The Vitamin Guide--Excellent Resource

[Sinister]

Ok, and that was my point exactly. Soon these government agencies will crack down on vitamin and supplement companies just like they have the diet pills. I am puzzled though that you bring up the FDA when every single bottle of vitamins you buy clearly states "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA".

A couple of points you should take notice of:

The FDA and FTC are both paid for organizations. They're not "human interest" unbiased branches of Government intended to protect people. They protect whomever pays them the most money, period.

The bottles say "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" because they FDA won't evaluate them. The reason is that the supplement companies cannot pay the "user fees" PhRMA pays to have THEIR drugs evaluated by the FDA and sanctioned despite the fact that some of these FDA sanctioned drugs DO harm people on a consistent basis (look up "Meridia", and I'm pretty positive "Orlistat" has measurable side-effects attached to it).

If the Companies had the money, they'd be evaluated. So far VERY FEW "natural" products have been approved by the FDA to make claims. Lycopene is one of them. Lycopene makers who use specific formulas CAN indicate that their product helps to fight prostate cancer on the bottle, with no flack to come from the FDA or FTC. So that also goes against your "none of these things actually work" idea, which you're also incorrect about.

But it was the FDA who banned Ephedra (because of methamphetamine production), and it was the FDA who banned Androstein (because it works), and it's the FDA who are threatening the makers of Nasutra, at the behest of the makers of Viagra. One has more lobbying capability than the other, so through the FDA (by paying "user fees"), they can inherently shut down the other.

The FDA also pulled Stamina Rx some time ago for the same reason Nasutra is being threatened (it contains an analog ingredient that's in Viagra), and it was the FDA who banished Sea Silver for making anti-cancer claims (which was appropriate).

Sometime ago the FDA also tried to pull the plug on Red Yeast Rice because it's an anaolog of statin drugs (like Lipitor), but manufacturers of Red Yeast Rice had enough money to take it to Court where the Courts overruled the FDA's decisions. The FDA was also overruled once already in the Ephedra case, so you should see by this that the Government is hardly infallable.

If you really want to educate yourself as to what does and doesn't work you should spend more time reading Medical Journals as opposed to Government propaganda and rhetoric. Because I'll tell you this much. Sometime ago the FTC slapped sanctions on GNC when it was the MAIN Vitamin retailer and known for manufacturing some of the premiere supplements in the business. Those sanctions haven't been challenged since they were put in-place, which was over 20 years ago. And half the regulations the FTC holds to this day are baseless, because since then research has proven them incorrect about some of the restrictions they demand.

 

[Fighter ex]

A couple of points you should take notice of:

The FDA and FTC are both paid for organizations. They're not "human interest" unbiased branches of Government intended to protect people. They protect whomever pays them the most money, period.

The bottles say "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" because they FDA won't evaluate them. The reason is that the supplement companies cannot pay the "user fees" PhRMA pays to have THEIR drugs evaluated by the FDA and sanctioned despite the fact that some of these FDA sanctioned drugs DO harm people on a consistent basis (look up "Meridia", and I'm pretty positive "Orlistat" has measurable side-effects attached to it).

If the Companies had the money, they'd be evaluated. So far VERY FEW "natural" products have been approved by the FDA to make claims. Lycopene is one of them. Lycopene makers who use specific formulas CAN indicate that their product helps to fight prostate cancer on the bottle, with no flack to come from the FDA or FTC. So that also goes against your "none of these things actually work" idea, which you're also incorrect about.

But it was the FDA who banned Ephedra (because of methamphetamine production), and it was the FDA who banned Androstein (because it works), and it's the FDA who are threatening the makers of Nasutra, at the behest of the makers of Viagra. One has more lobbying capability than the other, so through the FDA (by paying "user fees"), they can inherently shut down the other.

The FDA also pulled Stamina Rx some time ago for the same reason Nasutra is being threatened (it contains an analog ingredient that's in Viagra), and it was the FDA who banished Sea Silver for making anti-cancer claims (which was appropriate).

