As reported on HolfordWatch, Holford seemed very pleased by a Nutrition Journal article on multiple supplement users: Block et al: Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study link [pdf]. We don’t think that the study is sufficiently good quality to justify the scale of Holford’s hyperbole – but, if one does view it as credible, it ‘proves’ that Holford is not taking enough supplements. Help him, please! Nutritionism needs you!Holford says that he takes “five different supplements, twice a day with breakfast and lunch”. However, the Nutrition Journal article concludes that taking an average of seventeen daily supplements brings health benefits (though we don’t think that the data reported justifies these conclusions). The data presented in the article also suggest that – if you trust this research – single supplement use produces worsened cholesterol indicators (p. 38) and worsened health outcomes for diabetes, coronary heart disease, heart attacks, angina, strokes and arthritis (pp. 40-1), when compared to no supplement usage at all.
Holford is therefore in real jeopardy! Is a mere five pills a day enough to bring the supposed health benefits of supplementation, or does this bring the apparent disbenefits of single supplement use*? Also, is Holford going to start warning those buying his branded pills that using too few supplement pills can be worse than none at all? Or that although Shaklee supplements have been assessed (after a fashion) in this study, others, such as his own, have not.
To emphasise again – we don’t think that the Nutrition Journal article was very good, and don’t think it’s possible to draw many useful conclusions from the data presented. However, those who do see the article as credible would have to draw a whole range of odd, and rather problematic, conclusions about the potential benefits of supplement use.
*Chicago Flame has the most recent example of this sort of thinking. “For college students who generally have a diet that may be limited by money, and may lack sufficient variety to provide all the micronutrients in the amount needed, a good generic multi-vitamin/mineral supplement (One-A-Day type) may be a good idea. They are safe, they are inexpensive, and they provide ‘insurance’ on a daily basis for a somewhat unbalanced diet,” said Dr. Robert Reynolds, Ph.D. and associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition.
Update 05.12.07: Nature offers The Ghost of Research Past which is an instructional overview of popular nutritional beliefs that persist although clinical trials have long since contradicted observational studies that suggested a clinical benefit (explored more fully in Tatsioni, Bonitsis & Ioannidis).
I swear, give Patrick Holford any whiff of a paper that can have its results partially distorted to endorse extravagant supplementation, and the perfectly placid backwaters becomes a maelstrom of hangry pirahna that have spotted a cow that stumbled in.
Based on the paper, it does seem like he isn’t taking enough supplements on a regular basis. Why do I feel that his argument would be that eating low GL makes supplements unnecessary for the Optimally Healthy such as himself? Everyone else, of course, needs supplements to help them eat low GL as well as supplements to make up for decades of not-supplements. Or, even worse, according to the reports in this paper, use of single supplements (even if a multi-supplement). So – so much for all that standard advice that you may as well take a multi-supplement as insurance.
there is a simpler and more tasty way.
It’s called ‘eating’.
And if done regularly provides even the lowest income individuals in this country with sufficient nutrients, globally (NDNS 2007).
But of course, with the arbitrary Yorktest food exclusions one has to find some way of making good the dietary inadequacies incurred….
UKdietitian makes interesting references to ‘income’ and to focussing on food rather than supplements. Going off on a slight tangent, perhaps it is worth pointing out that, while prisoners and children have been targetted for ‘studies’ into (as well as sales of) fish oils rich in omega 3 fatty acids, the expense may not be justified.
According to the Soil Association, in 2003 a prisoner’s lunch cost 60p and a child’s school dinner could cost as little as 31p. In 2005, the government announced an increase in school dinner spending to 50p and 60p (primary and secondary schools, respectively). A well-known supplement company sells fish oil pills for about 15p per pill and recommends 2-6 daily (30-90p per day). Surely that money would be better spent on an improved diet rather than focussing on the latest ‘trend’ in nutrients?
I agree with UKdietitian and jdc325. I’ve never understood the fascination with supplements rather than food for those without actual dietary deficiencies or clinical need.
From time to time, I do wonder if it is a hangover from the Holford boyhood and possibly an interest in the Space Race. A time when all little boys wanted to be engine drivers or astronauts. Astronauts who couldn’t take food into space and relied upon pills. Maybe, just maybe.
Health Products for Life does have a section on ‘food and drink‘ (inc. one item with Holford’s face on the packet). Not sure it’s quite to my taste, but anyway…
From the ‘food and drink’ section:
“The perfect Low GL sweetener. Natural, found in fruits, berries and trees”
Trees?
but, anandamide, are you telling me you’ve never got a bit peckish and started munching on a tree?
We’ve all been there.
It does seem as if there are more ethical than thou wars about corn v. birch sourced xylitol. I haven’t look up anything about it so this may be nonsense but I enjoyed:
dvnutrix wrote:
From time to time, I do wonder if it is a hangover from the Holford boyhood and possibly an interest in the Space Race. A time when all little boys wanted to be engine drivers or astronauts. Astronauts who couldn’t take food into space and relied upon pills. Maybe, just maybe.
Interesting theory, dvnutrix. Having grown up in that sort of era (though I am a few years younger than Patrick, cough cough), I remember the “food pills” ideas well. Personally, despite my being well into the moon missions and a die-hard fan of Star Trek and Lost In Space, it didn’t fire me with an enthusiasm for magic pills for everything. I try to avoid pills unless they are really necessary, and most scientists and medics I know are the same way.
Talking of 60s and 70s science and sci-fi and magic nutrient pills, the other side of the coin would be Soylent Green…!
BTW, it is true to say that practically every scientist I have met between roughly the ages of 42 and 50 (at least the male ones) attributes some of their enthusiasm for science / technology to the space age, notably the moon landings.
I’ve been thinking about Soylent Green. I was once fortunate enough to attend a lecture by Harry Harrison and he was vastly entertaining. Also bitter about the introduction of the ‘furniture’ girls and the dilution of some of his ideas.
I have relatives who travel considerable distances to see compilations of Fireball XL5 and similar when a cinema puts them on. My parents went around for days afterwards humming SuperCar and such. Very inspirational.
Pingback: Patrick Holford and Berthelot’s Food Dispensary « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Having seen how PHolford’s eating plan has worked for my family, I know he has found the answer to healthy living. For the first time ever I am coping so easily with weight loss, feel full of energy, my skin is great and my sugar levels have dropped from danger levels to quite normal. My family and I live every day following Patrick’s advice and have never been so positive about our bodies. Well done to him and a great shame on all of you who are trying to humiliate him. What sad humans you are.
G- glad you’re feeling better now. We’re certainly not denying that a low GL diet can be useful for some (although the idea certainly isn’t original to Holford, and imo his version of the low GL diet is one of the less helpful versions).
As to trying to humiliate Holford – most of this blog is just a critical assessment of some of his science. If his work is bad enough that this looks humiliating for Holford, that’s not something I’m going to apologise for.
Pingback: Food for the Brain Child Survey: Review Part 1 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: Patrick Holford and His Recommendations for Vaccines: As Canard-Stuffed As We Feared « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science