Pharmaceuticals or Supplements ?

After reading many potential detrimental outcomes of *certain* supplements, I'm wondering :

Would it be best to supplement drugs (and I talking across a wide range here, I'm not being specific for a given system) i.e. Aminoguanidine, Deprenyl etc...over diatery supplements ?


Granted, pharmaceutical drugs can also have side-effects, and often acute ones, but at least there has been controlled clinical trial performed on humans, and usually although not invariably, side-effects are known to be expected in a dose relationship. I'm aware that there are some side-effects listed as mild for some drugs that can prove acute in some individuals.

I've been wondering about this for a good while now, and this is an idea I thought I'd throw here to get the pulse of the community on here.

The idea being, after weighing long-term pros and cons, is it best to favor drugs working on the so far elucidated mechanisms of aging over supps ?

Also, I recall vividly having been told by an ER doctor that 90% of pharmaceutical drugs when used long-term prove to be sh**. That one the opinion of 1 M.D., but still, he knows more than I do, so it remained printed on my mind since then (2 years ago).

Thanks

After reading many potential detrimental outcomes of *certain* supplements, I'm wondering :

Would it be best to supplement drugs (and I talking across a wide range here, I'm not being specific for a given system) i.e. Aminoguanidine, Deprenyl etc...over diatery supplements ?


Granted, pharmaceutical drugs can also have side-effects, and often acute ones, but at least there has been controlled clinical trial performed on humans, and usually although not invariably, side-effects are known to be expected in a dose relationship. I'm aware that there are some side-effects listed as mild for some drugs that can prove acute in some individuals.

I've been wondering about this for a good while now, and this is an idea I thought I'd throw here to get the pulse of the community on here.

The idea being, after weighing long-term pros and cons, is it best to favor drugs working on the so far elucidated mechanisms of aging over supps ?

Also, I recall vividly having been told by an ER doctor that 90% of pharmaceutical drugs when used long-term prove to be sh**. That one the opinion of 1 M.D., but still, he knows more than I do, so it remained printed on my mind since then (2 years ago).

Thanks

It seems the best answer is: it depends. It seems if you have grapefruit (inhibitor of CYP3A4) in your diet -- you may need to be aware of all drugs, foods, or supplements that are in your diet that involve cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4). A recent study published in The British Journal of Cancer found that women who had grapefruit in their diet had about 30% higher incidence of breast cancer -- here's the abstract -- but first, some general introductory information on the primary source, The British Journal of Cancer, a publication of Cancer Research UK:

British Journal of Cancer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The British Journal of Cancer a twice-monthly professional medical journal of Cancer Research UK (a registered charity in the United Kingdom), published on their behalf by the Nature Publishing Group (a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd).

The British Journal of Cancer (BJC) provides a forum for clinicians and scientists to communicate original research findings that have relevance to understanding the etiology of cancer and to improving patient treatment and survival. BJC works with a team of international experts to ensure high standards of selection and review. Once accepted, papers are published in print and online.

Full research papers and short communications are published under five broad headings:

o clinical studies
o translational therapeutics
o molecular diagnostics
o genetics and genomics
o epidemiology

The abstract:

British Journal of Cancer advance online publication 10 July 2007; doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603880 www.bjcancer.com

Prospective study of grapefruit intake and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: the Multiethnic Cohort Study

K R Monroe1, S P Murphy2, L N Kolonel2 and M C Pike1

1Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9175, USA

2Cancer Research Center of Hawaii, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA

Correspondence to: Dr KR Monroe, USC/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Avenue (MS# 44), Los Angeles, CA 90089-9175, USA. E-mail: kmonroe@usc.edu

Received 30 April 2007; revised 11 June 2007; accepted 19 June 2007; published online 10 July 2007

In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is involved in the metabolism of oestrogens. There is evidence that grapefruit, an inhibitor of CYP3A4, increases plasma oestrogen concentrations. Since it is well established that oestrogen is associated with breast cancer risk, it is plausible that regular intake of grapefruit would increase a woman's risk of breast cancer. We investigated the association of grapefruit intake with breast cancer risk in the Hawaii-Los Angeles Multiethnic Cohort Study, a prospective cohort that includes over 50 000 postmenopausal women from five racial/ethnic groups. A total of 1657 incident breast cancer cases were available for analysis. Grapefruit intake was significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (relative risk=1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.58) for subjects in the highest category of intake, that is, one-quarter grapefruit or more per day, compared to non-consumers (Ptrend=0.015). An increased risk of similar magnitude was seen in users of oestrogen therapy, users of oestrogen+progestin therapy, and among never users of hormone therapy. Grapefruit intake may increase the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women.

