Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Supplements under investigation
Options
Comments
-
I actually wrote on the petition how I thought it was reprehensible of H&B to essentially sh*tstir about this. I have no particular view one way or the other on the topic, but H&B were asking people to sign without providing any literature/studies to (a) show that the EU regulations were about and (b) provide a counter argument as to why you should sign their petition (other than the argument that the EU is BAD!)
The lady in the shop was handing out leaflets with some facts on it. I left it in my girlfriends car. Il post some of the points later.0 -
-
Somebody called Admin on irish-lifting posted up the flyier
http://www.irish-lifting.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=30#300 -
Firstly, RDA levels are defined as "the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (approximately 98 percent) healthy individuals".
They are not minimum levels, nor are they maximum. The problem with RDAs is that they're very subjective and vary according to which body has set them. The point of the directive is to harmonise these across the EU.
The IMB is taking issue with the fact that many of the supplements openly sold contain substances which are classed as medicines. This point is not about making more money by allowing pharmaceutical companies to sell more vitamins, they have a genuine concern about dosing problems. (Who remembers when you could buy fatburners containing ephedra OTC??)
Again, what this comes down to is the misconception among the public that there is a distinction between medicines (drugs) and naturally occuring herbal remedies. What people don't realise is that many drugs are just purified forms of naturally occuring compounds from plants. The fact that they are naturally occuring doesn't mean that they don't have the potential to do harm. The IMB and the EU directive want to control these substances, not for the purposes of making money, but because there is currently no regulation in this area. Whereas a synthesized drug has a very tightly controlled production system that regulates the exact amount of an active ingredient present in the final pill, 'natural' herbal pills can vary greatly not just in the concentration of the active ingredient, but also the number and concentration of other naturally occuring, but biologically active compounds, which are found in any particular plant.
From a scienitific perspective, I can attest that many plants contain compounds which can profoundly alter body and (more worryingly) brain chemistry. Taking unregulated amounts of these compounds, in the form of some herbal extract, which lacks the stringent production and QC criteria that medicines are subject to, can be quite dangerous.
Where is the money going to come from to go through the testing of all of these products? Well, simply put, there is no money for that, so the easy solution for them is to ban the substances, or at least classify them as prescription only. This has happened many times already, St Johnswort for example. You can still buy that in Germany, but not in Ireland. Ironically, in Ireland you can freely buy codeine (in the form of Solpadeine) OTC from any pharmacy. Apart from the UK, no other country allows this to be sold without prescription. Addiction to solpadeine is a very real problem both here and in the UK.
I think the most irritating thing about the EU directive, is that it is not open to debate, so we, the consumer, are getting no choice in whether we can continue to buy high dose vitamins and minerals and many, arguably useless (or at least harmless) herbal supplements.
The other thing is that there is little convincing evidence to suggest that high dose vitamin supplementation is of any use. There have been a number of papers published this year which suggest the opposite in fact, that high dose vits are potentially damaging to our health. The few studies that have been done with enough power to make inferences (i.e. great enough numbers of participants, double blind and in a clinical setting) have all used chronically ill patients for the really high doses (e.g. studies of high dose Vit E supplementation and cardiac disease/cancer) and even then, they found that the supplementation had no significant effect. Of course it's hard to really take much from these studies as chronically ill patients are not the best model for healthy adults. It's difficult to get ethical approval for a study involving high doses of vit/mineral supplements in healthy people. Sure, LD50 tests have been done to determine the lethal dose of all of these (in animals at least) but such results do not always translate well to other species (think of Thalidomide).
Even the whole Vitamin C debate is still that, a debate, there is some evidence to suggest it helps the immune system, but equally there is evidence to suggest that it is not effective. What people often neglect to think of though, is the potential interactions between whatever 'herbal', 'natural' or merely vitamin supplements they are taking and more traditional drugs and medicines, including antidepressants, contraceptive pill, NSAIDs, antivirals, antibiotics and more. If you take a herbal supplement in particular, you may be risking some unidentified compound in that herb, which you are not necessarily intent on obtaining, interacting in some adverse way with another compound in your body. I don't mean to sound so sensationalist about that kind of thing, but there are very real risks associated with self medication. It is this that the IMB are concerned with and the issue over dosing in particular that the EU directive is hoping to address.
So, with respect to the ban, the directive hasn't stated whose RDA levels will become the new EU wide standard. It would be nice to have some consultation but then when do the faceless men in Brussels (or in fact in the IMB) ever consult with those who will be affected by their decisions. I also think it would make more sense for them to push for legislation of upper limits (UL) levels for vitamins and minerals. I think that would have more value and would be less cause for concern. However, again this comes down to a matter of research and testing and there are ethical issues involved.
