If you eat a varied whole food diet -- supplementation seems to be a waste.
I agree to an extent, but mostly I think you are quite wrong. Waste is a subjective term for one thing, if you mean risk-reward ratios, sure supplementation may be "a waste" for many people due to diminishing returns. So I would agree that supplementation is indeed a hassle not worth if for many. But realistically (and to keep with a simple example) a varied whole food diet won't give you therapeutic - and usually not even basic - amounts of vitamin K or D; while cheap, and most likely very effective supplements are available. To quote, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Without reading a transcript of the talk, I'll just reflect on the Specter's assertion that "there isn't one shred of evidence that vitamins or supplements promote health."
There probably isn't one shred of "grade A" evidence in the healthy. No consistent, well-designed, well-sized (e.g. n > 1k), long-term RCTs have been performed in the healthy. Therefore the hardliner could argue that there's not a shred of
strong evidence in favour of supplementation. Nonetheless the risk-reward ratio is great for many supps and it would be naive not to extrapolate just a little bit...
I don't think you can say anything about his assertion without context.
Edited by kismet, 13 May 2010 - 09:37 PM.