OT: Nutritional Supplement to improve mind

[49er]

We try to advocate science based medicine on this board.

Other than things like eating too much sugar or deficiencies of various chemicals like vitamins, most of this "supplement" stuff is either quackery or has very minor effects.

When someone publishes a study showing that Antarctic sunflower extract reduces the risk of ear cancer, if you read the data, you'll usually find out that it only reduced the number of cancer cases by 1.2% and that number was only weakly statistically significant. And then there were 4 other studies that showed no significant improvement in outcomes. Then when further controlled studies with larger groups are conducted, they don't show any improvement.

Strangely enough, the people selling the herbs, the news media, and the true believers still keep pushing the stuff.

archangle,

I agree with you that that there is alot of quackery in alternative health. But many alleged scientific studies are flawed and biased.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/08/cur ... earch.html

And I wish I had a nickel for everytime I read a study showing alleging that a supplement didn't work only to find several flaws in it such as using a form that was known to be ineffective.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with sharing information about what supplements or foods may be helpful to prevent Alzheimers or anything else with the understanding that your mileage will vary. If we wait for this to be studied by conventional medicine, we'll be waiting a long time.

49er

[Janknitz]

If Archangle's comment was aimed at me, I was trying tumeric tea as an anti-inflammatory for hip pain. I didn't see much improvement, but the tea tasted good.

Science is going to take a long time to catch up to Alzheimer's disease. For example, medicine has been going after the brain plaque in AD, not considering that maybe the plaque formation is the body's attempt to heal the real cause of the damage. Kind of like blaming the fire fighters for causing the burning.

I used to believe faithfully in scientific method and evidence-basis, but I've since learned how data had been manipulated to make statins look good and how science has ignored evidence that dietary recommendations for heart health were CAUSING cardiovascular disease. Too much money and special interests involved to continue blind faith in "the scientific method@.

I'm not in favor of science anarchy, either, but I will read and learn and ultimately make my own decisions for my own health based on what I think is best for me.

[ems]

We try to advocate science based medicine on this board.

Other than things like eating too much sugar or deficiencies of various chemicals like vitamins, most of this "supplement" stuff is either quackery or has very minor effects.

When someone publishes a study showing that Antarctic sunflower extract reduces the risk of ear cancer, if you read the data, you'll usually find out that it only reduced the number of cancer cases by 1.2% and that number was only weakly statistically significant. And then there were 4 other studies that showed no significant improvement in outcomes. Then when further controlled studies with larger groups are conducted, they don't show any improvement.

Strangely enough, the people selling the herbs, the news media, and the true believers still keep pushing the stuff.

I couldn't have said it better myself. We have a long way to go - science ain't got there yet for sure, but I would trust science over "herbs" any day.

[SleepyToo2]

But, is the science really that much further out of the weeds than the so-called "quackery"? The average successful "treatment" rarely has an effect greater than 70% better than placebo (nothing), and has a lot more side effects. Cancer "treatments" are rarities if they have a 5-year survival rate greater than a seemingly small number, and cause some nasty side effects. Then you have the so-called "scientists" who write a paper saying that treatment X is the best thing since sliced bread, but then a while later say they got it wrong, or they even falsified the data. My view is that we have to find the best evidence there is, then try that treatment for ourselves. We can't scientifically say that the pharmaceutical product is better or worse than the real-life natural treatment. Unfortunately, most trials are designed to prove a point. That point depends on the sponsor. So the comparator, whatever it is, is selected to 'fail' versus the sponsor's product. Scientific? Heck no. But it is probably the best we can do for now.

[archangle]

If Archangle's comment was aimed at me, I was trying tumeric tea as an anti-inflammatory for hip pain. I didn't see much improvement, but the tea tasted good.

Nope, not aimed at you. Aimed at the all too common idea these days that "natural," "herbal," "organic," or "holistic" treatments are somehow better than "chemical" and commercial solutions. And the idea that something "natural" is better than treatments that have been statistically studied.

But, is the science really that much further out of the weeds than the so-called "quackery"? The average successful "treatment" rarely has an effect greater than 70% better than placebo (nothing), and has a lot more side effects. Cancer "treatments" are rarities if they have a 5-year survival rate greater than a seemingly small number, and cause some nasty side effects. Then you have the so-called "scientists" who write a paper saying that treatment X is the best thing since sliced bread, but then a while later say they got it wrong, or they even falsified the data. My view is that we have to find the best evidence there is, then try that treatment for ourselves. We can't scientifically say that the pharmaceutical product is better or worse than the real-life natural treatment. Unfortunately, most trials are designed to prove a point. That point depends on the sponsor. So the comparator, whatever it is, is selected to 'fail' versus the sponsor's product. Scientific? Heck no. But it is probably the best we can do for now.

Let's agree to be skeptical about the evidence presented by the medical mafia and pharmaceutical companies.

We should be even more skeptical about the alternative "medicine" that has NO scientific evidence supporting it. Just because the "good science" is sometimes wrong doesn't mean "bad science" is good.

Don't forget that there are shady corporate characters pushing the alternative medicines as well. As well as true believers who have no idea what they're talking about. There have been thousands and thousands of "natural" cures and alternative treatments. One in a thousand of these cures, including the popular ones eventually end up being a useful treatment and becomes mainsteam medicine. For every one that turns out to be useful in the end, there are a dozen that turn out to be actually harmful.

[49er]

Let's agree to be skeptical about the evidence presented by the medical mafia and pharmaceutical companies.

We should be even more skeptical about the alternative "medicine" that has NO scientific evidence supporting it. Just because the "good science" is sometimes wrong doesn't mean "bad science" is good.

Hmm, I think we should treat the evidence behind the effectiveness of meds with alot more skepticism since generally they can cause alot more serious side effects than vitamins/supplements although they are definitely not side effect free.

What are you calling alternative medicine that has no scientific evidence to support it? If you're referring to something like crystals, you are correct. But if you meant things like fish oil capsules, vitamin D, and Valerian root, that simply is not true that they lack scientific evidence.

Finally, I agree with this doctor who says we need to move beyond debating whether conventional or alternative medicine is better and focus on what is the best option with the least amount of side effects that is supported by the evidence.

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Sup ... l-medicine

49er

[SleepyToo2]

I think what I am trying to say is that statistical evidence can be hard to come by. We shouldn't ignore something that may have been in use by our ancestors for hundreds if not thousands of years. Something that is "natural" is not automatically better, or worse, than something that was created "yesterday". Also, remember that some "vitamins" are actually chemical creations that are very different from what mother nature intended. And used in a very different way.

[Woody]

One bad thing about turmeric is it is't absorbes worth a darn. There is another supplement
piperine which is what gives black pepper it's bite that greatly enhances it's absorption. 20 mg
of piperine taken with turmeric enhances it's absorption 20 times yes 2000% .