At this stage we can't do very much about it, I'm afraid to say. I think it is important to stress though, that there is little real scientific evidence to support much if any benefit to high doses of any vitamins. If you feel you are benefitting from them, so be it, but you'll be hard pressed to find any doctor/scientist who will categorically tell you that there is benefit to be had from 1000% RDA dosing of vitamins (as is often the case). Thats not to say that it's harmful either.
I realise that this post leaves me sitting firmly on the fence and my ass is sore enough from deadlifts. I just felt it was important to take a balanced look at the issues here, rather than just shout and scream like a child who's had his ice cream taken away.0 -
The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.
But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Exactly. To be completely honest if all my supplements were taken away tomorrow I wouldn't really care that much - it's more that they're being taken away in a stupid & hypocritical way that bothers me.The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.
But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?0 -
To be honest I don't even know how to articulate my thoughts on this.
All I can describe it as is a complete and utter gut wrenching feeling of helplessness. People cannot be saved from their own supidity unfortunately, but for them to let their own narrowmindedness impact on another is unforgivable in my opinion.
I could easily go on a rant about how we're ceasing to become an independant state and moreso a region of Europe, but that's an argument for another day. This new directive symbolises everything that is bad about European harmony. I'll be the first to acknowledge it has been good to us, but the price we're only beginning to pay now concerns me greatly.
And you know what REALLY bugs me? Second hand smoke is a proven carcinogen. We can buy something which allows the user to inflict the threat of death on an innocent bystander, but too much Vit B12 in a supplement? We better make a law against that.0 -
It's worth listening to the Morning Ireland report just for the hilarity of the rugger-buggers with their voices masked ...
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/
0 -
hardtrainer wrote: »Firstly, RDA levels are defined as "the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (approximately 98 percent) healthy individuals".
They are not minimum levels, nor are they maximum. The problem with RDAs is that they're very subjective and vary according to which body has set them. The point of the directive is to harmonise these across the EU.
The IMB is taking issue with the fact that many of the supplements openly sold contain substances which are classed as medicines. This point is not about making more money by allowing pharmaceutical companies to sell more vitamins, they have a genuine concern about dosing problems. (Who remembers when you could buy fatburners containing ephedra OTC??)
Again, what this comes down to is the misconception among the public that there is a distinction between medicines (drugs) and naturally occuring herbal remedies. What people don't realise is that many drugs are just purified forms of naturally occuring compounds from plants. The fact that they are naturally occuring doesn't mean that they don't have the potential to do harm. The IMB and the EU directive want to control these substances, not for the purposes of making money, but because there is currently no regulation in this area. Whereas a synthesized drug has a very tightly controlled production system that regulates the exact amount of an active ingredient present in the final pill, 'natural' herbal pills can vary greatly not just in the concentration of the active ingredient, but also the number and concentration of other naturally occuring, but biologically active compounds, which are found in any particular plant.
From a scienitific perspective, I can attest that many plants contain compounds which can profoundly alter body and (more worryingly) brain chemistry. Taking unregulated amounts of these compounds, in the form of some herbal extract, which lacks the stringent production and QC criteria that medicines are subject to, can be quite dangerous.
Where is the money going to come from to go through the testing of all of these products? Well, simply put, there is no money for that, so the easy solution for them is to ban the substances, or at least classify them as prescription only. This has happened many times already, St Johnswort for example. You can still buy that in Germany, but not in Ireland. Ironically, in Ireland you can freely buy codeine (in the form of Solpadeine) OTC from any pharmacy. Apart from the UK, no other country allows this to be sold without prescription. Addiction to solpadeine is a very real problem both here and in the UK.
I think the most irritating thing about the EU directive, is that it is not open to debate, so we, the consumer, are getting no choice in whether we can continue to buy high dose vitamins and minerals and many, arguably useless (or at least harmless) herbal supplements.
The other thing is that there is little convincing evidence to suggest that high dose vitamin supplementation is of any use. There have been a number of papers published this year which suggest the opposite in fact, that high dose vits are potentially damaging to our health. The few studies that have been done with enough power to make inferences (i.e. great enough numbers of participants, double blind and in a clinical setting) have all used chronically ill patients for the really high doses (e.g. studies of high dose Vit E supplementation and cardiac disease/cancer) and even then, they found that the supplementation had no significant effect. Of course it's hard to really take much from these studies as chronically ill patients are not the best model for healthy adults. It's difficult to get ethical approval for a study involving high doses of vit/mineral supplements in healthy people. Sure, LD50 tests have been done to determine the lethal dose of all of these (in animals at least) but such results do not always translate well to other species (think of Thalidomide).