Sometime ago the FDA also tried to pull the plug on Red Yeast Rice because it's an anaolog of statin drugs (like Lipitor), but manufacturers of Red Yeast Rice had enough money to take it to Court where the Courts overruled the FDA's decisions. The FDA was also overruled once already in the Ephedra case, so you should see by this that the Government is hardly infallable.

If you really want to educate yourself as to what does and doesn't work you should spend more time reading Medical Journals as opposed to Government propaganda and rhetoric. Because I'll tell you this much. Sometime ago the FTC slapped sanctions on GNC when it was the MAIN Vitamin retailer and known for manufacturing some of the premiere supplements in the business. Those sanctions haven't been challenged since they were put in-place, which was over 20 years ago. And half the regulations the FTC holds to this day are baseless, because since then research has proven them incorrect about some of the restrictions they demand.

Alright well, that being said who paid the government to go after the diet pill companies? Also I have read many medical journals and thats why I stated that "Any test that shows a vitamin or natural substance does something for you, there is also a study that shows it does nothing". Im also very interested to know what kind of sanctions the FTC put on GNC. Where could I find that information?

 

[lockjaw211]

Alright well, that being said who paid the government to go after the diet pill companies? Also I have read many medical journals and thats why I stated that "Any test that shows a vitamin or natural substance does something for you, there is also a study that shows it does nothing". Im also very interested to know what kind of sanctions the FTC put on GNC. Where could I find that information?

post some of these studies man other then some diet pill studies. post something that tells me vitamins dont work please. you have a good opinion on the matter but its all based on what you are saying you read. back up these claims with something. a link maybe?

 

[Sinister]

Alright well, that being said who paid the government to go after the diet pill companies? Also I have read many medical journals and thats why I stated that "Any test that shows a vitamin or natural substance does something for you, there is also a study that shows it does nothing". Im also very interested to know what kind of sanctions the FTC put on GNC. Where could I find that information?

I can get them Sunday, when I go back in to work.

And sometimes the Government goes after Companies based on lawsuit claims. The Xenadrine claim was "rapid weight loss" if memory serves it's about the term "rapid", because since it's subjective, people file lawsuit when they don't lose weight at what they perceive is a "rapid" weight.

Also, supposedly Cytodyne as a Company is in-possession of a study where apparently a placebo group lost weight where a Xenadrine group didn't. But that's the Government's claim. To-date no one has seen this study.

And if you do read medical journals, or read studies, post them as references when you object as opposed to just coming in and going "blah blah doesn't work" generally. Thermogenics are well-proven, as are stimulants, so are plethoras of vitamins and minerals. If you have the information that states otherwise and is credible in it's means of discovery, I'm sure we'd love to see them.

 

[Fighter ex]

Ok, here is one quote from a study that came from the link that started this thread



In a double-blind study of people with established heart disease or diabetes, participants who took 400 IU of vitamin E per day for an average of 4.5 years developed heart failure significantly more often than did those taking a placebo.18 Hospitalizations for heart failure occurred in 5.8% of those in the vitamin E group, compared with 4.2% of those in the placebo group, a 38.1% increase. Considering that some other studies have shown a beneficial effect of vitamin E against heart disease, the results of this study are difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, individuals with heart disease or diabetes should consult their doctor before taking vitamin E.


You can find these types of conflicting studies on every vitamin there is.

 

[Sinister]

In a double-blind study of people with established heart disease or diabetes, participants who took 400 IU of vitamin E per day for an average of 4.5 years developed heart failure significantly more often than did those taking a placebo.18 Hospitalizations for heart failure occurred in 5.8% of those in the vitamin E group, compared with 4.2% of those in the placebo group, a 38.1% increase. Considering that some other studies have shown a beneficial effect of vitamin E against heart disease, the results of this study are difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, individuals with heart disease or diabetes should consult their doctor before taking vitamin E.

lol Dude that's the study that had people who had been taking their Vitamin E for 15 years returning them because they thought they were going to get heart-attacks, despite them having perfectly clean bills of health.

