Dangers of Dietary Supplement Deregulation

Dangers of Dietary Supplement Deregulation
4.69 (93.85%) 13 votes

The majority of dietary supplement facilities tested were found noncompliant with good manufacturing practices guidelines.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“The U.S. public is not well protected” by current dietary supplement recommendations. Sometimes, there too little of whatever’s supposed to be in the bottle, and sometimes, there’s too much. Hundreds of people suffering from acute selenium toxicity, thanks to an “employee error” at one of the suppliers. Months later, many continued to suffer. Had the company been following good manufacturing practices, such as testing their ingredients, this may not have happened. In 2007, the FDA urged companies to adhere to such guidelines, but seven years later, the majority of dietary supplement facilities remained “noncompliant” with current good manufacturing practices guidelines.

What are the consequences of this ineffective regulation of dietary supplements? 50,000 Americans harmed every year. Of course, prescription drugs don’t just harm, but actually kill 100,000 Americans every year—and, that’s just in the hospital. Drugs prescribed by doctors outside of hospital settings may kill another 200,000 people every year. But, this doesn’t make it any less tragic for the thousands sickened by supplements.

Sometimes, the supplements may contain drugs. Not only do a substantial proportion of dietary supplements have “quality problem[s];” the “FDA has identified hundreds of dietary supplements…that have been adulterated with prescription medications.” Or, even worse, designer drugs that haven’t even been tested—like tweaked Viagra compounds. About half of the most serious drug recalls in the U.S. aren’t for drugs, but for supplements—yet two-thirds were still found on store shelves six months later.

Then, there’s inadvertent contamination with “potentially hazardous contaminant[s]”, such as heavy metals and pesticides, in 90% of herbal supplements tested. And mycotoxins—potentially carcinogenic fungal toxins, like aflatoxin—in 96% of herbal supplements. Milk thistle supplements were the worst, with most having more than a dozen different mycotoxins. This is thought to be because the plant is harvested specifically when it’s wet; and so, it can get moldy easily. And so, you have these people taking milk thistle to support their livers, and end up getting exposed to “immunotoxic, genotoxic, and hepatotoxic”—meaning liver-toxic—contaminants.

How is this kind of thing even legal? It wasn’t, until 1994, with the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Before that, supplements were regulated like food additives. You had to show that they were safe before being brought to the market. What a concept. But, not anymore. Most people are unaware that supplements no longer have to be approved first, or that supplement ads don’t have to be vetted first. “This misunderstanding may provide some patients with a false sense of security regarding [the] safety and efficacy of these products.”

This deregulation led to an explosion in dietary supplements from around 4,000, when the law came into effect, to now more than 90,000 different supplements on the market—which are all now presumed innocent until proven guilty, presumed safe until they hurt enough people. “In other words, consumers must suffer harm…before the FDA begins the slow process towards restricting [the] product from the market.”

Take ephedra, for example. Hundreds of poison control center complaints starting back in 1999, increasing to thousands—including reports of “strokes, seizures, and deaths.” Yet, it took seven years for the FDA to pull it off store shelves, thanks to millions from the industry spent on lobbying.

What did the companies have to say for themselves? Metabolife swore that they had “never received” a single report of a single adverse effect from any customer. “According to the company, Metabolife had a [so-called] ‘claims-free history.'” Whereas, in fact, they had gotten 14,000 complaints from customers, but covered them up.

Basically, “dietary supplement manufacturers have no realistic accountability for the safety of their products,” and the industry trade organizations have been accused of responding to legitimate concerns with “bluster and denial.”

Yeah, but are these criticisms of dietary supplements just a Big Pharma conspiracy to maintain their monopoly? No. Big Pharma loves dietary supplements, because Big Pharma owns dietary supplement companies—to dip into the tens of billions in annual sales.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Paolo Gamba via flickr. Image has been modified.

Video credit: Julien Herman.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“The U.S. public is not well protected” by current dietary supplement recommendations. Sometimes, there too little of whatever’s supposed to be in the bottle, and sometimes, there’s too much. Hundreds of people suffering from acute selenium toxicity, thanks to an “employee error” at one of the suppliers. Months later, many continued to suffer. Had the company been following good manufacturing practices, such as testing their ingredients, this may not have happened. In 2007, the FDA urged companies to adhere to such guidelines, but seven years later, the majority of dietary supplement facilities remained “noncompliant” with current good manufacturing practices guidelines.

What are the consequences of this ineffective regulation of dietary supplements? 50,000 Americans harmed every year. Of course, prescription drugs don’t just harm, but actually kill 100,000 Americans every year—and, that’s just in the hospital. Drugs prescribed by doctors outside of hospital settings may kill another 200,000 people every year. But, this doesn’t make it any less tragic for the thousands sickened by supplements.

Sometimes, the supplements may contain drugs. Not only do a substantial proportion of dietary supplements have “quality problem[s];” the “FDA has identified hundreds of dietary supplements…that have been adulterated with prescription medications.” Or, even worse, designer drugs that haven’t even been tested—like tweaked Viagra compounds. About half of the most serious drug recalls in the U.S. aren’t for drugs, but for supplements—yet two-thirds were still found on store shelves six months later.

Then, there’s inadvertent contamination with “potentially hazardous contaminant[s]”, such as heavy metals and pesticides, in 90% of herbal supplements tested. And mycotoxins—potentially carcinogenic fungal toxins, like aflatoxin—in 96% of herbal supplements. Milk thistle supplements were the worst, with most having more than a dozen different mycotoxins. This is thought to be because the plant is harvested specifically when it’s wet; and so, it can get moldy easily. And so, you have these people taking milk thistle to support their livers, and end up getting exposed to “immunotoxic, genotoxic, and hepatotoxic”—meaning liver-toxic—contaminants.

How is this kind of thing even legal? It wasn’t, until 1994, with the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Before that, supplements were regulated like food additives. You had to show that they were safe before being brought to the market. What a concept. But, not anymore. Most people are unaware that supplements no longer have to be approved first, or that supplement ads don’t have to be vetted first. “This misunderstanding may provide some patients with a false sense of security regarding [the] safety and efficacy of these products.”

This deregulation led to an explosion in dietary supplements from around 4,000, when the law came into effect, to now more than 90,000 different supplements on the market—which are all now presumed innocent until proven guilty, presumed safe until they hurt enough people. “In other words, consumers must suffer harm…before the FDA begins the slow process towards restricting [the] product from the market.”

Take ephedra, for example. Hundreds of poison control center complaints starting back in 1999, increasing to thousands—including reports of “strokes, seizures, and deaths.” Yet, it took seven years for the FDA to pull it off store shelves, thanks to millions from the industry spent on lobbying.

What did the companies have to say for themselves? Metabolife swore that they had “never received” a single report of a single adverse effect from any customer. “According to the company, Metabolife had a [so-called] ‘claims-free history.'” Whereas, in fact, they had gotten 14,000 complaints from customers, but covered them up.

Basically, “dietary supplement manufacturers have no realistic accountability for the safety of their products,” and the industry trade organizations have been accused of responding to legitimate concerns with “bluster and denial.”

Yeah, but are these criticisms of dietary supplements just a Big Pharma conspiracy to maintain their monopoly? No. Big Pharma loves dietary supplements, because Big Pharma owns dietary supplement companies—to dip into the tens of billions in annual sales.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Paolo Gamba via flickr. Image has been modified.

Video credit: Julien Herman.

Doctor's Note

We have shifted to a new look for our videos, pulling in motion graphics design specialists to help mix things up. This one was done by Julien Herman, one of four teams of contractors we’re currently working with. Julien contributes from France, and says he’s “happy to contribute to NutritionFacts.org” and feels “lucky to be part of the team.”

Tomorrow’s video will be created by a different designer. It’s up to you to tell us which you like better. In the comments, please include your thoughts on the new look, and which format you like better.

In other words, which do you like better?

Please let me know!

And, if you or someone you know is an expert in motion graphics software, and would like to become team number five, please check out our Employment Opportunities page.

Isn’t the supplement thing cray-cray? This reminds me of the Black Raspberry Supplements Put to the Test video.

