what they want to even if it flies in the face of science and common sense, but i just wanted some of you to read the article, and see how marketing has produced the vitamin/supplement industry we have today. think and research before you plunk down your $ for the latest "nutrient" in pill form that is going to help you "drop the pounds", "have more energy", and replace all the "nutrients your diet is lacking".
also, i agree with some of the comments about the medical industry. one of the problem as i see it is that doctors are trained to relieve the symptoms caused by the problems of people's overeating and lack of exercise - often with drugs. they dont fix the root of the problem, which is the afformentioned over indulgence and laziness. of course people choose to do what they do, doctors cant be expected to change people's personal habits i suppose. and as someone who works around doctors fairly often, i can tell you that some are definitely better than others.
and i realize that lot's of people here will believe what they want to even if it flies in the face of science and common sense, but i just wanted some of you to read the article, and see how marketing has produced the vitamin/supplement industry we have today. think and research before you plunk down your $ for the latest "nutrient" in pill form that is going to help you "drop the pounds", "have more energy", and replace all the "nutrients your diet is lacking".
also, i agree with some of the comments about the medical industry. one of the problem as i see it is that doctors are trained to relieve the symptoms caused by the problems of people's overeating and lack of exercise - often with drugs. they dont fix the root of the problem, which is the afformentioned over indulgence and laziness. of course people choose to do what they do, doctors cant be expected to change people's personal habits i suppose. and as someone who works around doctors fairly often, i can tell you that some are definitely better than others.
I had a grand time reading your rebuttal, Fil!