Which Health Supplements Are Backed by Science?

Interesting information in regard to how today's science views health supplements.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2323527757a0.jpg[/atsimg]
Higher Resolution Version
Source

I was surprised to see vitamin C so low on the chart.

I did learn of some new supplements that are good for me tho, hope others find this useful/interesting

[edit on 2/28/2010 by Alaskan Man]

I don't see turmeric there.
A lot of what is 'accepted science' is only Western, US, science in America.
I see a lot of studies done in Europe, the UK, Australia, India, that the US medical community will NOT acknowledge.

For some of us, certain substances align "magically." and I'm not sure how one could 'scientifically' test such things as that.

In any event, the placebo effect is testing to be much more strong than they thought originally.

In any event, I really hate to see them regulate more plants, or make more plants illegal. It's just not right.

Originally posted by hadriana

In any event, I really hate to see them regulate more plants, or make more plants illegal. It's just not right.

No one is planning on doing either of these, beyond illicit drug plants (marijuana, etc.).

I do think the chart is a little biased.

For example, Red Yeast Rice, a natural statin produced via a fungus, has already 2 fair-sized randomised trials, ~100 patients each, behind it for lowering cholesterol, according to this chart, it is only good for "blood pressure" and "heart". "Heart" is a little vague and up for the reader's interpretation.

This is why, look at the footer disclosure: "Only human, randomised placebo-controlled trials used"

Relying only on the gold standard is going to skew the results. At least they were open-minded and honest about the beta glucan fiber, saying, "low evidence, promising results"

It is difficult to obtain funding for these types of studies(natural/complementary/integrative), grant agencies like the NIH are stubborn.

reply to post by Alaskan Man


About 15 years ago, they changed the rules for health care supplements; now most of them aren't approved by the FDA. Any kind of supplement that can be authorized by a prescription, however, is. For example, some fish oils and vitamins are prescription only strength and so they are approved.

Single remedy homeopathic remedies ARE approved by the FDA. In fact, they've been approved by the FDA since the FDA came into existence back in the early 20th century. That is because one of the senators or congressman was also a homeopathic physician, and he wanted to make sure that homeopathics would always be available to the U.S. public.

If you're looking for information about supplements for non-approved FDA drugs, the best bet is to go online. I think the University of Maryland also has a really good "natural supplement" website, too. Or there are a lot of books out there with published studies on safety and efficacy on natural supplements. The one by Facts and Comparisons is reliable. (I'm a pharmacist, and that's the one I use if I don't have access to the internet.)

Originally posted by Alaskan Man

I was surprised to see vitamin C so low on the chart.

Vitamin C is low on the list because of conficting studies; this doesn't necessarily mean it's not beneficial.

Overall, I think it's a pretty good chart. Nice Find.

Edit to add: I am somewhat confused as to why Magnesium is at the bottom. It happens to be a critical mineral and, if hormone levels are normal, can provide relief for headaches, hypertension, etc.

-Dev

[edit on 1-3-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

I also see another blatant contradiction in this chart.

Why is omega 3 at the very top, while flaxseed oil is in the "slight" bottom????

Flaxseed is abundant in omega 3. Its omega 3:6 ratio is greatly in favor of omega 3.

Is there discrimination now in nutrition?

This is a new "fact" to me.

Just because flaxseed contains the short chain version, compared to the long chain found in fish, is not justifiable to downgrade flaxseed's "rating".

reply to post by jjjtir


It's possible that flax is low on the list due to it's Arachidonic acid content, which stimulate eicosanoid production....leading to inflammation, and other unwanted effects (sometimes headaches).

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


The body does convert a percentage of flaxseed's short chain omega 3 to the long chain version. Not an impressive amount, but it does get some out of it.

There is the absorption/bioavailability/digestibility competition concept.

Eicosanoids aren't exclusive to arachidonic acid.

After all, the eicosanoid derived from omega 3, EPA, Eicosapentaenoic acid is much less inflammatory.

Based on the competition concept, would there not be a balancing/countering effect by the overwhelming omega 3 content in comparison to the arachidonic acid?

[edit on 1-3-2010 by jjjtir]

Of course, that's absolutely true. Omega 6 eicosanoid types promote inflammation while omega 3 types suppress inflammation. So, a proper balance would suffice (which is why we're told to have a proper 3 to 6 ratio).

Linoleic Acid--flax is relatively high in--is converted into Arachidonic Acid in the body; however, as it turns out (skimmed through some literature) ALA--rich in flax as well--competes with LA for enzymes to convert them to EPA/AA respectively. And, in the process, blocks the conversion of LA to AA. So....looks like my point above was moot, but it doesn't explain why flax is so low on the chart.

-Dev

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
but it doesn't explain why flax is so low on the chart.

Most literature Ive read claims that ALA to EPA conversion doesn't happen for everyone and the conversion rate is only 10-20% for most people.

What i don't get about this chart is why is goji berries and royal jelly down at the bottom, these foods definitely provide nutrition benefits maybe because there claimed to do so much radical stuff and a lot of it is BS?