But, 100,000+ killed every year by pharmaceuticals? See Why Prevention is Worth a Ton of Cure and How Doctors Responded to Being Named a Leading Killer for more details.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

160 responses to “Dangers of Dietary Supplement Deregulation

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Let me start by saying that I very much like the information Dr. Greger provides, though I’d be just as comfortable reading it as watching a video, so perhaps I’m not the right person to comment on the new graphics style choices. However:

    I much prefer the example that Daniel did because it is the least distracting. Both Tyler and Julien (with Julien being the worst example) distract from the message with the constant gratuitous visual distractions. Showing documents and highlighting text isn’t too bad, but the non-stop page turning work that Julien does remind me of what documents look like when someone discovers fonts and uses a dozen of them on the same page: It just distracts from the message.

    The new visual styles do not enhance. They seems like “movement for the sake of movement” and betray the amateur, regardless of the technical skills involved.




    0
  2. Of the three new styles of presentation so far, this one (Julien’s) is the most pleasant to watch, although the text moved through a little too fast. But all three of the new styles are worse than the simple style used successfully for the last few years! None of these new styles are worth paying extra money for. As stated in the comments on the last video, I think any money could be better spent on other more “substantial” improvements to the site along the lines of “content” improvement rather then “presentation” improvement. Thanks again for all the great work the NutritionFacts team does!




    0
    1. Mak, B12 supplementation is recommended and required for those who choose to avoid animal products in their diet.
      This video reviews the dangers inherent in our unregulated dietary supplement industry, and because of that, there are concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of all dietary supplements distributed in this environment including B12.
      Regulations passed for the health, protection and well being of the people of this nation are and have been under assault as an impediment to progress and productivity by the “nanny state.”
      This is what industry self regulation looks like. There will be those who produce safe products, but there is little to discourage bad actors.




      0
        1. llex, Yes, I am painfully aware of that, and I am not particularly happy about it. They are busy dismantling and or privatizing whatever they can. They only seem to want a nanny to look after the interests of the energy, meat packing, mil-aero and banking industries. They rest of us are pretty much on our own.




          0
  3. OK I’m going to go a little against the flow here. I rather like the page turning. It allows me an extra moment to click to pause and read. If it seems to go too fast, then as always I can go to the sources cited.

    About this video. I have experienced problems with inaccurate strengths of supplements. Working in an office I knew that I needed a Vit d supplement so I was taking 1500 units a day. When tested for 25 (OH)D it turned out I had a severe deficiency. I now take a 5000 unit capsule daily and my levels are now very good.

    A few years ago I saw survey test results of commercially prepared Vit d supplements. They all tested at 30-70% of advertised strength. Status of the manufacturer or distributor seemed to make no difference. So the reality is I am taking between 1500 and 3500 units per day. Who knows?

    So at least occasionally we need to be tested for vit d unless we do something like working as a lifeguard. And even then we need to test to make sure. I like to test at least every other year as I have no idea how the manufacturing might be changed by the company.




    0
  4. I also like the old style the most. Besides that I like it when the words dr Gregor says are literally hilighted in the text, Tyler did this the best. I did enjoy the neat visual style from Julien.
    ps : Consider buying your supplements from here in Europe. For example from Germany where they are much more regulated then in the US.




    0
  5. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” comes to mind here. I really enjoy the videos of the past two or three years, and find the recent ones difficult to follow or unpleasant to watch. I agree with WFPB Hal that money could best be spent elsewhere.. like in an expanded Q & A section, or a dedicated area for us to post recipes etc.
    Mak raises a good question concerning the few supplements that Dr Greger recommends. While omega 3 supplements are prohibitively expensive, B12 and vit D appear necessary. Are issues with these common?
    Thanks to all the NutritionFacts team for making NF the incredible resource its become.




    0
  6. Whew! I find the new graphics to be a bit much. I visit this site for valuable information, not migraine-inducing glitz.

    I’ll just go back to reading the transcript.

    Sorry to be negative, but sheesh!




    1
  7. The supplement and pharmaceutical industries rest squarely on a foundational belief that one can find health in a bottle.
    It is basically faith based medicine with some magic potion thrown in for good measure.




    0
  8. Sometimes when it comes to graphics, less is more. Dr. Greger’s original style was less distracting visually, and allowed you to focus on the most important thing – his message. I agree with another commenter that I might stick to transcripts if the videos all go this way from now on.




    1
  9. The lack of regulation of nutritional supplements is to be lamented, but what can one say for pharmaceuticals, which are regulated and kill thousands of people (am I being too conservative?) every year?




    2
  10. I like how this video is animated because it emphasizes how Dr Greger is mostly just reading the text out of the articles cited. For this particular video, the timing on some of the transitions could use a little more refinement.




    0
  11. Ah, tradition! It may be that the kinds of people who prefer their science straight up also prefer the familiar. In any case, the early consensus seems to favor tradition.
    Nor do I object, though the latest, magnified script may soothe those with age-related vision problems (solvable by screen magnifying too). Keep trying!




    0
  12. This video format is so distracting and hard on the eyes I stopped watching and listened to Dr. Greger, looking away from the screen.




    1
  13. Like Susan, I’ve had a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” reaction to all of the new video styles so far. I like the old style best of all and never thought it was in need of updating. It kept text motion to a minmum, which I find much more pleasant to look at. I’m old enough to be in the “fogey” category, though, so that’s not too surprising.




    0
  14. I admit I did not like this one. I tend to follow along and the visual was distracting and I ended up missing some of Dr. Gregers message and had to go back, because I felt like I was slow to catch up to the reading and listening. Does that make any sense? Anyway, less is more.




    0
  15. I personally enjoyed so far, both Daniel’s and Julien’s style. Although vastly different from each others style, they both had items about them that I liked. Julien’s is somewhat more like the past style and I particularly liked the slight waving page corner, letting me know where it was going to turn next.

    Daniel’s style had a more up-to-date style that I enjoyed. Although I know some people felt it made them ‘sea sick’, I didn’t experience that issue at all. It may be that I’m watching them at work on a larger screen. Not sure.

    Above it all the content is the most important part and I wouldn’t like to lose hearing Dr. Greger speak through the short videos, that’s part of the enjoyment I get from listening to him ‘punctuate’ certain aspects or his quirky comments! Those I absolutely enjoy! The condensed science on the videos is there for me to glean the most important parts and add them to my ongoing knowledge, but the rest is just WFPB icing on that WFPB, no oil cake!




    0
  16. I found Daniels style was a harder to read and almost made me feel motion sickness. A bit too much motion for my preference.

    Tyler’s style is probably my preference because it was very clean and easy to read although the dark edges seemed to dark to me.

    Julien’s style was also good.

    But, of the three I would go with Tyler’s style with a couple minor tweaks.

    Keep things easy to read and not too much motion.

    Sean Carney




    0
  17. I don’t think that the new visual effects add anything and agree that, if anything, they’re more annoying. I especially agree that the money can be better spent elsewhere. I, for one, would not be happy to know that money I donated was spent on empty visual effects that don’t add to the content in any meaningful way.

    Also, the story telling is nice, but after a while I find that I want more than just these “sound bytes” on subjects. For example, a coherent series of videos demonstrating what to eat and how to plan meals during a week for improved health and nutrition would be terrific. I think we would all benefit from more of a “bigger picture” perspective so we can know which foods are best as part of an overall plan for eating.




    0
  18. I would disagree with those who strictly want a text script only as we all learn in different ways. I like the videos with the voice narrative and being a video you can always pause and repeat it if necessary. Thanks again to Dr. Greger and his team for all you do.




    1
  19. I would disagree with those who strictly want a text script only as we all learn in different ways. I like the videos with the voice narrative and being a video you can always pause and repeat it if necessary. Thanks again to Dr. Greger and his team for all you do.




    1
  20. Love the new format but maybe a variety would be better. Watching all those letters moving makes me dizzy. Perhaps alternating with highlighting?




    0
  21. . . . so, let me understand the logic . . . FDA’s very highly regulated prescription medications “actually kill 100,000 Americans every year” . . . so, we want this same FDA to have a greater role in the regulation of vitamins? We do not need more dietary advice from the government!

    Our laws against fraud are more than adequate to address these kind of issues. Realize that additional regulation of supplements will substantially raise costs, restrict access to care, and, on the balance, more likely harm peoples’ health. And result in other unintended consequences. The role of government is to protect us from coercion and protect our right to choose, not choke us with bureaucratic tyranny.

