24 replies to this topic

[DO1234]

Curious as to whether anyone here saw this TED talk and what they thought:

http://www.ted.com/t...nce_denial.html

Normally I think TED Talks are pretty intelligent but this one seems like hogwash. There are literally thousands of studies referenced here on ImmInst that speak to the value of certain vitamins and supplements and yet Specter is claiming there isn't one shred of evidence that vitamins or supplements promote health.

I'd love to hear what people here think as this is a very intelligent community but so is the TED community (comments for his talk are interesting as well).

[khakiman]

Curious as to whether anyone here saw this TED talk and what they thought:

http://www.ted.com/t...nce_denial.html

Normally I think TED Talks are pretty intelligent but this one seems like hogwash. There are literally thousands of studies referenced here on ImmInst that speak to the value of certain vitamins and supplements and yet Specter is claiming there isn't one shred of evidence that vitamins or supplements promote health.

I'd love to hear what people here think as this is a very intelligent community but so is the TED community (comments for his talk are interesting as well).

I haven't watched the video but i think its pretty hard to say vitamin d and fish oil aren't beneficial. Maybe he is saying there is no value of supplements over natural forms like sunlight and salmon?

Or maybe he is trying to make a point that many vitamins and minerals are pointless. Magnesium oxide comes to mind because of its low bio-availability.

[DO1234]

Curious as to whether anyone here saw this TED talk and what they thought:

http://www.ted.com/t...nce_denial.html

Normally I think TED Talks are pretty intelligent but this one seems like hogwash. There are literally thousands of studies referenced here on ImmInst that speak to the value of certain vitamins and supplements and yet Specter is claiming there isn't one shred of evidence that vitamins or supplements promote health.

I'd love to hear what people here think as this is a very intelligent community but so is the TED community (comments for his talk are interesting as well).

I haven't watched the video but i think its pretty hard to say vitamin d and fish oil aren't beneficial. Maybe he is saying there is no value of supplements over natural forms like sunlight and salmon?

Or maybe he is trying to make a point that many vitamins and minerals are pointless. Magnesium oxide comes to mind because of its low bio-availability.

No, I think he's saying that all supplements are worthless. If this was some quack I'd just chalk it up to that. But this guy, from what I can tell, is a fairly well-respected author/researcher and at least well-respected enough to be given the stage at TED. And what's even stranger is that in the comments from the TED community (a community I typically respect) there is a lot of piling on (echoing the notion that there is no benefit to any supplement).

It's like some sort of strange time warp where everything that I've studied over the years of nutrition (hundreds of books and thousands of hours of additional reading) is being completely discounted.

[DO1234]

I just did check the reviews of his latest book on Amazon and it's probably the worst-reviewed book I've ever seen:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/1594202303

So perhaps I put too much stock in this guy via the sheer virtue that he was a TED speaker. Never again.

[nushu]

After the Dean Ornish ramble at TED where he says you should never exceed 3 grams of fish oil a day...I'm loosing faith in TED on matters of health, how are they choosing these speakers anyway?

[frederickson]

I agree with the original poster, the anti-supplement types ignore considerable evidence in favor of supplementation for a number of conditions. For instance, everyone heard about the vitamin E meta-analysis that found a slight increase in mortality. This meta-analysis, incidentally, had more holes than swiss cheese. Conversely, how many heard of the recent vitamin E supplement trial in the New England Journal of Medicine, that found that vitamin E was superior to Actos in treating fatty liver diseaase?

http://news.yahoo.co...e_liver_disease

I hate to be so blunt, but anyone who says there is no evidence in favor of vitamin supplements is ignorant of the facts and I question their motives for making such claims.

[DO1234]

I agree with the original poster, the anti-supplement types ignore considerable evidence in favor of supplementation for a number of conditions. For instance, everyone heard about the vitamin E meta-analysis that found a slight increase in mortality. This meta-analysis, incidentally, had more holes than swiss cheese. Conversely, how many heard of the recent vitamin E supplement trial in the New England Journal of Medicine, that found that vitamin E was superior to Actos in treating fatty liver diseaase?

http://news.yahoo.co...e_liver_disease

I hate to be so blunt, but anyone who says there is no evidence in favor of vitamin supplements is ignorant of the facts and I question their motives for making such claims.