Where is the pharmacokinetics involved? What was the status of the people BEFORE the study was conducted? What was the methodolgy? Where was the study conducted?

There's a reason the very paragraph you posted says "the results of this study are difficult to interpret"...if the person who referenced the study wrote that, how can you deem to be able to interpret it as "vitamins don't work" or whatever?

Especially when you don't have all of the information.

 

[Fighter ex]

Here's some more information from the same article, Anyone interested should go to the link provided at the beginning of this thread and click on any vitamin or supplement they have on there and read the studies. They are too long to post on here.


A review of 19 clinical trials of vitamin E supplementation concluded that long-term use of large amounts of vitamin E (400 IU per day or more) was associated with a small (4%) but statistically significant increase in risk of death.19 Long-term use of less than 400 IU per day was associated with a small and statistically nonsignificant reduction in death rates. This research has been criticized because many of the studies on which it was based used a combination of nutritional supplements, not just vitamin E. For example, the adverse effects reported in some of the studies may have been due to the use of large amounts of zinc or synthetic beta-carotene, and may have had nothing to do with vitamin E. It is also possible that long-term use of large amounts of pure alpha-tocopherol may lead to a deficiency of gamma-tocopherol, with potential negative consequences. For that reason, some doctors recommend that people who need to take large amounts of vitamin E take at least part of it in the form of mixed tocopher

 

[Sinister]

The difference between Natural Vitamin E and synthetic is that Natural (which is almost all that's available on the market nowadays) is mixed tocopherols as opposed to just the d-alpha tocopherols. So this study (or rather, the mention of this study in the Article as opposed to the actual study) simply proves that an obsolete form of Vitamin E MAY indeed be obsolete.

Awesome.

 

[Fighter ex]

The difference between Natural Vitamin E and synthetic is that Natural (which is almost all that's available on the market nowadays) is mixed tocopherols as opposed to just the d-alpha tocopherols. So this study (or rather, the mention of this study in the Article as opposed to the actual study) simply proves that an obsolete form of Vitamin E MAY indeed be obsolete.

Awesome.

Alright, well Im just proving my point about conflicting studies here. Can you provide links to studies that will show the benefits of any vitamins or supplements? I'd be happy to take look at them.

 

[Sinister]

Nice try.

You're debating the existence of an industry and aspect of healthy existences that has existed for thousands of years. Vitamins, minerals, and nutrients are the very reason we eat food to begin with. For people who do not eat the proper diet (which is about 80% of Americans or more) supplements (vitamins are supplements) are a perfectly viable way to provide the missing nutrients necessary. And when needing the body to perfom better, increasing the intake is part of the key as more get depleted the more the body is exerted.

If you're disputing that which has been accepted so long ago, the burden of proof is on you.

Even the most stout Doctors who "do not believe in supplements" even for athletes recommend a daily multi vitamin and protein powder at the very least.

But can we prove caffeine, ephedra, creatine, and other such supplements work? Sure, search function, there's studies all over the place around here.

 

[Fighter ex]

You don't need any research to show what Caffeine and Epedra do. Anyone who has ingested either of them would know their obvious effects. Creatine causes your muscles to retain more water, as far as Im concerned thats really all it does. My question was, could you produce any tests, studies etc that will show taking any vitamin or mineral in a pill or liquid form has benefits in preventing illness, improving immune funtion or increasing physical performance?

 

[MikeMartial]

Creatine causes your muscles to retain more water, as far as Im concerned thats really all it does.

You have got to be kidding me. Seriously, are you just trying to stir the pot? Becuase if you aren't, I have no idea which what rock you are hiding under.

Do you not even have a basic understanding of the ATP-CP system, and how it functions? Do you not even know how supplemental creatine monohydrate affects this system?!? This isn't "debatable knowledge", guy, it's basic human physiology.

