Study Says Popular Joint Supplements Don't Work - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MTI · #31 09-20-2010, 02:58 PM

Armand: What are you giving him drugs for? What the hell are Pirin tablets?
Agador: It's aspirin with the "A" and the "S" scraped off.
Armand: My God, what a brilliant idea!
Agador: I know.

kknudson · #32 09-20-2010, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So how do you explain that when the subjects and testers didn't know who was getting what, little difference was found?

Unfortunately, Medicince / the Human boday is not an exact science.
What works for you, may not help me.

Take Headaches, I can count on one hand the number of severe (possibly all) headaches I've ever had.
Yet I have a friend, and know another, who's headaches are so severe they are dabilitating(??).
Do I just not get them or is my pain level far beyond the normal person.

RE warning labels, mine says don't take if pregnant or nursing and discuss it with your doctor regarding reactions with other medications tou may be taking.

Thats it.

aklim · #33 09-20-2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

Unfortunately, Medicince / the Human boday is not an exact science.
What works for you, may not help me.

RE warning labels, mine says don't take if pregnant or nursing and discuss it with your doctor regarding reactions with other medications tou may be taking.

Thats it.

Hence the large test group. What the test says is that when they remove the human bias, there is little difference between placebo and "real" drug. If it really works, has anyone done what Adequan did and ingested it with tracers so they can see what part of it settles where? What is the point of ingesting it if all of it gets digested into something else?

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

That tells me that they are scam artists preying on people. Just like the diesel additives. They won't prove what they say it does. Just hide behind the boilerplate statements to part the fools from their money. Rightfully so, IMO. After all, if they could prove it, sales would skyrocket.

Da Nag · #34 09-20-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

How do you know it isn't YOU that is having the placebo effect?

Older dog yelps in pain after quick movements after periods of rest, and/or has severe mobility issues a day after rigorous exercise.

Vets diagnose as mild displasia, and/or OA.

Glucosamine supplements administered, 3-6 weeks later symptoms significantly alleviated and/or disappear completely. Yelps of pain no longer present, and a return to daily exercise results in zero mobility issues.

The above is common in the dog world, but feel free to continue sticking your head in the sand and/or suggesting people are suffering from some ridiculous third-party placebo effect. The above improvements are easily observed - wishful thinking doesn't eliminate obvious signs of pain.

Probably mentioned it here before, but for those wishing to give it a shot for dogs with such ailments - glucosamine supplements can be bought in bulk at great prices, while supporting a worthy cause (greyhound rescue) from www.greyhoundgang.com. No affiliation, other than satisfied customer.

And, whether one doubts its efficacy is mostly irrelevant - trying it is cheap, and there are no studies showing any significant side effects in dogs.

aklim · #35 09-20-2010, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Nag

Glucosamine supplements administered, 3-6 weeks later symptoms significantly alleviated and/or disappear completely. Yelps of pain no longer present, and a return to daily exercise results in zero mobility issues.

The above is common in the dog world, but feel free to continue sticking your head in the sand and/or suggesting people are suffering from some ridiculous third-party placebo effect. The above improvements are easily observed - wishful thinking doesn't eliminate obvious signs of pain.

And, whether one doubts its efficacy is mostly irrelevant -

trying it is cheap, and there are no studies showing any significant side effects in dogs.

I too have gone thru that route. It didn't seem to make a difference. There are some days where he is better, some not so good.

So if I don't simply embrace a product that refuses to prove itself, it is called sticking one's head in the sand even when that product has been proven by science NOT to work?

I doubt the efficacy of any product that is unwilling to prove itself. Would you believe I score higher on a certain test than mensa candidates? I do refuse to prove it too.

Adequan is cheaper because it is a proven product. This is snake oil that has not been proven to work. A very simple question is how much is really reaching the joints, if any at all?

MS Fowler · #36 09-20-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So how do you explain that when the subjects and testers didn't know who was getting what, little difference was found?

I am cynical enough to believe that when vast sums of money are involved, the "right" research will produce the correct results as determined by who paid for the research. Would Big Pharma be inclined to produce ( or allow to be produced) a study that might show that much less expensive alternatives exist to their Rx?

aklim · #37 09-20-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I am cynical enough to believe that when vast sums of money are involved, the "right" research will produce the correct results as determined by who paid for the research. Would Big Pharma be inclined to produce ( or allow to be produced) a study that might show that much less expensive alternatives exist to their Rx?

Perhaps but there are also the lawsuits from James Sokolov to keep them partly in line. I guess if you want to say that tests aren't 100% to prove whether a person knows the material or not, or in this case, whether it works or not, fair enough. However, what is the alternative? The tests are much harder to fake with someone watching over them and even if they do, the lawsuits could bankrupt them. So, while it isn't perfect, what is it you think that is better than no tests? It's like saying that because Johnny can cheat on the test, the test is flawed. Well, true. Better than simply "everybody is a winner", I would think

kknudson · #38 09-20-2010, 06:45 PM

Well Aklim, you seem convinced based on a study (you haven't provided here) that these supplements are fake.
And based on a warning label that you are quoting, that does NOT exist on the supplement I am taking.

Fine.

Remember Butter is bad for you Margarine is good for you, oh wait recent studies reversed that.
Aspirin is good, bad well who knows, check with your doc.
Alcohol is bad, oh wait not so bad, oh wait in moderation not bad at all, actually good for you.

.
.
.

