Look, folks, even the newspaper finds it a bit incredible that one study was all it took.
adding
When you take your vitamins as the PROOF points to, remember little studies come in year after year about the damage done by taking vitamins. Look at yourself. If you are worried about death and taking vitamins based on the “evidence” by the Ph.Ds, those guys are mostly out to lunch. It is almost guaranteed you are over doing it to your detriment.
I think you’ve fallen for the clickbait bamboozle a bit here, @Leap1 …..this article (probably a gussied up press release….I didn’t check for the multiple iterations in other media outlets) implies that no one in all the decades that bacterial vaginosis has been studied thought to treat male partners. That also struck me as a little odd (not that I’ve ever been afflicted with a putrid hoo-ha, mind) so I killed a few minutes with some judicious googling. Seems any claims to being the first to try male partner treatment is inaccurate…..it’s the first study to claim successful treatment
There are quite a few online articles mentioning that, although the specific bacteria associated with BV have been found festering away on the corresponding male partner appendages (boy, the hoops you have to jump through to circumvent the TMF pearl clutching), previous studies have failed to show benefits.
Seems the difference is that the bloke has to smear his baton with an antibiotic cream for it to be effective. Maybe. I’m sure that’d be popular.
Nothing in this bit of click bait to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy in a rational use of vitamins or supplements that have shown merit in multiple studies.
You’re right. It’s not complicated…..at least, at face value. The thing here is that the seemingly simple remedy is antibiotic use. That knowledge right there gives you a heads-up on the apparent tardiness of the medical profession to pick up on male partner treatment without sturdy evidence…..there’s been a totally appropriate reluctance when it comes to indiscriminate antibiotic usage that’s grown over the last few decades. Prompted by an increasing level of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. To the extent that antibiotics really have to prove their worth in treating a condition that might look good in theory….like even bacterial infections, say.
Major studies show high-dose vitamins A, E, and beta-carotene can increase risks for lung cancer (smokers), prostate cancer (Vit E), and mortality, while calcium supplements might raise heart attack risk, highlighting that megadoses can be detrimental, especially for specific groups, contradicting perceived universal benefits
. Research also points to risks like birth defects from excess preformed Vitamin A in pregnancy and potential harm from B3 (niacin) with statins, emphasizing that “more is not better” and personalized advice is key.
Key Studies & Findings
Beta-Carotene: The ATBC and CARET trials found increased lung cancer and mortality in smokers or asbestos-exposed individuals taking beta-carotene.
Vitamin E: The SELECT trial was halted, showing vitamin E supplements increased prostate cancer incidence. A meta-analysis linked high-dose Vitamin E to increased all-cause mortality.
Vitamin A: Excess intake, especially during pregnancy, is linked to birth defects, and high doses in general can cause liver issues and other toxicities.
Vitamin B3 (Niacin): Extended-release forms were associated with higher early death risk in statin users.
Multivitamins: A large review concluded they don’t reduce risks for heart disease, cancer, or early death in most people, with some ingredients potentially harmful.
General Concerns
Over-Supplementation: High doses can build up and pose risks, as the body excretes water-soluble vitamins but fat-soluble ones (A, D, E, K) can accumulate.
Interactions: Minerals like iron and calcium compete for absorption, and supplements can interfere with medications.
Conclusion
While vitamins are essential, major studies suggest that high doses from supplements can be harmful, even increasing disease risk, rather than preventing it for most healthy individuals. Consulting a doctor for personalized needs is crucial.
AI Overview
While many studies suggest benefits of collagen supplementation for skin and joint health, research has identified potential detrimental effects, limitations, and safety concerns. Evidence pointing toward negative impacts generally highlights digestive issues, allergic reactions, potential contamination, and, in some cases, ineffective or even negative outcomes in clinical applications
.
Major findings regarding potential detriments include:
Immune Response and Allergic Reactions: Clinical studies have shown that bovine collagen implants can trigger allergic or immune responses in a small percentage of patients (e.g., in a study of 705 patients).
Contamination Risks: A major concern is that collagen supplements, being animal-derived (fish, bovine, porcine), may contain impurities, including toxins and heavy metals like lead.
