Which supplements are actually supported by science?

[jeremyfirth]

Three researchers scoured over 1500 studies found at PubMed to put together this image (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/snake-oil-supplements/) that represents how much scientific evidence supplements have supporting them, and their popularity. The results are interesting, and since we all like science here, I thought you all would be interested in seeing it.

Here's some more background about the image. (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/snakeoil-scientific-evidence-for-health-supplements/)

[Bergie]

Very cool. Thanks for posting.

[Platus]

Very interesting. I was not aware that creatine was thought to have benefits for cognition.

[MazdaMatt]

Very interesting. I was not aware that creatine was thought to have benefits for cognition.

apparently elderly and vegetarian hippies score better on intelligence tests when taking creatine.

[Platus]

Yeah, google scholar mostly turned up abstracts for studies on the elderly.

[Sami]

I didn't see caffeine on there, did I miss it?

[Smack]

Omega 3 and Green Tea unsurprisingly high on the list.

[jeremyfirth]

And don't forget your vitamin D, kids. One, it's anabolic. Two, everyone living in North America (especially those of us who primarily work indoors) don't produce enough vitamin D from sun exposure. Vitamin D is crucial to the function of every organ and every cell in your body. I take 10 g (10,000 mg) per day, and that's barely enough according to my most recent blood test. I will be moving to 15,000 mg (15g) per day. Get your vitamin D checked during your next physical and adjust your intake accordingly.

[Locutus]

And don't forget your vitamin D, kids. One, it's anabolic. Two, everyone living in North America (especially those of us who primarily work indoors) don't produce enough vitamin D from sun exposure. Vitamin D is crucial to the function of every organ and every cell in your body. I take 10 g (10,000 mg) per day, and that's barely enough according to my most recent blood test. I will be moving to 15,000 mg (15g) per day. Get your vitamin D checked during your next physical and adjust your intake accordingly.

I think you mean IU? Or mcg.

[Sami]

Vit D and Omega-3/Fish Oil were no surprises to me. I didn't know much about green tea, and the probiotics was a surprise. I also didn't think folic acid was needed for women with a normal healthy diet, I thought it was more for very unhealthy women that are malnourished and deficient in everything. I suppose for such a small effort, it's a HUGE benefit. Spina Bifida is not a good condition to have.

[gzt]

In sports performance, which isn't covered on here, IIRC, the only legal things that have been shown to benefit you are protein supplementation and creatine.

Sami - You just don't want to be surprised that your diet didn't have enough folic acid.

[Sami]

gzt - Well said about the folic acid.

But caffeine is also one of the most studied sports supplements there are. But you're right, if this is a general wellness health store type of supplement diagram, then I guess caffeine wouldn't be up there.

Caffeine is still conflicting, as you can find studies to support it either way. But there are a lot of variables to control for and I consistently see caffeine supported as a benefit. And I've seen my own benefits from taking about 300mg+ before training.

[Brenden]

I find it hard to believe a chart that says vitamins C and E aren't worth supplementing. After reading Starr's TSSS and a book by Linus Pauling, as well several other books, I'm convinced in their usefullness for both sports performance and general health.

[hbriem]

Linus Pauling, genius that he was, was pretty much a wingnut when it came to vitamin C. Sure, it's worth it if you have scurvy, but megadoses are useless.

Even the Linus Pauling Institute admits that now.

[gzt]

I find it hard to believe a chart that says vitamins C and E aren't worth supplementing. After reading Starr's TSSS and a book by Linus Pauling, as well several other books, I'm convinced in their usefullness for both sports performance and general health.
2 things: Linus Pauling was a physicist. The chart is about general health, not sports performance - otherwise creatine would've had a big circle at the top, too.

That said, I don't know whether there's been peer-reviewed research about C and E and sports performance. There has been about C and health, and C really isn't a wonder drug. But it was fashionable in the Pauling and Starr era.

[gzt]

Just thought of this: they didn't include anything about bone health. Calcium and vitamin D are two things most people, especially women, should be supplementing. They should be right up there at the top because they're pretty well-established. It's one of those things where you don't want to find out at 60 that your diet didn't have enough...

[Chewie_jrc]

I didn't see anabolic steroids in that picture; I'm pretty sure they work.

Oh wait, this is for health not performance.

Interesting chart by the way.

[damiona]

Apparently Beta Glucan fixes everything...never heard of it.

[ColoWayno]

I noticed creatine is for cognition which explains why we're all so damn smart.

Oh, and I drink Ginger tea for helping with inflammation, makes my tummy feel good too.

[Brenden]

peer-reviewed research

Given how good peer-reviewed research in exercise science has been, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that other areas may suffer from biases or blind spots.

If anyone has any links to refutations of Pauling's claims, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Dastardly]

Just thought of this: they didn't include anything about bone health. Calcium and vitamin D are two things most people, especially women, should be supplementing. They should be right up there at the top because they're pretty well-established. It's one of those things where you don't want to find out at 60 that your diet didn't have enough...

