- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,659
Here is an interesting article involving probiotics, immunity and athletes performance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7243006.stm
Dan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7243006.stm
Dan
Probiotics & Athletes Study
- Thread starter D Bergy
- Start date
Help Support Crohn's Disease Forum:
Kev
Senior Member
Yeah, be interested to see if anyone (non sport related research) follows up to see if you have to be in 'peak' condition in conjunction to taking pro-biotics to gain this effect. On the whole pro-biotic thing, Canadian government is in the process of examining whether companies making health claims regarding the 'benefits' of pro-biotic enhanced foods or supplements will be forced to have those claims backed by case studies; and if so... whether they will have to be double blind studies from 3rd party independant clinics/facilities. Seems there is a 'loophole' now that no one is under legislation or law (in Canada) to back up any 'health' claims with any real numbers, facts or studies. Think about it, we are currently buying into 'health' claims made by a variety of sources; most of whom have a real 'financial' stake in our jumping on board. mind you, no one is flat out saying that 'pro-biotics' arent' good for you... Just that, if you're advertising that it is BOTH good for your health, AND available in a 'good form, sufficient qty' in 'your' products (basically a health/medical claim) shouldn't 'you' be in a position to demonstrate that WITH some legitimate clinical evidence. If you can't, fine.. Just don't advertise it does. Keep it it your product unless theres' proof it isn't good.., just no free advertising ride unless/until you put your money where our mouths are..
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,659
In the U.S. we have a laughable system in which you cannot even advertise the proven health benefits of food with studies to back them up.
The cherry growers association was slapped around for advertising proven heath benefits of cherries. Since it is not a drug, you cannot claim it treats or cures any particular disease without going through drug studies. I think it is quite obvious that cherries do not pose any health threat from side effects, but in order to protect the pharmaceutical companies turf, the FDA, who is supposed to protect the public, wastes time and effort in these kind of endeavors.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm
The FDA's stance, when boiled down to its fundamental message is: We protect the consumer from healthy food by restricting their access to truthful information about that food.
Dan
The cherry growers association was slapped around for advertising proven heath benefits of cherries. Since it is not a drug, you cannot claim it treats or cures any particular disease without going through drug studies. I think it is quite obvious that cherries do not pose any health threat from side effects, but in order to protect the pharmaceutical companies turf, the FDA, who is supposed to protect the public, wastes time and effort in these kind of endeavors.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2006/mar2006_awsi_01.htm
The FDA's stance, when boiled down to its fundamental message is: We protect the consumer from healthy food by restricting their access to truthful information about that food.
Dan
Kev
Senior Member
Welllll, pardon the phrase, but I think the root of those laughable laws stemmed from the early snake oil salesmen... who would still abound today if not for such legislation. I think there's a distinct difference between relating 'word of mouth', or 'lore' or even plain common sense wisdom that something is good for you (ignoring recent examples of on again/off again cases like salt, caffiene, or chocolate...) AND AGGRESSIVELY MARKETING it without self sustaining evidence.. which is happening here a lot in Canada. Like, if this was in relation to a product or something that only adults were in a position to buy... then it's a simple case of buyer beware, we're all adults here. but this is food stuff, anyone can buy it, everyone sees these ads, and they're campaigning not only as if this is good advice, but as if all the proof is in, and you'd be foolish not to start eating/buying their products rite now. That's where I have a little trouble with these advertising gimmicks.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,659
I agree that there should be proof for any claim, but in the Cherry growers case, and several others, it is not a matter of them having proof, they do have the studies to back up the claims. They are not allowed to make truthful claims based on scientific evidence. There obviously does not need to be rigorous safety studies done. How can we as consumers make intelligent decisions if the facts are not allowed to be commonly known?
Yet, there has never been a large scale study on the safety of Mercury fillings. You can look, but it never has been done.
I would think that the safety of eating cherries, which even without evidence of safety or effectiveness, is far less risky than putting the most toxic non-radioactive substance in your mouth without solid proof of safety.
