Scientific Information About Supplements

[LePatron7]

Hello everyone. I'm posting this so there can be an open discussion on supplements - the only rule is that any information presented has to be backed by scientific evidence (studies, etc.). You can post any studies you like, however I will check them and see if the studies were flawed (used the wrong forms of certain vitamins, to low doses, made false conclusions, etc.). A lot of the talk on this forum about supplements being bad is speculation, and often times based on people's "views" of what natural is. Yet all the studies that have been posted have been the equivalent of a study done on RPD's health effects, but using feed lot meats, eggs, etc. and finding everyone's health declined.

So feel free to post any studies you can find, as I legitimately am looking for actual evidence that supplements are bad and/or good.

[cherimoya_kid]

Vitamin D works for me.  PaleoPhil can confirm that mineral supplements often worked well for his customers when he worked at a health food store.  Certainly calcium and magnesium supplementation has helped me, as have healing clays like Terramin.

[LePatron7]

Vitamin D works for me.  PaleoPhil can confirm that mineral supplements often worked well for his customers when he worked at a health food store.  Certainly calcium and magnesium supplementation has helped me, as have healing clays like Terramin.

I know supplements help a lot of people. I can post endless amounts of information about supplements being beneficial. But with all the skepticism about supplements and negative views, I was hoping someone could provide legitimate scientific evidence that they're bad. Either way, I'll continue taking supplements as it's what has done the most to improve my quality of life.

[TylerDurden]

imo, studies are meangingless in this case. You are too biased in favour of supplements  to accept even a rigorous study.  Talk about placebo.  At any rate, I used to dose myself with a huge amount of supplements(herbal/vitamin/mineral, fatty acid pills etc. etc.) They all failed to work. Sometimes I would get nasty side-effects such as a splitting headache from them, but far more usually, I would just get nothing from them and just have my urine turn orange and/or frequently urinate or something weird like that, implying that my body was very keen to get rid of the unnatural substances within it as soon as possible.

[Iguana]

Between 14 and 18 years old, I was week, always tired and sick. MDs being unable to find out what was wrong with me,  I was prescribed all kinds of supplements. I trusted them and thought it was good for me, but with no avail: it seemed to make my health even worse.

Then I read Günther Schwab and understood.

Günther Schwab on Wikipedia
“The dance with the devil” is available on line, apparently on a religious website even if the book has nothing to do with religion. It just uses “the devil” words as a metaphor; the whole book reads like a kind fiction novel in the form of an interview with the devil in his premises.
Dance With The Devil, by Gunther Schwab – a must read.

I stopped all the supplements at once along with white sugar, white bread, coffee and as much as possible all food additives. In one week I was fine, no longer tired and sick.

[eveheart]

In the realm of good health, good nutrition, and good environment, supplements are meaningless, but when health, nutrition, and/or environment have failed, supplements can be therapeutic.

I like the term bio-hacking, meaning "managing one's own biology using a combination of medical, nutritional and electronic techniques." In my experience, bio-hacking can be loosely based on scientific information, but most of the evidence of bio-hacking's efficacy comes from my own response. Empirical science takes a dim view of N=1 trials, but I hold them in high esteem. Even when one of my short-term successes turns out poorly in the long run, my success rate beats medicine's alternatives.

DaBoss88, I consider your use of supplements to be an excellent example of successful bio-hacking. Would you allow a doubting scientist to override your experience? As you know, those doubting scientists exist, and they publish peer-reviewed research studies with large randomized sample sizes and lots of statistical words, and they would have no trouble shooting down your N=1 experience as "anecdotal" nonsense.

[LePatron7]

imo, studies are meangingless in this case. You are too biased in favour of supplements  to accept even a rigorous study.  Talk about placebo.  At any rate, I used to dose myself with a huge amount of supplements(herbal/vitamin/mineral, fatty acid pills etc. etc.) They all failed to work. Sometimes I would get nasty side-effects such as a splitting headache from them, but far more usually, I would just get nothing from them and just have my urine turn orange and/or frequently urinate or something weird like that, implying that my body was very keen to get rid of the unnatural substances within it as soon as possible.