Vitamin D is right at the top on that chart.

[Dastardly]

Apparently Beta Glucan fixes everything...never heard of it.

The label on my oats says it contains beta glucan which will reduce cholesterol.

Other than than I had not heard of it either. Reading up on it seems to show that it strongly activates the immune system. I am wondering why doctors are not prescribing this?

And why is it easy to find the wide variety of the BS stuff at the bottom of the chart in most pharmacies & health shops but never things like beta glucan?

[Ryan Long]

Here's an article from the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition that discusses supplementation in relation to sport performance.

Its very long, but there are some summary charts starting on page 87 that give you the bottom line. Its not as pretty as the bubble chart, but helpful. Probably not anything new to most of the people here.

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-7-7.pdf

[Rorschach]

Probiotics? Strong evidence? I'm dubious. ;)
It lists three studies, one of which is on treatment for a specific condition (which the jury is very much out on anyway), and none of which I can read damnit!

Still, it's an interesting chart.

[Rorschach]

I'm also dubious about anything that "reduces cholesterol". That's very much treating the symptom, cholesterol is amoungst other things, a body's defence mechanism.
You get inflamed arteries, the body covers it with cholesterol. You take something like statins to clear out the cholesterol, you still have inflamed arteries. Sure, you don't want dangerous cholesterol buildups, but you're not really curing heart disease there.

Stop smoking, eat more fruit and veg, and get more exercise. Then if you still have issues, you can worry about what extracts of shark cartilidge or lyma beans helps to break down cholesterol.

Not targeted at anyone specifically, just the pop-a-pill culture. ;);)

[Guido]

There are a few supps I take regularly: fish oil, vitamin D, protein, and creatine. I guess I chose wisely.

[Dastardly]

can anyone spot glucosamine on the chart?

[gzt]

Vitamin D is right at the top on that chart.
But not for bones.

[tweakxc03]

And don't forget your vitamin D, kids. One, it's anabolic. Two, everyone living in North America (especially those of us who primarily work indoors) don't produce enough vitamin D from sun exposure. Vitamin D is crucial to the function of every organ and every cell in your body. I take 10 g (10,000 mg) per day, and that's barely enough according to my most recent blood test. I will be moving to 15,000 mg (15g) per day. Get your vitamin D checked during your next physical and adjust your intake accordingly.
guys... hate to burst your bubble... but there is solid evidence that vitamin D is fucking terrible for you. unfortunately nobody will believe me when i say this, and i will get a bunch of responses back saying i'm going against science, etc...

please google and read about the Marshall Protocol. here is a synopsis of the guys' findings. This guy's research, which has been proven in a lab setting time and time again, has gone ignored by "doctors"... modern medicine has behaved in the same manner for lots of revolutionary medical discoveries (rejected at first before acceptance).

Synopsis: (This is long... i copy-pasted it from the site. scroll down if you dont want to read it).

Simple explanation of vitamin D metabolism

There are two forms of Vitamin D.....active and inactive.

Vitamin D is not a vitamin. Vitamins are substances the body cannot make (lack of Vitamin C causing scurvy is a good example).

Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone with a function similar to that which prednisone performs. It was misidentified when it was discovered (at the University of Wisconsin) and the name has stuck. Vitamin D (a secosteroid hormone) is an immune-suppressant.

The body makes the inactive form of Vitamin D in the cells of the skin.

The Vitamin D made in the skin is inactive and easy to measure. It's only function is as a precursor for the body to make the active form of Vitamin D.

People do not need to take Vitamin D in any form (food or supplements) to have enough of the active form in their body because the body makes it in the kidneys and other cells using the inactive form made in the skin.

It only takes a few minutes of natural light to produce enough inactive Vitamin D which is stored by the body for use when natural light is scarce.

The active form of Vitamin D is used by the Vitamin D Receptors (VDR) in almost every cell in the body, including immune system cells, for many vital functions including activating the immune system.

Most chronic disease is caused by inflammation. Inflammation is caused by intracellular bacteria that live within the white cells of the immune system.

These bacteria block activation of the Vitamin D Receptors in the cells, so that key antimicrobial peptides cannot be manufactured by the immune system, and in the process cause the body to produce too much active Vitamin D to accumulate in the cells.

Thus, the bacteria can continue to live and multiply within the cells of the immune system.

People who are ill with inflammatory diseases make too much of the active hormone but scientists rarely measure this because it is difficult and expensive.

People who are ill and have too much of the active Vitamin D will have a low level of the inactive Vitamin D because of a complicated feedback mechanism in the cells that manufacture the active Vitamin D. In other words, the high active Vitamin D reduces the level of the inactive Vitamin D....remember this is the only form scientists usually bother to measure.....erroneously thinking that a low inactive level means a low active level.

