Found this graph on the net the other day. It shows the amount of evidence for each supplement and how good they are for your health. No surprise that Vit D, fish oil and probiotics are at the top of the list. But the others are interesting…especially wheatgrass.
Really interesting graph. Good post man.
thanks for sharing!
Google hits are relevant to overall popularity. It’s a way to highlight information. Otherwise, you’d have people who might only be interested in, say, fish oil, squinting at the screen.
List is highly useful for most people.
I take resveratrol, even though it’s “not worth it.” At current dosages, it probably isn’t. The studies on rats used dozens of GRAMS of resveratral, where as most of us are only take 500-600 mg. Are we taking an effective dose? Probably not. But MAYBE a small dose is good enough. I’m willing to risk spending some extra cash to prevent cancer.
So is resveratrol worth it? For people with smaller supplement budgets, they really should be focusing on the stuff at the top of the graph.
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. I hate to tear it apart, but at first glance it doesn’t seem that BBers can completely rely on this, although i know that’s not your intention. I just want to point out the following based on my brief review of it.
It’s only based on #s of human randomized placebo controlled studies, and while that’s a solid thing to show support, it’s not the best to count something out. Lack of evidence does not mean something doesn’t work (not that I’m defending junk supplements). I just mean that many supplements can give benefit, but they may not study it in the way a BBer would use it… Carnitine and resveratrol are below the “worth it line” for example, but if used the right way for BBing purposes, they may be of value (they spelled resveratrol wrong by the way… Just saying).
For the most part though, it’s a nice looking graph, and I do appreciate you sharing it!
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Google hits are relevant to overall popularity. It’s a way to highlight information. Otherwise, you’d have people who might only be interested in, say, fish oil, squinting at the screen.
List is highly useful for most people.
I take resveratrol, even though it’s “not worth it.” At current dosages, it probably isn’t. The studies on rats used dozens of GRAMS of resveratral, where as most of us are only take 500-600 mg. Are we taking an effective dose? Probably not. But MAYBE a small dose is good enough. I’m willing to risk spending some extra cash to prevent cancer.
So is resveratrol worth it? For people with smaller supplement budgets, they really should be focusing on the stuff at the top of the graph.[/quote]
The study “trans-Resveratrol, a Natural Antioxidant from Grapes, Increases Sperm Output in Healthy Rats” uses an equivalent dose of 1.7 grams (for 195 pound person) which is not insanely far off from the recommended dose in Rez-V… The study used 20mg/kg, or 9mg/lb fyi, and that’s not necessarily the lowest effective dose, that’s just the dose they used, and it showed results, so potentially a lower dose could work (for rats) as well. You also have to account for human metabolism vs a rat, so potentially, it is true that Rez-V does what it says at the recommended dose.
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. I hate to tear it apart, but at first glance it doesn’t seem that BBers can completely rely on this, although i know that’s not your intention. I just want to point out the following based on my brief review of it.
It’s only based on #s of human randomized placebo controlled studies, and while that’s a solid thing to show support, it’s not the best to count something out. Lack of evidence does not mean something doesn’t work (not that I’m defending junk supplements). I just mean that many supplements can give benefit, but they may not study it in the way a BBer would use it… Carnitine and resveratrol are below the “worth it line” for example, but if used the right way for BBing purposes, they may be of value (they spelled resveratrol wrong by the way… Just saying).
For the most part though, it’s a nice looking graph, and I do appreciate you sharing it![/quote]
haha I didn’t notice the spelling mistake… Yeah the worth it line is definitely controversial as I don’t think the graph was developed for any kind of athlete. It is obviously the author’s opinion on “General health” for the majority of the population so a lot of it sorta doesn’t relate to any kind of sports or BB. Like any of these nutrition studies written on the net…I took it with a grain of salt, interesting though…
ps. I have been reading a lot of your posts lately, you know a SHITLOAD about nutrition and show lots of passion in this subject and I have learnt heaps from you 
Cheers…
It’s not a terrible chart. But a couple of notes about it(I saw it elsewhere in a more complete form).
It is only referring to supplements that have human studies, all animal studies are excluded. Also, it isn’t referring to overall worth or worthlessness, it is referring to worth for specific conditions, and more specifically by ‘worth’, it is primarily rendering based on how much data supports various claims.
Basically, I think that this chart is presented fairly poorly and it is too easy to misinterpret what it is displaying. I think also that there is too much information behind each bubble that the chart fails to adequately express.
Lastly, I think that too many people(I saw this on another forum as well) are reading it completely inaccurately where they blindly assume that the things on top “work” and the things on the bottom “don’t work.”
