Welcome to Straight Talk on Health. I’m your host Dr. Chet Zelasko. Straight Talk on Health is a joint production with WGVU in Grand Rapids MI. I examine the practical application of health information. Nutrition. Exercise. Diet. Supplementation. I look at the science behind them, and let you know whether it’s something to consider or not. You can check out other things that I do on my website Drchet.com and sign up for my free emails.
I recently listened to a physician rail about dietary supplements. “Supplements are a scam! You don’t need to take supplements! All you have to do is eat a well-balanced diet. You’re just wasting your money because it’s a bunch of snake oil.”Wow! It’s not that it’s anything new but being so verbose with no record of ever getting a degree or even taking a course in nutrition or herbology, those are pretty serious accusations.
Where did the term snake oil come from?I came across some interesting research by following a line of thought backward. In one article, the author, another physician, alluded to the idea that supplements are snake oil and began in the 1960s. As someone who is a day or two over 60, I always get a kick at people who think that life as we know it—hear that as the modern era—began after their parents were born. They criticize the FDA and the government for not doing enough to protect us from ourselves. We’ll really never get to that point. Before we had the pharmaceuticals of today, when medical physicians also cut hair or provided some other service, people sold all types of tonics and potions that were supposed to cure diseases. They were just as bogus then as they are today and the government did root them out and at least fine them if not close them down.
I found articles in a 1930 issue of JAMA that described the process. Someone created a product that was supposed to be good for the blood. It was a cure for syphilis, gonorrhea, aneurysm of the heart, malaria, constipation, liver disease, sores, ulcers, and skin eruptions. A bottle of this potion cost $1.00. The Bureau of Chemistry analyzed the potion. It contained potassium iodide, cathartic resins, alcohol, ammonium acetate, licorice, glycerin, sugar, and water. The potion was declared a fraud and the manufacturer was required to pay a $100 fine.
There were several examples of these types of nostrums, potions, and tonics. These were sold since at least the Civil War and probably before that. Some had other types of pain killers in them like opium and cocaine in addition to alcohol. They were never going to cure any diseases, just like the supplements and powders of today aren’t going to cure diseases. They did help people feel better and given that time and era, why not with opium and cocaine in them? There were no cures any way. If it helped people feel better, so be it.
As the medical community became more sophisticated and used treatments based on research and science, more attention was placed on these fraudulent cures and they were put out of business. One thing is certain, they are the foundation of the attacks on the supplement industry today. But it’s not the products that’s are the problem in most cases. It’s what’s being said about them and the claims being made. “Cures” is a key word. Any time that type of word is used for any type of product in this day and age, be it supplement, gizmo, whatever, let it be. It is more than likely more snake oil than cure.
The complementary nutrition field has grown leaps and bounds in the close to 100 years that have passed since those early companies were fined. What hasn’t changed is what people will do to promote their products. The only snake lies in the words they say.
But that doesn’t explain where the term snake oil originated. Based on everything I could find, snake oil was derived from the use of an extract from a Chinese water snake in the 19th century. Immigrants from China brought it with them and shared it with other workers working building the railroads. Evidently the oil from this snake was used for muscular aches and pains. It was high in omega-3 fatty acids, especially EPA, which has been shown to benefit muscle and joint health. Because Chinese water snakes are not found in the US, people made up concoctions which contained other oils and sold them as cures for anything that ailed a person. That’s when the term snake oil got a sullied reputation.
Here’s another interesting piece of research from JAMA albeit close to 100 years later. This may benefit those who have atrial fibrillation and are concerned about triggering episodes. It’s a big deal because one in three people get AF at some point in their life.
Researchers wanted to determine the effect of caffeinated coffee consumption on recurrent AFib, compared with abstinence from coffee and caffeine.
Patients were recruited from 5 hospitals specializing in cardiac care from the US, Australia, and Canada. In order to be considered for the study, the subjects had to be coffee drinkers or caffeine users with persistent AF, or atrial flutter with a history of AF and successful electrical cardioversion between November 2021 and December 2024. Cardioversion is a procedure to shock the heart back into normal sinus rhythm.200 patients with a mean age of 69 years and 71% male were enrolled in this clinical trial. Half were assigned to the caffeinated coffee group and the other were assigned to the coffee and caffeine abstinence group. The coffee group were asked to maintain at least 1 cup of coffee per day as a baseline.
What did they find? The patients were able to maintain the 1 cup per day average or more for the 6 month follow-up period. The objective was to count the number of clinically detected recurrence of AF or atrial flutter over 6 months. Those in the coffee and caffeine group had significantly fewer episodes of AF or atrial flutter at 47% than those in the abstinence group at 64%. There were no deaths in either group nor any adverse events either.
The conclusion was that coffee drinking was not more likely to cause AFib episodes than complete abstinence from coffee or caffeine. Then, they gave all the various limitations in this trial. Two things they focused on was that it took screening over 1500 patients to get 200 people who would be willing to give up caffeine from coffee and all other sources. We love our caffeine. They also stated that the study was not blinded and not placebo controlled. Because they had to have physician-examined EKG proof that someone is in AF, I don’t see that as a problem. You either have it or you don’t and there is no fudging it. But the placebo-controlled thing? There is no way to blind that from the subjects and I don’t think it was necessary. Why not? What gets lost in many clinical trials is that people live in a real world, with real problems and real jobs and real children. Most studies try to control too many variables. Coffee yes or coffee no is enough for an intervention.
But there is one more thing that may have made the study more precise to see if there were other difference between the subjects who did have events and those who did not: determine the presence of the caffeine metabolizinggene. I have the form of the gene that metabolizes caffeine quickly. I can have a cup of coffee and immediately go to bed. Other people have caffeine at noon and won’t be able to sleep at night because they metabolize caffeine slowly. With the difference in events being 47/100 compared to 64/100, genetics could have played a role and provided more information. While that gene testing isn’t common, it is something that is available if a person wanted to know. Even without that information, if a person is diagnosed with AF, coffee or caffeine in reasonable amounts, may be okay—after a conversation with their physician.
That’s all the time I have for this episode. If you like this podcast, please hit the share button and tell your friends and colleagues about it. Until next time, this is Dr. Chet Zelasko saying health is a choice. Choose wisely today and every day.
JAMA 74 (1), 1930.
JAMA. 2026;335(4):317-325.
