Reader's Digest and Junk Science
Mar. 17th, 2010 08:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theoldwolfThis month's Reader's Digest trumpets its headline article: 5 Vitamin Truths and Lies with the cover banner, "The Great Vitamin Scam". And I'm pissed.
The body of the article states, in essence, that taking vitamins, with the single exception of Vitamin D, is both worthless and potentially harmful. With this article, Reader's Digest has foisted off on the American public one of the greatest loads of dinosaur poop ever seen in this century or the one previous. How their editors could allow a treatise so patently wrong to see the light of day absolutely boggles my mind.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition promptly followed up with a rebuttal, but the sad fact is that fewer than one in 1000 people will take the time to do their own research and find out how badly skewed the RD information is.
In the same vein, a friend of mine recently sent me a link to this interactive graphic:
It purports to show the "scientific evidence" for how effective any given supplement is for a certain condition. I thought it was very interesting until I followed up by examining the spreadsheet that drives the graphic, and saw to my astonishment that each bubble was given its relative position based on a single study, or in some cases, two.
Even the articles used, for example, to show that antioxidants "don't work" are nowhere near as definitive in their own pronouncements. For example, "A review of the epidemiological evidence for the 'antioxidant hypothesis' by Stanner, Hughes, Kelly and Buttriss includes the following paragraphs in their abstract (emphasis mine):
RESULTS: Although scientific rationale and observational studies have been convincing, randomised primary and secondary intervention trials have failed to show any consistent benefit from the use of antioxidant supplements on cardiovascular disease or cancer risk, with some trials even suggesting possible harm in certain subgroups. These trials have usually involved the administration of single antioxidant nutrients given at relatively high doses. The results of trials investigating the effect of a balanced combination of antioxidants at levels achievable by diet are awaited. CONCLUSION: The suggestion that antioxidant supplements can prevent chronic diseases has not been proved or consistently supported by the findings of published intervention trials. Further evidence regarding the efficacy, safety and appropriate dosage of antioxidants in relation to chronic disease is needed. The most prudent public health advice remains to increase the consumption of plant foods, as such dietary patterns are associated with reduced risk of chronic disease.
If this weren't enough, the abstract shoots itself in the foot right out of the gate by saying "The results of trials investigating the effect of a balanced combination of antioxidants at levels achievable by diet are awaited." The level of nutrients in today's foods, produced by chemically-poisoned, soil-depeleted superfarms, is a shadow of what was available in previous generations. Moreover, optimal levels of some nutrients - levels required for optimal cellular health - are simply not available by diet alone: In order to obtain a day's amount of Vitamin E, it would be necessary to eat:
Wheat germ (vitamin E fortified): 13.8 cups or 3.5 lbs
Almonds (dry roasted, without salt): 7.5 cups or 2.3 lbs
Spinach (cooked, boiled, drained, w/o salt): 72.6 cups or 28.8 lbs
Safflower Oil: 3.6 cups or 1.7 lbs.
Scientific journals are awash in conflicting studies and contradictory evidence. Yet in my experience, for every article that shows antioxidants are not effective, there are five that show that they are. As an example, here is a list of hundreds of medical journal articles supporting the efficacy of an entire range of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and co-factors in supporting optimal health.
Furthermore, most studies of this nature focus on randomized trials of one substance in the treatment of one condition. There is an abundance of laboratory-based evidence showing that a combination of nutrients in optimal doses are supremely effective in maintaining the human cell in peak condition.
The last factor to consider is that the large percentage of vitamin products sold in the US and Canada are, in fact, crap. Many are manufactured using only food-grade GMP's (Good Manufacturing Practices) instead of the far more stringent Pharmaceutical standards, meaning that what is represented on the label may not be anywhere near what's in the bottle. Many tablets don't even dissolve, becoming what are sometimes referred to in hospitals as "bedpan bullets". And the ingredients may be substandard, tainted, or simply not bioavailable.
The 4th (2007) edition of the Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements rated over 1500 multivitamin products, both standalone and combo packs, in the US and Canada and found that 80% of these products were delivering less than 50% of optimal levels of nutrients, based on label description alone. 18 products were given a five-star rating. Of these 18, only five took the challenge to have their products tested by an independent laboratory to prove that their formulations matched what was being advertised.
So in a certain sense, Reader's Digest was not amiss, if you consider that the preponderance of vitamins that people are buying off the shelf might as well be Smarties for all the good that they are doing.
There are a handful of companies out there that manufacture vitamins designed to holistically treat the entire organism. Their products have high rankings measured by the CAPPS standard (completeness, availability, purity, potency and safety); they follow pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices; and their formulations are based on the best science available. Used consistently, these products can go a long way to eliminating the ravages of the degenerative diseases that are taking such a toll on humanity in our day and age.