There is a real gap in what should be investigated and questioned and what does get investigated and questioned.
We have several of these unsubstantiated claim marketers in the U.S. also. They go about it in a way as to avoid the law. In many cases it is outright fraud, but in others it is simply the economics of the product will not support the studies needed to substantiate the claims made. The problem is, it is nearly impossible to tell one from the other.
Dan
Yet, there has never been a large scale study on the safety of Mercury fillings. You can look, but it never has been done.
I would think that the safety of eating cherries, which even without evidence of safety or effectiveness, is far less risky than putting the most toxic non-radioactive substance in your mouth without solid proof of safety.
There is a real gap in what should be investigated and questioned and what does get investigated and questioned.
We have several of these unsubstantiated claim marketers in the U.S. also. They go about it in a way as to avoid the law. In many cases it is outright fraud, but in others it is simply the economics of the product will not support the studies needed to substantiate the claims made. The problem is, it is nearly impossible to tell one from the other.
Dan
Kev
Senior Member
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.. Just seems that everytime 'people' word a law to protect us, some innocent 3rd party get's it in the neck, everyone cries fowl, and we are tempted to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Like, the cherry orchards are getting a raw deal; having evidence that a beauracrat has decided doesnt' merit consideration (for whatever reason).. (I'm totally unfamiliar with the case, but apparently so are the law-makers).
So they can't benefit from advertiznig the health benefits of their cherries..
wish there was a way to correct this; and in reality.. there must be... but with bureaucrats, you never know... we all know that Catch 22's do exist.
Anyway, tho I hate to see legitimate products and companies pay this really unfair price; better that than for unethical companies to really exploit even larger loopholes.. And we all know, they would if they could, even do till they get caught.. It isn't fair, it isn't right, it's a totally imperfect world.
Frinstance, on another thread someone (I won't name names, don't want to be sued) is advertising a meal supplement/equivalent that supposed to be a good fit for those with IBD.. But the nutritional ingredients has some things in it that I know wouldn't fit well with my particular circumstances, and few others have stated they fell into same category.. don't know how this one company got away with this, what their evidence is (if any - a UK product) or how many folks (young and old) take their statement at face value as a 'fact'. Or, in another example (only area where I've had serious question of my doc's knowledge of diet/nutrition) my GI advised me to start drinking an athletic liquid supplement, designed to restore and balance my electrolytes (again no names, but everyone knows this product). The nutritional label on it (I read them ALL now) showed some 'disadvantages' over another, lesser known/advertised product.. So, these days, I look at all of these products, regardless of their big 'brand' names, their million dollar ad campaigns, or the 'word of mouth' they've received, whether from doctors, nutritionists or otherwise. I know I've wondered off on a bit of a slant, but it seems that I am not alone 'questioning' once familiarly accepted wisdom, and doubting the claims both pro or con for everything these days. Who do you believe? Who are we to believe? Folklore, wives tales, medical studies, or our gut? I dunno anymore, I just dunno.. Is anyone else tired of the in today/out tomorrow seesaw? And, if relying on 'scientific' knowledge of good Vs bad, how do you legislate that? Whose study do you use to uphold the laws????
So they can't benefit from advertiznig the health benefits of their cherries..
wish there was a way to correct this; and in reality.. there must be... but with bureaucrats, you never know... we all know that Catch 22's do exist.
Anyway, tho I hate to see legitimate products and companies pay this really unfair price; better that than for unethical companies to really exploit even larger loopholes.. And we all know, they would if they could, even do till they get caught.. It isn't fair, it isn't right, it's a totally imperfect world.
