Supplements

[Gumby]

I had a doctor tell me to switch from cod liver oil to fish oil because there are more toxins present in the liver (or something along those lines).  Is that just bad advice?  If you compare the labels on a bottle of fish oil vs cod liver oil there is very little to distinguish between them which makes it difficult for consumers to know which to choose.  I'd be interested to know if anyone has more info/opinions on this or could point me to a good resource.

It depends on where you get your cod liver oil from. Most probably aren't that great. Kresser (and WAPF) recommend Green Pasture/Blue Ice, as they make it fermented (without heat) using an age old traditional process and test for purity:

Purity Statement
Update on Cod Liver Oil Manufacturing, Returning to Traditional Production Techniques for the Quintessential Sacred Food

Basically, you need to do your research. Toxins are also typically stored in the fats of the animal so any fish oil needs to be vetted in the same way.

But, I don't think everyone needs to take Fermented Cod Liver Oil. It's just a natural-ish super-food way to get fat soluble vitamins A,D,E and K — you could just as well take those supplements separately if you wanted to. Many people just take FCLO seasonally, during the Winter, when it's harder to obtain those vitamins from foods/sun. And it's hard to get all your Vitamin D from FCLO, so many people have to supplement D a bit in addition to it.

[ns2]

6.  And I never understand statements like this one:

"I took fish oil for a long time (actually 1000mg krill oil) and the only thing I noticed was easy bruising and frequent purpura's on my forearms."

What benefits were you expecting?  For most supplements you will not notice any difference (unless you are treating a problem).  Your omega 3 to omega 6 levels should improve.

Claims made about krill oil are that it has anti-inflammatory effects and thus helps with arthritis and also lowers cholesterol. I did not experience either of those benefits. I did notice the purpura's stopped when I quit taking it.

As for long term effects, I guess the only way to measure is by doing studies and it seems to be the case with most long term supplement studies lately that they don't pan out.

[doodle]

As for safety of supplements....maybe this video will open your eyes. How about a couple of migrant workers mixing up supplements in some random guys kitchen and sneezing into the capsules?

Really, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1eqOHuGko&t=3m56s

[Pointedstick]

As for safety of supplements....maybe this video will open your eyes. How about a couple of migrant workers mixing up supplements in some random guys kitchen and sneezing into the capsules?

Really, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1eqOHuGko&t=3m56s

If I fabricated a situation where I hired people to hide explosives inside furniture as part of a documentary I was filming for the purpose of advocating regulation of the furniture industry, would that really do much to prove that the furniture industry needed regulation?

All I see is yet more advocacy for the positions that markets are inefficient, money is corrupting, regulation is good, consumers are stupid, producers are greedy and callous, etc. It's just the same old liberal central-planning argument that's been made for centuries.

[Benko]

It doesn't seem to me that the article is anti-supplement. 

Interesting, in large print above the article are the words:

"Opinion
Skip the Supplements"

I read the article (I quoted a factually incorrect sentence from it).

Jarrow brand and Now brands are both GMP.  Of course it is reasonable to expect that when you buy supplements that you are getting what you expect without adverse contaminants, etc.  If you buy from reliable brands e.g. the ones I've mentioned and other ones that I order from, these are non-issues.  There is at least one website that publishes tests on many brands of various supplements.

It is reasonable that hospitals only provide things that are safe to patients.

There are other relevant parts of the article:

"The real answer is that, until the day comes when medical studies prove that these supplements have legitimate benefits, and until the F.D.A. has the political backing and resources to regulate them like drugs, individuals should simply steer clear.

For too long, too many people have believed that dietary supplements can only help and never hurt. Increasingly, it’s clear that this belief is a false one."

So until there is proof to the gov't satisfaction, that supplements are effective, you should not take them.  Or We know best, you should listen to us (the gov't). 

And there are and will continue to be articles cherry picking examples of possible harm because we can't have the people controlling their own health.

[Gumby]

FWIW, I had my annual physical last week, and the MD told me to stop taking fish oil supplements because they are supposedly now linked to an increased incidence of prostate cancer.

Well, that's a bit of a mess. As usual, the science was weak...

http://examine.com/blog/fish-oil-and-your-prostate/

[Reub]

I'm sorry. I thought that this thread was about the value of supplements in general and not just how one's Omega 3/6 ratio could be altered via eating like a caveman.

What's up with the negative attitude? To understand supplementation, you need to understand Pericles's rule, in that the dose makes the poison. Too much of any supplement (Omega-3s included) can be toxic. So, we try to figure out how much of something we really need.

You've said in the past that you regularly take a lot of Fish Oil (I believe you've upped it to 4 grams/day). Well, this is relevant to you.