Studies can be configured and read to produce different results.

Either way I FEEL THEY HELP MY JOINTS so I will continue to take them.

aklim · #39 09-20-2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kknudson

Well Aklim, you seem convinced based on a study (you haven't provided here) that these supplements are fake.
And based on a warning label that you are quoting, that does NOT exist on the supplement I am taking.

Studies can be configured and read to produce different results.

Either way I FEEL THEY HELP MY JOINTS so I will continue to take them.

If you are for real, show me then. Prove it. If you are afraid to prove it, what else do you expect me to conclude? That it could possibly be real in spite of the fact that studies have shown it isn't? If I were peddling the product and I knew it was real, why wouldn't I dare to have an accredited facility do the testing and prove to the world that my product is what it says it is? OTOH, if my product is dubious like say Extenze or Enzyte, you bet I won't want it published. What supplement are you talking about? Thought we were talking about glucosamine?

I see. So what is it you think should be done? Abolish all tests? Sure they can be flawed. Sure, new data can come up but while it isn't perfect, it sure beats the alternative. I will agree with you that I don't have a better system than the studies to prove something works but is there a better system? I haven't seen it yet.

Well, the economy is in the crapper so why not? Might as well save another company from going under.

cmbdiesel · #40 09-20-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If you are for real, show me then. Prove it. If you are afraid to prove it, what else do you expect me to conclude? That it could possibly be real in spite of the fact that studies have shown it isn't? If I were peddling the product and I knew it was real, why wouldn't I dare to have an accredited facility do the testing and prove to the world that my product is what it says it is? OTOH, if my product is dubious like say Extenze or Enzyte, you bet I won't want it published. What supplement are you talking about? Thought we were talking about glucosamine?

I see. So what is it you think should be done? Abolish all tests? Sure they can be flawed. Sure, new data can come up but while it isn't perfect, it sure beats the alternative. I will agree with you that I don't have a better system than the studies to prove something works but is there a better system? I haven't seen it yet.

Well, the economy is in the crapper so why not? Might as well save another company from going under.

Might be time for somebody to get laid.....

I, personally, would take the word of kknudson, claiming that it helps, over the "tests" which I have never seen. Been a lot of talk about "perception" and placebo effect, but none about bias on the part of the "testers". How an experiment is framed is crucial to the outcome, and is often the major factor in the results.

Using your methodology, who benefits from the sale of glucosamine?? Is it easy to produce, and cheap?? That may well account for the "studies" proving its lack of effectiveness. Why would the drug companies want people taking something cheap, when they could be buying something expensive?? Time to follow the money...

kknudson · #41 09-20-2010, 07:39 PM

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/glucosamine/NS_patient-glucosamine

MTI · #42 09-20-2010, 08:26 PM

that Mayo clinic link is based on a subscription service they have which is from a group called Natural Standard's website

Natural Standard: News
Copyright © 2010 Natural Standard (www.naturalstandard.com)
September 2010

Review Questions Benefits of Glucosamine, Chondroitin

A recent review of medical literature suggests that glucosamine, chondroitin or a combination of the two, may not improve joint pain or deterioration in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Glucosamine is a natural compound that is part of healthy cartilage. The review authors analyzed data from 10 randomized controlled trials that included a total of 3,803 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. The studies compared glucosamine, chondroitin or a combination of the two against placebo.

The researchers concluded that glucosamine and chondroitin, used alone or in combination, did not appear to reduce pain or minimize joint deterioration.

However, it is unclear what form of glucosamine was used in the reviewed studies. Glucosamine sulfate has shown consistent benefit in relieving pain associated with knee osteoarthritis. It has been proposed that glucosamine sulfate may improve other types of osteoarthritis and that it may have anti-inflammatory properties, which could be useful in treating patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis. The effects of glucosamine hydrochloride and glucosamine hydroiodide are not as well known.

For more information about glucosamine and chondroitin, please visit Natural Standard's Foods, Herbs & Supplements database.

Natural Standard: The Authority on Integrative Medicine. www.naturalstandard.com
Wandel S, Juni P, Tendal B, et al. Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis. BMJ 2010; 341:c4675.

Da Nag · #43 09-20-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So if I don't simply embrace a product that refuses to prove itself, it is called sticking one's head in the sand even when that product has been proven by science NOT to work?

I don't really care if you embrace it or not. But the fact that you can't seem to comprehend that the effectiveness of drugs/conditions vary tremendously by individual, and choose to ignore evidence contradicting this lone study (including other peer reviewed, double blind controlled studies done on the subject that show the opposite result), yes - I'll stand by my "head in the sand" comment.

aklim · #44 09-20-2010, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Might be time for somebody to get laid.....

I, personally, would take the word of kknudson, claiming that it helps, over the "tests" which I have never seen. Been a lot of talk about "perception" and placebo effect, but none about bias on the part of the "testers". How an experiment is framed is crucial to the outcome, and is often the major factor in the results.

Using your methodology, who benefits from the sale of glucosamine?? Is it easy to produce, and cheap?? That may well account for the "studies" proving its lack of effectiveness. Why would the drug companies want people taking something cheap, when they could be buying something expensive?? Time to follow the money...

Got laid this morning but thanx for the suggestion.

With a double blind test, neither the researcher nor the subject knows who is in what group. That way, I can't treat you one way and the guy getting the real stuff another way or bias the test.

But could the snake oil peddlers also run their own test? Sure they can.