Supplements: Good/Bad? Necessary/Unnecessary?

jacksonpt

Oh there could be a certain genetic background etc that means a certain supplement only works in a certain ethnic lineage, for example.

Right. Now if only there was a way of sorting out the ones that do work from the ones that don't... something that involved clinics and trials maybe... if only we could do that!!!!

You're contradicting yourself.

or I'm confused.

or both.

richardheath

Oh there could be a certain genetic background etc that means a certain supplement only works in a certain ethnic lineage, for example.

Right. Now if only there was a way of sorting out the ones that do work from the ones that don't... something that involved clinics and trials maybe... if only we could do that!!!!

You're contradicting yourself.

or I'm confused.

or both.

Not contradicting myself.

There is a heart medication (not a supplement, I know) that was tested in a cross section of the population and found to have no benefit to the majority of people. In fact, looking at the raw data, it was a bust. However, a closer look at the data indicated that it did in fact work for a subset - in this case, people of recent African descent. And thus was born the first Blacks-only medicine.

How did they figure that out?

By running a clinical trial and crunching the data.

So yes, it is possible (although not probable) that one supplement could only work in a subset of the population. But the way to figure it out is still to do trials.

Without trials (which give you evidence), all you have is a guess, a hope, a belief.

I prefer evidence.

jacksonpt

Oh there could be a certain genetic background etc that means a certain supplement only works in a certain ethnic lineage, for example.

Right. Now if only there was a way of sorting out the ones that do work from the ones that don't... something that involved clinics and trials maybe... if only we could do that!!!!

You're contradicting yourself.

or I'm confused.

or both.

Not contradicting myself.

There is a heart medication (not a supplement, I know) that was tested in a cross section of the population and found to have no benefit to the majority of people. In fact, looking at the raw data, it was a bust. However, a closer look at the data indicated that it did in fact work for a subset - in this case, people of recent African descent. And thus was born the first Blacks-only medicine.

How did they figure that out?

By running a clinical trial and crunching the data.

So yes, it is possible (although not probable) that one supplement could only work in a subset of the population. But the way to figure it out is still to do trials.

Without trials (which give you evidence), all you have is a guess, a hope, a belief.

I prefer evidence.

Right, but my point is that it's impossible to test all possible people/groups/conditions to know if any given medication/supplement might work for a singular person.

So again... Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean it doesn't work.

richardheath

Right, but my point is that it's impossible to test all possible people/groups/conditions to know if any given medication/supplement might work for a singular person.

Well, that heart medicine is the only case I know where such a result was found. And that was a medicine. A dietary supplement is likely to be much more general than a specialized medicine.

So again... Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean it doesn't work.

So I will grant you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Except for the ones where they HAVE looked and found them not to work.

Or are you really a special snowflake? Do raspberry ketones work for your weight loss?

But even if there is no negative evidence (and no positive evidence either) for a specific claim, why would you take a supplement? Do you take EVERY single supplement on the off chance that it might work for you? If not, why not? How do you decide which ones to take?

jacksonpt

Just to close up our discussion so the thread can get back on topic (if people want it to)...

Well, that heart medicine is the only case I know where such a result was found. And that was a medicine. A dietary supplement is likely to be much more general than a specialized medicine.

Admittedly, I'm speaking outside my realm of knowledge, so this is based on some logic and a bit of common sense only... When talking about vitamins and minerals, as was the original question, isn't it reasonable to think that they will have a greater impact the more extreme an individual's intake is of that vitamin. Someone who is VERY deficient in vitamin C will benefit greatly from a vitamin C supplement, while someone who isn't won't. Also, someone who has an excess would be affected even more so (or at least more apparently) by a greater excess, no? And in cases of excess, the problems would be magnified (potentially) with things that aren't water soluble.

If that makes sense, then you've got a whole range of supplements that are beneficial for a large group of people (people deficient in a given vitamin/mineral), a large group of people it will have no meainingful impact on (those with "reasonable" intake), and another group of people where it could have a detrimental impact (those already with an excess).


As for the rest of your post...
When people have looked but not found proof - that may disproove something, or it may simply suggest. They aren't the same thing.

lol... no, I'm not a special snowflake by any means. I'm about as average/typical as they come.

Because for $6 I can buy a small bottle of magnesium pills based on the recommendations of several and the readings of what appear to be credible articles stating mg can help with sleep problems. I can try it for a week with no real dangers and see if it has any noticeable impact. If it does, I can follow up with my doctor or do more thorough research about potential long term side effects of mg supplementation and at what doses those side effects occur.