I'm sorry, Gumby! If you took as much fish oil as I do (now up to 6 capsules), you'd be grumpy too.

[Gumby]

I'm sorry. I thought that this thread was about the value of supplements in general and not just how one's Omega 3/6 ratio could be altered via eating like a caveman.

What's up with the negative attitude? To understand supplementation, you need to understand Pericles's rule, in that the dose makes the poison. Too much of any supplement (Omega-3s included) can be toxic. So, we try to figure out how much of something we really need.

You've said in the past that you regularly take a lot of Fish Oil (I believe you've upped it to 4 grams/day). Well, this is relevant to you.

I'm sorry, Gumby! If you took as much fish oil as I do (now up to 6 capsules), you'd be grumpy too.

No worries. I truly hope this doesn't stress you out. I didn't intend it to. I don't think you will cause yourself any problems over the short term. Keep in mind that Kresser doesn't totally shun Fish Oils. They do have a place for some people and situations.  If you are going to continue with Fish Oil, make sure it's a good one. He has a Fish Oil buyer's guide here:

http://chriskresser.com/the-definitive- ... yers-guide

[Mountaineer]

It looks like multi-vitamins are joining the fray!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/multivitami ... st-health/

For what ever it is worth, my doctor has consistently advised not to take multi-vitamins, fish oil, calcium citrate, glucosomine/condroitin - waste of money and some increased health risks.  Basically the only supplement he condones is vitamin D3, and that only if one does not get much sunshine.

[Reub]

I believe that most doctors are illiterate when it comes to supplements and see them as a threat to their authority.

[Reub]

Why Many Vitamin Studies Are Useless:

"The truth of the matter is that many — if not most — of vitamin studies are completely worthless, as they use isolated synthetic vitamins, or low quality multivitamin supplements loaded with toxic fillers and synthetic ingredients.

Study authors could use high-quality, food-based multivitamins without any fillers or harmful ingredients, but they generally do not."

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/why ... utely.html

[doodle]

As for safety of supplements....maybe this video will open your eyes. How about a couple of migrant workers mixing up supplements in some random guys kitchen and sneezing into the capsules?

Really, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1eqOHuGko&t=3m56s

If I fabricated a situation where I hired people to hide explosives inside furniture as part of a documentary I was filming for the purpose of advocating regulation of the furniture industry, would that really do much to prove that the furniture industry needed regulation?

All I see is yet more advocacy for the positions that markets are inefficient, money is corrupting, regulation is good, consumers are stupid, producers are greedy and callous, etc. It's just the same old liberal central-planning argument that's been made for centuries.

First, I would watch the whole documentary in which case you would see that it doesn't advocate for any side. Secondly, do you doubt that I can manufacture supplements in my basement and sell them? Was that fabricated? Is there any oversight regarding these products?

[Pointedstick]

First, I would watch the whole documentary in which case you would see that it doesn't advocate for any side. Secondly, do you doubt that I can manufacture supplements in my basement and sell them? Was that fabricated? Is there any oversight regarding these products?

It looks to me like the documentarian is providing it.

Or by "oversight", did you really mean, "government regulation?"

[doodle]

First, I would watch the whole documentary in which case you would see that it doesn't advocate for any side. Secondly, do you doubt that I can manufacture supplements in my basement and sell them? Was that fabricated? Is there any oversight regarding these products?

It looks to me like the documentarian is providing it.

Or by "oversight", did you really mean, "government regulation?"

So I can put any substance I want into a bottle under any conditions, tell you it will do all sorts of amazing things like get rid of your acne or make you lose weight without any testing or trials studies, use a bunch of misleading and false advertising to sway consumers, and sell it in a health food store?

[Pointedstick]

So I can put any substance I want into a bottle under any conditions, tell you it will do all sorts of amazing things like get rid of your acne or make you lose weight without any testing or trials studies, use a bunch of misleading and false advertising to sway consumers, and sell it in a health food store?

Why would you want to do that?

And if I believed everything you said without verifying any of it, what would that make me?

Thank goodness for documentarians who would expose your dastardly evil empire of low-quality nutritional supplements!

[Benko]

So I can put any substance I want into a bottle under any conditions, tell you it will do all sorts of amazing things like get rid of your acne or make you lose weight without any testing or trials studies, use a bunch of misleading and false advertising to sway consumers, and sell it in a health food store?

Choice A:  We allow stuff to be sold and let people decide for themselves
Choice B: we let gov't experts, you know like the people who designed the Obamacare website, decide what we can and can't choose from.

The gov't experts who are supposed to know better than we do are not infrequently just as corrupt (or the people who choose them are) than the people you would protect us from.  Or they have an agenda e.g. Solyndra. 

Bottom Line: Your Gov't cure is far worse than the disease.