Even the whole Vitamin C debate is still that, a debate, there is some evidence to suggest it helps the immune system, but equally there is evidence to suggest that it is not effective. What people often neglect to think of though, is the potential interactions between whatever 'herbal', 'natural' or merely vitamin supplements they are taking and more traditional drugs and medicines, including antidepressants, contraceptive pill, NSAIDs, antivirals, antibiotics and more. If you take a herbal supplement in particular, you may be risking some unidentified compound in that herb, which you are not necessarily intent on obtaining, interacting in some adverse way with another compound in your body. I don't mean to sound so sensationalist about that kind of thing, but there are very real risks associated with self medication. It is this that the IMB are concerned with and the issue over dosing in particular that the EU directive is hoping to address.
So, with respect to the ban, the directive hasn't stated whose RDA levels will become the new EU wide standard. It would be nice to have some consultation but then when do the faceless men in Brussels (or in fact in the IMB) ever consult with those who will be affected by their decisions. I also think it would make more sense for them to push for legislation of upper limits (UL) levels for vitamins and minerals. I think that would have more value and would be less cause for concern. However, again this comes down to a matter of research and testing and there are ethical issues involved.
At this stage we can't do very much about it, I'm afraid to say. I think it is important to stress though, that there is little real scientific evidence to support much if any benefit to high doses of any vitamins. If you feel you are benefitting from them, so be it, but you'll be hard pressed to find any doctor/scientist who will categorically tell you that there is benefit to be had from 1000% RDA dosing of vitamins (as is often the case). Thats not to say that it's harmful either.
I realise that this post leaves me sitting firmly on the fence and my ass is sore enough from deadlifts. I just felt it was important to take a balanced look at the issues here, rather than just shout and scream like a child who's had his ice cream taken away.
Good post.0 -
Advertisement
-
Precisely. Heck, why not ban the sale of bags of oranges lest we OD on Vit C?The major major MAJOR issue I have with this is that the EU is proposing a blanket ban on something which has no direct link to any type of deaths.
But alcohol and tabacco remain on sale. Funny the power of a lobby group eh?
As much as I'd love to believe that the Directive has the interest of the consumer's health at heart, it just doesn't ring true when the sentiment behind clamp-down is juxtaposed with the government's policy towards cigarettes and alcohol. It's down to €.
There may be little evidence of the benefits of how doses of vitamins, but there are plenty of folk who downright need to take vitamins to supplement their diet, through allergies, disorders and diseases. Instead of going to their local health food shop and spending €7.99 on a month's supply of their required dose, will they now have to pay €60+ for a GP and the prescription costs on top of that?
You make some extremely valid points hardtrainer, but to me the ban still doen't make sense.0 -
My new label No-Xplode will be out soon, the servings will be doubled, serving sizes will be halfed and it will be perfectly legal. If you as a consumer decide to go MAD, step on the dark side and take double servings you deserve everything you get...0
-
Actually, there are very few in Ireland with serious vitamin deficiency that a balanced diet alone cannot rectify. It is debateable whether there are people anywhere in the world, where very high dose (10 fold RDAs) oral vitamin supplementation is clinically required.
This is not an issue of €€€s. It's not a case of people having to go to the doctor to get prescriptions for high dose vitamins. They're not going to prescribe them anyway. Thats the point. They don't want very high dosing going on. The reason the high B12 content was highlighted by the IMB in supplements is because B12 of that kind of dose is very much seen as a medical treatment and is usually injected, by a medic, to treat pernicious anaemia. High dose oral B12 is not effective because those with pernicious anaemia cannot absorb B12 from their gut effectively.0 -
-
does anyone what brands have been dubbed 'medicines'??0
-
-
OK hate to be the voice of reason here but do the majority of people who take things like NO Explode and the like really know what they contain and what they do to the body?
No I know absolutely nothing about these products so I cannot comment on wheter they are good or bad but isnt their a possibility that they could be detrimental to some people who take them?
Basically what I am saying is companies produce NO explode and the only idea 99% of people have about the product is what is written on the container which is supllied by the company. Im not advocating banning things like mad but maybe a little more transparency/info/research would be a good thing?0 -
OK hate to be the voice of reason here but do the majority of people who take things like NO Explode and the like really know what they contain and what they do to the body?