    Biased, ad hominem, calumnious attacks to scare people into “protection” and discredit a whole industry by association is a poor reflection on your message. Sensationalism and scare mongering should have no place in these videos. Please, stick to strictly non-commercial, nutrition facts.




    0
    1. Sorry Ted Brewer, I clicked the “REPORT” button by mistake! I actually like your post.
      ADMIN: why can one not delete or cancel the “report” click? This is very bad design. I want to delete the click as it was not intended. And why are there not options on the “REPORT” button or space to write a comment. This could lead to spurious unfair “reports” of people’s comments and is unhelpful to all. Please reply.
      And why the pressure on editing – only 4 minutes?! This is not fair. Sometimes one needs time to re-consider and re-write a comment. FOUR minutes is far from sufficient and quite unreasonable. One hour would be more like it or no limit. Such pressure…it’s intimidating.




      0
      1. Allisfood: I am a volunteer lay moderator. I don’t have any inside information or influence, but I can say that I agree with you. Also note that we are expecting improvements to this comment area sometime in the next month when an update to the entire site is expected to be released. I don’t know what the changes will be, but hopefully your change will be among the changes made. I’m also adding your comment to a list of problems with our current comment system. So, your idea will hopefully not get lost. Thanks.




        0
        1. Where is my other comment on the video posted later after this one on editor?? I spent the better part of an hour crafting feedback on the videos! What sort of treatment of one’s effort is this??? HAVE YOU REMOVED IT? This is ridiculous. Is there a word limit? If so state it. What good reason could you possibly have for my informed comments. I teach graphic design and had points to make. If you can’t handle feedback then this site is lost.




          0
          1. Allisfood: I understand that you are frustrated, but please try to refrain from accusations until you have a chance to learn what is happening.

            We are using a new comment application that has a lot of bugs. We are working on fixing those bugs. Your patience in the meantime would be appreciated. From what I can tell, no one ever deleted any of your comments. You are not the first person to experience this problem. We have had other people report that they could not find one fo their comment, but which everyone else could see. If you have a problem finding one of your comments, here are your options: 1) Consider waiting a day to see if you can see it later. 2) Another option is to post a polite request for a moderator to please look for the comment. If we give you a link to your comment, hopefully you could see it that way. 3) For technical problems like this, another option is to go into the Help Center at the bottom of the page. Then click the link on the upper right corner to submit a help ticket.

            – volunteer moderator




            0
    2. “. . . so, let me understand the logic . . . FDA’s very highly regulated prescription medications “actually kill 100,000 Americans every year” . . . so, we want this same FDA to have a greater role in the regulation of vitamins? ”

      Highly regulated pharmaceuticals kill more people than unregulated supplements therefore pharmaceutical regulations are responsible for pharmaceutical deaths and – going even further – supplements should stay unregulated? You have some pretty twisted logic there yourself. Unless you have lost a few marbles, hard to see how that conclusion can necessarily be drawn from the premise. It is a non-sequitur.




      0
    3. I totally agree with you, Ted Brewer. My first thought when I saw this topic was “Hmmm, yes, a DOCTOR is advocating regulation of supplements. What a surprise (not). Because once we begin regulating supplements, guess who stands to profit from that? Thaaaat’s right: Big pharma, the insurance companies, and DOCTORS, who will then be placed in charge of deciding which supplements we can take and how often (and who will get paid quite well to do it).

      Patients are already strong-armed by the medical-industrial complex to pay for yearly checkups in order to continue with prescriptions that they’ve been taking for years. This was my experience before I decided to quit taking anti-depressants for that very reason – and thank goodness I did, because I found a supplement that works much better than those nasty antidepressants with horrible side effects. Did it all on my own, too – used my lil’ ol’ brain to perform extensive research, and I wasn’t forced to jump through several expensive hoops to do it.

      The agenda here is very clear on this topic. Thanks, but no thanks – we don’t need the same pocket-lining FDA that claims fluoride and aspartame are just fine to “regulate” our supplements, nor do we need to be strong-armed into unnecessary “annual checkups” for permission to buy our supplements. No need to feed the giant, Dickensian greed machine any more than we are already forced to do.

      Nice try, Dr. Greger.




      0
  22. I enjoyed Julien’s presentation the best, followed by Tyler and Daniel. I didn’t like some of Daniel’s effects, like the far-left tilting slides. I really liked Julien’s effects, especially the curling of the page i the upper-right that indicated when a transition was forthcoming. And, the pulling apart and reconstruction of the highlighted data/comments worked very well for me. Great job to all!




    0
  23. Honestly, I would get a kick out of seeing Dr G introduce the topic for that personal human touch, and then go into the science and studies with graphics as he always has. But I’m old and pine for the days when communication and education emanated from humans with FACES and personalities! I don’t see the need for more “entertaining” graphics (though I did really like the pre-page turn curl effect as mentioned elsewhere) and I agree with the others who said Dr G’s personality in the videos makes the information more memorable than just reading the transcripts…though I do find myself doing just that sometimes when I want to get to the “meat” (groan) of the topic.
    My biggest issue is with this crummy comment system! It won’t even keep me logged in, and every comment has to start anew adding all my info again and again. Kind of petty I guess but It really discourages spontaneity and I find the commentary and discussion by the intelligent people that frequent this site to be a HUGE bonus to the topics Dr G covers. I know it is being worked on, but this website is important to me and keeps me grounded, so maybe I am just over-reacting. Between the comments almost being solely about the styles, lack of discussion, and difficulty getting there, it takes a lot of the pleasure out of it. Yeah, I know, get a life cranky old lady! :) Thank you so much Dr Greger for all you do, you are my hero!




    0
  24. Style: I like the how the page corner starts to fold as a warning that it’s about to turn and the way the green lettering enlarges for emphasis, but would prefer the page to not be see through as it turns. It makes me blink and is distracting to the eye.




    0
  25. Style: I like the how the page corner starts to fold as a warning that it’s about to turn and the way the green lettering enlarges for emphasis, but would prefer the page to not be see through as it turns. It makes me blink and is distracting to the eye.




    0
  26. I want to echo some of the other comments here already by saying that I prefer the old style. I find myself looking away and just listening to these recent videos. Otherwise I won’t be able to focus on the audio because the visual stuff is just too distracting.




    0
  27. I would like to feedback to the Dr. G team that I find a video like this gives us only half the information that we need. I appreciate the big heads-up on the troubles with supplements. But my understanding is that one can find supplements with the correct and stated amount in them if they have been USP tested and via other methods. So just giving us a big scare without giving us better information about how to solve this supplement problem isn’t particularly helpful to us, your viewers.
    So help us out. . . how do we find a legitimate provider of B12, VitD for winter time, reliable and ethical source for DHA supplementation. . . .all items you recommend?
    You’ve only provided us with half the needed information – how about the other half? I find this kind of information sharing that you do (and you do this often) frustrating and not very helpful. Thank you.




    1
  28. Julien’s is just as bad as the others for irrelevant visual distractions. We need just the identity of the source document and the highlighted phrases to SUPPORT Dr M’s words, not detract from them. Please simplify the visuals.




    0
  29. This is why I subscribe to ConsumerLab.com. They review a large number of dietary supplements and display the results on their website of those that do and do not pass inspection, and there are many who fail. This does provide a measure of quality control in the absence of government regulation.




    0
  30. Of the ones I have seen so far, I like Julien’s the best. But, I am just as happy with the way they have been in the past. Spending $ to make the info. look “hip and cool” is not always the best way to use the $. I did not like the one that had pages turning sideways in one of the other team’s videos.




    0
  31. Loved the video. To someone’s question, why videos at all? I teach and I love videos because they require the use of 2 senses-visual and auditory, and they can help bring an abstract idea to the more concrete. In this way, most people learn, and retain, much more in a shorter period of time.




    0
  32. All three of the new motion videos are extremely distracting and take away from the information being presented. My eyes are jumping all around the screen, trying to focus on what’s being highlighted. They also move too fast. Although the old original format (without motion) may not look as ‘professional’ or ‘interesting’, it is far easier to watch and drives home the content message far better. If we’re stuck with one of the motion videos formats, then the more simple, least movement, and slow-moving the better. The green color is more difficult to read on the screen than black. Charts, tables and the like need to be motionless and displayed on the screen long enough to actually focus on them and absorb their information. I don’t need to be entertained by motion and meaningless colors. I am all about the content. If anything, I find Dr. Greger’s schmaltzy rudimentary visuals and funny graphics (stick figures & the like) to better reflect his personality and engage the watcher. Sometimes it’s best to just leave things alone.




