Are Nutritional Supplements Dangerous? Part 3

Are the nutritional supplements you purchase and consume the right ones for you - do they get absorbed at the right place and the right time in your body - are they safe?  Here is the final analysis by Dr Chaney in our 3 part series.  More heavy reading but, worth it.  See my summary at the end.

Hi Paul,

This week I am concluding my analysis of the article titled "10 Surprising Dangers of Vitamins and Supplements" in the September 2012 issue of Consumer Reports. The article consists of 10 warnings about the potential dangers of food supplements.

I covered the first six of those warnings two weeks ago. In summary, all of those warnings were at least partially true, but they pertained to such a small portion of the food supplements in the market that they were almost meaningless.

Last week I covered the seventh warning in the article.

The seventh warning was that heart and cancer protection are not proven. If the authors had stopped there I probably wouldn't have quibbled with them. It is, in fact, very difficult to unambiguously prove that any intervention prevents heart disease or cancer in a primary prevention setting. In fact, recent studies  have shown that you can't even prove that statin drugs
reduce heart attack risk in a primary prevention setting (see "Do Statins Really Work?" and "More Bad News About Statins" in my archived "Tips From the Professor").

But the authors didn't stop there. The article was written in such a way that it suggested that
supplements have been proven not to be effective in reducing heart disease and cancer risk - and that they might even increase the risk. In last week's critique I pointed out that those statements were based on a very few flawed studies, and are contradicted by many other
studies. However, the conclusions of those few flawed studies have been repeated so many times that they've become urban myths. They've taken on the ring of truth.

But you are probably growing tiring of hearing about the Consumer Reports article, so I'm going to wrap up my critique this week.

The eighth warning was that you could choke on supplements. Really? That's true of anything you swallow. But let's put it in perspective. The FDA says that has occurred a total of 900 times over the past five years - and only a few of the cases were serious enough to require a Heimlich maneuver. Most cases of choking on supplements were easily resolved by a second swallow or little extra water. I've seen far more Heimlich maneuvers for stuck food than for stuck supplements. I think the authors just needed a little bit of fill to reach their desired goal of 10 warnings.

The ninth warning was that some natural products were anything but. Are you really surprised? In most cases you can figure that out just by reading the label. Clearly the authors were running short of material.

The 10th warning was that you may not need supplements at all. The authors started out with the statement that "If you are already getting the recommended amount of nutrients by eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, cereals, dairy, and protein, there's little if any additional benefit from ingesting nutritional supplements". I tend to agree with that statement. But what the authors did not point out was that the USDA tells us that only 5% of the US population actuallyeats that way.

If I could summarize my critique of the past three weeks, Consumer Reports is very good when they are testing consumer products or surveying customers about their satisfaction with consumer products. They are less reliable when they start to venture into areas of health and nutrition. Because this is not an area of their expertise, they are easily misled by the urban
myths that abound in the field of nutrition. They do not have the expertise to examine the literature themselves and evaluate whether or not the urban myths are true. So just take their nutritional advice with a grain of salt.


To Your Health!
Dr. Stephen G Chaney 

So how do you really know- make sure you are dealing with a reputable company who focuses on research and development improving existing products and launching new products at least annually, highly published research based on original research done by their own scientists - say 100 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, quality control standards that are above industry standards - i.e. pharmaceutical grade, and a proven track record  - how about 50 plus years, and no product recalls.  Learn more at my website lindholm.myshaklee.com or wefoundafuture.com/lindholm  code 78605

Finish Strong! 

Paul Lindholm   +++

Are Nutritional Supplements Dangerous? Part 2

Are the nutritional supplements you are taking safe?  Here is some more heavy analysis by Dr Chaney - I know this is pretty intense reading but it is worth it if you are truly interested in your health and wellness. 

Hi Paul,

This week I am continuing my analysis of the article titled "10 Surprising Dangers of Vitamins and Supplements" in the September 2012 issue of Consumer Reports. The article consists of 10 warnings about the potential dangers of food supplements.

I covered the first six of those warnings last week. In summary, all of those warnings were true, but they pertained to such a small portion of the food supplements in the market that they were almost meaningless. The only value of the first six warnings in the Consumer Reports article would be that they might make some consumers more discerning when they shop for food supplements - by that I mean they might be better able to avoid the ones that are either
worthless or dangerous or both.

The seventh warning is that the heart and cancer protection of food supplements is not proven. In a sense, that statement is also true. It is extremely difficult to definitively prove the efficacy of food supplements. However, the article is written in such a way that one might be led to believe that food supplements have definitely been proven not to be affected. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that some experts have an anti-supplement bias. They require multiple studies before they will admit that a supplement might be beneficial. However, they accept a single study suggesting that a supplement doesn't work or that it might be harmful as the absolute truth. These reports are picked up by the media, and after they've been repeated often enough
they take on a life of their own. They become "urban myths", and become generally accepted as true.

So I would like to take a little more time and discuss some of the claims that in this section of the Consumer Reports article.

The first claim is that calcium supplements inevitably increase the risk of heart attack. I have discussed this claim in detail in a previous "Tip From the Professor" titled "Designing the Perfect Calcium Supplement". You will find this article and other previous "Tips From the Professor" as free resources at www.socialmarketingconnection.com .

In short, I have argued that the problem is likely one of calcium supplement design rather than a
characteristic of all calcium supplements. Those calcium supplements designed solely to get calcium into the bloodstream quickly are problematic because all that excess calcium has to go somewhere - and calcification of our arteries is not a good thing.

What you should look for is calcium supplements that are designed to maximize the incorporation of calcium into your bones. Not only is that likely to decrease the risk that the calcium ends up somewhere where it shouldn't be, but it also increases the probability
that the calcium ends up where it should be - in your bones.

The second claim is that omega-3 fatty acids don't actually decrease the risk of heart attack or stroke.  The authors of the Consumer Reports article did note that several previous studies had shown that omega-3 fatty acids decreased the risk of heart attack, but seemed to suggest that those studies were invalidated by a recent study showing no effect of omega-3 supplementation in people at high risk for heart attack and stroke.

I have covered that study in my previous "Tip From the Professor" titled "Omega-3s: The Wrong Question". In short, the problem with the most recent study was that the patients in the study were already on 3 to 5 drugs that lowered the risk of heart disease. All this study showed was that omega-3 fatty acids did not offer any incremental benefit for patients who were already maxed out on medications.

This study was silent on the important question of whether omega-3 fatty acids by themselves might decrease the risk of heart attack and stroke. Thus, this most recent study does not invalidate the several previous studies showing a beneficial effect of omega-3 fatty acids on the risk of heart attacks and stroke.

The third claim is that antioxidant supplements might actually increase the risk of cancer, especially prostate cancer.

I have addressed the issue of whether antioxidants in general increase the risk of cancer in my "Tip From the Professor" titled "Antioxidants and Cancer". In short, that claim is based on a single, flawed meta-analysis.  That study excluded any studies showing beneficial effects of antioxidants. In addition, the increased cancer risk reported in the meta-analysis was almost
entirely due to a single study in which vitamin E was combined with estrogen replacement therapy - which is known to increase the risk of cancer.

The authors of the Consumer Reports article completely ignored a second publication that reanalyzed the data and pointed out the flaws in the previous study. They also ignored a recent study showing that antioxidants significantly decreased cancer risk. The details for all of this information can be found in my "Antioxidants and Cancer" article.

I addressed the issue of whether vitamin E increases the risk of prostate cancer in my previous article titled "Another Day, Another Study". In short, I pointed out that the study suggesting that vitamin E increased the risk of prostate cancer had several flaws, and was directly contradicted by two previous studies showing that vitamin E significantly decreases the risk of prostate  cancer.

In summary, I don't mean to suggest that studies claiming that certain supplements could do some harm are completely baseless. In fact, I have long warned that high potency, high purity individual nutrients, such as pure alpha-tocopherol or pure beta-carotene, do have the potential to cause more harm than good. That is because they can interfere with the absorption of
similar nutrients that have beneficial effects themselves. I have long advocated for a holistic
approach to supplementation rather than relying on individual high potency, high purity supplements.

Based on the recent research with calcium supplements I would add the warning that supplements that are solely designed on the basis of how fast the nutrients can get to the bloodstream, without any consideration of where they go once they get into the bloodstream, also may have the potential to do more harm than good.

However as a scientist I am appalled that single studies suggesting lack of efficacy or the potential for harm are given more weight than multiple studies suggesting the benefits of supplementation. I think much more research is needed before we start to tell people to avoid antioxidant supplements or that supplements don't really provide any benefits. If we look at the total body of published literature, the evidence for the benefits of supplementation far
outweighs the evidence for risk.

That's enough for one week. I'll be back next week for Part 3 of this discussion.


To Your Health!
Dr. Stephen G Chaney

 We are all accountable for our actions - all actions have consequences, some good, some bad but for every action there will be a reaction.  So continue to do some research.  Know about what you consume - whether it is a beef steak or big boy beefsteak tomato.  If you would like to learn more about nutrition please visit my website lindholm.myshaklee.com  or wefoundafuture.com/lindholm code 78605

Finish Strong!
Paul Lindholm  +++

Are Nutritional Supplements Dangerous?

Lots of interesting things on the internet, magazines and newspapers these days and its hard to sift through them all and get a good analysis based on fact - for instance, are nutritional supplements safe?  I just read this great article and want to re-post it here.

 It is by Dr Stephen Chaney, he is a professor in the Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and the Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill where he teaches first year medical students and runs an active cancer research program, with over 100 peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals and he has written several chapters on nutrition for one of the leading biochemistry textbooks for medical students today plus a bunch of other awards.  Here is his first of 3 email articles I have read lately:

Hi Paul,

Many of you have been asking me about the article titled "10 Surprising Dangers of Vitamins and Supplements" in the September 2012 issue of Consumer Reports. This article reminds me of the political advertisements that we have seen so much of recently.  There is a kernel of truth in there somewhere, but by the time the ad airs it has been so magnified and distorted that it's almost unrecognizable.

So let's look at the warnings that the authors have made one by one, and put them in perspective.

The first warning is that supplements are not risk-free.

That is true up to a point. There are some bad players in the industry but they produce a very small minority of the supplements in the marketplace - probably less than 2%.

To understand just how small a problem this really is, we really need to put the warning into perspective. The authors said that there were 6,300 reports of serious adverse effects and 115 deaths associated with dietary supplements between 2007 and 2012. That corresponds to
1,260 serious adverse effects and 23 deaths per year.

In contrast, there are over 2.2 million adverse drug reactions and over 125,000 deaths per year from medications taken as properly prescribed.

So which is more dangerous - food supplements or prescription drugs?

The second warning is that some supplements are really prescription drugs.

Again that is a true statement, but it represents only a few bad apples in the industry - it's not the industry norm.

The worst offenders are among supplements marketed for bodybuilding, weight loss, and sexual enhancement - especially those that promise instant or effortless results. These supplements often contain stimulants or synthetic steroids.

I have warned you about some of these supplements in my past columns. As I have said in the past "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is". So just avoid those supplements that advertise that they will make the pounds just melt away or enable you to leap tall
buildings in a single bound.

The third warning is that you can overdose on vitamins and minerals.

That's kind of a no-brainer. You can overdose on almost anything - even water.

Now I do not want to minimize the possibility of overdosing on vitamins and minerals. It can happen.  Most of those 1,260 serious adverse effects reported each year are probably due to overdosing - although some of them may represent drug - nutrient interactions.

If you are taking high levels of vitamins and minerals, I do recommend that you familiarize yourself with the safe upper limits set by the Institute of Medicine and the Office of Dietary Supplements. You can find that at www.ods.od.nih.gov.

The fourth warning is that you can't depend on warning labels.

Again, that is true with a small minority of the supplements out there. In fact, it is a good way to
distinguish between the fly-by-night companies and the reputable companies.

My advice to you is to do your due diligence. Look for responsible, reputable companies that put warning labels on their supplements.

The fifth warning is that no supplements have been proven to cure major diseases.

As the authors point out the FDA does not allow claims that supplements can diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases. These claims are only allowed for FDA approved drugs.

You won't find many companies making those claims, but this is yet another good way to separate the reputable companies from the not so reputable companies. If you see claims that a supplement can cure or treat a disease, run the other way. Reputable companies would
not make such a claim.

The sixth warning is to buy with caution from botanicas.

The authors are referring to stores that sell traditional medicinal plants for physical or spiritual
healings - the California medicinal pot stores come to mind. The botanica type stores are completely unregulated, so you have no idea what you're actually getting.

I agree strongly with this recommendation, but it has very little to do with the supplements that you and I are likely to be purchasing on a regular basis.

That's enough for one week. Next week I will cover warnings 7 through 10 in the article.

In short, there is some truth to each of the warnings that I have covered this week from the Consumer Reports article. But, it is important to keep those statements in perspective. Each of them is true only for a very small percentage of the supplements in the marketplace.

So those warnings should not scare you away from supplementation. But they will help you choose high quality supplements from reputable manufacturers, and hopefully will make it less likely that you'll fall for the hype and deceptive advertising used by a very small segment of supplement manufacturers.


