The typical research paper may have findings that are controversial, but researchers are using the techniques of their profession. I may disagree with their conclusions for a variety of reasons, but at least it’s contained. Following the threads this author created was a challenge but fruitful, especially the first one.

The readers of her columns were told to hop on over to the FDA website to see how easy it is to get beneficial statements on the label. I read the entire set of guidelines, and here’s the bottom line: it’s most definitely not easy to get a label claim approved.

She asked the industry rep to give her the name of a scientist who is not in the supplement industry who believed the health claims on supplement labels were meaningful. The rep couldn’t think of anyone.

She made a big deal over that one: no independent scientist supports the claims on labels. “Just think about what that means,” she added. It means that the supplement industry rep isn’t acquainted with scientists outside of her area of expertise. Why would she be? It’s not her area. But if you’ve been a science writer for over 22 years, you would certainly know plenty of scientists. Why didn’t she contact them for their opinion?

The writer then talked about a conversation with an executive for a well-known nutrition watch-dog group. He talked about the gold standard for removing a product from the marketplace: ephedra was banned back in 2003 because people who took the weight loss product had died.

Actually, it took the death of a professional football player to get everyone interested in ephedra, which is more like medicine than a supplement. People died, but in most of those 55 cases, it was the abuse of the herb that caused the issue, not the recommended use. I wasn’t an ephedra fan because weight loss is calories in, calories out; you would expect that messing with metabolism to cause issues, especially when overusing an herb.

Then it was a wandering rehash of other studies on increased risks of cancer. It was her responsibility to do the reading before she wrote the article. Was she being one-sided in what she wrote? I think a better way to say it was that she didn’t complete her background research.

There was some talk, silly in my opinion, with a religion professor about the psychology of why people take supplements. And then she completed her comments by saying that people who take dietary supplements are wasting money on products that will never help them.

The Bottom Line

All in all, it was a poorly researched article about the benefit, or lack thereof, of dietary supplements. What was clearly apparent was that her lack of nutrition education meant she really didn’t know what questions to ask. Based on what she said, she never really read the FDA Guidelines for supplement manufacturers. If she had, she could have picked a product with a wild claim, and I can think of several, checked the background research, and then evaluated it according to the law to determine whether it complied or not, rather than simply saying it was easy.

Health writers, and in fact, any writer who writes about science, needs to be a critical thinker, not one that criticizes without thinking. In this case, she failed to do her job. The big problem with that is most people don’t have the science background to know whether what she said is trustworthy and many people will be misinformed, perhaps to the detriment of their health.

What about her claim that people are wasting money on supplements? We all know from our own experience, as well as from science, that supplements can make a difference in our health. As I’ve always said, no amount of supplements will make up for an unhealthy lifestyle, but using specific supplements are an important part of staying healthy.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: FDA Link: https://bit.ly/2QLDRa2

The headline of the Life and Culture section of my local newspaper was this: “Supplements Are a Scam.” You know that has to get my attention. Wouldn’t it get yours? Most of us take dietary supplements every day, so I read the article.

To paraphrase the opening, it went something like this “Wake up people! There are conspiracies about vaccinations and fluoridation floating around the internet. Why aren’t you pulling back the curtain to see the fraud right under your nose! They are selling you snake oil and you’re giving them a free pass. Who? The supplement industry, of course.”

The article contained some of the same-old, same-old arguments that we always see in these articles; more about that later. The question I always begin with is: “Who is doing the writing and how qualified are they?” This author has been writing about health for major newspapers and magazines for over 20 years. If she’s lasted that long, she must be a decent writer.

But does she have a solid background in science and nutrition? She got her undergraduate degree in English. That’s it. I’m not trying to be snooty, but that puts her into the category of someone who is self-taught. Whether it’s a person who was on death’s door but recovered when they discovered a supplement or diet that helped them or someone who’s a journalist as the author is, they need solid basic science and nutrition education and training. If not, they don’t know if they are asking the right questions, and that’s often a problem when it comes to nutrition research. As I’ve stated many times before, even those who do have health training often don’t ask the right questions but have no problems sharing opinions.

Are supplements a scam? Short answer: no. We’ll look at the claims the author made on Thursday.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet