Breaking Down the Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements
One of the most difficult decisions a person can make regarding their health is choosing among the myriad nutritional vitamin supplements. While it is recognized that most people stand to benefit by taking a multivitamin or other vitamin supplementation, there is a lot of controversy over which formula is optimal for the human body. Because of this, each brand uses a different combination of vitamins in different dosages. Some brands recommended taking supplements other than their multivitamin. Other brands say their multivitamin is all-inclusive. Each brand has their own research to back up their findings, and third-party research has been inconclusive.
Another problem with comparing multivitamins and choosing among the various supplements those that are healthiest is the popular literature that claims to assist the average person in sorting through the supplements available in a modern vitamin store. The most widely read of these books is The Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements by Lyle MacWilliam. Early on, this book was hailed as championing the average consumer, but soon several faults came to be detected.
While MacWilliam claims that all of the assertions and conclusions in his book are based on scientific evidence, experts claim that nothing could be further from the truth and the book is undoubtedly biased. Some experts claim that the entire book is nothing than an overblown and overly successful marketing ploy by USANA Essentials, a network marketing company and pharmaceutical manufacturer whose products are highly recommended in the book.
Even though MacWilliam's book may have been nothing more than a marketing ploy, it still contains a lot of good information. The first three chapters are an invaluable treatise on disease, antioxidants, and free radicals in which a case is made for maintaining proper nutrition and dietary supplementation.
It is a shame that the rest of the book does not follow the example set by the first three chapters. Instead, those first chapters set MacWilliam up as an expert in nutrition, so readers are made to believe the information in the later chapters. As it turns out, this information was never peer-reviewed by anyone in the scientific community, so it becomes relegated to mere opinion.
The Manufacturing of Nutritional Supplements
One of the factors that must be considered in comparing nutritional supplements is the quality of the manufacturing process. The Comparative Guide states that very few manufacturers of dietary supplements follow strict standards of quality control. Of course, there is no proof offered to back up this claim. The fact of the matter is that most manufacturers in the United States and Canada do indeed follow a process that meets the standards set up by the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP).
The attack against many vitamin manufacturers as producing bad quality and impure supplements is completely unfounded. MacWilliam backs up his claim with a single example and somehow makes a leap that it applies to the majority of companies. The example cited doesn't even apply to modern manufacturing processes because it dates back to 1908, and the example is only about a single product – echinacea.
That being said, there is still a variance in the quality of supplements that is based on how they are manufactured. The greatest variance in the quality is due to the form of the nutrient. There is more than a single source for almost every nutrient and some of these are more readily absorbed by the human body than others. It still makes sense to compare the nutritional labels of supplements in order to make sure that the most bioavailable form is being used. In addition, there is a question on if the nutrient is animal or plant-based that may a play a large part in the decision by vegans or vegetarians.
The Science of the Blended Standard
The Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements relies on testing standard created by MacWilliam called the Blended Standard. He claims to have developed it by averaging the recommendations of four so-called independent experts, all of whom happen to agree with MacWilliam's personal opinion on nutritional matters. None of the thousands of other independent experts with widely differing viewpoints and data from scientific studies to back up those viewpoints were considered.
Those who dared to look more closely at the four independent experts that were used found that they were not so independent, after all. They all had interests in specific manufacturers of nutritional supplements. Three of them market and sell their own lines of supplements, and the fourth has worked directly for USANA in the past. Finally, even though these four all have some expertise in the area of nutritional supplements, none of them are recognized as being nutritional experts by any medical association or governing body.
Much of the lengthy explanation of Blended Standard in the book seems to be nothing more than a clever subterfuge arranged to hide the fact that it does not rely on any type of tre scientific evidence. No outside scientific studies are part of the equation, and in some cases, the data presented is skewed to favor USANA Essentials. It would be wrong to say that MacWilliam is deliberately misleading the public, but it can be stated with certainty that his methods are non-scientific and careless.
Taking a closer look at MacWilliam's own definition on how the Blended Standard was created shows several discrepancies. In each case, the discrepancy favors USANA-branded products. One such discrepancy is that for a nutrient to be recommended in a product by using the Blended Standard, it must have a recommended dose that is agreed upon by two of the four experts. In the case of lutein, only one of the four gives a recommended dose, but MacWilliam states is as being recommended by using the Blended Standard. This invalidates all conclusions that are formed as a basis of his farcical standard.
The last reason why the Blended Standard cannot be taken seriously is because of the use of averages. Many of the experts disagree dramatically on a recommended dose for several nutrients. To solve this problem, MacWilliam simply averages the recommendations and presents the average as the dose that should be taken. Where is the science in that?
Breaking Down
Ignoring the Facts
One of the biggest problems with the Comparative Guide to Nutritional Supplements is that quantity is used exclusively in the comparisons. There is no consideration made for the source of the nutrient and its absorption rate by the human body. This can make a very big difference in the quality of a supplement, and ignoring the absorption rate makes comparing the dosage completely irrelevant. MacWilliam even admits this within the text of the book. He claims that such considerations are "beyond the scope" of the book and will therefore be ignored, even though "such considerations are significant in the overall determination of product quality."
After this statement, it is impossible to understand how anyone can continue to take the comparison seriously. It is a full admission that the comparisons in the book have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the supplements. The fact remains that no matter the dosage of a particular nutrient, it will not do any good if it passes through the body and is eliminated completely unused. This is a common occurrence in several nutrients that are available in multiple forms.
Many forms of copper cannot be absorbed by the body. The same goes for iron and vitamin E. One of the most popularized nutrients that falls into this category is calcium. People were taking calcium supplements for years before the medical community realized that the cheap form used by most manufacturers was not doing anyone a lick of good.
A true comparative study will take the source into consideration. Once the bioavailability of the specific nutrient is known, the dose can then be adjusted so the proper amount gets absorbed by the body. In addition, some nutrients are not well-absorbed in a pill form. Only a liquid form can be absorbed by the body.
A True Comparison
A true comparison of nutritional supplements will rely on much more than what was put into the Comparative Guide. The following are all considerations that must be made:
Potency – More is not better. In some cases, such as with vitamin A and iron, too high a dose can be toxic.
Bioavailability – The bioavailability of the nutrient must be taken into consideration along with the actual dosage.
Vitamin E – Some forms of vitamin E are not beneficial when taken orally.
Cardiac health – All nutrients should be included for complete heart and circulatory
Health.
Bone health – All nutrients should be included for complete bone health, especially for women.Antioxidants – Only antioxidants that have proven effectiveness in scientific studies should be in the supplement. Glucose Metabolism – The supplement should contain nutrients for the regulation of glucose levels. Bioflavonoids – These should be included in a bioavailable form. Toxic compounds – The supplement should be free of unnecessary and toxic ingredients for maximum safety. To know more please visit: Nutricula "The Science of Longevity Journal" To know more about the Organic E.V.E System please go to: Organic-EVE.com
No comments:
Post a Comment