    0
  33. I prefer the style original style. I miss being able to see the title, journal & year while listening, with the spoken word highlighted in readable text.
    Black on white is a great color scheme if the goal is readability.
    Pale green font, script font, right justification or centered text, pointless motion all obscure the message.
    Content was great, but I gave up the screen view as too irritating.




    0
  34. Forget wasting money on trying to improve the graphic; why not just have a lady with a sexy voice read the script? That would certainly keep my attention!




    0
  35. Read “consumer labs” , they list content amounts along with many other test results. Kind of like consumer reports product testing.
    They also list recalls and many FDA actions against manufactures. There are manufactures that always
    have good products and that’s where I go.
    Sorry but “consumer labs ” is a paid subscription as they take no advertising.




    0
  36. I agree with others that the graphics start to overwhelm the message. The best for me was Tyler’s. The page turning is very distracting




    0
  37. I’ve enjoyed watching Dr. Greger’s videos over the last several years, but I have trouble watching the newer styles. Like some others – I found all the fancy motion not just unnecessary and distracting, but in some cases actually motion-sickness inducing. So I much prefer the older format, and doubt whether I’d keep watching videos no a regular basis in any of the newer styles.

    But as usual the content of the videos are great, and I greatly appreciate all the effort that has gone into producing them.

    Also, I preferred Disqus comment system.




    0
  38. How do we know which companies don’t taint their supplements? I am vegan and I take B12. I know it works because my blood work shows a good level of B12 absorption. but I am concerned that I might be getting other stuff that is not good for me




    0
    1. Swanson’s Vitamins. They follow current Good Manufacturing Practices. I’m Also, very happy with their prices and service. I’ve been a regular customer of theirs for at least half a dozen years.




      0
  39. I’m with those who prefer the videos as they were. The new moving-all-the-time bits are distracting and the source citations disappear while I’m trying to find them instead of listening to Dr. Gregor. Please don’t change a good thing just to do something new. This site is such a treasure as is was.




    0
  40. Dr. Greger,

    I totally agree, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. There was NOTHING wrong with the ‘old’ presentation. Save the money, use it elsewhere.
    It seems as if we long time viewers were content with the way things were. The only ones that will be impressed w/the new delivery(s) are the ones in the ad industry who look at presentation rather than content. A tomato or radish or strawberry can be carved into a cute design-eye candy-but it is what is IN that pretty carved vegetable that is importantnot the carving…and the same goes w/your (excellent) website!
    Respectfully,
    Summer




    0
  41. I totally agree, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. There was NOTHING wrong with the ‘old’ presentation. Save the money, use it elsewhere.
    It seems as if we long time viewers were content with the way things were. The only ones that will be impressed w/the new delivery(s) are the ones in the ad industry who look at presentation rather than content. A tomato or radish or strawberry can be carved into a cute design-eye candy-but it is what is IN that pretty carved vegetable/fruit that is important, not the carving…and the same goes w/your (excellent) website!
    Respectfully,
    Summer




    0
  42. Please go back to the old style of video!

    This is maybe the least awful of the new formats, but it’s still so much worse than the original. The page turning “warning” that comes up at the corner a few seconds before the transition is just silly and honestly made me chuckle.

    If you switch to this or any of the other experimental formats, I would just read the transcripts and not watch the videos at all.

    Please just go back to normal!




    0
  43. Ah ephedra, the whipping boy for the supplement industry. The highly unregulated supplement industry. Critics never tire of using ephedra as the reason we need large amounts of regulations in the highly unregulated supplement industry. A couple of takeaways from someone who owned a health food store before and after DSHEA in 1994. Don’t buy products on the internet you cannot buy in a store. Don’t buy products from companies who make claims that it will do wonders for you. There are companies that a GMP compliant and they cost more due to the compliance. So cheap price is probably not GMP compliant. Please Dr. Greger, stick with foods and medical conditions and stop the fear mongering about supplements. The worst offenders are the body builders and their products and they are not watching your videos.




    0
    1. Here’s my $4.705 dollars worth:

      1. Original format is/was the best – least distracting.
      2. Very important part of the whole experience (equally important as the video itself) are the comments – so people – keep up the good work and if you have something interesting to say, do not hesitate to join the discussion. Or even funny to say – good laughter or amusement is always sought after.
      3. About whipping supplements and ephedra. It is my impression that Dr Greger is trying to prove that supplements are bad in opposition to whole food which is supposed to be good. Poorly regulated supplement industry, contents not adhering to label, etc. are supposed to be another argument for the supplements being bad for you. Judging from comments (here as well as in other videos), this argumentation falls on fertile ground – some people strongly disapprove of supplements. Others support them. But it’s kind of more complicated than this – I mean you can’t say that you are for or against them without detailed explanation – because there are so many supplements and there are so many different health conditions that they can or cannot help.

      And here is my explanation… I might say that overall I am rather strong supporter of supplements but on condition that I know exactly how they work, what their active ingredients are, what is the manufacturing company, etc. This data is often not so easy to find, I often have to take a leap of faith and try a supplement on myself, be a guinea pig. Unfortunately I have no other way out – supplements (as well as whole food and lifestyle changes) are the only thing that I can turn to where doctors have failed miserably. Life is unfortunately full of decicions based on false or incomplete premises – same thing applies to supplements. If you are adult person, you should be aware that even big supplement manufacturing companies are trying to take advantage of you, so you have to try a supplement and see if it works. Life is risk, and you may also come across a criminal negligence or criminal intent. If I happen to experience something like this – this is the first and the last time I buy this supplement. That doesn’t mean that I would like all of the supplement industry to be shut down or even regulated more tightly – pretty soon this regulation would end up in not permitting many of the supplements on the market. That’s just the way it is. And I can attest to it because in my country it happens to be so.

      A very big help in selecting a supplement are the reviews that can be found on the supplement selling sites. These are more helpful than forums because they quickly describe the pros and cons of the supplement (so you don’t have to waist your time on reading endless posts) and you get statistics – how many people actually consider a supplement good. They often also describe what to do in order to improve the effectivness of this supplement. Thanks to this approach (using reviews as a source of info) I am getting better and healing my stomach/gut where no doctor could help. An important tip that everybody knows about: one supplement may work for some people and doesn’t have to work for other. That’s just the way it is. But the same thing applies to drugs themselves!

      Also, it is clear that whole food is a better source of some nutrients (because of synnergy – like e.g. in the case of natural vitamin E variants) but in other cases this synergy is completely nonexistant but the supplement has one and basic advantage – it can offer a much higher dose than whole food.

      I’d like to end by saying that I’d like dr Greger to dive into the world of supplements and start describing the fascinating relationships that these supplements present, especially when they are plant-derived and most of them are.
      I wouldn’t care about the side effects (they happen but most of the time there is a way to prevent them), effectiveness (effectiveness of chemotherapy is often in the range of tens of percents and these drugs are still developed and used) and the possibility of manufacturers acting badly. That’s what scientists do :-) – explore everything scientifically without taking any consequences into account! (see the A-bomb). I’m aware that exploring supplements may encourage people to use them instead of eating a healthy diet but in case like diseases you can get an effect with supplements faster and better. So here goes again my suggestion of improvement for the site: engaging in the treatment of diseases with foods and supplements, not in the changing of the graphic format of the videos…

      This post is 4705 characters long so it’s like $0.001 per character if you ever wondered why my worth is what it is.




      0
    2. Basically it all comes down to corporate control of government/legislatures. Instead of doing the basic and sensible thing of AT THE LEAST…testing supplements for correct amounts of ingredients….testing for heavy metals and other pollutants…etc….things are allowed to slide at the expense of the general public.

      To condem all supplements because the govt can’t or won’t do it’s job of protecting citizens health…isn’t all that bright.

      The reason DSHEA happened was to protect the availability of supplements PERIOD. So Big Pharma stepped in and profited anyway….at least supplements are still available. Try to buy some kinds of supplements in Canada or the EU….good luck.