The last point I’d bring up is that the people who created this chart are not scientists. They are just guys who like making ‘infographics’. As such, I wouldn’t necessarily trust their ability to parse through data as well as someone whose job involves doing so.
I personally do not like charts like these because I think they do an overall disservice to the research, and due to the ease at which it can be misread, tangentially encourage the proliferation of incomplete knowledge.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
It’s not a terrible chart. But a couple of notes about it(I saw it elsewhere in a more complete form).
It is only referring to supplements that have human studies, all animal studies are excluded. Also, it isn’t referring to overall worth or worthlessness, it is referring to worth for specific conditions, and more specifically by ‘worth’, it is primarily rendering based on how much data supports various claims.
Basically, I think that this chart is presented fairly poorly and it is too easy to misinterpret what it is displaying. I think also that there is too much information behind each bubble that the chart fails to adequately express.
Lastly, I think that too many people(I saw this on another forum as well) are reading it completely inaccurately where they blindly assume that the things on top “work” and the things on the bottom “don’t work.”
The last point I’d bring up is that the people who created this chart are not scientists. They are just guys who like making ‘infographics’. As such, I wouldn’t necessarily trust their ability to parse through data as well as someone whose job involves doing so.
I personally do not like charts like these because I think they do an overall disservice to the research, and due to the ease at which it can be misread, tangentially encourage the proliferation of incomplete knowledge.
[/quote]
lol whoa… that was deep…
weeell, i can vouch for probiotics anyway
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Google hits are relevant to overall popularity. It’s a way to highlight information. Otherwise, you’d have people who might only be interested in, say, fish oil, squinting at the screen.
List is highly useful for most people.
I take resveratrol, even though it’s “not worth it.” At current dosages, it probably isn’t. The studies on rats used dozens of GRAMS of resveratral, where as most of us are only take 500-600 mg. Are we taking an effective dose? Probably not. But MAYBE a small dose is good enough. I’m willing to risk spending some extra cash to prevent cancer.
So is resveratrol worth it? For people with smaller supplement budgets, they really should be focusing on the stuff at the top of the graph.[/quote]
The study “trans-Resveratrol, a Natural Antioxidant from Grapes, Increases Sperm Output in Healthy Rats” uses an equivalent dose of 1.7 grams (for 195 pound person) which is not insanely far off from the recommended dose in Rez-V… The study used 20mg/kg, or 9mg/lb fyi, and that’s not necessarily the lowest effective dose, that’s just the dose they used, and it showed results, so potentially a lower dose could work (for rats) as well. You also have to account for human metabolism vs a rat, so potentially, it is true that Rez-V does what it says at the recommended dose.[/quote]
I read about study using rodents the other day (can’t remember where) and it pointed out that their metabolism is something like 10x humans. I wonder if Resveratrol is metabolized like that. If so 20mg/kg in rats becomes 2mg/kg in humans. Your 195 lb person’s dose would be at a much more moderate 170mg/day.
[quote]thrasher_09 wrote:
[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. I hate to tear it apart, but at first glance it doesn’t seem that BBers can completely rely on this, although i know that’s not your intention. I just want to point out the following based on my brief review of it.
It’s only based on #s of human randomized placebo controlled studies, and while that’s a solid thing to show support, it’s not the best to count something out. Lack of evidence does not mean something doesn’t work (not that I’m defending junk supplements). I just mean that many supplements can give benefit, but they may not study it in the way a BBer would use it… Carnitine and resveratrol are below the “worth it line” for example, but if used the right way for BBing purposes, they may be of value (they spelled resveratrol wrong by the way… Just saying).
For the most part though, it’s a nice looking graph, and I do appreciate you sharing it![/quote]
haha I didn’t notice the spelling mistake… Yeah the worth it line is definitely controversial as I don’t think the graph was developed for any kind of athlete. It is obviously the author’s opinion on “General health” for the majority of the population so a lot of it sorta doesn’t relate to any kind of sports or BB. Like any of these nutrition studies written on the net…I took it with a grain of salt, interesting though…
ps. I have been reading a lot of your posts lately, you know a SHITLOAD about nutrition and show lots of passion in this subject and I have learnt heaps from you Cheers…[/quote]
Glad you found it useful! And also glad I have a place like this to learn and share!
**edit: and by the way, in no way do i consider myself a know it all. There’s certainly plenty I need to catch up on about what’s already known (regarding current science and how it applies to looking good naked), and there’s certainly a lot to learn about what is yet to be known. But I try my best to grasp these concepts, so if my grasp can help you in anyway, I’m obliged. Anyways, take care and happy reading.