4 replies to this topic

[Brainbox]

In another thread about the (in)famous resveratrol studies, we have a slow discussion about diet and study results of research in mouse models. In a way, humans possibly impose their culture (or other goals) on diets of these mice, but also there is a high level of uncertainty about other influences over which we do not have control.

The study below did look a human cohort studies that often fail to produce proof of the effects of supplementation that seem to be the result when testing on smaller scale with more control over other parameters. This could be related to the above issue, but maybe there are other issues playing a role? The psychological approach results in the following insight: people taking supplements feel kind of invulnerable to competing effects of behavior, leading to canceling out positive effects of supplementation.

It's not only the pill that matters, but also (and maybe even foremost) culture and psychology.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21764996


Ironic effects of dietary supplementation: illusory invulnerability created by taking dietary supplements licenses health-risk behaviors.

Chiou WB, Yang CC, Wan CS.

Source

1Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University.


Abstract

The use of dietary supplements and the health status of individuals have an asymmetrical relationship: The growing market for dietary supplements appears not to be associated with an improvement in public health. Building on the notion of licensing, or the tendency for positive choices to license subsequent self-indulgent choices, we argue that because dietary supplements are perceived as conferring health advantages, use of such supplements may create an illusory sense of invulnerability that disinhibits unhealthy behaviors. In two experiments, participants who took placebo pills that they believed were dietary supplements exhibited the licensing effect across multiple forms of health-related behavior: They expressed less desire to engage in exercise and more desire to engage in hedonic activities (Experiment 1), expressed greater preference for a buffet over an organic meal (Experiment 1), and walked less to benefit their health (Experiment 2) compared with participants who were told the pills were a placebo. A mediational analysis indicated that perceived invulnerability was an underlying mechanism for these effects. Thus, a license associated with the use of dietary supplements may operate within cycles of behaviors that alternately protect and endanger health.

PMID: 21764996 [PubMed - in process]

Edited by Brainbox, 04 September 2011 - 01:00 PM.

[niner]

Interesting experiment they ran. Many of us knew an ImmInst member, now in cryostasis, who had a refrigerator full of pills but also smoked two packs a day. Connection? I think so. On the other hand, most of us who supplement also eat well and exercise, so it's not a universal phenomenon. When Chiou et al. say "The growing market for dietary supplements appears not to be associated with an improvement in public health.", they make it sound like they think that some people taking supplements should miraculously compensate for other people who drink 64 ounce sodas.... They haven't actually done an epidemiological study. When such studies have been done, looking at people who took a multivitamin vs. those who didn't, my recollection is that the people who took the multi fared better. Their concept of licensing probably occurs at some level in some fraction of supplement users, but it's not a universal phenomenon.

[hallucinogen]

I think we spend WAY TOO MUCH time concerning ourselves with the supplements we take or do not take,
instead of eating a well balanced raw vegan diet, which is actually simpler to prepare and quite cheap to maintain,

and my point is - we forget to Enjoy Life and ponder about the true secrets of the Universe, and just relax and take it all in every single moment, by the moment ...

Almost all of the supplements, even including Multi-Vitamins, especially multi-vitamins i guess, space you out to somewhere from your natural centre, your origins, your mental baseline that you can get as high or as low as you want to through natural means,
multi-vitamins formulation is like playing God with creating a new vegetable or fruit,
nearly impossible for us to accomplish at this stage of civilization development,
everything has already been given to us, we just tend to overlook it .

- is that one of the traits of humankind, to go against our instincts and intuition ?

[niner]

multi-vitamins formulation is like playing God with creating a new vegetable or fruit,
nearly impossible for us to accomplish at this stage of civilization development,
everything has already been given to us, we just tend to overlook it .

- is that one of the traits of humankind, to go against our instincts and intuition ?

Well, I'm with you in one regard; we have strayed wildly from the diet that we evolved with. Was that because we went against our instincts? I don't think so- Our instinct is to keep from being hungry, and we traded an inconsistent source of healthy food, our hunter-gatherer fare, for a constant source of crappy food, in the form of grains. Ultimately, most of our problems stem from following our instincts, instead of going against them. We seek out the best-tasting food that we can get for the lowest expenditure of effort or money. That's what animals do. We just happened to be clever enough to figure out how to extract oils from seeds and hydrogenate them, and get fructose out of corn so cheaply that we can drink solutions of it by the bucketful.

The food we evolved with was not necessarily raw (we invented cooking a very long time ago), nor was it vegan. I agree that raw is a lot better, though it might be a lot of work to make the nutrients fully accessible, and it's not likely to taste as good as what can be achieved with cooking. I don't see how we could make a case for veganism on the basis of health. The only case I can see is a moral one, but I think it's possible to be a moral ovo-lacto vegetarian or even carnivore. Basically, you provide your animals a good life and kill them humanely. That is of course a far cry from factory farms.

I can't see the problem with multi vitamins. It is extremely difficult to get every micronutrient you need, in the amounts that are optimal, from diet alone. We've been creating new edible plants through traditional cross breeding for eons, so it's hard to see what's so bad about that.

[Mind]

Multivitamins for filling some gaps in your diet or to make sure you get all of the micronutrients you need seems logical and beneficial. It is a method of engineering the nearly perfect diet for longevity. Sure, if you plan well and have access to a wide variety of reasonably priced mostly organic food, then maybe you could get by without some supplementation. Well-designed multis that do not go overboard are probably worth it and make the longevity-based diet a little easier.

However, bigger is likely not better in regards to multis - which are in most part anti-oxidants. Yet another study lends credence to the idea that over-supplementation of anti-oxidants increases your risk of death. Some astute Imminst members were some of the first people (in the world) to highlight this fact over the last 5 to 10 years. I would link back to some of these discussions except that our search function here in the forums is less than optimal (to put it kindly).

I should highlight the fact that the Imminst-designed Vimmortal, is lighter on many nutrients that other multis. Again, showing how Imminst members are ahead of the curve. I remember some of the discussions about Vimmortal. In particular, some people proclaimed "why buy Vimmortal when I can get so many 1000% more antioxidants in other brands?". Reason: because getting 10s or 100s times more than RDA is probably going to increase your mortality risk!

I wonder if the invincibility psychology was at play during some of these past forum discussions.

Edited by Mind, 05 September 2011 - 04:01 PM.