      There is an underlying level of ignorance (basic or assumed) on this forum that can’t seem to engage the real world? Don’t try to kill supplements when the real issue is lack of responsibility by government…and the lack of responsibility by those ignoring reality to make a point.

      What is the point of recommending organic foods and healthy living if the current people in power are doing all they can to promote the opposite?




      0
  44. I like this style, and it seems very intuitive to me: a page turn means “and in this other paper …,” and magnification really emphasizes the fact that what is being said is not Dr. Greger’s opinion but rather a quote from the research, showing the context.

    There are *lots* of videos in which some presumed expert gives his/her opinion on various nutritional matters as if it were fact. Unfortunately their opinions differ. What I really, really appreciate about Dr. Greger’s videos is that it is *not* just him spouting his expert opinion; we are shown the exact words being quoted from the research. IMHO this puts Dr. Greger’s videos in a different class from the others, and is the reason NutritionFacts.org is the *only* nutrition-related site I support financially. That’s also why I didn’t like Dr. Greger physically appearing in the videos: the less they are about *him*, the more powerful they are. Don’t tempt us to wonder “Is he a better resource than McDougall?” — it’s not about them! The more the format screams “HERE’S THE RESEARCH,” the better.

    While I cannot empathize with those who react viscerally to the motion, I can certainly *sympathize* with them. I was actually fine with the old style, so if this one really bothers people….

    Some others have said “why video at all; just give me the transcript.” That is not how I feel at all; I prefer the video format.

    Finally, I have to wonder how much of what we are seeing in the comments is simple resistance to change. Would people who are saying “the old format was better” actually be fine with (or even prefer) the new format after a couple of weeks?




    0
    1. In answer to your last question possibly about being ok with the change in a couple of weeks, I speak for myself in saying no. I did not make even it to the 60 second mark on todays video, and I am a zealous fan. I would simply call it a day and explore other venues.




      0
      1. I, too, find the movement disconcerting. I turned away after about 60 seconds and concentrated on the message, but was a little afraid I’d miss a chart or something I wanted to see so I kept glancing back at the screen to check….

        Yes, it would be nice to see the sources or the actual wording of the sources, but really–I’m looking for the “take home” message. I like seeing Dr. Greger when he’s telling me something. That is part of a real conversation, and I don’t know what to say to the people who actually need to see the research wording.




        0
  45. I love the graphics in today’s video. Dr. McGreger’s voice sounds just the same as in other ones. He keeps moving along at a comfortable and natural pace. The colorful graphics emphasizing specific statements from medical journal articles is easy to read and adds to the presentation. The pages, other than turning temporarily, remain flat. My attention was grabbed from the beginning to the ending. Great job whoever did today’s video. :)




    0
    1. I agree. The most common theme among these new videos so far is that they’ve all been harder to follow than the originals. I get the desire to have more professional videos, but is there a way to have them done with fewer flashy effects? They look nice, but they take away from the main purpose of educating the viewers.




      0
    2. Nothing wrong with a little updating, but no need to fix what isn’t broken. I found this style of video unwatchable. Far too much motion, which is very distracting. The graphics should serve to the content, not the other way around.




      0
  46. Out of the 3 new video styles, this one by Julien is my favorite. However, as many others have commented, the original videos were the BEST!




    0
  47. I like the first one best–Daniel’s, but only because I could see the original journal reference. Both Julien’s and Tyler’s not only move too fast, but often, just cut that part of the page off. Sometimes, I want to go to the original, and I cannot if I don’t have a clear shot of that information.

    Still, I like some parts of all of them. I like the lightly grayed out background on Tyler’s and the different color text, when it is pulled out on Julien’s.




    0
  48. Thank you for shedding light on this problem, Dr.Greger. Given the current administration’s emphasis on deregulation, I feel that it’s improbable that there will be any challenge to the status quo of the supplement industry. So this has me wondering, have you considered coming out with a “Nutrition Facts” line of supplements (B12, D3, EPA-DHA, etc…) that meets your standards, as well as the GMP’s? I feel that such a project could offer a safe alternative to the dangerous supplement industry; and in addition to that, any profits generated by said project can be dedicated to important new nutritional research. Please say yes!




    0
    1. No no no. Do not sell product. You will end up being like Dr. McDougall. ( I respect his work and his passion, but he is too commercialized). I would suspect that it would be inappropriate as well to recommend a brand that you know is safe – potential for liability on your part, Dr. Greger.. but it would be extremely helpful for you to give us criteria for choosing a company from which to purchase the few supplements that we need




      0
      1. “too commercialized” for what? I’m sure there were also such fears about publishing a book, DVDs, etc.. and commercializing the information that would otherwise be available for free via the website. Clearly, commercial success has only broadened the audience, which saves lives. According to this video, 50000 people are harmed every year from an industry that is not GMP complaint, or regulated in anyway. I think that is a more important issue than being precious about commercialization.




        0
  49. I like the professionalism of the original videos. So give it to me straight. Which brand of Vitamin D supplement do you buy?




    0
  50. I like this one even better. The page turning and highlighting by expanding and changing colors is highly intuitive to me. For the record THIS refers to Julian’s style.




    0
  51. Gee whizz. Oh my. Well! Amazing what they can do with graphics these days!! I’M IMPRESSED…by the technology. But it’s all dangerously distracting! This is the closest video you have to your “old” style which is a good development! This video is less distracting than the other two (what with their perspectival distortion, relative background motion – “vection” – and the motion sickness caused by vection). I agree with the concern that donations may be wasted on gee-whizz bells and whistles. Like the vast majority who have commented (I read all with great interest), I maintain the old style was the BEST – the clearest, the simplest, the least distracting…a case of first time lucky? Maybe. The temptation to “jazz it up” is insidious and must be carefully resisted. I have been a professor of visualization and IT, of psychology – perception and human movement, and language…and I think I understand a thing or two about communication. Many people loathe bad Powerpoint presentations with visual “noise” like colorful borders etc. Some find such “embellishments” to be interesting but perhaps because they can’t concentrate on the key information so like the visuals. if your goal is to entertain with shallow “infomercials”, go for it, but you will lose your main audience which exists because of the SUPERB style of video you previously had (I really was impressed by it!!! it was the best I ever saw).
    There is a place for new innovations, but most of these new videos have irrelevant tricks. You’ll get it right in the end, but please, bite the bullet and limit, limit, limit! Everything that moves is an attention-grabbing distraction! Use it carefully!
    I am also concerned that the designer seems he has had to re-type the text boxes that are zoomed. This could introduce typo errors. also, the text in these is spaced out too much. bigger is not always better – it’s hard to read if t o o b i g !
    Some detailed comments:
    Title page disappeared too quickly – could not read title! Pause more.
    p2 – text box expanded but disappeared before could read – too fast! pause more. Page turn glimpse started almost immediately – DISTRACTION – stops me reading the text box!
    0:39 – why show this page? Pointless noise.
    1:16 – groovy! nice page split! But irrelevant and really distracting. Did not clearly show where the highlighted text came from. What does it buy you? Old style text zoom was best.
    Suggestion – highlight in YELLOW the text of interest in main paper (people understand this well!) and THEN zoom it out.
    1:33 – slow motion irrelevant. Why? To keep our attention like movie credits?? Hard to read. VECTION! This is overused and irrelevant.
    2:03 page turn TOO SLOW. make them swifter. Yawn…
    2:20 – graphs ok – but do not be tempted to re-plot them – will lose credibility if not original data shown! Your graphs were always great.
    2:57 – COLOR of text box – green is good but make it darker green – no washed out colors – hard to read – maximum contrast please!
    I bet it takes ages for the designer to split the page and make it white and to then zoom the text. COSTS??? There’s nothing wrong with just zooming it over the hidden page behind – like old style!
    See spaced out words here…hard to read than normal font size.
    MAJOR COMMENT: You seem to be synchronizing your words less now than before with the text box. Perhaps because you are not doing graphics yourself and adding voice later. But this is a big distraction – saying different sentences from what we are being asked to read is utterly confusing. This needs addressed. You may think we are getting twice the info if you say different stuff from the words but we’re getting zero info: 1+1 not= 2. 1 – 1 = 0.

