Talk:Whole food supplements

Comment

This article needs to be more encyclopedic. There are lots of unreferenced generalizations. It reads like an unwelcome lecture.

This is an interesting subject but agree that very little of the information is cited, and the research section seems to focus far too heavily on long quotations from a very limited range of sources. Rhode Island Red 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It feels like a sales pitch for a product, rather than a scientific overview. None of the articles are linkable, and they don't really prove the point that whole foods are nutritionally effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.240.10 (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this information should be more balanced - this is a complicated subject, of which this page represents just one marketing angle. This article needs to be updated with scientific references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.160.83 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is rife with hyperbole and fear-based inaccuracies. For instance, "Many vitamins, minerals and amino acids produce toxic side effects ranging from skin itching and flushing (niacin, for example) to liver impairment (vitamin A palmitate, for example)."

"Many" is an exaggeration and not factual. Only a few vitamins produce side effects like the skin flush that niacin IN HIGHER DOSES can produce. Vitamin A palmitate, like other commonly used supplemental forms of Vitamin A, does not cause "liver impairment" in normally healthy people at supplemental doses. Millions of people use supplements with Vitamin A palmitate per day with no significant reports of toxicity OR a different effect than other forms of retinol. The very conservative US Government National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine says that Vitamin A has a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 10,000 IU when used long-term with the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) being 21,600 IU per day. The LOAEL is a dosage where toxicity has rarely occurred, and then only for some people with unusual sensitivities, who are considered to be in “sensitive subgroups.” This dosage may be safe for most people, but ”may require the application of a safety factor to calculate a safe intake." “Application of a safety factor” means that groups that are sensitive, such as people who have unusual vitamin or mineral storage problems, may have side effects or a toxic response that most other people might not have at this dose. (Reference: Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium and Zinc. National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309072794/html/82.html) The article sounds more like religious belief than science and should be thoroughly edited for accuracy as it is misleading to the public and may cause public harm for those who take these supplements when other supplements would serve them better. A problem not addressed in this article is the lack of published science to support the claims of effectiveness. There are no independently published studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals to support the notions in this article. I've looked. I invite you to, also. The only studies that exist are manufactured sponsored studies conducted by one paid researcher and there are only a few of them. In fact, over 200,000 published studies have investigated the pure, isolated USP-type nutrients that this article derides and shown safety, absorption and effectiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutrinut (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC) The definitive article on this subject is found at: http://www.michaelmooney.net/whole-food-supplements.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutrinut (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Condition

This article is beyond messed up. Arguments over sources and data don't belong in the article itself, there's plenty of OR going on under our noses, you've got people sticking advertisements in the article, there's bold inserted randomly about it, the list goes on. This article is unreadable, and there's no clear presentation of anything going on here.

Looks to me like someone needs to take some time and put some effort into a rewrite. Kinsloft (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is well beyond. The content in most cases has nothing to do with the topic, there are no relevant references, and the term "whole food supplement" doesn't even appear to have any objective meaning or standard definition. Recommend deletion; it's irreparable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)