Scilospher, thank you.
Kmguru, as you showed interest in supplements this hamster will chatter. (Hehe, it's Kmguru's fault.)
The presumed beneficial affects of virtually all supplements are based on folk medicine, animal studies, and “theory”.
By folk medicine this hamster means lore that has been passed down that certain substances have beneficial affect. This hamster includes traditional Chinese herbal medicine that has evolved over thousands of years. Western medicine has tended to ignore such remedies.
There are several reasons why Chinese herbal medicine has not been incorporated into Western medical practice. First, the Chinese model of body, mind, and health does not match the Western model. (Doesn’t mean one is right and the other is wrong. It’s an uncomfortable mix.) Second, safety and efficacy tests for drugs are extremely expensive, too expensive for a natural substance that cannot be patented. Third, herbs are an extremely complicated mix of active substances. The potency of these substances varies widely due to individual plant differences and processing. Many of these herbs are quite powerful and given that the potency may vary ten-fold or more may be dangerous. (Especially for people who believe that since they are “natural” and require no prescription then they are harmless.) By comparison note that on average Western drugs are only effective on only two thirds of their target population. Complications resulting from Western drugs are common and often serious.
Many claims are based on animal studies. This is only natural as testing in humans is expensive, long, and in some cases unethical. However there are problems with these claims.
The first problem is an advertising practice tantamount to fraud. There are thousands and thousands of animal studies. Often one study “shows” one thing while another seems to show the opposite. Supplement pushers may quote one or two studies showing benefit while ignoring many more that showed no benefit (and in a few cases even harm).
The second problem is that it’s difficult to extrapolate animal studies to humans, especially when making claims of a longer, healthier life. A researcher may have chosen a particular laboratory mouse strain because it is short-lived. (Researchers have careers and cannot wait extra years to complete an experiment.) There are many reasons why such a mouse strain might have a longer average or even maximum lifespan when supplemented that imply little to nothing about benefits to humans.
Finally, there is “theory”. Someone develops a theory of aging. Someone else further theorizes that if that aging theory is correct then a certain intervention should be effective. Based on very shaky reasoning a third person then suggests taking a supplement.
This situation is changing. Due to the popularity of herbal medicines Western scientists have begun to study them. E.g., statistical population studies correlating reported tea usage against disease history have indicated that green and black tea may help prevent certain cancers.
This hamster has taken mega-doses of vitamins and minerals for years. (Mostly on the principle that it’s unlikely to hurt and may help.) This hamster has taken growth hormone releasers in the past. (They may or may not do anything. Might even vary for each person.) Recent evidence indicates higher growth hormone levels may decrease life span. (Basically the story is too complicated to draw any conclusions.)
This hamster believes that in the relatively near future there will be effective drugs. That is, drugs that significantly reduce wrinkles or hair loss by improving the biological function of the tissue. When they become available a person won’t be able to avoid hearing about them. (The commercials touting the “breakthroughs” will become very annoying.)
A little further off there will be drugs and treatments that are effective against less cosmetic traits of aging.
Then someone will announce that they have reversed aging in a mouse.