I appreciate your feedback and explaining your personal experience. I'd hardly call it placebo, but call it what you will. The fact is that in the other thread both you and Iguana posted studies that were clearly flawed. It's not simply that my "being biased" is why I said those studies were flawed. Those studies were legitimately flawed. No one expects a multivitamin to prevent heart attack patients from dying of heart disease. That's why I made this thread, to post scientific evidence that they're actually harmful. While I appreciate your feedback on supplements not working for you, that is personal experience, and I'm looking for hard, scientific evidence.

Between 14 and 18 years old, I was week, always tired and sick. MDs being unable to find out what was wrong with me,  I was prescribed all kinds of supplements. I trusted them and thought it was good for me, but with no avail: it seemed to make my health even worse.

Then I read Günther Schwab and understood. I stopped all the supplements at once along with white sugar, white bread, coffee and as much as possible all food additives. In one week I was fine, no longer tired and sick.

I'm not sure your point in posting about that book or author - Wikipedia apparently claims he was a Nazi. Maybe you could summarize what you learned from that book that made you cut out refined foods.

In the realm of good health, good nutrition, and good environment, supplements are meaningless, but when health, nutrition, and/or environment have failed, supplements can be therapeutic.

I like the term bio-hacking, meaning "managing one's own biology using a combination of medical, nutritional and electronic techniques." In my experience, bio-hacking can be loosely based on scientific information, but most of the evidence of bio-hacking's efficacy comes from my own response. Empirical science takes a dim view of N=1 trials, but I hold them in high esteem. Even when one of my short-term successes turns out poorly in the long run, my success rate beats medicine's alternatives.

DaBoss88, I consider your use of supplements to be an excellent example of successful bio-hacking. Would you allow a doubting scientist to override your experience? As you know, those doubting scientists exist, and they publish peer-reviewed research studies with large randomized sample sizes and lots of statistical words, and they would have no trouble shooting down your N=1 experience as "anecdotal" nonsense.

It wouldn't override my experience. It's working, and has worked for me. I've tried without, I've tried with. I'm doing what works for me now. Honestly I was hoping for a thread that would have scientific studies posted. I was interested in looking into studies I may have missed.

[eveheart]

It wouldn't override my experience. It's working, and has worked for me. I've tried without, I've tried with. I'm doing what works for me now. Honestly I was hoping for a thread that would have scientific studies posted. I was interested in looking into studies I may have missed.

"May have missed" LOL To be sure, there are nearly an infinite amount of studies, yet no consensus. I think this is because studies are funded, so there is always a special interest. Oversight by government or academic agencies help somewhat, but oversight can be turned into a rubber stamp of approval in the blink of an eye.

Anyway, I often prefer information that comes from the fringe, that I can test with N=1 to see if it is good information for me.

[LePatron7]

"May have missed" LOL To be sure, there are nearly an infinite amount of studies, yet no consensus. I think this is because studies are funded, so there is always a special interest. Oversight by government or academic agencies help somewhat, but oversight can be turned into a rubber stamp of approval in the blink of an eye.

Anyway, I often prefer information that comes from the fringe, that I can test with N=1 to see if it is good information for me.

Lol I also prefer hearing things that work for others and seeing if they work. For example that's what got my to try the iodine protocol.

But like, I saw studies showing regular folic acid was bad, and I switched to a better form. Same thing with Vitamin A, Vitamin E, and even various forms of K1/K2. It helped me seeing those studies.

TD, I'm curious what kind of supplements you used. I've had similar experiences to yours where I've tried supplement formulations and gotten horrible results. Ie. like sleeping formulas, joint formulas, etc. What I've found works best for me is buying the vitamins by themselves and combining them. For example if I bought a bone formula it has all the right vitamins there, but in ineffective doses. Any way feel free to share what supplements you were using.