To Your Health!
Dr. Stephen G Chaney

Please feel free to visit our website and learn more about nutrition lindholm.myshaklee.com
or wefoundafuture.com/lindholm code 78605

Grab attention, keep it, leverage it.

Grabbing attention and making your point in any arena is key to having an impact and ultimately getting new business.

When Mary and I lived in Atlanta we only had our teenage son with us full time.  Teen years in Atlanta after moving from West Houston was a pretty significant transition.  However, I must say that the people in Atlanta were the most friendly and gracious of all the cities we lived in while we were moving around about every 5 years with my old corporate job. 

Well, we would sit down to have a conversation with our son about something important - at least to us - and after a period of time he would say "Mom, your 20 seconds were up a long time ago".  We can reflect back on those days now with some humor and levity.  But, let's don't miss the point - in today's world you get only the blink of an eye to make a good impression.  Based on this experience, you might say you've go a 20 x 20 x 20 opportunity to make the right impression and make the right point to build relationship.

20 x 20 x 20:
How do you look 20 feet away?  Are you dressed for success?  Are you dressed for the occasion? Are you dressed consistent with the impression you want to make?

How do you look from 20 inches away?  You may look great from a distance but do you look great up close.  The other day I visited with a woman who looked great from 20 feet away but when she got close, here skin was so dry and blotchie - it made my skin hurt.  I have to admit, that I look a lot better from 20 yards away - like the Tootsie movie when the producer told the cameraman to back up when filming Dustin Hoffman playing a woman.

What are your first 20 words out of your mouth?  Do you know what to say in the appropriate occasion.  The "What do you do for a living?" question is the real tricky one and "I'm a logger" is not going to set anyone on their ear (being a logger is an inside joke to a few of my old banking friends).  Avoid any 'commodity' type answer and instead use word pictures.

An example that applies here "What do you do for a living?" would be -" I'm Paul Lindholm and my wife Mary and I have a health and wellness business - which means we  provide nutritional supplements that have you bouncing out of bed in the morning and gives you energy all day long with with no blahs after lunch, more mental sharpness through the day, and when your head hits the pillow at night you are asleep in 7 minutes.  In other words, we can help you feel like you were 16 again but with better judgement"

Now, if you are a word counter then you know I had a continuation hook before the end of my first 20 words - which means - you use that because your listener is about to doze off after hearing 'health and wellness' thinking that you must be a doctor's bed pan assistant or work in a hospital as the guy who collects contaminated rubbish.

You use which means to clarify and emphasize your meaning in terms your audience can identify with - bouncing out of bed, energy all day, no blahs, mental sharpness, and asleep in 7 minutes are all picture phrases most people can visualize very easily .  Additionally, when you use which means the listeners brain says "wait a second, there's a mystery here and I want to solve it, so I'd better pay attention"   That is also why you use in other words to give your grand finale as the listeners brain says "what other words, let me know".

Then your memorable hook 'feel like your were 16 again but with better judgement" - we all can remember how we felt invincible at age 16 so WOW, the listeners brain says "you may be someone I might want to get to know"  The point with all this wordsmithing is that about every 20 words you need to have some type of hook to keep the other person's interest.  The key is to be prepared but not to sound and appear mechanical - it takes some practice but you will become a better recognized conversationalist if you can "hook" them every 20 words.

Try this 20 x 20 x 20 concept out and see if it doesn't help you when meeting and greeting people. 

By the way, if you are in the Georgetown area and looking for a great networking opportunity, the Board of Directors Networking Group meets at Mel's Lone Star Lanes every Wednesday from 8:30 to 9:30.  Its a great group and we have "education" presentations like the one above.

Curious about our health and wellness business?  Check us out.

"To Be Enthusiastic, You Must Be Enthusiastic"
Try being enthusiastic while being plain, no emotions, no facial expression, no movement.
Impossible right - so, to be ENTHUSIASTIC you must be ENTHUSIASTIC.  That means letting the world know from your heart what you are feeling, what you are thinking and what you love about the topic of your enthusiasm.  Sounds logical, right. 

I had a Quantitative Management Science professor at the University of Houston in the Business School who could have used this little dittie.  One day in class, I always sat at the front, I kept hearing a strange noise - it kept rumbling and rumbling - the professor kept talking.  Then all of a sudden there was a crash in the back of the class room - it was a small class with only about 15 students, but one of them had fallen asleep and had totally crashed out of the desk onto the floor.  Well, it at least woke him up and stopped the snoring. 

Lesson Learned - it is okay to be ENTHUSIASTIC when you speak publicly and in private.  I am very excited about setting up this blog and the future information I will share.