Do your homework. If you have questions or want specific recommendations, I can provide them.
Live long, in happiness and health.
The body of the article states, in essence, that taking vitamins, with the single exception of Vitamin D, is both worthless and potentially harmful. With this article, Reader's Digest has foisted off on the American public one of the greatest loads of dinosaur poop ever seen in this century or the one previous. How their editors could allow a treatise so patently wrong to see the light of day absolutely boggles my mind.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition promptly followed up with a rebuttal, but the sad fact is that fewer than one in 1000 people will take the time to do their own research and find out how badly skewed the RD information is.
In the same vein, a friend of mine recently sent me a link to this interactive graphic:
It purports to show the "scientific evidence" for how effective any given supplement is for a certain condition. I thought it was very interesting until I followed up by examining the spreadsheet that drives the graphic, and saw to my astonishment that each bubble was given its relative position based on a single study, or in some cases, two.
Even the articles used, for example, to show that antioxidants "don't work" are nowhere near as definitive in their own pronouncements. For example, "A review of the epidemiological evidence for the 'antioxidant hypothesis' by Stanner, Hughes, Kelly and Buttriss includes the following paragraphs in their abstract (emphasis mine):
RESULTS: Although scientific rationale and observational studies have been convincing, randomised primary and secondary intervention trials have failed to show any consistent benefit from the use of antioxidant supplements on cardiovascular disease or cancer risk, with some trials even suggesting possible harm in certain subgroups. These trials have usually involved the administration of single antioxidant nutrients given at relatively high doses. The results of trials investigating the effect of a balanced combination of antioxidants at levels achievable by diet are awaited. CONCLUSION: The suggestion that antioxidant supplements can prevent chronic diseases has not been proved or consistently supported by the findings of published intervention trials. Further evidence regarding the efficacy, safety and appropriate dosage of antioxidants in relation to chronic disease is needed. The most prudent public health advice remains to increase the consumption of plant foods, as such dietary patterns are associated with reduced risk of chronic disease.
If this weren't enough, the abstract shoots itself in the foot right out of the gate by saying "The results of trials investigating the effect of a balanced combination of antioxidants at levels achievable by diet are awaited." The level of nutrients in today's foods, produced by chemically-poisoned, soil-depeleted superfarms, is a shadow of what was available in previous generations. Moreover, optimal levels of some nutrients - levels required for optimal cellular health - are simply not available by diet alone: In order to obtain a day's amount of Vitamin E, it would be necessary to eat:
Wheat germ (vitamin E fortified): 13.8 cups or 3.5 lbs
Almonds (dry roasted, without salt): 7.5 cups or 2.3 lbs
Spinach (cooked, boiled, drained, w/o salt): 72.6 cups or 28.8 lbs
Safflower Oil: 3.6 cups or 1.7 lbs.
Scientific journals are awash in conflicting studies and contradictory evidence. Yet in my experience, for every article that shows antioxidants are not effective, there are five that show that they are. As an example, here is a list of hundreds of medical journal articles supporting the efficacy of an entire range of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and co-factors in supporting optimal health.
Furthermore, most studies of this nature focus on randomized trials of one substance in the treatment of one condition. There is an abundance of laboratory-based evidence showing that a combination of nutrients in optimal doses are supremely effective in maintaining the human cell in peak condition.
The last factor to consider is that the large percentage of vitamin products sold in the US and Canada are, in fact, crap. Many are manufactured using only food-grade GMP's (Good Manufacturing Practices) instead of the far more stringent Pharmaceutical standards, meaning that what is represented on the label may not be anywhere near what's in the bottle. Many tablets don't even dissolve, becoming what are sometimes referred to in hospitals as "bedpan bullets". And the ingredients may be substandard, tainted, or simply not bioavailable.
The 4th (2007) edition of the Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements rated over 1500 multivitamin products, both standalone and combo packs, in the US and Canada and found that 80% of these products were delivering less than 50% of optimal levels of nutrients, based on label description alone. 18 products were given a five-star rating. Of these 18, only five took the challenge to have their products tested by an independent laboratory to prove that their formulations matched what was being advertised.
So in a certain sense, Reader's Digest was not amiss, if you consider that the preponderance of vitamins that people are buying off the shelf might as well be Smarties for all the good that they are doing.
There are a handful of companies out there that manufacture vitamins designed to holistically treat the entire organism. Their products have high rankings measured by the CAPPS standard (completeness, availability, purity, potency and safety); they follow pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing Practices; and their formulations are based on the best science available. Used consistently, these products can go a long way to eliminating the ravages of the degenerative diseases that are taking such a toll on humanity in our day and age.
Do your homework. If you have questions or want specific recommendations, I can provide them.
Live long, in happiness and health.
