A Scientist Debunks The 'Magic' Of Vitamins And Supplements

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

So tried and tested methods like vital amines from natural food, over new age medicine like vitamins and supplements... right?

Beats me. I just responded to people saying 30-year doctors don't know modern medicine.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Not really. New age medicine confuses / misleads the general public, generally does not do what it claims to (and then fails when put up against a proper double-blind trial), and is typically backed by awful anecdotes like "[Insert New Age Medicine Here] have prevented me from having a cold or flu for damn near three straight years".

When 'new age' or 'alternative' medicine are tested and found to have a solid basis in evidence for their claims, they aren't 'new age' or 'alternative' anymore... they're just called 'medicine'.

Yeah . . . whoosh.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Beats me. I just responded to people saying 30-year doctors don't know modern medicine.

You should ask your girlfriend

The reason for that would be the real concern I have against lab synthesized vitamines/supplements ...

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

So my doctor and thousands of other doctors tell their patients to take multi-vitamins for the taste? Because I did love the Fred Flinstone ones as a kid.

nm. This thread is a mess

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Requoted for truth. Not to mention 30 years GP likely has info a decade too old.

Requoted for wrongness. Doctors keep up to date with doctor conferences all the time.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

You should ask your girlfriend

The reason for that would be the real concern I have against lab synthesized vitamines/supplements ...

I can definitely ask. If she can't answer then I know a colleague of her's who can. I'll post the answer here when I get it.

[sun]

Originally Posted by psycnet

oh was it a joke? Because jokes are supposed to be funny.

zing!

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I can definitely ask. If she can't answer then I know a colleague of her's who can. I'll post the answer here when I get it.

Or you can ask me if she can't answer. My girlfriend is a researcher in this exact field (i.e. drugs, animal models)... so we have something in common.

[Minnie]

My mom swears by Vitamin C and takes it daily and doubles up when she gets a cold. She used to shove that stuff down our throats when we were kids (that, and laying hands on us and praying the evil sickness out lol). I never noticed that it did squat for how I was feeling and if it was supposed to help, I'd much rather have gotten it from eating orages or something.

She also swears by zinc for colds and I let her talk me into trying some once (just to get her off my back) but it just made me hurl all over the place.

I get a B12 shot every 3 weeks because I have a verified deficiency there, and we take VitD as well. The specialists all recommended iVitD for my daughter when she had Osteomyelitis and also when they were using Methotrexate (amongst other meds) to treat her - that and extra calcium. We were already all taking the VitD prior to her illness, so they were happy that she was already on it.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Requoted for truth. Not to mention 30 years GP likely has info a decade too old.

I think that is rather an unfair comment. I think most doctors, like many scientific disciplines these days are required to keep abreast of recent advances. This is done by taking courses, attending or presenting at conferences, teaching or mentoring younger doctors, etc.

In some cases e.g. acceptable blood pressure in the aged, the old rules of thumb are returning.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think that is rather an unfair comment. I think most doctors, like many scientific disciplines these days are required to keep abreast of recent advances. This is done by taking courses, attending or presenting at conferences, teaching or mentoring younger doctors, etc.

In some cases e.g. acceptable blood pressure in the aged, the old rules of thumb are returning.

And how much time do you think is involved to keep up to date on everything, versus being at the bare minimum?

Ever read a paper, say from Nature magazine, that is slightly outside of your field? Know how long that takes?

I may have been a little harsh, didn't mean they are obsolete. But don't expect them to be 100% up to date, because its unreasonable.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

And how much time do you think is involved to keep up to date on everything, versus being at the bare minimum?

Ever read a paper, say from Nature magazine, that is slightly outside of your field? Know how long that takes?

I may have been a little harsh, didn't mean they are obsolete. But don't expect them to be 100% up to date, because its unreasonable.

I'd much prefer being operated on by an older experienced surgeon to someone just starting out. I don't know at what age that doctors attain their peak performance, but I would guess that the experience factor rates pretty high in that determination.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think that is rather an unfair comment. I think most doctors, like many scientific disciplines these days are required to keep abreast of recent advances. This is done by taking courses, attending or presenting at conferences, teaching or mentoring younger doctors, etc.

In some cases e.g. acceptable blood pressure in the aged, the old rules of thumb are returning.

I can tell you that the of the doctors I deal with, the general sentiment of younger being more up to date is most certainly true. Of course there are exceptions. That rule does not seem to apply to most specialists, however.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I can tell you that the of the doctors I deal with, the general sentiment of younger being more up to date is most certainly true. Of course there are exceptions. That rule does not seem to apply to most specialists, however.

I can appreciate that in the field of pharmacology.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I'd much prefer being operated on by an older experienced surgeon to someone just starting out. I don't know at what age that doctors attain their peak performance, but I would guess that the experience factor rates pretty high in that determination.

Are we talking about surgeons doing surgery, or GP's being up to date with everything about science?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I can appreciate that in the field of pharmacology.

And general disease state knowledge. For example, BP targets and blood glucose targets for various diseases change as new data comes in. I can tell you that I strive to stay abreast of the current guidelines, but it's harder as time goes on

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Muta

My comment was a dig, surprised you didn't get that.

You know what, you are acting like a real prick, I wasn't rude, offensive or being ignorant towards anyone, I went out of my way to actually provide links to articles, offer arguments in favour of both sides and in general have acted quite civil. You on the other hand seem to prefer juvenile snide comments and icons. Seriously did you even read what I had actually posted or were you ready and primed with a smart-ass comment regardless as to what I posted.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think that is rather an unfair comment. I think most doctors, like many scientific disciplines these days are required to keep abreast of recent advances. This is done by taking courses, attending or presenting at conferences, teaching or mentoring younger doctors, etc.

In some cases e.g. acceptable blood pressure in the aged, the old rules of thumb are returning.

Doctors do go to a lot of conferences but there are a number of challenges associated with disseminating the information to the front line physicians, who then have to decipher what information is valid, which information is applicable to the client population that is being served, and also which information is accepted by regulatory bodies. I don't think that I would expect for every doctor to be 100% up to date on every medication and procedure, nor would I expect 100% agreement between doctors on every topic.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Doctors do go to a lot of conferences but there are a number of challenges associated with disseminating the information to the front line physicians, who then have to decipher what information is valid, which information is applicable to the client population that is being served, and also which information is accepted by regulatory bodies. I don't think that I would expect for every doctor to be 100% up to date on every medication and procedure, nor would I expect 100% agreement between doctors on every topic.

Exactly. And not to mention they probably have a family, probably want to sleep more then 3 hours a night, want to have more then 5 minutes for at least one of their meals a day, and its nice if you can have weekends off... especially when you get older.

Oh, and all the professional upgrading isn't included in the already full time job you have. Just trying to stay current is a full time job in itself... it is nothing against people who are experienced, its the fact that as a GP it would be unreasonable to think they are up to date on everything, and its fully expectable that those who are younger tend to be more current. But in a few years, they won't be as current as the newer ones.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah . . . whoosh.

Yeah, no 'whoosh'.