With the frightening lack of regulation that is given to a health product merely if you call it a “supplement,” there has been an incredible profusion of products which claim to improve your health by supplementing your diet.
As you may expect, there is actually good evidence for some of these, but which ones have it and which ones are marketing hype?
The folks over at Information is Beautiful have taken it upon themselves to look at the evidence for a number of different dietary supplements to determine which ones are good, which ones are not yet known to help, and which ones are a waste of money.
The infographic below is organized by the weight of evidence. The higher the balloon, the stronger the evidence for the supplement’s benefits. It should be noted that they are only rated for the health conditions listed below or within each balloon.
I am also happy to point out that supplements like Vitamin A and wheatgrass have almost zero evidence behind them. Supplements like these are the result of “organic/natural” hype and multi-vitamin fallacies.
Enjoy.
Related Posts:
The Anti-Oxidant Craze: Do They Work?
[Via Information is Beautiful]
I need this as a wall chart for handy reference.
Just like to say I stumbled across your blog last night after following a series of increasingly unrelated links. Got yourself a loyal reader right here.
Hmm, well, anecdotal evidence may not be “scientific” but I certainly had results using Fenugreek for increasing breastmilk supply. I don’t think this chart shows anything but that we need to invest more in studying why natural remedies work.
The problem is that we cannot assume that natural remedies work in the first place, especially is we only have anecdotal evidence to back it up. For example, in medical research we begin with the null hypothesis, that is to say, we assume that a treatment will have no effect. Only evidence which proves this hypothesis false (that the treatment in fact works) is validating. We should do the same for supplements. Unless adequately tested, there are a suite of cognitive biases that can distort the efficacy of supplements.
I don’t think a lack of scientific research should preclude a person from trying a remedy that has been used for centuries but just doesn’t have a major pharmaceutical company to conduct trials on it. So I question the usefulness of the graphic.
I fully agree that we should test supplements. The question is who’s going to pay for it?
But again, you are assuming a priori that these supplements work. Also, just because something has been used for a long time does not mean that it is safe or effective. On the chart above you can find many instances of remedies which have been used for a while yet have no clinical evidence.
The point is that if the remedies actually did have a demonstrable pharmacological effect on your health, they would be tested, regulated, and eventually sold (which pharmaceutical companies would pay to do). As it stands right now, you can basically just slap the word “supplement” on your product and it gets a free pass. This is a problem because then we are not sure what is in the supplements, how they interact with other drugs, and in what amounts the ingredients may be in. Indeed, when a number of shipped Traditional Chinese Medicinal herbs were confiscated by Australian authorities, for example, they were found to contain bits of livestock, endangered animals, and toxic plants.
I’m not assuming anything. No where did I say that all these things work. But as a consumer I’m capable of conducting my own scientific research. I take one of the supplements which, according to your infographic has “none” scientific research. (I suggest you do more research yourself on it since you are wrong) There are no acceptable remedies for the problem of low breast milk available from conventional medicine. I assumed that there was nothing I could do and nothing would work about it but I tried it and it worked with measurable results in a baby who gains weight at a better rate and more milk in a bottle of pumped milk. Measurable side effects of reduced blood sugar. A clinical trial of 1? May not be publishable, but still science.
I highly doubt that as a consumer you do scientific research. Do you have access to the clinical trial data for these various supplements? Do you know how to evaluate medical studies?
If you go to the source of the infographic, the data is provided.
You just said that you were not assuming anything. However, saying this:
sounds like an assumption of efficacy to me.
No, what you experienced was not a clinical trial, and certainly not science. Even if you were to set up a research methodology that was adequate (blinding, controls, statistical testing, etc.), a sample size of n=1 would never “prove” anything. That would be considered a “case study.” I am confident in reporting that no treatment is ever recommended with such a sample size.