[Reub]

Or the govt experts know that they have a cushy job waiting for them with the evil manufacturers if they play nice and so, well, they play nice.

BTW, a new study released today shows that vitamins and minerals reduce AIDS mortality:

http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources ... 9n29.shtml

"Here you have something truly interesting: In 1984, 1993 and 2004, studies showed that HIV patients taking vitamins are 50% less likely to develop full-blown AIDS, and that vitamin-taking AIDS patients live considerably longer, with far fewer symptoms.

Have you heard anything about this on TV, or in a newspaper or magazine? Or a college course? Or from your healthcare provider?

And now, in 2013, a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirms it yet again. In HIV-infected adults, "supplementation with a single supplement containing multivitamins and selenium was safe and significantly reduced the risk of immune decline and morbidity."

And this salient point from another source:

"The hidden agenda appears to be an effort to soften the public's support for dietary supplements so they can be over-regulated by the Food & Drug Administration, negating the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 that kept dietary supplements from being classified as drugs. The FDA has been trying to do that since the 1970's."

http://knowledgeofhealth.com/news-media ... nts-again/

Additionally regarding fish oil:

Omega-3s Reduce CVD Risk

"The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported in healthy individuals, plasma omega-3 fatty acid concentration is inversely related to high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) concentration, a surrogate marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (2009; DOI:10.1038/ejcn.2009.20). Hs-CRP is a marker of low-grade sustained inflammation and omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties and are associated with a reduced risk of CVD."

[doodle]

So I can put any substance I want into a bottle under any conditions, tell you it will do all sorts of amazing things like get rid of your acne or make you lose weight without any testing or trials studies, use a bunch of misleading and false advertising to sway consumers, and sell it in a health food store?

Why would you want to do that?

And if I believed everything you said without verifying any of it, what would that make me?

Thank goodness for documentarians who would expose your dastardly evil empire of low-quality nutritional supplements!

This is the problem with libertarians....they think people have the time and intelligence to become experts on everything. Most people don't have the time or inclination to do in depth research on every product they purchase. On top of that misleading or outright lying in advertising and bogus claims are allowed to sway consumers. People with erectile dysfunction, hair loss, acne, obesity are in a desperate situation and are ripe to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people. I would at least like to see an agency that verifies the claims that a products makes and if they are found to be bogus forbids them from being advertised in that manner. In addition there should be some standard of safety and verification of purity that applies to supplements.

[doodle]

I create a corporation to shield me from personal liability and manufacture supplements that contain all sorts of toxic metals and low standards of purity. I put them in flashy looking bottles and sell them at a discount supermarket to poor and undereducated people making all sorts of miraculous claims. Should this be allowed? What if I am slowly poisoning these people? They can sue my corporation, but I'm totally immune.

[Pointedstick]

This is the problem with libertarians....they think people have the time and intelligence to become experts on everything. Most people don't have the time or inclination to do in depth research on every product they purchase. On top of that misleading or outright lying in advertising and bogus claims are allowed to sway consumers. People with erectile dysfunction, hair loss, acne, obesity are in a desperate situation and are ripe to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.

The inverse is the problem with liberals: they think everyone is a clueless man-child… except for themselves, of course.

The truth is probably somewhere in between, as with most things in this life. Some people are gullible idiots who want something for nothing, and other people are clever and canny who can become well-informed on many topics.

The reason I prefer the libertarian attitude is because it at least has the potential to bring people toward being more informed and more responsible. The liberal attitude of, "people are so dumb! They need to be protected from their own dumb selves before they get hurt or taken advantage of!" does nothing to encourage people to become smart. In fact, it encourages and conditions people to expect stupidity and recklessness from others and themselves.

Trying to bubble-wrap the world might make sense from the short-term perspective of keeping people from hurting themselves, but in the long term, all it does is acclimate people to there being bubble wrap on every sharp corner. I think that's the wrong direction to go in. I think people need to be more responsible and more informed, and that's why I don't support social policies aimed at bailing people out of the consequences of failing to exercise good judgement, do basic research, or just freakin' think for a second or two.

And as usual, this all boils down to what kind of society we want to live in. I want to live in society where skill, intelligence, and thoughtfulness are rewarded, not one that encourages ignorance, carelessness, and mediocrity.

[doodle]

This is the problem with libertarians....they think people have the time and intelligence to become experts on everything. Most people don't have the time or inclination to do in depth research on every product they purchase. On top of that misleading or outright lying in advertising and bogus claims are allowed to sway consumers. People with erectile dysfunction, hair loss, acne, obesity are in a desperate situation and are ripe to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.

The inverse is the problem with liberals: they think everyone is a clueless man-child… except for themselves, of course.