Creatine is THEE most studied OTC sports supplement in history. YOU go find the studies, 'cause believe me, it ain't hard, and there's a shitload of 'em out there.

 

[Fighter ex]

You have got to be kidding me. Seriously, are you just trying to stir the pot? Becuase if you aren't, I have no idea which what rock you are hiding under.

Do you not even have a basic understanding of the ATP-CP system, and how it functions? Do you not even know how supplemental creatine monohydrate affects this system?!? This isn't "debatable knowledge", guy, it's basic human physiology.

Creatine is THEE most studied OTC sports supplement in history. YOU go find the studies, 'cause believe me, it ain't hard, and there's a shitload of 'em out there.

Would you care to produce one? Also, the world being flat was not debatable knowledge at one time.

 

[MikeMartial]

Would you care to produce one?

Christ man, go find one of thousands out there yourself. I won't spoon feed lazy noobs, and I'm sure as hell not going to induldge your stubborn ass.

I'm going to make the huge assumption you don't subscribe to any cardiology journals; there's a damn interesting article in one recently on oral creatine monohydrate supplementation and the treatment of CHF. Now, this requires some imagination, so think hard: if cardiologists are looking at how creatine can help a damaged myocardium work more effectively, DO YOU THINK creatine "just causes water weight"?!?!?

In the immortal words of a Louisiana farmer: "Day-um, boy, you sure are dumber than a pig in shit!"

And I thought the posts by Thecas in Conditioning were thick. Jesus.

 

[Deleted member 56619]

You can also use Statistics to test many of these studies, but im not going to do it because i just passed that class and im never going to do it ever again.

The one thing i learned in statistics besides it sucks is that a lot of times when something seems obviously true it may not be. Especially with things like this.

 

[Sinister]

My question was, could you produce any tests, studies etc that will show taking any vitamin or mineral in a pill or liquid form has benefits in preventing illness, improving immune funtion or increasing physical performance?

I'll get back to you on that, I'm busy going through a stack of papers to figure out wether or not exercise works. In the meantime though:

Can you show me a study or test that proves that eating food causes you to stay alive?

 

[BoxingFanNoMore]

My question was, could you produce any tests, studies etc that will show taking any vitamin or mineral in a pill or liquid form has benefits in preventing illness, improving immune funtion or increasing physical performance?

The ignorance is powerful with this one.

BTW, the only people that thought the world was flat were uneducated, and only ignorant people keep the notion that it was widely accepted as fact alive today.

 

[Fighter ex]

The ignorance is powerful with this one.

BTW, the only people that thought the world was flat were uneducated, and only ignorant people keep the notion that it was widely accepted as fact alive today.

You are a true scholar, sire. Your post speaks for itself.

 

[Fighter ex]

Well as I thought no one can produce a single conclusive test showing that any supplement has a positive effect on immune funtion or physical performance. As far as creatine being used for heart problems, I think thats right up there with it being used to help people with ALS. The results are inconclusive, just like every other tests involving these substances which proves my point from the beginning.

 

[Fighter ex]

Christ man, go find one of thousands out there yourself. I won't spoon feed lazy noobs, and I'm sure as hell not going to induldge your stubborn ass.

I'm going to make the huge assumption you don't subscribe to any cardiology journals; there's a damn interesting article in one recently on oral creatine monohydrate supplementation and the treatment of CHF. Now, this requires some imagination, so think hard: if cardiologists are looking at how creatine can help a damaged myocardium work more effectively, DO YOU THINK creatine "just causes water weight"?!?!?

In the immortal words of a Louisiana farmer: "Day-um, boy, you sure are dumber than a pig in shit!"

And I thought the posts by Thecas in Conditioning were thick. Jesus.

What is mentally wrong with you that makes you feel the need to hurl insults at people who's opinion differs from that of your own? Id like to see a study on that.