Keywords: breast cancer; grapefruit intake; CYP3A4 metabolism

BBC News reported on this study, you can view the report by clicking here; a relevant excerpt:

A study of 50,000 post-menopausal women found eating just a quarter of a grapefruit daily raised the risk by up to 30%.

The reason I am trying informing you of this particular incidence is because it's just one example of how a single element of your diet can make such a big difference in increasing your chance of getting a deadly disease like cancer.

Just because a drug is synthetic (or unnatural) won't necessarily make it worse -- or better. It just depends. An excellent example might be asprin.

There are more reasons and benefits to working with a licensed physician than simply getting legal access to prescription drugs (well, a US MD can prescribe drugs -- it seems NDs and DCs cannot). In addition, to retain a license, a medical doctor must continue his or her medical education though CME. A licensed doctor can also write up the scrips to get lab work done to find out the status of your functioning organs (i.e. a complete blood count, differential/platelets, comprehensive metabolic panel, heavy metals, testosterone [if you're male], hgh, thyroid, there's more, these are just off the top of my head). If you're relying on anecdotal evidence gathered from internet forums instead of guidance of a licensed professional, I would call that playing Russian roulette with your health.

Click here to view what Dr. Wollschlaeger offers his patients in his "Total Health Physicals." I might suggest reviewing that and perhaps even printing that out and asking your doctor to perform the same analyzes, if possible.

Anyways, to finish answering your question -- again, I'd say it depends. Whether or not a substance is natural or not won't automatically make it safer or not. Hemlock is natural, but killed Socrates.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

After reading many potential detrimental outcomes of *certain* supplements, I'm wondering :

Would it be best to supplement drugs (and I talking across a wide range here, I'm not being specific for a given system) i.e. Aminoguanidine, Deprenyl etc...over diatery supplements ?

You can't be serious.

"After reading many potential detrimental outcomes "

***POTENTIAL***

The glass is not only half empty, but it is broken and the sharp ends might cut one.

Not that there are not issues that need resolving, but again FOR YOU..

After reading many potential detrimental outcomes of *certain* supplements, I'm wondering :

Would it be best to supplement drugs (and I talking across a wide range here, I'm not being specific for a given system) i.e. Aminoguanidine, Deprenyl etc...over diatery supplements ?

You can't be serious.

"After reading many potential detrimental outcomes "

***POTENTIAL***

The glass is not only half empty, but it is broken and the sharp ends might cut one.

Not that there are not issues that need resolving, but again FOR YOU..

I think the reason why I asked this question is I've recently followed supplement related discussions more on this forum, and have become aware of the potential dangers of some of these i.e. NAC recently. Thus, I'm more and more of same opinion as Adam and many others I think that natural vs unatural, doesn't necessarily means more harm or not, it just depends on the substance--the instance of grapefruit is a god one, of which I was aware, and this is not something which in my diet.

I admit however that in practice supplements appear to have harmed less people than pharmaceutical drugs--at least this is what I read.


I'm constantly learning, and since I do not have any medical training (yet) I find those issue more complicated than you do, definately. I'm not familiar with a lot of things regarding medical science, although I'm still learning and eager to.


I'm doing better Scott anxiety wise, and this makes a large difference in many contexts and obviously comes as a relief to me.

Thanks Adam, your post confirmed what I expected the answer to be. By asking, I simply wanted to see if others like me were of the same opinion--I'm here to learn.
I'll have a look at the URL you posted later on today, as I need to hit the road now.

It's good to hear from you Scottl Zoolander and others' with experience--experience cannot be beat.

The amount of people harmed by usual and customary use of dietary supps (excluding silly weight loss products) is VERY VERY low and the amount of hysteria about possible molecular harm high.

EDIT: I'm talking about health promoting supps here. it is certainly possible to mess with one's neurotransmitters with supps and do harm to one. Nootropes are a diff category and not what I'm referring to.

OTOH thanks for the inspiration for a new signature.

After reading many potential detrimental outcomes of *certain* supplements, I'm wondering :

Would it be best to supplement drugs (and I talking across a wide range here, I'm not being specific for a given system) i.e. Aminoguanidine, Deprenyl etc...over diatery supplements ?