The truth is probably somewhere in between, as with most things in this life. Some people are gullible idiots who want something for nothing, and other people are clever and canny who can become well-informed on many topics.

The reason I prefer the libertarian attitude is because it at least has the potential to bring people toward being more informed and more responsible. The liberal attitude of, "people are so dumb! They need to be protected from their own dumb selves before they get hurt or taken advantage of!" does nothing to encourage people to become smart. In fact, it encourages and conditions people to expect stupidity and recklessness from others and themselves.

Trying to bubble-wrap the world might make sense from the short-term perspective of keeping people from hurting themselves, but in the long term, all it does is acclimate people to there being bubble wrap on every sharp corner. I think that's the wrong direction to go in. I think people need to be more responsible and more informed, and that's why I don't support social policies aimed at bailing people out of the consequences of failing to exercise good judgement, do basic research, or just freakin' think for a second or two.

And as usual, this all boils down to what kind of society we want to live in. I want to live in society where skill, intelligence, and thoughtfulness are rewarded, not one that encourages ignorance, carelessness, and mediocrity.

Spoken like someone blessed with a great deal of intelligence. You obviously don't interact with many average people. I think you have maybe lost touch with what "average" means. For example, the people participating in this forum are probably in the 95th percentile of intelligence.

Also, truth in advertising and setting standards is not holding people's hands.

[doodle]

National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL)[edit]

The US D?partment of Education, Institute of Education Sciences has conducted large scale assessment of adult proficiency in 1992 and 2003 using a common methodology from which trends could be measured. The study measures Prose, Document, and Quantitative skills and 19,000 subjects participated in the 2003 survey. There was no significant change in Prose or Document skills and a slight increase in Quantitative attributes. As in 2008, roughly 15% of the sample could function at the highest levels in all three categories. Roughly 40% were at either basic or below basic levels of proficiency in all three categories.[2] The study identifies a class of adults who, although not meeting criteria for functional illiteracy, face reduced job opportunities and life prospects due to inadequate literacy levels relative to the requirements of contemporary society.

The study, the most comprehensive study of literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government, was released in April 2002 and reapplied in 2003 giving trend data. It involved lengthy interviews of over 90,700 adults statistically balanced for age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and location (urban, suburban, or rural) in 12 states across the U.S. and was designed to represent the U.S. population as a whole. This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." Further, this study showed that 41% to 44% of U.S. adults in the lowest level on the literacy scale (literacy rate of 35 or below) were living in poverty.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_i ... ted_States

[Benko]

The inverse is the problem with liberals: they think everyone is a clueless man-child… except for themselves, of course.

PS,

I would argue that Tyler pointed out the real problem with liberals in another thread:

More accurately, libertarianism poses a problem for environmental ideology (which is more interested in centrally planning the global economy than measurably improving the environment).

Helping the poor
Helping uninsured people get medical insurance
Protecting people from unscrupulous business people

These are all just facades, excuses to impose central planning.

[doodle]

Why don't we remove labeling positions from this discussion.

What I'm gathering is that you think it is okay to allow people to form a corporation to shield themselves from personal liability, create a product of untested safety or efficacy, advertise that it does a bunch of things that have not been verified at all, use false or misleading advertising to do so, and then depend on individual consumers to test the product out for themselves and figure out if it is safe or effective?

[Pointedstick]

Actually doodle, it might surprise you, but I do have a reasonable amount of contact with "average" people.

Like the woman with chronic money problems who got arrested for DUI a few weeks ago and now can't afford a new battery for her broken-down car.

Like the man with a drug and alcohol problem he doesn't admit, who has difficulty keeping a job, and who got his girlfriend pregnant at 16.

I get it, doodle. Some people are stupid. Some people make really bad decisions. Some people don't think very well or have emotional or psychological problems that prevent them from living a low-stress life. I get it. I'm not some kind of utopian dreamer who believes we can all be above average in Lake Woebegone or that society could ever be populated entirely by smart people.

Rather, I do not believe it is actually possible to help dumb people through laws and regulations. In the cosmic sense, they are the weak, and the strong are taking advantage of them, like they have always done throughout the history of all life. The problem with trying to  curb the strong through government is that it requires another strong organization, and even when it succeeds (which is not by any means guaranteed), it can easily become the new oppressor itself, either willfully or accidentally.

The only solution for the weak being taken advantage of by the strong is for the weak to get more strength. And I believe very passionately in this principle. Efforts to protect the weak do nothing to improve their strength and in fact can detract from it by making them dependent on a different group of the strong.


In other words, when I see some people being oppressed by other people, I think it makes more sense to help the oppressed resist the oppression far more than it makes sense to try to beat down the oppressors. Oppressors are a clever bunch, and in trying to conquer them,  you might morph into one yourself before you even realize it.