[Iguana]

The fact is that in the other thread both you and Iguana posted studies that were clearly flawed. It's not simply that my "being biased" is why I said those studies were flawed. Those studies were legitimately flawed. No one expects a multivitamin to prevent heart attack patients from dying of heart disease.

You focused on a few single points, but the NY Times article I referred to  is based on 27 studies which neither you nor I did read.  It says also “These results were right in line with other studies that have found no clear benefit from taking multivitamins, antioxidants, folic acid and B vitamins, the editorial says. And those are the good outcomes. Trials of beta-carotene, vitamin E and high doses of vitamin A linked those supplements with an increased risk of premature death.”

I'm not sure your point in posting about that book or author - Wikipedia apparently claims he was a Nazi. Maybe you could summarize what you learned from that book that made you cut out refined foods.

I see that that Wikipedia page now insists that he was a Nazi without giving an unbiased summary of his work. I was not aware that he was a member of the Nazi party before I (perhaps?) saw it last time I gave the link. Anyway this is totally irrelevant to the content of his books.

Well, he was saying in “Dance with the Devil” published in French in 1963 (and in the 2 next books published a year or two later) roughly what the serious ecologists say now about the destruction and poisoning of ecosystems (forest, soils, water, air) by our agricultural, industrial and other methods. In a subsequent book published in French under the title “The last cards of the devil” (as the Editor had refused to publish his whole manuscript in a single book) there’s a chapter about nuclear power generation (which was in research  and development but not yet implemented at the time) he even predicted disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Most interesting for us, he said about the same as Weston Price (he possibly based his chapter on nutrition mainly on W.A. Price work). He sharply criticized the medical practice of addressing the symptoms instead of searching for the root cause of troubles. He  condemned pesticides and chemical fertilizers in agriculture, food additives and modern food processing, etc. He didn’t go as far as totally condemning cooking, but he nearly did.         

[LePatron7]

Well, he was saying in “Dance with the Devil” published in French in 1963 (and in the 2 next books published a year or two later) roughly what the serious ecologists say now about the destruction and poisoning of ecosystems (forest, soils, water, air) by our agricultural, industrial and other methods. In a subsequent book published in French under the title “The last cards of the devil” (as the Editor had refused to publish his whole manuscript in a single book) there’s a chapter about nuclear power generation (which was in research  and development but not yet implemented at the time) he even predicted disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Most interesting for us, he said about the same as Weston Price (he possibly based his chapter on nutrition mainly on W.A. Price work). He sharply criticized the medical practice of addressing the symptoms instead of searching for the root cause of troubles. He  condemned pesticides and chemical fertilizers in agriculture, food additives and modern food processing, etc. He didn’t go as far as totally condemning cooking, but he nearly did.         

Very interesting.

[TylerDurden]

Err, the fact that anyone was a member of the Nazi party is irrelevant. For one thing, Germans were mostly bullied into becoming members or else, and if you choose to ignore/exclude absolutely anyone who had such ties, then one would have to exclude a number of people who did great works for mankind such as Von Braun, for example.

My own use of supplements varied considerably. I often included some vitamins or minerals separately at one point partly because the multivitamin/multimineral supplements often excluded certain vitamins/minerals, and for other reasons. Then I started reading about how not eating these artificial substances in the right proportions would block the uptake of other minerals/vitamins, so I went  in more for a formula pack. I was sceptical re so much processing, so I always bought my herbal formulas and fatty acid pills in separate tablets rather than combining, say, St John's Wort or fish oil with vitamin E or whatever nonsense.

[Iguana]

Err, the fact that anyone was a member of the Nazi party is irrelevant. For one thing, Germans were mostly bullied into becoming members or else, and if you choose to ignore/exclude absolutely anyone who had such ties, then one would have to exclude a number of people who did great works for mankind such as Von Braun, for example.

Exactly, and I was precisely thinking about Wernher von Braun. DaBoss certainly agrees about it too.

