4 ms·

It's really just that most nutritional supplements have either low-quality supporting data or contradictory data. The hype surrounding the field of nutrition is

It's really just that most nutritional supplements have either low-quality supporting data or contradictory data. The hype surrounding the field of nutrition is not matched by its benefits. This is not to say that there is no future for it. Rather, it is to say that there is a huge future for it, because at present the field has little to offer backed by strong evidence.

petra 11y ago
Even if there's not enough data, the risk of supplements is very low , especially compared to the risk of pharmaceuticals.So why not try ? And the reason they don't have as much high-quality proof as pharmaceutical(clinical trials), is just because of monetary incentives, nothing more.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Part of me agrees with the monetary aspect, but history and current events have shown that the medical community still doesn't even have solid footing for a lot of 'simple' type issues. Nutrition seems to be a relatively new area of study, as evidenced by the seemingly routine changes in 'official' dietary recommendations. I do think the medical profession is working to incorporate nutrition into their concepts of treatment, but it's going to take a lot of time.
- carbocation 11y ago
  When we talk about pharmaceuticals, we talk about financial toxicity. Americans spend over $10 billion on nutritional supplements annually [1], most of which have very poor supporting evidence. Should people be able to spend their money how they see fit? Sure. Are they getting utility from it? Not the utility they're hoping for. 1 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/americans-are-ignoring-the-science-and-spending-billions-on-dietary-supplements/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/ameri...
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    I'm not denying there's a lot of unsubstantiated or over-inflated advertising within the supplement market, not at all. It takes hours and lots of digging into personal reviews and other sources to begin to find things that are both 1) effective and 2) legal. It's not a quick fix, which is what most advertising claims to provide. If we're talking about wasting money and health though, then I think it's equally important to point out that homeopathy is apparently a multi-billion dollar industry as well in the US ($6B in 2012 [1]) and if we're going to rank things on effectiveness, I'm pretty sure homeopathy is just about on par with drinking water from a clean toilet. [1] http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/issues/2013-07/view_industry-news/us-sales-of-homeopathic-herbal-remedies-reach-64-billion http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/issues/2013-07/view_indus...
  - teslabox 11y ago
    When we talk about healthcare, we talk about financial toxicity. Americans spent $3 trillion on healthcare in 2014 [1], much of which had very poor outcomes. Should the healthcare system get a defacto blank check to charge insurance companies as much as they want? Sure. Are the patients getting utility from it? Not the utility they're hoping for. 1 = https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta... (lol, sorry. $10 billion on supplements is a drop in the bucket.)
- cpfohl 11y ago
  I don't think the risk is as low as you think. Easy example: St. John's Wort It's a proven effective anti depressive. It also reacts badly with just about every medication on the market. Without more studies you can't make the types of statements you just made.
  - AngrySkillzz 11y ago
    In addition, there is some strong evidence linking medium-term St. John's Wort use with cataracts due to photosensitivity. This makes it risky to combine with light therapy, which of course a lot of people do anyway.
6stringmerc 11y ago
In agreement with you - I'm not trying to really put down the medical establishment outright (they do a lot to resist quackery for sure!) but kind of deal with the lay of the land. I don't think going 'hippie' or all-in with supplementation in nutrition is really going to be a trend within the medical community, but I do think a lot of doctors tend to just, well, use the tools they have. Risk of bad outcomes is real, no doubt, and the US is quite lawsuit happy when it comes to medical cases. I would definitely like to see more strong evidence regarding supplementation - actually, with a lot of different substances. In a perfect world the DEA wouldn't have the slightest bit of sway in dictating which substances can be researched in traditionally "proper" settings.

petra 11y ago

Even if there's not enough data, the risk of supplements is very low , especially compared to the risk of pharmaceuticals.So why not try ? And the reason they don't have as much high-quality proof as pharmaceutical(clinical trials), is just because of monetary incentives, nothing more.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Part of me agrees with the monetary aspect, but history and current events have shown that the medical community still doesn't even have solid footing for a lot of 'simple' type issues. Nutrition seems to be a relatively new area of study, as evidenced by the seemingly routine changes in 'official' dietary recommendations. I do think the medical profession is working to incorporate nutrition into their concepts of treatment, but it's going to take a lot of time.
carbocation 11y ago
When we talk about pharmaceuticals, we talk about financial toxicity. Americans spend over $10 billion on nutritional supplements annually [1], most of which have very poor supporting evidence. Should people be able to spend their money how they see fit? Sure. Are they getting utility from it? Not the utility they're hoping for. 1 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/americans-are-ignoring-the-science-and-spending-billions-on-dietary-supplements/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/04/ameri...
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  I'm not denying there's a lot of unsubstantiated or over-inflated advertising within the supplement market, not at all. It takes hours and lots of digging into personal reviews and other sources to begin to find things that are both 1) effective and 2) legal. It's not a quick fix, which is what most advertising claims to provide. If we're talking about wasting money and health though, then I think it's equally important to point out that homeopathy is apparently a multi-billion dollar industry as well in the US ($6B in 2012 [1]) and if we're going to rank things on effectiveness, I'm pretty sure homeopathy is just about on par with drinking water from a clean toilet. [1] http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/issues/2013-07/view_industry-news/us-sales-of-homeopathic-herbal-remedies-reach-64-billion http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/issues/2013-07/view_indus...
- teslabox 11y ago
  When we talk about healthcare, we talk about financial toxicity. Americans spent $3 trillion on healthcare in 2014 [1], much of which had very poor outcomes. Should the healthcare system get a defacto blank check to charge insurance companies as much as they want? Sure. Are the patients getting utility from it? Not the utility they're hoping for. 1 = https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/downloads/highlights.pdf https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/sta... (lol, sorry. $10 billion on supplements is a drop in the bucket.)
cpfohl 11y ago
I don't think the risk is as low as you think. Easy example: St. John's Wort It's a proven effective anti depressive. It also reacts badly with just about every medication on the market. Without more studies you can't make the types of statements you just made.
- AngrySkillzz 11y ago
  In addition, there is some strong evidence linking medium-term St. John's Wort use with cataracts due to photosensitivity. This makes it risky to combine with light therapy, which of course a lot of people do anyway.

6stringmerc 11y ago

In agreement with you - I'm not trying to really put down the medical establishment outright (they do a lot to resist quackery for sure!) but kind of deal with the lay of the land. I don't think going 'hippie' or all-in with supplementation in nutrition is really going to be a trend within the medical community, but I do think a lot of doctors tend to just, well, use the tools they have. Risk of bad outcomes is real, no doubt, and the US is quite lawsuit happy when it comes to medical cases. I would definitely like to see more strong evidence regarding supplementation - actually, with a lot of different substances. In a perfect world the DEA wouldn't have the slightest bit of sway in dictating which substances can be researched in traditionally "proper" settings.