Granted, pharmaceutical drugs can also have side-effects, and often acute ones, but at least there has been controlled clinical trial performed on humans, and usually although not invariably, side-effects are known to be expected in a dose relationship. I'm aware that there are some side-effects listed as mild for some drugs that can prove acute in some individuals.

I've been wondering about this for a good while now, and this is an idea I thought I'd throw here to get the pulse of the community on here.

The idea being, after weighing long-term pros and cons, is it best to favor drugs working on the so far elucidated mechanisms of aging over supps ?

Also, I recall vividly having been told by an ER doctor that 90% of pharmaceutical drugs when used long-term prove to be sh**. That one the opinion of 1 M.D., but still, he knows more than I do, so it remained printed on my mind since then (2 years ago).

Thanks

This is a joke post right? Ok, the only drugs that I can see that may be healthy are: deprenyl, centrophenoxine, and racetams. With supplements, you get vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidant compounds etc...

I'm sorry but this comparison can't be made and should never have been made. Pharmaceutical agents are symptom eradicators, they are not curative or preventative. If you have anxiety problems, you get valium or equivalent. The valium doesn't cure anxiety. You have to continue taking it. If you stop taking it, the anxiety and panic issues come back. If you have high blood pressure, you take medication for it, your blood pressure goes down. If you quit taking it, the blood pressure goes back up.

There is one exception, and that is antibiotics. Of course anyone in there right mind wouldn't supplement that everyday due to it eliminated beneficial flora of our guts.


Dietary supplements----> curative, preventative
Pharmaceuticals----> original symptom reducer which ultimately may lead to worse symptoms than the original ones due to nasty side-effects


There is no comparison, period.


The way that our western medicine system is set up, is not to cure but suppress symptoms. What if someone had anxiety, was given a pill, and the anxiety left for good??? That would be detrimental for the pharmaceutical industry. They would only make money on that one pill. They can't charge thousands of dollars for that one pill. They would lose money. After awhile there wouldn't be any need for that special pill. Basically, they would go out of business. Instead of the big billion trillion dollar pharm industry we know now, it would dwindle down to a million dollar industry. The anxiety is only an example. It could be allergies, high BP, cancer, anything!

The only thing mainstream medicine is good for is emergency care and diagnostic testing. THAT IS IT!

Some things just aren't good for business! Remember folks, it is all about the money!

Thanks for the circumspect, unbiased, and balanced viewpoint! [thumb]

He does have agreeable points though tin, mostly stuff that is pretty true.

Food based supplements, vitamins, minerals = things your body needs and uses on a daily basis. Take these in reasonable amounts, no megadosing (vitamin C is up in the air, you can take a lot of it and it shows much safety) and you're golden. The idea of only taking synthetic drugs as opposed to truly food based supps, vitamins, and minerals is going against everything your body has evolved to digest, metabolize and live off of. Drugs are just that...drugs. They will give you side-effects, however slight they may feel at the time. If you want to say food based supplements (and even food) gives you side-effects, I'd consider that to be splitting hairs a bit too fine.

Do your research on pharms, and like Scott said, don't get too bent out of shape about molecular harm.

ISTM medicine is different from supplementation only in terms of degree. Medicine has been a blunt instrument with limited but, in some settings, profoundly powerful effect (both beneficial as well as, certainly much more often than optimal, harmful).

Nevertheless, it is, at least in part (albeit seemingly at times the tool of capitalist exploitation), a methodology in evolution with the goal of total well being and constant optimal health. Not to wax (rant) with naive optimism.

Thanks for the circumspect, unbiased, and balanced viewpoint!  [thumb]

What are you trying to say? Care to elaborate?

[:o]

ISTM medicine is different from supplementation only in terms of degree. Medicine has been a blunt instrument with limited but, in some settings, profoundly powerful effect (both beneficial as well as, certainly much more often than optimal, harmful).

Nevertheless, it is, at least in part (albeit seemingly at times the tool of capitalist exploitation), a methodology in evolution with the goal of total well being and constant optimal health.  Not to wax (rant) with naive optimism. 

What is ISTM medicine?

What is ISTM medicine?

It seems to me.

After reading many potential detrimental outcomes of *certain* supplements, I'm wondering :

Would it be best to supplement drugs (and I talking across a wide range here, I'm not being specific for a given system) i.e. Aminoguanidine, Deprenyl etc...over diatery supplements ?