[nummi]

Have to as well consider what the impact on humanity as a whole would be if supplements were used every day for hundreds of thousands of years and more. The human body would perhaps notice an abundance of certain substances that the body could use to enable more potency in certain abilities, physical or mental. Dependency would develop, doing without would lead to severe health problems. All supplements have to be produced, they don't grow on their own, unlike food. Yet, this would be rather far future... many possibilities...

You might say the use impacts only you within your lifetime and no one else is affected. It is not true at all. If you plan on using supplements as something akin to staple food then first come to a decision of what you want humanity to one day be.

Supplements are unnatural and the goal should be, in case of every single person on the whole planet, presently, to do without. We know as good as nothing how human bodies work, and most probably will know about as much for centuries or longer. So, until then it should definitely be real food only. Using them when battling some illnesses and such caused by false diet, sure. But at one point you have to get rid of them, they are not food.

[micelte]

Of course the use supplements can have an effect on one's condition. Before taking them though, it is usually a good idea to ask ourselves whether they can be found as-is in nature or not... Since most of them are the result of rather heavy human processing (heating, boiling, drying, concentrating, mixing, coloring, etc.) I tend to think they are not acceptable in the long term. I actually consider them almost the same as conventional medicine pills. This said, I could consider consuming some, in specific situations. For example, I could see myself consuming some Vitamin D if I were living in a place where I would not see the sun for more than a month... because in this situation the supplement would perhaps be the easiest way to receive something equivalent to the natural amount of sunlight required to be healthy.

[LePatron7]

Have to as well consider what the impact on humanity as a whole would be if supplements were used every day for hundreds of thousands of years and more. The human body would perhaps notice an abundance of certain substances that the body could use to enable more potency in certain abilities, physical or mental. Dependency would develop, doing without would lead to severe health problems. All supplements have to be produced, they don't grow on their own, unlike food. Yet, this would be rather far future... many possibilities...

You might say the use impacts only you within your lifetime and no one else is affected. It is not true at all. If you plan on using supplements as something akin to staple food then first come to a decision of what you want humanity to one day be.

Supplements are unnatural and the goal should be, in case of every single person on the whole planet, presently, to do without. We know as good as nothing how human bodies work, and most probably will know about as much for centuries or longer. So, until then it should definitely be real food only. Using them when battling some illnesses and such caused by false diet, sure. But at one point you have to get rid of them, they are not food.

If I was really concerned about the outcome of human evolution, and that were an actual goal of mankind - all humans would need to rethink what they're doing to the environment and themselves. You also imply that illness is caused by a "false diet." I have yet to hear any stories of people with real illnesses being cured by said "real diet." There are plenty of people on this forum who had stomach pains, lack of energy, etc. resolved by eating a raw diet. Even some who had great improvements in their symptoms who had more severe problems. But I've never seen anyone with heart disease, diabetes, or any other "real" illness be cured by said "real diet."

Also, we know a great deal about how the human body works. We might not know a great deal about how a raw diet works on the human body - but that's not a reason to go claiming your made up theories are fact. Just because the information isn't out there on how a raw diet affects the body, doesn't mean that making up theories and other things makes it valid. That's something I notice a lot about raw diets. There's so little information on how a raw diet affects the body that everyone has a theory on how it's a magical fix for human health. That's a reason I think so many raw food guru's become so popular. There's simply no other information out there on a raw diet, so people look for anything they can find. Then people flock to the egg yolks and fish diet, or the raw milk and honey diet, etc. There's just so little information out there.

I think a raw diet reduces heat created toxins (HCA's, AGE's, etc.), is more nutrient dense, and the lipids are less prone to oxidation. Being grass fed/pastured they have healthier bacteria and it's less likely to get food poisoning, better balance omega 3:6, more healthy fats, less toxins. That's what the science supports. There could be more, but till there's evidence to support it I prefer not to make things up. If you want to think there's magic to it, by all means go for it. But I simply prefer not to dwell on things that could be.