Gastrointestinal Distress: High doses of collagen peptides have been associated with gastrointestinal symptoms, including acid reflux, bloating, and changes in bowel motility.
Contradictory Results on Cartilage/Joints: While often used for arthritis, some studies have shown that collagen supplements can have a low efficiency compared to standard treatments. One study even indicated that certain collagen hydrolysates had a negative impact on collagen biosynthesis in human knee cartilage, leading to increased levels of enzymes that break down cartilage (aggrecanases and MMPs).
Gut Microbiota Alterations: A study on rats showed that high doses of collagen peptides shifted the gut microbiota, leading to increased levels of serum valerate acid, which is potentially harmful to health.
Lack of Long-Term Safety Data: The long-term effects of daily collagen supplementation are under-researched, with most studies focusing on short-term outcomes.
Other Factors to Consider
Industry-Funded Studies: Many studies showcasing the benefits of collagen are funded by the industry, creating potential bias.
Ineffectiveness Concerns: Some reviews, such as those from Harvard Health, note that there is a lack of rigorous, independent evidence to prove that collagen supplements significantly improve skin or joint health compared to eating a balanced protein-rich diet.
Degradation vs. Supplementation: Research shows that lifestyle factors, such as smoking, alcohol abuse, excessive sun exposure, and high sugar intake, are the primary drivers of collagen breakdown, and supplements cannot combat this if these habits are maintained.
Well, I guess that if you need to resort to regurgitating an AI overview in order to present an opinion, it’s likely to be as useful an insight as the one mentioned.in Andy’s letter…..
Still, I guess it’s a useful insight for someone clueless enough to take an excess/megadoses etc, as with anything, of course…..smoking (no appropriate dose here), boozing, sitting, antibiotic use, even eating.
Come to think of it, indiscriminate and excessive Googling might count here too.
Now, although I’m something of an AI user in limited doses, it’s always with a specific goal in mind (like my vitamin /supplement use) since I’m very well aware that the specific question asked spits out a very specific answer in most cases. Specific and seemingly authoritative, but not necessarily accurate or even relevant …….except to make the arguments of the individual who asked the question appear a bit more substantive. In their own mind, at least. Vitamins and supplements are the low hanging fruit in this trend towards non thinking.
That being said, it might shed light on the strength of the information presented to know exactly the question asked of Google. To my eyes, this unfiltered laundry list (hint: allergy to bovine implants probably isn’t relevant to anyone taking collagen supplements from a reputable source…..just sayin’) looks like the result of a dumpster dive intended to find nothing but the negatives associated with excessive consumption by total ignoramuses and derived from who knows what specific sources.
Edit: re the AI overview in response to question asked, as of a month ago, my post back in November 2024 was stillthe source for AI overview of the use of generative AI to game domestic violence evaluations in a way that’s wholly favourable to the abuser
Quite possibly….and I’d be happy to see where I’m going wrong with my limited Googling. So, I type a question into Google “Why do people resort to AI overview when disagreed with online”…..
So, up comes an AI overview. I won’t post it as it’s not tremendously flattering with reasons such as creating the illusion of authority, and the tendency confirm existing biases by virtue of using biased prompts. Anyways at the top of my cellphone screen, there’s a little icon that you can click on and it shows you all the source.(how am I doing so far??)
On my device a heck of a lot of reddit answers seem to be one source. Interesting enough to read but not what I’d call authoritative. One resource introduced me to a new phrase to add to the list of faulty reasoning folk use when the going gets tough in arguments…post hoc reasoning, Appeal to Authority, ad hominem attacks etc. It’s Appeal to AI. I shall keep that on the back burner for future use in real life.
I saw the article (as I’m a subscriber to NYT). NYT is a generally reliable source, though the science writer probably isn’t a specialist in -for example- gynecology. So, it’s always good to dig deeper if really interested.
I recall in grad school reading a study that indicated that males can be carriers of yeast infections. So, if he had congress with a female who had such an infection, he could pass it on. (As a hard science major, I was given a subscription to a small magazine that summarized recent findings in multiple fields; as I recall it came out weekly.) It wouldn’t surprise me if males could be carriers of BV, also.
