Hello There, Guest!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 9
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Clinical studies
#1
Any of you american folk that have contacts within Nutrilite, could you find out the answer to a simple question for me?

With all the research that's supposed to go into Nutrilite, why are there so few Nutrilite articles published in peer-reviewed journals?

I can't even find the oft promoted Double X Yonsei study actually published in a journal?

I've found some great peer-reviewed, published studies by a competitor showing their product decreases incidences and/or duration of illnesses and increases blood plasma levels of various crucial nutrients - but no such studies for Nutrilite.

Why not?
 Reply
#2
Isn't this an ongoing challenge for Amway across all areas. Their PR people have a lot to learn about getting good news out there in the market place. It would be great to have the type of information you talk about available to us.
'The only way I can succeed in business is to proactively do something for 'MY BUSINESS' every day'
I look to the Future - for the Future is where I'm going to spend the rest of my Life
 Reply
#3
My understanding is that respected, peer-reviewed journals have science and data requirements that go along with the submission for publication. Both of these can require lots of money to acquire. Since we know money isn’t the issue with Nutrilite, maybe the underlying science isn’t attributable to them. Also, Nutrilite’s science may not represent enough of an advancement to nutritional science, or they currently lack enough data to prove any advancement they may be claiming. (I’m assuming Nutrilite would not keep secret any publication of their innovations in respected, peer-reviewed journals).

In the case of DoubleX, chelation is the mineral delivery method. But that significant advancement was made decades ago by someone else and it’s not exclusive to DoubleX. The peer-reviewed journal articles for chelation would have been published decades ago, and many other high-end supplement makers utilize the same method. Even with its greater variety, quantities and quality of nutrient sources, DoubleX (today) may not represent an advancement to nutritional science significant enough to be published in a top journal. That's a rare achievement for a supplement maker.

Q Smile
 Reply
#4
Top journals in the field of nutrition and health are not so interested in manufacturing processes - they're interested in outcomes.

Here's a simple question that would be interesting and get published if done as a quality study -

Do people who take Double X have fewer incidence of sickness than people taking Centrum?

You'd have to do some work to incorporate blinding and placebo but it's doable.

From a scientific perspective -

Can a commercially prepared supplement incorporating plant concentrates reduce incidence of sickness compared to a commercially prepared synthetic vitamin supplement.

Or how about the Yonsei study on Double X and blood plasma levels of various nutrients and decreases in DNA damage. That type of research is very publishable. The only reason it wouldn't be accepted is if it was poorly designed research. So it was either never submitted, or was rejected. If the latter then it shouldn't be promoted at all. If the former - why not?
 Reply
#5
When the bru-ha-ha that was created in the medical establishment with the announcement of the Van Andel Institute. Many people thought that the medical research organization was simply going to be a front to provide medical-type backing for Nutrilte vitamins. Maybe that is why the VI has never really studied the correlation between vitamins and disease. Maybe that was never its intention to begin with. I don't know.

Anyway, I think one of the biggest reasons why you don't see those studies in the US is because there is not a market for them. The FDA prohibits any kind of suggestion that vitamins can improve one's health. So why spend the money for the research?

How much money are most companies willing invest in a study that cannot be used to help sell the product?
 Reply
#6
MichMan Wrote:Anyway, I think one of the biggest reasons why you don't see those studies in the US is because there is not a market for them. The FDA prohibits any kind of suggestion that vitamins can improve one's health. So why spend the money for the research?

How much money are most companies willing invest in a study that cannot be used to help sell the product?

But surely if the clinical studies "proved" a correlation between taking a particular supplement and improved health outcomes, then you would surely be able to quote it ? Confusedcratch:
 Reply
#7
Common sense says that you are right. But again we are dealing the the United States government. The make the whole thing very complicated. Here is what I am talking about:



Statement on FDA Regulations on Dietary Supplements by Jane E. Henney, M.D.
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

A. Boundaries

Before Congress passed DSHEA, dietary supplements (including vitamins and minerals) were regulated either as foods or as drugs, depending on their intended use. If a product was used primarily for its taste, aroma, or nutritive value, it was regulated as a food. This meant that the ingredients used in such dietary supplements were subject to the food additive provisions of the FD&C Act, which require the safety of an ingredient to be demonstrated before it can be marketed. The supplement was subject to regulation as a drug if therapeutic claims were made, i.e., claims to treat or prevent disease; if claims were made to affect the structure or function of the body through a non-nutritive mechanism; or if there was other evidence that the intended use of the product was as a drug. The supplement, with such claims, would have to meet the rigorous drug safety and efficacy requirements of the FD&C Act, including, in the great majority of cases, premarket approval.

B. Claims

DSHEA also amended the FD&C Act to permit certain types of claims for dietary supplements that formerly would have made them drugs, including claims to affect the structure or function of the body through a non-nutritive mechanism. [b]Congress recognized that if foods and dietary supplements were permitted to make disease treatment and prevention claims without premarket review, the burden would have been on consumers to evaluate the validity of a myriad of claims about products marketed for serious and life-threatening conditions. In addition, dietary supplements would be given an unfair advantage over prescription and over-the-counter drugs in the marketplace
.

[/b]


http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990325e.html

As you might be able to tell, the prescription drug lobby is very strong. I don't know of any vitamin lobby.

Anyway, the nanny-staters strike again.

***********

And the part that is difficult for any mlm company is that they have more of a risk that their product will be represented with claims that it "cures" certain types of ailments.

For instance, if Double X was sold on the shelf in a Wal Mart, the consumer would rely almost exclusively upon the label for information about the product. But in an mlm, there is the human factor. Distributors would carry a copy of the study and show it to everybody. No doubt there would be all kinds of claims being made that Double X does this and does that... which would bring action from the regulators.
 Reply
#8
Yea the FDA has complete authority over this topic.

Anything stating any guaranteed health outcomes are to be classified as a drug. Hence why every herbal or supplement on the market clearly states "Not intended to diagnose, prevent or treat any disease." Or some variation of that.

It was only a year or two ago that the FDA was looking to bring all supplements under their wing. Not sure if this would benefit nutrilite or not. In many cases, other supplements companies would be in a world of trouble.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#9
MichMan, I'm aware of the issue with FDA rules and the disincentive it plays, but there are clinical studies that HAVE been done and ARE being used to promote the products - but as best I can tell they've never been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Why not?
 Reply
#10
Quote:there are clinical studies that HAVE been done and ARE being used to promote the products


Clinical studies have been used to promote nutrition products? Were they Nutrilite products?

If so, where are those studies currently published?

Can you post a link?
 Reply
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 9
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)