The ignorance also shows when you have someone who says supplements are worthless, you can get what you need from fruits and vegetables. Many supplements *are* fruits and vegetables just in different form. It seems hards to make the case that blueberries are healthy but blueberry extract isn't or that wild salmon is healthy but fish oil supps aren't. The more than I researched the background of this author, the more he seems full o' crap.

[HaloTeK]

If you eat a varied whole food diet -- supplementation seems to be a waste. On top of that -- the ratios between the b-vitamins seem to be more important than absolute amounts, so how do we know we are not overdosing when we take a multivitamin? If you know you have a deficient area in your diet you should supplement, otherwise, you are wasting your money and possibly your health!

[frederickson]

If you eat a varied whole food diet -- supplementation seems to be a waste. On top of that -- the ratios between the b-vitamins seem to be more important than absolute amounts, so how do we know we are not overdosing when we take a multivitamin? If you know you have a deficient area in your diet you should supplement, otherwise, you are wasting your money and possibly your health!

I agree to an extent, in that a varied whole food diet and not supplementation is the key to optimal health. However, there are certain elements in combating aging and disease processes in general that simply cannot be achieved from diet alone and require supplementation.

Joint health in advancing age, for instance, cannot adequately be protected by even the most complete diet. The science is somewhat lacking and of poor quality in this field, but I think it is wise to supplement with glucosamine/chondroitin, msm, fish oils, curcumin, etc. as protection against osteoarthritis and the preservation of physical function is one of the keys to healthy aging. Again, diet alone cannot achieve this protection in my opinion.

[kismet]

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.

[bgwowk]

I don't think you can anything about his assertion without context.

Blanket assertions that no molecule occurring in nature (aka "supplements") can have therapeutic or preventative utility are ridiculous. One of the most popular supplements, fish oil, is now itself an FDA approved prescription medicine. General statements about the utility of supplements as a class aren't even worth trying to parse or discuss. Being asked to speak at TED means you are interesting, not necessary right.

Edited by bgwowk, 13 May 2010 - 07:04 PM.

[sthira]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

[frederickson]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

True, but this logic could be applied to literally anything we ingest.

For instance, given the abject failure of the FDA in recent years fast-tracking drugs under PDUFA, how do you know what you're taking is safe even if approved?

Or given current agricultural practices in the United States, how do you know the vegetables you consume are not contaminated with e. coli or other pathogens?

[DO1234]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

I think it's very dangerous to outsource your opinion on the relative health of something to the federal government.

[Alex Libman]

"Science denial" seems to be the propaganda term for the new century. Everyone who doesn't bend over and obey the government is "anti-science"...

They have it perfectly backwards of course - government force is contrary to the principles of empiricism that the philosophy of science is based on!

[niner]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

I think it's very dangerous to outsource your opinion on the relative health of something to the federal government.

Do you think it's safer to just take the vendor's word on it?

[eternaltraveler]

Do you think it's safer to just take the vendor's word on it?

it probably isn't very safe to do either. Independent labs are probably the best source. If the FDA oversaw supplements they probably wouldn't even be available (or quite a lot of them).

[bgwowk]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

The manufacturing and labeling of vitamin and mineral supplements in the U.S. is regulated by the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/N...7/ucm108938.htm

[Alex Libman]

The only "regulation" that should exist in a free society is the Non-Aggression Principle, with everything else emerging as the result of individual self-interest.

Food and drug manufacturers are subject to the free will of all other competing interests in the marketplace, including: companies that offer alternative products / services, product review publications, private universities, whistle-blower blogs, corporate "karma" watchdogs, non-profit certification agencies, and ultimately the consumers themselves. Ever-improving information technology (smart-phones, augmented reality glasses, etc) will continue to make it ever-easier to quickly access reliable company / product information aggregated from multiple independent trustworthy sources.

FDA is a violent monopoly that is of no value to a literate individual (and illiterate individuals should know their limitations). Violent monopolies are inherently prone to inefficiency, corruption, resistance to innovation, and a single point of failure that over several decades kills more people than Hitler!

[kismet]

FDA is a violent monopoly that is of no value to a literate individual (and illiterate individuals should know their limitations).