    Overall quite good and much better than the other two. I appreciate your efforts to innovate and they are interesting to watch. But beware the danger of powerful technology. Less is more.
    Also, comments section, editing ability, etc, needs improved.
    I hope you appreciate these comments.

    Love your work.




    0
  52. The video presentation is very logical in the flow and action, but is also a bit too intense.

    I think it is technically well-done, BUT I do NOT like it. I know that it’s simply moving too fast for slower readers and anyone unfamiliar with high-intensity graphic manipulation of text. If I were not already “hooked” into the desire for the best nutritional information and general nutritional excellence, I would NOT be “pulled in” by such videos.

    I’d be put off. Once again, too much flash and pizazz makes it seem MUCH like a new car advertisement- where half-truths are oversold.

    Glitzy and Veracity are not things I tend to lump together, quite the opposite actually.

    Or much more simply, I quote Mike above:
    Less is More. I prefer the original videos. Less distracting, easier to follow Dr G’s message.

    This last “designer” of video exhibits a good feel for the visual equivalent to “ergonomics”, BUT I simply cannot fathom the need for such here. Methinks that style would be much more appropriate in Entertainment videos (Music or Movie) than documentary/factual presentations.




    0
  53. Yeah, now I just open other tabs over the top of NutritionFacts.Org videos .

    Instead of the crazy video, I can sort through other tabs/pages and listen for better focus on Dr. G’s words.

    If I choose to, I’ll open the NF.O tab and “freeze-frame” for references.

    I composed the other comment before I tried to finish the dereg video. Whoops.




    0
    1. Yo, brother in arms…like your comments! As he says:
      “Doctor’s Note
      We have shifted to a new look for our videos, pulling in motion graphics design specialists to help mix things up. ”

      Don’t need things mixed up. Fed up with it all mixed up. Too mixed up. No mixing up. No mix. Mix? Not. Mixing? Bad idea…




      0
  54. 1. Daniel’s, 2. Julien’s, 3. Tyler’s

    I like the highlighting of the quotes, makes it easier to notice and absorb the info, and clear that it’s coming from the research papers. The movement in Tyler’s was too quick sometimes. Also, until 0:18 the text was blurry, which was horrible and hard to read. And the wobbly wipe around 0:25 was really awful. Serves no purpose and just means you can’t read the text.

    At first I didn’t really like the page flips in Daniel’s, even though I think it makes it clear when it’s different papers and things.

    I like the sliding movement of the papers in Tyler’s and Julien’s.

    I think all of them are an improvement on what we had before, and that’s great. Eliminate stuff that doesn’t serve a function (e.g. wobbly wipe) and keep stuff that makes things clearer, e.g. movement to show it’s a new paper, highlighting with colour or size changes.

    Good job, thank you!




    0
  55. I am not picky about the format, I’ll sort it out.
    What interests me is the content!
    Btw, bashing the supplement industry is in my opinion counter-productive. I am a bio-chemist, have relatives in pharmeseuticals.
    I personally use supplements to replace these truly toxic drugs. Please Dr. Gregor, stick to nutrition, give us your excellent research in that field.
    We have enough problem with the drug companies trying to bash supplements which do help a lot of people.




    0
  56. Hi Dr. Greger,

    Thank you for choosing this topic on supplements! To me it’s amazing how someone can think that they can swap out their 8 prescriptions for 8 supplements. Being “natural” does not necessarily make something safer. This is especially true with the supplement industry where there is little regulation or oversight. Keep up the good work.




    0
    1. Andrew Roquiz: I am a volunteer lay moderator for this site. I wanted to thank you for your participation. We love it when the doctors get involved. I also wanted to let you know that I saw your previous post. Dr. Greger doesn’t usually have time to answer questions, but we have a team of volunteer medical moderators who try to answer as many questions as they can. I forwarded your interesting post to their list to see if anyone wants to take that on. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough volunteers to reply to everyone. So, I can’t guarantee an answer. I just wanted to let you know that your post was seen. Welcome to the NutritionFacts site!




      0
  57. I am a professional graphic designer and instructor. Where is my comment from earlier today? Have you actually removed it? That is intimidating utterly unfair behavior.




    0
    1. As I can’t remove my own comment as the editor is so poor (can’t even delete one’s own comment) please note:
      I did not realize that at the bottom of the page – scroll ALL the way down folks – is a link to click to see OLDER COMMENTS. Do that and you will no longer think they are gone – you will see them – all your old comments you thought were gone. This is due to very bad HCI user interface graphics computer gee whizz design. Comments should be shown earliest FIRST – like on Dr G’s YouTube page! It’s all too confusing. It should be same as industry standard and at least like his YouTube to make sense! I have to explain this – that’s why I said the above comment which I regret. Apologies but that’s why. This site needs attention which they claim it will get.




      0
  58. Please no! Too much movement makes it so much harder to follow. I really like the original format. It didn’t distract from the message. Why do you do these videos? If it’s to spread the word, to educate people, then the new graphics and all the unnecessary movement are hindering your cause.




    0
  59. This is my comment that appears to have been REMOVED. Is this true? Deleting a comment that was carefully and respectfully written – whether you understood it or not – shows complete disrespect for the energy, attention, and care provided by subscribers of this site. If it was deleted it should be re-instated and an explanation provided.

    Gee whizz. Oh my. Well! Amazing what they can do with graphics these days!! I’M IMPRESSED…by the technology. But it’s all dangerously distracting! This is the closest video you have to your “old” style which is a good development! This video is less distracting than the other two (what with their perspectival distortion, relative background motion – “vection” – and the motion sickness caused by vection). I agree with the concern that donations may be wasted on gee-whizz bells and whistles. Like the vast majority who have commented (I read all with great interest), I maintain the old style was the BEST – the clearest, the simplest, the least distracting…a case of first time lucky? Maybe. The temptation to “jazz it up” is insidious and must be carefully resisted. I have been a professor of visualization and IT, of psychology – perception and human movement, and language…and I think I understand a thing or two about communication. Many people loathe bad Powerpoint presentations with visual “noise” like colorful borders etc. Some find such “embellishments” to be interesting but perhaps because they can’t concentrate on the key information so like the visuals. if your goal is to entertain with shallow “infomercials”, go for it, but you will lose your main audience which exists because of the SUPERB style of video you previously had (I really was impressed by it!!! it was the best I ever saw).
    There is a place for new innovations, but most of these new videos have irrelevant tricks. You’ll get it right in the end, but please, bite the bullet and limit, limit, limit! Everything that moves is an attention-grabbing distraction! Use it carefully!
    I am also concerned that the designer seems he has had to re-type the text boxes that are zoomed. This could introduce typo errors. also, the text in these is spaced out too much. bigger is not always better – it’s hard to read if t o o b i g !
    Some detailed comments:
    Title page disappeared too quickly – could not read title! Pause more.
    p2 – text box expanded but disappeared before could read – too fast! pause more. Page turn glimpse started almost immediately – DISTRACTION – stops me reading the text box!
    0:39 – why show this page? Pointless noise.
    1:16 – groovy! nice page split! But irrelevant and really distracting. Did not clearly show where the highlighted text came from. What does it buy you? Old style text zoom was best.
    Suggestion – highlight in YELLOW the text of interest in main paper (people understand this well!) and THEN zoom it out.
    1:33 – slow motion irrelevant. Why? To keep our attention like movie credits?? Hard to read. VECTION! This is overused and irrelevant.
    2:03 page turn TOO SLOW. make them swifter. Yawn…
    2:20 – graphs ok – but do not be tempted to re-plot them – will lose credibility if not original data shown! Your graphs were always great.
    2:57 – COLOR of text box – green is good but make it darker green – no washed out colors – hard to read – maximum contrast please!
    I bet it takes ages for the designer to split the page and make it white and to then zoom the text. COSTS??? There’s nothing wrong with just zooming it over the hidden page behind – like old style!
    See spaced out words here…hard to read than normal font size.
    MAJOR COMMENT: You seem to be synchronizing your words less now than before with the text box. Perhaps because you are not doing graphics yourself and adding voice later. But this is a big distraction – saying different sentences from what we are being asked to read is utterly confusing. This needs addressed. You may think we are getting twice the info if you say different stuff from the words but we’re getting zero info: 1+1 not= 2. 1 – 1 = 0.