Frinstance, on another thread someone (I won't name names, don't want to be sued) is advertising a meal supplement/equivalent that supposed to be a good fit for those with IBD.. But the nutritional ingredients has some things in it that I know wouldn't fit well with my particular circumstances, and few others have stated they fell into same category.. don't know how this one company got away with this, what their evidence is (if any - a UK product) or how many folks (young and old) take their statement at face value as a 'fact'. Or, in another example (only area where I've had serious question of my doc's knowledge of diet/nutrition) my GI advised me to start drinking an athletic liquid supplement, designed to restore and balance my electrolytes (again no names, but everyone knows this product). The nutritional label on it (I read them ALL now) showed some 'disadvantages' over another, lesser known/advertised product.. So, these days, I look at all of these products, regardless of their big 'brand' names, their million dollar ad campaigns, or the 'word of mouth' they've received, whether from doctors, nutritionists or otherwise. I know I've wondered off on a bit of a slant, but it seems that I am not alone 'questioning' once familiarly accepted wisdom, and doubting the claims both pro or con for everything these days. Who do you believe? Who are we to believe? Folklore, wives tales, medical studies, or our gut? I dunno anymore, I just dunno.. Is anyone else tired of the in today/out tomorrow seesaw? And, if relying on 'scientific' knowledge of good Vs bad, how do you legislate that? Whose study do you use to uphold the laws????
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 3,659
Good questions. I do not have the answer. Maybe the guy that stayed at the Holiday inn last night does. I really hope you have seen that commercial, or it makes no sense at all.
All I do is try to use methods or people who have provided reliable information in the past. Considering the source, goes a long ways to wringing out the truth. Anyone touting their own product is automatically suspicious. Some uninterested party touting it is a different matter. Then there are the things that work some of the time to add to the confusion.
Always dealing with imperfect information. I guess we all should be used to that by now.
Dan
All I do is try to use methods or people who have provided reliable information in the past. Considering the source, goes a long ways to wringing out the truth. Anyone touting their own product is automatically suspicious. Some uninterested party touting it is a different matter. Then there are the things that work some of the time to add to the confusion.
Always dealing with imperfect information. I guess we all should be used to that by now.
Dan
Kev
Senior Member
Seen it.. There's been a number of them... Get a real kick out of the one where the guy in the surgeon's mask and gown isn't a doctor, just someone who spent the night at the H.I... Or did they change the name of it up here?
Yeah, and I second that rule of thumb seperating those who espouse their own product, line, brand.. whatever... Vs the cases when its' a disinterested 3rd party or impartial source. Why don't they apply common sense rules of thumb like that to these laws. Right, cause its common sense. Not sure if there's an answer.. I haven't slept at an HI recently.. Even if there were... think about it. Lot of folks are to the point where they really don't know who to trust... even (especially) governent agencies (and I'm not just talking conspiracy theory addicts). Ordinary folks like us. I can see some, perhaps many, discounting a story, report, criticism or even judgement AGAINST say a company with the name/rep of the UK product I mentioned. Many folks, myself included, were raised knowing/trusting their name AND product line. I was shocked to see "issues" in their ingredients as I was totally expecting a quality product from a company that I trusted. Course, since IBD, my eyes have really been opened a great deal, not that I appreciate the 'motivation' behind my late found scepticism... or is that total burnout?
Yeah, and I second that rule of thumb seperating those who espouse their own product, line, brand.. whatever... Vs the cases when its' a disinterested 3rd party or impartial source. Why don't they apply common sense rules of thumb like that to these laws. Right, cause its common sense. Not sure if there's an answer.. I haven't slept at an HI recently.. Even if there were... think about it. Lot of folks are to the point where they really don't know who to trust... even (especially) governent agencies (and I'm not just talking conspiracy theory addicts). Ordinary folks like us. I can see some, perhaps many, discounting a story, report, criticism or even judgement AGAINST say a company with the name/rep of the UK product I mentioned. Many folks, myself included, were raised knowing/trusting their name AND product line. I was shocked to see "issues" in their ingredients as I was totally expecting a quality product from a company that I trusted. Course, since IBD, my eyes have really been opened a great deal, not that I appreciate the 'motivation' behind my late found scepticism... or is that total burnout?
Last edited:
Similar threads
