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’m in a constant state of frustration over comments about the use of dietary supplements. Not by gurus and influencers; I don’t expect much from them except promotion of specific products for monetary gain. I mean the people with the credentials, with the scientific background, who say things that are simply not accurate. They seem to become more bold every time they punch letters on a keyboard. Let’s look at two examples:
The first was an article from one of the writers at McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. This is a well credentialed university department with this mandate: “to demystify science for the public and separate sense from nonsense.”They go on to say they have a history of tackling fake news in the world of science well before the term “fake news” even existed. They cover everything with science behind it including diet, nutrition, and medicine.
In this article, the writer went off on a specific product you may have heard about called AG1 powder back in March of 2024. For the record, I’m not a fan of the AG1 product. In my opinion, supplements should not mix herbals from medicinal plants with vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. The premise of the article is that vitamins, minerals, and herbs are not necessary in the first place and certainly a not a green powder that has 75 ingredients in it. But in his criticism, the author says at least three things that are not accurate. He cites the beta carotene and smokers study, a study that purports that Americans get 75% of the RDA from the foods they eat, and that dietary supplements are not regulated in the US-period! Let’s check them out,
First, dietary supplements are regulated by the FDA, just not in the same way as pharmaceuticals. Medicines have to prove they are safe before they are released for use to the public but they can claim they will prevent, treat, or cure diseases. Supplements cannot make such claims; they can only make structure-function claims. “This product may help digestive health.” This “fact” as the writer proclaimed is the mantra of the American Medical Association and FDA. It seems worse now that they are producing videos together for the general public. There is a lot more why here but that’s for another time.
Second, the author brought up the beta-carotene and smoking studies. I don’t understand why he didn’t question the amount of beta-carotene used in either study. The studies used 4 and 6 times the RDA of beta-carotene at that time. I’m betting that he never read those studies. That high dose made those studies suspect because of the extreme use of beta-carotene in the studies. That’s what should be questioned.
Finally, the proof that he used to suggest that over 75% of the adult population get adequate vitamins and minerals from the food they eat was also poor. It was a study based on data collected via FFQ from specific segments of the Hawaiian and Asian populations in the mid 1990s-- and I think we all know that those diets differ from the typical diet on the U.S. mainland or Europe.. There are data from the 2021-2023 NHANE study available. It’s difficult to compare the data because of the way the data were analyzed in the prior study but a look at the nutrient intake from food looks more like 66% of the RDA, at least for some nutrients like vitamin A.
Is there still more? Yes but that’s enough. This was a rehash of old arguments to say supplements are not necessary. Let’s turn to another hot topic: creatine.
You may be thinking this is going to be another healthcare professional dissing supplements. I’m very pleased to say that’s not correct this time around. You can read the article by clicking on the link in the references. When you get there, I would not recommend listening to the audio version. Seems like AI voice to me.
The first thing that blew me away was the sponsorship: the American Medical Association. I’m not used to the AMA even acknowledging supplements exist except to caution patients to be very cautious using them. Great change.
The title suggested that there were nine things that patients should know about creatine. I think the first was the most important: taking creatine in conjunction with a weight training program, will increase muscle mass over time. The age range goes from 20 to 80 years of age. I agree completely. For people over 40 and facing a continual decline in muscle mass over time, that’s important information to know.
Let me elaborate on a couple of the ones of the nine that I think are most important. The comment that creatine may be beneficial to build muscle in those over 65 is true but that’s not all. I checked the study on the relationship between creatine intake and memory in persons 66-76 years old. While it is a meta-analysis, and those can be potentially biased in the way studies are chosen for inclusion in the analysis, the data did show that memory was improved compared to a younger population.
The question is why? My personal opinion is that creatine may increase the production of energy in nerve cells in the brain. That can help learning and memory. There is also the possibility that creatine may help increase the fluid content of brain tissue thus making the cells work more effectively. We do tend to dehydrate more as we get older.
The second important point was that creatine is safe to use in everyone pretty much everyone provided they do not have chronic kidney conditions. While there have been a few small studies that have shown that even in people with diabetes-related kidney failure, creatine can be safely used, it’s best to work with a physician if you’re in that category of kidney disease. There are tests they can check like creatinine levels to make sure kidney function is not being harmed. For the rest of us, using 3-5 grams of creatine every day seems to be a way to get the benefits of muscle repair and growth with weight training.
The slight water retention and digestive issues mentioned are minor issues that typically resolve themselves when compared to the benefits creatine may generate.
Let me finish with the great Unasked Question that no one ever includes in nutrition studies. “How did you feel while you were taking the supplement?” Feel can be many things depending on the supplement; more energy, better sleep, fewer digestive issues, and on and on. I’m not taking about filling out questionnaires or doing cognitive tests that can be analyzed. Simply, “How did you feel after using the supplement?” At the end of the day, that’s what’s really important to the person taking the supplement.
Too often, because there are no real “hard science” tests for how a person feels, it’s not asked. We simply do not know everything about how every food, every supplement, and every pharmaceutical impacts every tissue in every organ in the body. Sometimes, it’s just about how you feel day in, day out.
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.
References:
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/you-probably-dont-need-green-ag1-smoothie
https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/prevention-wellness/9-things-patients-should-know-about-taking-creatine
Nutr Rev. 2023 Mar 10;81(4):416-427.doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuac064.