    Overall quite good and much better than the other two. I appreciate your efforts to innovate and they are interesting to watch. But beware the danger of powerful technology. Less is more.
    Also, comments section, editing ability, etc, needs improved.
    I hope you appreciate these comments.

    Love your work.




    0
  60. I now see my original comment (March 22, 5.59 pm). It seems to have “re-appeared”. Did you re-instate it?? What’s going on??? I would delete my above complaint but I can’t because the editor is such a poor interface it does not allow a comment to be deleted by the author. I note that admin Thea replied to me about the editor problems on another comment thread and that these will be addressed in due course. But how could it have gone live like this?! Perhaps forget the bells and whistles on the videos and get the member feedback/discussion more innovative, useful, and working…




    0
    1. I received a reply from a moderator – in my EMAIL box. But it does NOT seem to be posted here. Why not?? How odd. Another bug? Please post it publicly so everyone understands why posts are not appearing, and why I had good reason to be frustrated.
      As she says, the site is buggy. This is a big problem and really, Dr G really ought to address it ASAP, before the video gimmicks.

      from Thea (mod):

      Allisfood: I understand that you are frustrated, but please try to refrain from accusations until you have a chance to learn what is happening.

      We are using a new comment application that has a lot of bugs. We are working on fixing those bugs. Your patience in the meantime would be appreciated. From what I can tell, no one ever deleted any of your comments. You are not the first person to experience this problem. We have had other people report that they could not find one fo their comment, but which everyone else could see. If you have a problem finding one of your comments, here are your options: 1) Consider waiting a day to see if you can see it later. 2) Another option is to post a polite request for a moderator to please look for the comment. If we give you a link to your comment, hopefully you could see it that way. 3) For technical problems like this, another option is to go into the Help Center at the bottom of the page. Then click the link on the upper right corner to submit a help ticket.

      – volunteer moderator

      Please post this Thea if you have not already done so. Or maybe I just don’t see it because of the buggy site.
      I would have deleted my repeated comment after first re-appeared I can’t. Editing one’s comment should be possible for infinite time – no limits on time. Deleting should be possible too…

      Please put these instructions at the top until the site is fixed.
      Thanks.




      0
      1. AllisFood: Once again, the post is already there for everyone to see. Following is a link to my reply to you: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dangers-of-dietary-supplement-deregulation/comment-page-1/#comment-252262 The reason you got the reply in your e-mail box was because you probably checked the box to receive replies when you did your post.

        I am going to revise my instructions to you: If you have further technical problems with the forum section, please use the Help Center and click the ‘submit a request’ link found in the upper right corner. That will get you the help you need while keeping this forum area clear for people to discuss the topic of the day. Thank you.




        0
        1. I note you want me to go to the “Help Centre”.

          But in response on this thread, and it is important and fair to still keep it as a reply to yours, you may be interested to know, and your techies should know too, that the link you sent me takes me to a NEW page and a VASTLY DIFFERENT version and list of comments from the current page. I DO see your comment at the new page/link…and here’s the thing – PLUS many other persons and comments that I can NOT see in the current comment thread – only in the new page link you sent. This is a major bug. Please understand, I can NOT see your comment in the current page, and that is extremely confusing. I can not see my comment (3/22 5.07pm) where I originally referred to Ted Brewer’s – I do NOT see Ted Brewer original comment at all (3/22 1.49pm) so the whole thread is hidden. Nor do I see the post of MSC, or Kevin Hancey, or Joshua Pritikin, or many others – the whole list of comments starts with completely new and different names. Alert your techies to this detail of the issue where a massive number of comments are not displayed and really, do not remove this comment so others can understand the reasons for my feedback and efforts.




          0
  61. On reflection, I like Tyler’s text box POP OUT the best – like the old videos – greying out the background without re-typing the text is simple, effective, best for communication (and will save time and money). But his was too busy in motion nonsense – sliding pages look jerky on a screen – animation is not the real world, and feels odd. The current video has fancy reformatted retyped text boxes but on comparing, they are not as effective as Tyler’s. yes, they are real flashy, but ultimately, harder to read…




    0
  62. This video is beautifully designed. The little intro sound on all ur videos however, annoys me. Petty complaint, perhaps, but I feel it’s an irritating ding that also wastes watching time. The few videos you have without that are a lot more pleasant & 5 seconds online is like 5 minutes of real life. I agree with another commenter that seeing the research is better than you speaking to us bc I enjoy seeing the sources. Why don’t I get emails when you’re hosting youtube sessions? I get daily emails but never about those. Thanks so much for NFCOM & HN2D, you’re literally saving lives & changing the world. Proud 2support u monthly. (Name withheld bc bots)




    0
  63. Staying with my previous reply that original version is better. I prefer this video over the first two, but still too much movement. Would prefer just the title, date, and the quoted section. Possibly with Abstract and authors also. I retain more by listening than trying to read and listen.

    Prefer old / original version:
    1) Title and date is visible longer. I’m from the old school that if it doesn’t have a date, it can’t be verified / not worth reading. If data from 1990’s studies is being compared to 2015, or 2010 study is being compared to 2015…..makes a difference.
    2) Less movement is better. If you wear glasses, it is difficult to focus if the type is continuously moving from small to large print as in this video.

    Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions.




    0
  64. After watching the new style video I can see ‘pages flipping in my head’…too distracting! I would end up listening to the videos but not watching them. My verdict is that I prefer the old videos.




    0
  65. I loved the pop-out text, hated the page turning animation.

    Dr Greger recommends supplementing vitamins B12 and D. How do we determine which brands are reputable?




    0
  66. Based just on these three videos, far and away I like Daniel best – good use of text, the right amount of time spent to read without distracting from audio, good highlighting and emphasis. Second was Tyler – at times not enough time spent with headlines, and too much on a highlighted sentence, but overall OK. Julien I thought had glitzy wipes, but his speeds were much too quick, not allowing nearly enough time to read relevant text, nor highlighting effectively. Thus, the text there was much more of a distraction than an aide to the presentation. Of course, the intellectual content, and accessibility, of the 3 videos may vary widely, making each videographer’s task more or less difficult. But, overall, I think I can safely keep the rankings as Daniel #1, Tyler #2, and Julien a distant 3rd.




    0
  67. Thanks for diving into the issues about supplements. It’s a perfectly legitimate topic to be addressed here. I’ve been on a soapbox about this issue for a long time. I’ve taught nutrition to nursing students for several decades and am quite appalled by the DSHEA legislation. Supplements do not have to be proven safe, effective, or even free of contaminants. They are marketed much like drugs, in bottles next to the over-the-counter meds that are regulated by the FDA. And I believe they ride on the coattails of the drug companies. One cannot even be assured that the bottle of supplements contains what it says it does. Snake oil for sale in a bottle. Ephedra was the poster child as much harm was done. But how much harm is being done on a lower level? Sure, there’s some voluntary commitment to good manufacturing practices, but it seems that square one should be ensuring that 1) the bottle is free of contaminants or adulterants and 2) the bottle contains what it says it contains. Need supplements? Eat real food. Just like the good doc says…………..end of rant.




    0
  68. Sorry I’m a day late, but the format of this 3rd video is my favorite. Love the flow, easy to read, & no awkward pauses in the narration. I thought it was beautifully done! Also, great topic & info. Thanks for shedding more light on this very important issue!




    0
  69. After listening to the video about the necessity of vitamin D, I went out and bought a bottle of the recommended dosage from Whole Foods. Food-Sourced Vitamin D3 2000 IU vegan capsules and also Mykind B-12 vegan methylcobalamin. After listening to this clip I am confused if I should be taken them or not.




    0
  70. I am in the “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” camp. I’m here for the info (eternally grateful for Dr. Greger in that regard). That said, I can appreciate a desire to spiff things up a tad. Unfortunately, I believe each of the new formats is overly distracting and has detracted from the overall pleasure I normally get from watching these videos. I think each of them could potentially work if the designer could just tone it down a bit. With these technologies, a little goes a LONG way. Thanks again for all you do, Dr. Greger!!




    0
  71. My main takeaway: Please, NO CAPTIONS in the videos, because they are totally distracting and unnecessary: the transcripts are available to read just below the video. Even those who routinely need to use captioning may be distracted, because there is a lot of text brought up in the video they may want to read.