Though, before handing out antibiotics, I would hope there is a test the male can do to see if he is a carrier. Overuse of antibiotics is already biting us in the behind, and it’s likely to get much worse (superbugs).
Generally….but not for science reporting. Remember how many times I’ve pointed out the reality of Science By Press Release (loadsandloads)…..whereby press releases are disseminated from the PR departments of whatever institution wants to attract attention to their research to list serves that health and science writers use and who gussy up these press releases for the readership of whatever media outlet they write for. Basically acting as little more than glorified stenographers in the process. It’s these press release (usually of preliminary findings that have yet been subject to peer review) that’re the source.
It makes for seemingly informative reading if it’s on a topic that’s not your field. This is easy to check as a rule…..just type in the eyeball grabbing banner headlines and you’ll find near identical iterations of the same article in outlets as different as, say, the NYT and (gulp) the Daily Mail.
I first got a heads-up in the early aughts and back then I had faith in the veracity of what I read in that NYT Tuesday supplement. I was at work one lunchtime and a colleague was reading through it and asked the question “Why do these science reporters get it wrong about dentistry” having read an article with errors and gaffes galore. I suggested that maybe they get it slightly wrong about everything…..we just notice it about dentistry because we’re dentists. Everyone thought about it and decided no….it’s only dentistry.
Well, over the course of the next few weeks there were a handful of articles about topics other than dentistry that my pals had an interest in and knew stuff about…..volcanology, birds and birdsong, teleost fish, exercise science (me)….and every single one had errors that those not in the know wouldn’t notice.
Around the same time I discovered Ben Goldacre and his Bad Science column in the Grauniad (subsequently compiled into a book ….and I can heartily recommend it!)…..and his take on SBPR. Especially on how it pertained to Andrew Wakefield.
Here’s a fairly humorous TED talk from Ben where he describes this phenom
Also an example from Bad Science that’s not quite SBPR but you get the drift. The media looves the outrageous claims and by the time they’re refuted, they’re assumed to be right by virtue of the internet echo chamber (and more recently AI overview …..
Get past the delivery method. Do you agree or not with the ideas. If you do agree what are you talking about?
Reporters are doing the same thing, collecting information and passing it on as the truth. Here we agree or disagree. We do not like reporters much either.
Probably easier to describe what I’m not talking about…..and that’s pretty much the whole content of your Appeal to AI. My vitamin and supplement usage is anything but random and excessive (not forgetting to mention that I’m a non smoker/never smoker, not at risk of prostate cancer and don’t indulge in any of the behaviours associated with collagen degradation…..not sure about the allergy to bovine implants as I don’t have any) I’ve put thought and actual knowledge to work WRT the supplements and vitamins I do take….with a bit of insight into vitamin D usage from blood tests on my annual physical.
Of course, ODing on supplements is likely to have negative health consequences much like anything else…..I just wonder why you imagine the posters on this board who do list their judicious and mindful use might be gormless enough to be doing that.
For myself, I’m well aware that nutrients from a wholesome diet that’s adequate in such things is absolutely the best way. However, with the passage of time, the body’s needs change. As I’ve mentioned a time or six in the past when this topic had come up, the RDAs that’re touted on the labeling of supplements etc are, for the most part, minimum amounts for survival. Values arrived at by old methods of measurement that are considered inaccurate today and don’t take account of increased needs for older folk (RDA for protein, for but one example)
Also for myself, I’m aware of the potential for a shortfall in some aspects of my diet. Not because of craptaculous choices but rather a focus on maintaining a decent bodyweight/body composition. Given the tight rein I choose to place on energy intake ….particularly important for me of late because my level of activity has dropped from former years….and given the increase in my protein allowance now (shooting for 100-120 gms as day) which has to be compensated for somehow, I can well imagine that I’m below requirements somewhere. Maybe. Again, a judicious and mindful use of a post menopausal specific multivitamin is a far cry from the image you seem to be imagining/promoting here.