Granted, pharmaceutical drugs can also have side-effects, and often acute ones, but at least there has been controlled clinical trial performed on humans, and usually although not invariably, side-effects are known to be expected in a dose relationship. I'm aware that there are some side-effects listed as mild for some drugs that can prove acute in some individuals.

I've been wondering about this for a good while now, and this is an idea I thought I'd throw here to get the pulse of the community on here.

The idea being, after weighing long-term pros and cons, is it best to favor drugs working on the so far elucidated mechanisms of aging over supps ?

Also, I recall vividly having been told by an ER doctor that 90% of pharmaceutical drugs when used long-term prove to be sh**. That one the opinion of 1 M.D., but still, he knows more than I do, so it remained printed on my mind since then (2 years ago).

Thanks

This is a joke post right? Ok, the only drugs that I can see that may be healthy are: deprenyl, centrophenoxine, and racetams. With supplements, you get vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidant compounds etc...

I'm sorry but this comparison can't be made and should never have been made. Pharmaceutical agents are symptom eradicators, they are not curative or preventative. If you have anxiety problems, you get valium or equivalent. The valium doesn't cure anxiety. You have to continue taking it. If you stop taking it, the anxiety and panic issues come back. If you have high blood pressure, you take medication for it, your blood pressure goes down. If you quit taking it, the blood pressure goes back up.

There is one exception, and that is antibiotics. Of course anyone in there right mind wouldn't supplement that everyday due to it eliminated beneficial flora of our guts.


Dietary supplements----> curative, preventative
Pharmaceuticals----> original symptom reducer which ultimately may lead to worse symptoms than the original ones due to nasty side-effects


There is no comparison, period.


The way that our western medicine system is set up, is not to cure but suppress symptoms. What if someone had anxiety, was given a pill, and the anxiety left for good??? That would be detrimental for the pharmaceutical industry. They would only make money on that one pill. They can't charge thousands of dollars for that one pill. They would lose money. After awhile there wouldn't be any need for that special pill. Basically, they would go out of business. Instead of the big billion trillion dollar pharm industry we know now, it would dwindle down to a million dollar industry. The anxiety is only an example. It could be allergies, high BP, cancer, anything!

The only thing mainstream medicine is good for is emergency care and diagnostic testing. THAT IS IT!

Some things just aren't good for business! Remember folks, it is all about the money!

I agree with you in the above instances you've provided. I realize I've somewhat innacurately expressed my thoughts on this--I really aimed my comments about drugs being beneficial to include : Deprenyl, Centrophenoxine and some other drugs seen here : http://www.antiaging-systems.com/

It's accurate that most other common drugs are used to supress symptoms rather than cure the root cause or disease. I fully agree with this. And no doubt money rules this world of ours, and with this last in mind, I don't think Big pharma is any different in this regard. Many thinks that Big pharma is there to help us to get a more decent quality of life, for our own good, and that it's unthinkable that they would prevent us from using any drug with any preventive power to eradicate disease--but then I say, it's all about the money, and it's always been--everything is about the darn money, and when there's a buck to be made, some people are willing to do just about anything.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

Food based supplements, vitamins, minerals = things your body needs and uses on a daily basis. Take these in reasonable amounts, no megadosing (vitamin C is up in the air, you can take a lot of it and it shows much safety) and you're golden. The idea of only taking synthetic drugs as opposed to truly food based supps, vitamins, and minerals is going against everything your body has evolved to digest, metabolize and live off of. Drugs are just that...drugs. They will give you side-effects, however slight they may feel at the time. If you want to say food based supplements (and even food) gives you side-effects, I'd consider that to be splitting hairs a bit too fine.

Do your research on pharms, and like Scott said, don't get too bent out of shape about molecular harm.

This makes perfect sense to me. Now some are going to say that I countredict myself in some way, but it's not really that, it's more that in the long run, it can get pretty perplexing. I have this premise that vitamins, minerals, amino acid and some other substance such as coenzyme Q10 and others like this are highly beneficial to one for reasons that are pretty obvious. However the more I read the more I fall on studies pointing to detrimental effects of this or that supplement. Sometimes, as in the case of NAC, it's worth meditating some, since the raised side-effect could involve serious consequences.

That being said, there appears to be a lot more studies indicating benefit from NAC than the reverse--NAC is only used as an instance here, as it's recently and still being discussed.