Before taking them though, it is usually a good idea to ask ourselves whether they can be found as-is in nature or not... Since most of them are the result of rather heavy human processing (heating, boiling, drying, concentrating, mixing, coloring, etc.)

Supplements are made by chemical processes. They're made through chemistry. Chemical processes can produce substances as found in nature, just like one could produce perfectly good oxygen through chemical processes.  So are a lot of fertilizers used on pastures.

This is pretty much what I was avoiding this thread becoming. Everyone throwing in their 2 cents without any actual information to support it. I get the general consensus is that supplements are bad - what I was hoping for was information from studies, doctors, etc. saying why supplements are bad.

[micelte]

This is pretty much what I was avoiding this thread becoming. Everyone throwing in their 2 cents without any actual information to support it. I get the general consensus is that supplements are bad - what I was hoping for was information from studies, doctors, etc. saying why supplements are bad.

And sorry, but it seems like everyone here is also trying to make you gently realize that the scientific proofs you are looking for won't be able to tell you more than what detailed holistic observations would reveal. I also am a fan of scientific papers but I nonetheless realize that the very core of academic research is flawed by the assumptions it *must* make in order to reduce the infinite number of variables that exist in  nature.

[Iguana]

More info about Günther Schwab, the author who made me conscious about the dangers of modern food, medicine and supplements. I forgot to say that he even wrote more than 50 years ago about the green house effect and climate change likely to be caused by fossil fuels burning.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Union_for_Protection_of_Life

Günther Schwab is known as the author of the screenplay for the movie Der Förster vom Silberwald (Heimatfilm, literally homeland film), released 25 November 1954 in Vienna (as Echo der Berge) and 8 February 1955 in Munich. In his novel Der Tanz mit dem Teufel (Dance with the Devil) Günther Schwab gives his expressions to sentiments for nature protection and describes the destruction of nature as a plan of a devil who seems really existent. The book was translated in many languages, the first English translation was published 1963. In the year 1958 Schwab started to set up an organization with the name World Union for Saving of Life which was registered as World Union for Protection of Life two years later and soon activated branches in more than 30 countries all over the world.

The World Union for Protection of Life (German: Weltbund zum Schutz des Lebens, French: Union Mondiale pour la Protection de la Vie, Russian: ____) is an international non-profit organization and non-governmental organization which was founded 1958 in Salzburg (Austria) by the writer Günther Schwab. The concept Protection of Life is considered to be different from the protection of the environment as it has been used by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), though that organization was founded as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972

A scientific advisory board of 400 scientists out of 53 countries supported the work of the organization. Among them were 40 Nobel laureates. President of the board was Linus Pauling. Günther Schwab himself held about 1500 public readings.

There's so little information on how a raw diet affects the body that everyone has a theory on how it's a magical fix for human health. That's a reason I think so many raw food guru's become so popular. There's simply no other information out there on a raw diet, so people look for anything they can find. Then people flock to the egg yolks and fish diet, or the raw milk and honey diet, etc. There's just so little information out there.

I think we should rather see it in the opposite way: a raw diet does not affect the body, given that it has been the norm for all animals since the beginning of life on this planet more than 3.5 billion years ago. It’s cooked, Neolithic and modern diets which negatively affect the body.

There’s no magic fix. Just suppress the cause of troubles and these troubles may eventually disappear.

Supplements are made by chemical processes. They're made through chemistry. Chemical processes can produce substances as found in nature, just like one could produce perfectly good oxygen through chemical processes.  So are a lot of fertilizers used on pastures.

Not quite so. Unlike O2, organic molecules are composed of thousands of atoms, each one in a precise spatial location.  Moreover, in plants and animals these substances are thoroughly and intimately intermingled in extremely complex networks of innumerable and various interacting molecules, while the substances we produce by synthesis are chemically pure.

[nummi]

If I was really concerned about the outcome of human evolution, and that were an actual goal of mankind - all humans would need to rethink what they're doing to the environment and themselves.

