09-20-2012, 09:19 AM
Join Date: Jun 2010
There is an inverse relationship between the reliability of a medical journal article and the financial conflict of interest of the persons involved in the writing and any underlying studies. Scientific fraud in America is epidemic. I know of no basis to distinguish the British in that regard.
Originally Posted by Chas Tennis
Thanks for posting the article.
Originally, there was the famous discovery that British seamen got scurvy because they were lacking fruits. Fruits were later learned to contain Vitamin C. The British navy supplemented fruits into their regular sea-going diet and scurvy was cured.
The supplement industry is escaliting marketing to an ever higher level. I believe, they mostly use the logic - if a chemical, vitamin, mineral, etc can be identified as important to a body process or body structure then supplementing those molecules, atoms, etc is likely to be beneficial. They write very reasonable sounding, detailed scientific model descriptions, down to the cell and molecule level. For example, read the many supplement ads in bodybuilding magazines.
Just because something seems perfectly reasonable does not make it true. But it does not make it untrue either. ? The only way to resolve the issue is with quality, neutral scientific research.
Neutral scientific research should be supported by a neutral government organization (NIH, etc.) or other neutral organization (neutral foundation). Some of it is. But the number of worthwhile research projects exceeds the small funding level available from government funds or other neutral organization. For a particular research project, unfortunately, 100% of the funding might be from self-interested sources with nothing from neutral sources. The government seems to have dropped the ball even on many of the most wide-reaching and serious medical research areas. (Are saturated fats or sugars most damaging for causing heart disease? ) So we get too much knowledge corruption from financially self-interested funded research.
The internet is seeing a lot of cut-and-paste descriptions so that popular unscientific or scientific conclusions appear widely verbatim on many websites. It is often more difficult to find scientific research among the many popular websites quoting the same few phrases. Search certain exact long medical or supplement phrases and you can find them on many websites. Does anyone have some advice on how to search more for neutral information as opposed to the most popular sites or those that influence search results in some financial or manipulative way?
On the other hand, if something seems perfectly true - but might not be true - what should you do? Reject it because most information is corrupted by funding from financially interested organizations?
For sports drinks, I read and it makes sense that the body uses up its glycogen stores in its muscles and liver and may run short during longer athletic activity. Also, I believe that the body sweats water and considerable sodium. I believe that some of the research on these issues is neutral. All things considered, I conclude that its reasonable for me to take in some calories and sodium during a tennis match. The possible value of the other ingredients in sports drinks is totally unknown to me.
A general reference that I use is Advanced Sports Nutrition, D. Bernardot. The reference seems neutral.
I am uncertain about all this. I'm not going to believe that all supplements are worthless or believe that they work as claimed. I can make a decision with considerable uncertainty - that's nearly all decisions.
With considerable doubt about the value, I supplement daily:
1) Glucosamine & chondroitin (2/3 recommended dose)
2) Vitamin C
3) Magnesium (Mg-Chloride not MgO)
4) Multi-Vitamin (5 days a week)
5) Fish Oil (for Omega 3)
Instead of just water I usually drink Powerade or Gatorade for calories and sodium during a tennis match.
Well said. Just be aware that the drug industry has a lot more money to spend than its competition to prove that the competition's products are not effective.
Last edited by Limpinhitter; 09-20-2012 at 09:25 AM.