Scientists have ignored this crucial fact and base conclusions about disease on the measurement of only the inactive Vitamin D which is low because of the disease process.

When people with chronic disease have their active Vitamin D level measured it is found to be high.

Low inactive Vitamin D does not cause diseases. The diseases cause the low inactive Vitamin D.

Studies of Vitamin D need to measure both inactive Vitamin D (which will be low in chronic disease) and the active Vitamin D which will be high in chronic disease in order to come to accurate conclusions about chronic disease.

People with chronic disease who take Vitamin D (food and supplements) will suppress the action of the Vitamin D Receptor and thus turn-off the immune system's response so it cannot fight the intra-phagocytic bacteria that cause chronic inflammatory diseases.

Cancer is caused by inflammation. Taking supplemental vitamin D will not prevent cancer.

Some people feel better in the short-term when they take Vitamin D because bacteria are not being killed which often causes temporary symptoms due to increased toxins, but they will succumb to the chronic diseases which are caused by intracellular infection more rapidly in the long-run.

Many people with chronic diseases feel ill when they take too much Vitamin D or spend too much time in the sun where their skin makes Vitamin D.

Too much active vitamin D has the effect of taking calcium from the bones and depositing it in the heart or lungs or kidneys (kidney stones), reducing their function.

Too much active Vitamin D causes calcium to leech from bones which results in osteoporosis.

Rickets is caused by too little calcium not lack of Vitamin D.

http://bacteriality.com/about-the-mp/


My mom is currently using the Marshall Protocol as treatment for sarcoidosis, an autoimmune disease. It is the only treatment we encountered that has actually worked. They say that autoimmune diseases like that are extremely rare and that they are not genetic... which is interesting considering my grandmother died of scleroderma, her sister died of another auto-immune, and I currently have psoriasis (also auto-immune).

I'm not trying to start an argument or anything like that. You can read about it for yourself and make your own decision. Just because there are a lot of "studies" suggesting one thing, doesn't mean that it is totally correct. You have to consider the interests behind the studies as well as those proving the exact opposite results.

Please also note that I can't really do this guy's research any justice. He is a biochemical engineer, among other things. Just read his reports if you're interested... if not, oh well.

[Brenden]

Tweak, it looks like that site is discussing treatment protocols for a specific list of autoimmune diseases. What makes you confident that this is generalizeable to the general population?

[Locutus]

And the opposing viewpoint: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-april.shtml

[tweakxc03]

Brenden:

Thanks for keeping an open mind. One of the points the guy makes is that the development of these kinds of diseases ihas to do with a deficiency of some kind. I can't really explain it myself as I'm not an expert, but his research on treatment protocols is an attempt to bring the vitamin d-level balance back to normal.

This can happen with anyone, it seems that some people are more susceptible to it than others. The point is that auto-immune diseases have increased in terms of frequency and severity by a great deal over the past 50 years, almost in lock-step with the introduction of vitamin D into the food supply. This even holds true with the prevalence of allergies.

meanwhile, you have some quacks saying that we should be adding this stuff into breast milk. breast milk doesn't have ANY vitamin D in it. If this was such an important vitamin, why then would it be totally missing from such an important stage of human development?

oh, and they use vitamin D for rat poision.

That sort of bothers me

[tweakxc03]

And the opposing viewpoint: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-april.shtml
except as near as I can tell, he did conduct a study and actually grew samples of the microbial bacteria. I think though, that his version of a "trial" is more based on computerized microbiological models. this was largely ignored. microbiology is going the route of computer models, as they can be more effective in studying activity at the intercellular level, or so I've heard.

i'll look more into this and report back. All I know is his forums are filled with people who have had real results in dealing with auto-immune diseases for which there is currently no other treatment with a success rate higher than 0%.

Thanks for posting this, Locutus.

[ColoWayno]

can anyone spot glucosamine on the chart?

I believe it is below the worth it line. I just started taking it again after years of not taking it. Probably still worth some research. My doctor actually recommended that I start taking it again (quite a few years ago).

[ColoWayno]

I have a question regarding the subject of supplementing to support the immune system. Is there ever any trade off in boosting the immune system in the form of increased inflammation? I believe arthritis is sometimes caused by an overactive immune system which results in inflammation. Maybe keeping the immune system healthy through diet/exercise and supplements keeps the body from going into the overactive mode to begin with. I dunno, but I suspect that's right

What do you folks do to fight inflammation? Maybe that's a good question for another thread.

Ice/Rest
Tart Cherries
Ginger root
????

[Guido]

Ice/Rest
Cherries
Glucosamine/Chondroiten - I've heard people have had good results with these
Devil's Claw (on the OP's list) would be a good one to try

I haven't heard much about ginger root for inflammation, only for digestion.

[ColoWayno]

Thanks! And Devils Claw sounds bad ass too!