Exactly so, they should.
If all you do is concern only about your own life then this is exactly what the next generations will learn from you. Sure, live your own life, but don't exhibit uncaring for the future through your actions, behavior, texts, etc., because in the end it is detrimental.
If you are not concerned then why bother with anything?

You also imply that illness is caused by a "false diet."

Didn't elaborate. False diet is the primary cause.

Also, we know a great deal about how the human body works.

I was talking about everything in this regard. And so, we know very little.

We might not know a great deal about how a raw diet works on the human body - but that's not a reason to go claiming your made up theories are fact. Just because the information isn't out there on how a raw diet affects the body, doesn't mean that making up theories and other things makes it valid.

Never claimed them to be fact.
No point really talking about validity. Just look at modern medicine which is seemingly advancing year to year, yet people are getting sicker and sicker... and that "medicine", and the accompanying diets, are regarded as valid! Raw diet is valid, obviously, because there are no further alternatives. You don't need some "scientific facts" to know whether something is valid or not. Just look at what is evidently not working, what worked in the past, and from that conclude other possibilities.

That's something I notice a lot about raw diets. There's so little information on how a raw diet affects the body that everyone has a theory on how it's a magical fix for human health. That's a reason I think so many raw food guru's become so popular. There's simply no other information out there on a raw diet, so people look for anything they can find. Then people flock to the egg yolks and fish diet, or the raw milk and honey diet, etc. There's just so little information out there.

Generating this information would be obliterating to big corporations. They would all go bankrupt very quickly. It would be the end of most of what stands for modern medicine, end of junk food, end to everything profit-oriented. Those big corporations also hold most of the money and control all the big publishers and media to a significant extent.
The already existing "scientific proofs" are almost all biased toward corporate interests. From here to supplements... real food stands for all you need. You, you, do not need supplements, unless you are for a time fighting an illness or there is something inherently and permanently wrong with you.
Proof of the validity of the raw diet? Well, everything else is confirmed not working just by looking at all these millions and billions of ever sicker people. Genetically we are not sick, ergo there's just one possibility left if physical exercise and "lifestyle" is already counted for.

I think a raw diet reduces heat created toxins (HCA's, AGE's, etc.), is more nutrient dense, and the lipids are less prone to oxidation. Being grass fed/pastured they have healthier bacteria and it's less likely to get food poisoning, better balance omega 3:6, more healthy fats, less toxins. That's what the science supports. There could be more, but till there's evidence to support it I prefer not to make things up. If you want to think there's magic to it, by all means go for it. But I simply prefer not to dwell on things that could be.

When did I ever say anything about magic?

Things that "could be"?? Are you joking? If you don't think about what "could be" then what are you doing? Living only "in the moment"? You are exhibiting a mentality uncaring of the future! Yet claim to care about health. This is a contradiction.

You say there could be more, yet say till there's no evidence to support it you won't "make things up"... To even know what the "could be" could be you have to first make it up! And then there either is evidence to support it or not, if not then have to search for some if the "could be" is logical. Another contradiction.

There is lack of information in certain regards, but there is information in other regards as to what works and what doesn't, how we should be according to genetics, how life was in the past, how life has changed and the problems that came in parallel, personal experiences/experiments. From all this you conclude objectively and as the result you get possibilities - the "could be" you so willingly are not caring for at all.

You're giving me the impression that you rely exclusively on your so-called "evidence", not really putting much thought into anything yourself. That you simply compare different studies and such and from those pick out what suits your liking. And you say you experiment on yourself with these supplements. Although not at first, now I really am inclined to think it truly is this "placebo". After all, if there's nothing wrong with you, or not wrong anymore, then you shouldn't take/need supplements.

We have intelligence and we are not immortal, we cannot choose what we are like, we are determined by our genetics and environment, we are "alive", we are part of life. Our lives are dependent on others as is the continuance of our species. Our decisions and actions shape the future of our species no matter whether you care or not, and apparently not just ours. We are all obligated by this existence of ours to care, to think, about future. Because we could so easily, merely by being consumed only in the present, destroy all future possibilities. Your life is not only about you.