No I know absolutely nothing about these products so I cannot comment on wheter they are good or bad but isnt their a possibility that they could be detrimental to some people who take them?
Basically what I am saying is companies produce NO explode and the only idea 99% of people have about the product is what is written on the container which is supllied by the company. Im not advocating banning things like mad but maybe a little more transparency/info/research would be a good thing?
Thats why I think that products like NO explode should be made available to over 18 year olds or something of that kind,not banned.I think that for the most part grown-ups do ask around and find out what products such as NO explode contain before using them-especially since the common misconception among the average joe's in ireland is that all supplements are illegal anabolic steroids.0 -
OK hate to be the voice of reason here but do the majority of people who take things like NO Explode and the like really know what they contain and what they do to the body?
i'd say yes, yes they do
here not everywhere but this is the realm of the super nerd
strong like tarzan but with big brain and large information accesabality
No I know absolutely nothing about these products so I cannot comment on wheter they are good or bad but isnt their a possibility that they could be detrimental to some people who take them?
you sound like the IMB; look ciggys cause cancer and make you yellow, smelly,sick slow-healing, block oxygen supply and cause all sorts of nasty things.
can i say that once pregnant woman are arrested upon being caught smoking then i'll give you my supply of smuggled jamacian milk powder
Basically what I am saying is companies produce NO explode and the only idea 99% of people have about the product is what is written on the container which is supllied by the company. Im not advocating banning things like mad but maybe a little more transparency/info/research would be a good thing?
yes it would
and an age limit
and a lecture like you get when you by pain killers with codiene in them once in five feckin' years cos of a sprained ankle from hill running while next door fat people stuff themselves with salted animal fats dipped in refined sugar
and complain that their kids are made of allergies
rember that this is the same european board that define hanley as obese0 -
-
Advertisement
-
especiallt tobacco
wtf is going on
anyone can see that tobacco is bad for you
just put an age limit on the vits and supps and go away
surley the fitness industry is worth a lobby group
alcohol and tobacco sedate the populous. this keeps the status quo.
you are unlikely to ever see restrictions on these.
to quote saddam hussein "full bellies make bad revolutionaries" and the same applies to alcohol and fags.
also alcohol and tobacco companies own a lot of politicians.
supps are new on the market and don't have the clout of other big corporations. If the powers that be were serious about health, the drug companies would make whey / explod etc..... (to rip off dragans quote)
it easier to control us if we're sedate and hooked on prescriptions rather than walking around fit healthy and with the mental strength to change things.
Note - for a right winger my above statement sounds very socialist worker .hmmmmmm
anyway powerthirst will never be banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok0JH7KSDAs0 -
There seems to be some confusion between the EU directive on food supplements (Directive 2002/46/EC) and the IMB banning a number of products from sale in Ireland because they contain regulated substances. The two are not related in any way, shape or form.
The IMB banning a number of products has nothing to do with the EU directive. The products they banned contain substances which are regulated as medicines and as such cannot be sold except under the supervision of a pharmacist. Before everyone here gets up in arms about this conspiracy theory and that and why cigarettes are sold and they can't buy their vitamins, I'd like to just offer some insight into the IMB decision. I should state that I am affiliated with neither the IMB or any pharmaceutical company (for those conspiracy theorists).
In the case of NO Explode, the methylxanthine complex, which includes caffeine, also contains another related compound (also a methylxanthine) called theophylline. This compound was used as a drug to treat respiratory problems. It is regulated as a medicine and thus it's inclusion in NO explode means that it cannot be sold in a supplement shop. It's been openly on sale in a number of supplement shops in dublin, so those claiming this has something to do with a 'raid' on the shop on capel street are barking up the wrong tree. I'm pretty sure the owners of that shop (who I don't know, am not affiliated with in any way) were not aware that NO explode contained theophylline.
Now, those who've claimed that they do their research and that they always know what they put into their body, think again. Some of the compounds are not explicitly stated on the labels. Calling it a methylxanthine complex doesn't tell you the full story.
So whats wrong with theophylline?
Theophylline isn't used much anymore as a drug, because it has too many side effects, including nausea, diarrhea, increase in heart rate, arrhythmias and CNS excitation. Also, you need to monitor patients closely to ensure they do not show signs of toxicity (which is very serious). The reason why medicines are dispensed by pharmacies is because the pharmacist is trained to know what way different classes of drugs interact within the body. Theophylline is significantly more toxic if you're taking certain antibiotics, for example.
