3

votes

Snake oil infographic

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created December 07, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Any paleo thoughts on this nice infographic?

alt text

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on December 08, 2010
at 07:48 AM

Hey thanks Shebeeste!!

D738a5b2a67f3c36518a2ac9f32d27af

(821)

on December 08, 2010
at 02:19 AM

Here's a link to the interactive version: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/ For those of us who apparently need to take more Bilberry.

F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

(826)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:53 PM

Nothing is inherently wrong with them but in the case of that cranberry study, it wasnt the most up to date study.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:48 PM

What's wrong with old studies, provided they haven't been contradicted with newer ones?

F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

(826)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:22 PM

and the conclusion is that 5-10% PUFA lowers the risk for CHD especially in the presence of a low fat diets advocated by the AHA

F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

(826)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:21 PM

I dont know if you have access to AHA Journal, but this is the title of the article they cite for their reasoning of O-6 being good. Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association Nutrition Subcommittee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Basically a lit review, pretty extensive but in the disclosures you find that 5 of the 12 reviewers are funded by either Unilever, Aramark, Merck, Monsanto, Cali Walnut Commission, etc.

  • 89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

    asked by

    (10299)
  • Views
    1.7K
  • Last Activity
    1279D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

4
F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

on December 07, 2010
at 07:15 PM

I came across this last week when they put out their VitD infographic. What I noticed is that the literature they gleaned their basis for categorizing each supplement are either:

a. old studies (pulling a 1994 JAMA study for cranberry would not have cut it in grad school)

b. not directly seeking a positive or negative correlation with the supplement in question

c. government sponsored lit reviews

This would have been better if they had simply done lit reviews on each of these supplements and submitted a conclusion based on a the aggregate, up to date data.

Otherwise, very pretty.

F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

(826)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:53 PM

Nothing is inherently wrong with them but in the case of that cranberry study, it wasnt the most up to date study.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:48 PM

What's wrong with old studies, provided they haven't been contradicted with newer ones?

1
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on December 08, 2010
at 05:10 AM

I liked the layout of it. But I had some issues going through it. I actually used this a few weeks ago when it was linked on another paleohack question. My issues were first of all, when I clicked on a balloon, I only got one study linked to it, which seemed rather a weak way to make a decision (ie based on one study). If there was a way to see more data, I didn't see it, and I was too lazy to look harder for it. If there were more studies per balloon, my suggestion would be to make it easier/more obvious as to how to see them for us lazy people who don't want to think too hard. THe key to any system if to be able to navigate it intuitively and easily. What I expected to see when I clicked on a link was a list of studies, not just one. My other issue was when I did on search on medicines for pain relief, I got a lot of options, but very few of them had much to do with actual pain relief. So I found the search function results to be irritating. The third thing I noticed was that several herbs were in two different quality categories at once. That was the one thing that immediately made me suspect this was not a super carefully done setup. and of course as a paleo eater, I immediately also noticed that omega 6s were higher rated than omega 3s. Made me wonder if this was all about supplements or just about biological needs. Are there really studies that show omega 6 supplementation to be beneficial even on top of all the omega 6s most people already consume? Wow!

1
77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:48 PM

Just some initial thoughts:

I think I'd lean toward being more interested in the top 25%, those supplements that seem to be well backed up by whatever evidence they found. In other words, these are supplements whose benefits are large and evident, no matter how poorly the studies were designed or interpreted.

As for the supplements in the lower 75%, I can't be sure if they have little benefit, or if the benefits were hard to see in light of a poorly designed study, or a reductionist understanding of nutrition and human health.

Or maybe I'm thinking about it backwards? It could be that the top 25% indicates that the researchers skewed their studies in order to find the benefits that they wanted to find. I'd be more inclined to take this angle if we were talking about prescription drugs like statins and diabetes meds.

But since these are generic vitamins/minerals/herbs/fatty acids, I'm inclined to look at the top hits.

Ah, I dunno, I think the whole thing is of limited value. Interesting for further research, but nothing I'd base any real choices on.

0
Fe33d1321dad116f6fedd60266d0498b

on December 08, 2010
at 02:41 AM

Generally- speaking as a follower of the Information is Beautiful blog- they're more interested in the presentation of the data than the data itself. It's not meant to be the most in-depth, accurate thing out there. It's by infographic geeks- not medical professionals. So don't read much into it from that standpoint.

0
D3f26af100442c2d122c97036cf2b896

(20)

on December 07, 2010
at 06:57 PM

Is there some key to the source of how they decided to value the "evidence"? And who decides where the "Worth it" line is? And Omega 6 is "good", but Omega 3 is "promising"?

F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

(826)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:21 PM

I dont know if you have access to AHA Journal, but this is the title of the article they cite for their reasoning of O-6 being good. Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association Nutrition Subcommittee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Basically a lit review, pretty extensive but in the disclosures you find that 5 of the 12 reviewers are funded by either Unilever, Aramark, Merck, Monsanto, Cali Walnut Commission, etc.

F53a74de3f8df19a114c5ac702af2b12

(826)

on December 07, 2010
at 07:22 PM

and the conclusion is that 5-10% PUFA lowers the risk for CHD especially in the presence of a low fat diets advocated by the AHA

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!