Supplements and the Tebow Effect

The Dietary and Supplement Health and Education Act makes me say: “Supplements are not meant to treat, cure or prevent disease or illness.” This is a law enacted by congress in 1994. So, I have a question. After 18 years why is this still a headline: “Study: Vitamin D Has No Clear Benefit for COPDPatients”? By law the supplement industry cannot make this claim, so who is?

The article goes on to say that vitamin D does have some effect in the population at large, particularly in those with vitamin D deficiencies, but it does not work when you drill the numbers down. The writer cannot seem to reconcile this discrepancy. If it is overall beneficial, why not at the individual levels?

I have seen the same argument used to say correcting the diet of the population will not impact levels of type 2 diabetes, even though science has shown time and again it does in the individual. Why does it not work in the population at large?

I will henceforth call this the Tebow Effect, after the Denver Broncos “star” quarterback. For those who are not familiar with this chap, and because it is fun, I will explain. Tim Tebow is by stats one of the worst pro quarterbacks to ever be on a team. The man is just plain awful. He, however, won quite a few games this year. How is this possible? Other teams had demonstrably better quarterbacks, but lost several games to our hero.

When you look at the stats, no sane person would bet on this guy. But a game is more than one guy. The variables of the individual game were a greater impact to the outcome that one train-wreck of a player. The same works for the impact of supplements to the population. On the whole, studies indicate better health but when you drill down other things impact the findings in stronger ways.

The moral of the story is good supplementation supports good health, or Tebow is really, really awful. I kinda like both, but you choose.