Vitamin B12 (very high dose) as found in some thermogenics can also have some pretty horrible adverse reactions in the body.
The EU directive, which seems to harmonise and regulate food supplementation across Europe, is not going to just ban everything above 100% RDA of vits and minerals. The aim is to harmonise. The RDA levels that they will take and the upper and lower limits will be decided by a scientific committee. The problem I have is that the committee is an EU committee and therefore not really answerable to anyone. I'd rather an independant, pan European committee, made up of nutritional scientists from each and every country. I think that would be a fairer way to take into account not just cultural practices, but also the fact that it would mean a more conservative approach being taken in general.
The ban will relate to things being sold as foodstuffs/supplements. It doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be able to get high dose vitamins, you might just have to buy them from a pharmacy. That doesn't mean they will be available only on prescription. They may be sold as OTC medication, but under pharmacist supervision.
As for herbal supplements. That's a completely different kettle of fish. The problem with herbal supplements is that they are not subject to the kinds of regulations (at present) that medicines etc are. So the concentration of the active ingredient can vary greatly from pill to pill, batch to batch and so on. This presents a significant risk where overdosing is concerned. The misconception that herbal remedies are natural and therefore cannot be harmful is a very dangerous one. Herbal supplements can contain compounds which are physiologically active and/or neurologically active. Aside from dosing concerns, there is the possibility for other compounds, also present in a natural plant extract, to interact not necessarily with the compound of interest, but with some other compound in the body (including traditional medications that are being taken...contraceptives, antibiotics, painkillers etc).
There is more to the whole debacle than meets the eye, so simplifying it to 'bad EU men', 'pharma conspiracies' or 'simplistic banning' adds nothing of value.0 -
its not even funny what people think about whey.'its not safe','its a drug' etc,you know the bull****.its not made from ecstacy or heroin.the people who say 'supplements' are bad are going out destroying their bodies with fags and booze,yet they ridicule supplement users for actually trying to improve their body0
-
some fairly heavy claims there hardtrainer, sources?0
-
-
-
crotalus667 wrote: »I have a very simple way of looking at this
“it’s my body ,it’s my choice”
That's a whole different issue. As is, with our present laws, the product should be taken off the shelves in supplement shops.0 -
Well Animal M stack is like a pick n' mix of slightly dubious ingredients :rolleyes: I didn't know that about theophylline, I must have a read up about it. It was more the 'horrible adverse reactions' to Vit B12 levels that I was getting at. I'm stuck for time now but I'll get back to this.Theophylline is a listed ingredient in Animal M Stack and it would be considered a medicine and is toxic etc. Which would justify removing the products from the general market tbh.0 -
some fairly heavy claims there hardtrainer, sources?
Pubmed.
I'm sick of people quoting the propaganda that appears on commercial sites, especially US sites, where a lot of money is spent to write pseudo scientific statements about the products they sell. Just because it is preceeded/followed by 'Dr Wolfowitz says...' or something similar doesn't make it true. If a product makes some wild claim about how it adds 10lbs of muscle in a week or helps to 'melt the fat from your body, right in front of your eyes' or something similar, you know what, save your money, or at the very least so some proper research into the effects of all the ingredients and see where they are basing their claim.
I find it funny that so many people started shouting conspiracy on the part of the pharma companies, claiming they're lobbying the EU to ban >100% RDA vits so they can make more money, yet they are perfectly willing to accept the claims of supplement manufacturers that everything is natural, harmless are 100% guaranteed to help you build/lose muscle/fat.
If this board were the simpsons, you'd all have pitchforks and flaming torches now, an angry mob running amok looking for the evil pharma companies while Mr Burns rubs his hands together and laughs aloud at your gullibility [cue radioactive ooze being added to giant whey vat...or something similar]*
*Slight dramatisation to illustrate point0 -
Advertisement
-
hardtrainer wrote: »If this board were the simpsons, you'd all have pitchforks and flaming torches now, an angry mob running amok looking for the evil pharma companies while Mr Burns rubs his hands together and laughs aloud at your gullibility [cue radioactive ooze being added to giant whey vat...or something similar]*
*Slight dramatisation to illustrate point
Dude,
While you input into this thread has been invaluable ( as is normally the case in any thread you care to post in ) I find that ending a post by basically questioning the intelligence of the rest of that threads participants is rarely a good thing.
I imagine not insult is intended here, simply pointing out the way this could be taken up.0
Advertisement