Please, spread your raving libertarianism even on the non-politics forum. I don't care. But I beg you don't lose grip on reality. The FDA, the government et al. may offer sub-optimal services but it is beyond madness to assert that they offer no value whatsoever.
(btw: 'ignorance and arrogance' are correlated. AFAIK this concept is known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. Illiterate individuals do not know their limitations in part because they are illiterate)

Violent monopolies are inherently prone to inefficiency, corruption, resistance to innovation, and a single point of failure that over several decades kills more people than Hitler!

And on a friendly, related note. If you want to be taken seriously never Godwin yourself. I think it is obvious that one should not compare benevolent neglect with the systematic and deliberate genocide of millions of people.

Edited by kismet, 14 May 2010 - 07:50 PM.

[Alex Libman]

I'll move my reply to a more appropriate thread.

[sthira]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

The manufacturing and labeling of vitamin and mineral supplements in the U.S. is regulated by the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/N...7/ucm108938.htm

This is good - thank you, I did not know this. Yet I have this ongoing friendly debate with my father. He takes a prescription niacin for cholesterol issues as prescribed by his doctor. But I'm like, Dad, why not save money and just buy your niacin over the counter? My dad contends that OTC niacin is not regulated by the FDA and so he doesn't know what may or may not be in those pills. This seems like a reasonable position to me. What sayeth you?

[niner]

The only "regulation" that should exist in a free society is the Non-Aggression Principle, with everything else emerging as the result of individual self-interest.

The page you linked has this to say about the Non-Aggression Principle:

It holds that "aggression", which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude defense.

If I market a supplement that is shot full of methylmercury, that would seem to fall under this definition, as "physical force" (something that harms your person) or as fraud upon your person. If Bernie Madoff or Goldman Sachs is scamming and stealing your money, that is fraud against your property. It looks like we've just justified the FDA and the SEC, and probably some other agencies, along with an enormous collection of rules and regulations. If I build a horrendously polluting factory adjacent to your home or your child's school, that would involve the injury of your person and property. Boom. We have now justified zoning laws, the EPA and another large set of rules and regulations.

I'm sorry, but the whistle-blower blogs and corporate "karma" watchdogs just aren't going to cut it. What if I get to you before they get to me?

[niner]

Since most vitamin and mineral supplements are not regulated (in the US), how do you know what you're taking even if something is suggestive?

The manufacturing and labeling of vitamin and mineral supplements in the U.S. is regulated by the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/N...7/ucm108938.htm

This is good - thank you, I did not know this. Yet I have this ongoing friendly debate with my father. He takes a prescription niacin for cholesterol issues as prescribed by his doctor. But I'm like, Dad, why not save money and just buy your niacin over the counter? My dad contends that OTC niacin is not regulated by the FDA and so he doesn't know what may or may not be in those pills. This seems like a reasonable position to me. What sayeth you?

Just make sure that the OTC niacin is made by a company with enough employees to trigger the rules. After that, you have to hope that the supplement company is actually following the rules and that no mistakes were made. Drug companies that are under heavy scrutiny tend to have procedures in place to prevent that sort of thing, while in the supplement world, things are looser.

[Mike C]

If you eat a varied whole food diet -- supplementation seems to be a waste. On top of that -- the ratios between the b-vitamins seem to be more important than absolute amounts, so how do we know we are not overdosing when we take a multivitamin? If you know you have a deficient area in your diet you should supplement, otherwise, you are wasting your money and possibly your health!

I agree to an extent, in that a varied whole food diet and not supplementation is the key to optimal health. However, there are certain elements in combating aging and disease processes in general that simply cannot be achieved from diet alone and require supplementation.

Joint health in advancing age, for instance, cannot adequately be protected by even the most complete diet. The science is somewhat lacking and of poor quality in this field, but I think it is wise to supplement with glucosamine/chondroitin, msm, fish oils, curcumin, etc. as protection against osteoarthritis and the preservation of physical function is one of the keys to healthy aging. Again, diet alone cannot achieve this protection in my opinion.

No but exercise which impacts the joints like running and especially jumping can prevent it. It is also important to AVOID INJURING the joints. This destroys cells responsible for producing collagen and over time can cause osteo.

Edited by Mike C, 22 April 2012 - 01:02 PM.