    I still like the original videos better; but as long as there isn’t an insane amount of movement going on, I’m okay with some of that.




    0
  72. It is incredible really – 80%…90% of all comments say they prefer the OLD videos…if it aint broke etc…and that the innovations are in general unwelcome. Why? Because they are DISTRACTING. There is a phenomenon that has become well-known due to the scourge of mobile phones during driving. It’s known as “inattentional blindness”. Here is a related phenomenon called “change blindness”. We don’t see things when there is distracting movement or change. How long does it take you to see the very obvious differences between images in the below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH6yOc606uQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWVDi4aKC-M
    Attention is a very delicate and mysterious thing. It is easily corrupted. One needs to be simple and direct to communicate difficult material. Dr G’s earlier videos nailed it. They were *perfect*. I don’t say that lightly. So how improve that?? Brighter text? There may be other innovations he could explore but the videos should not use new distracting “innovations”. We also don’t need to see the speaker – that was a hugely unpopular experiment on this site! Linguistic info is extremely demanding of attention. That’s why driving and phones are deadly and why the vast majority of people here do not like these new videos overall and would prefer the old ones. It’s not resistance to change; it’s important feedback that Dr G should carefully consider. Thanks.
    ps. I see now I am being “monitored”. My comment is awaiting moderation. Why??




    0
  73. WELL!!
    I may have just discovered why I and according to you, other people complain they can not see some comments. To see all – old and new – comments one needs to scroll all the way to the BOTTOM of the comments page and click “OLDER COMMENTS”. That’s gthe tiny lower-case text in the bottom-left that is almost impossible to notice! When I do that, I can see the “lost” comments!
    So, I strongly suggest………the “see older” or “see newer” comments link be moved to the TOP of the page, and comments are pre-loaded with the newest one first, at the TOP.
    Happy to offer my apologies for any confusion created but it seems I have solved this issue myself. It’s odd that no moderator told me to try this as it is the key info you need to tell people.




    0
    1. Allisfood: Once again, please submit all future concerns regarding the technical aspect of how this forum works in the Help Center. That is the best way for you to be heard. Feel free to submit this recent discovery and recommendation. Comments posted here on the forum may be read by me or other moderators, but I have no contacts or pull with the technical staff. Please leave this comment area free for discussions of the topic of the day. Time to let it go. Thank you.




      0
      1. I just solved your problem for you! The least you could do is show some sincere thanks instead of some veiled criticism.

        You directed me to the top right help box. i looked and could not find it.
        That’s because you gave me false info. It is NOT in the top right. When I did find it, it has a long series of hoops to jump through to post feedback.

        You need to publicly explain and apologise why people are being confused, until it is fixed. A thanks to me would be appreciated.




        0
  74. Hi, thanks for asking for our input! I don’t like this one (Julien’s) as there is too much movement. I felt sea sick….happens when watch movies that have someone holding hand camera and lots of movements. In general my vote would be for the least movement as possible…. I couldn’t get my boyfriend to watch this either as he is highly motion sick prone and several movements on screen like this bother him also.
    My vote is for the least amount of movement as possible. Thanks for all your work though!!




    0
  75. My preferences are Lucas/Jessie (large print, highlighted), Tyler (large print), Daniel (small print), Julien (small print, page “flipping”).

    I also wonder about Kroger Simple Truth beans that are BPA-free. They cannot tell me what replaces the BPA, except that it is “epoxy-lined” Is this better or worse than BPA?




    0
  76. Not really to fussed about the style of presentation, I like a bit of variety. I am fairly new as a subscriber although I have listened now to a lot of your presentation in your archive and other links.

    I prefer presentations where you say “Until now” and feel cheated if you miss that phrase out.

    On a more serious note, thank-you for the knowledge you impart.




    0
  77. The turning pages visual effect is EXTREMELY distracting.

    What purpose does it serve?

    Please get rid of the turning pages visual effect.




    0
  78. I liked all the different graphic modes. Maybe I like the Supplement one best, but I also like the Vitamin D video with the color photos.
    And one of them had some nice graphics. Photos and interesting ways to present keep my interest. Maybe you can use them all.




    0
  79. It is very easy to block the majority of bad supplements. Find a place that verifies every batch and doesn’t pay their suppliers if it fails. The Life Extension Foundation (lef.org) adopted this approach decades ago and had a bunch of suppliers withdraw.

    You can check http://info.nsf.org/Certified/GMP/ to see if your supplement supplier is registered and audited for GMP.

    Food first as your source. They are called “supplements” NOT “replacements” for a reason!




    0
  80. Looking good here. I like the fluid expanding text in green and the page turning effects in this video. I also like the way the audio narrative flows naturally, without pauses. Some of the other newer video productions have audio narrative gaps during the video transitions that don’t feel natural (like someone you’re talking to getting distracted by their phone).




    0
  81. Dear Nutrition Facts team,

    I completely agree with Charles Fox’s comments. After looking at the three visual presentations, Julien’s is much more pleasing visually , both the flow, page presentation and color. The gaps in commentary in the others did not agree with me. The supplement video style is definitely superior in my mind.




    0
  82. Not to sound like a Negative Nancy, but I find these new animations terribly distracting. By the time I focus on what text is being quoted, some weird animation moves around, over, or zooms to something else. The brain reads text from left to right and when there are animations that go every which way it’s just completely disorienting.

    The original (albeit boring) animations were tons better.




    0
  83. Variety is the spice of life, so why not rotate the different styles. I usually watch the videos I’m interested in two and three times so different styles wouldn’t bother me.
    There’s only one request I would make and that is to ask the tech people to “crank up the volume “! It’s extremely difficult to hear the Doc in some of the videos. I have a new iPhone and have to have the volume in the red zone to hear the words. This is the only site I have trouble with in that respect. I’d appreciate it greatly! Thanks for all the information from this site that has helped me to better health and understanding like the above video!




    1
  84. I found this video not to my liking.

    The biggest complaint is that parts of text in the video were that certain boxes, such as the subscribe to the Nutrition Facts videos were blocking some of the text. At 00:22 into the video there is green text that is 3 lines large. The word “Dietary” in the second line and the word “-concentration” are blocked by the button to subscribe to the videos.




    0
  85. I think the less moving text, the better the final product. The moving text can be a lot of visual interest/distraction. The page turn is nice, though. Between the three, I like Tyler’s the most. The paper’s text stays in place (so you could read a little more of the context if you wanted), but the highlighted text is literally highlighted (against a darkened background). This points out the quotations of interest without all of the extra visual stimulation. All of the videos are nice, though; it is impressive what people can do with the digital manipulation. Thanks!




    0
  86. I’m not sure if this is the proper place to ask my question, but I’ve been taking Evening Primrose for a couple years as I read somewhere that every women in her 40s and 50s. Is there any science behind this?




    0
  87. Dr. McDougal says not to take B12 Cyanocobalamin because of the Cyanide carrier. But Dr. Greger says in his updated 2/14/2016 “Optimum Nutrition Recomendations” article to take the Cyanocobalomin supplement for B12. Should we worry that the Cyanide is accumulating in our bodies and if so how do we get rid of it.




    0
  88. Yale,

    I agree with Dr. McDougal that the intake should be using either the methyl or hydroxo format……. due to the long term use by most patients.

    Dr. Alan Kadish moderator for Dr. Greger




    0
    1. Alex, Dr. Greger recommends cyanocobalamin as this is the most studied and also stable form of B12. Regarding to vitamin D, it depends on what your D levels are. If you take megadoses, vitamin D3 is better than vitamin D2. In terms of dosage, Dr. Greger recommends 2,000 IU, but it really depends on your vit. D levels.




      0
    1. Hey Lisa, thanks for writing! I am unable to ask him personally, but based on knowing Dr. G’s philosophy, I would guess with 99% accuracy that he recommends foods, not supplements, with very few exceptions. Astaxanthin is a ketocarotenoid oxidized from β-carotene and is a common pigment in algae, fish, and birds. It can also be extracted from crustacean byproducts, such as shrimp, crawfish, crabs, and lobsters (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717886/). As such, I seriously doubt Dr. G would recommend it.

      Zeolites are “microporous, aluminosilicate minerals commonly used as commercial adsorbents and catalysts” – does this sound like something we should be ingesting? Doing a search in the National Library of Medicine with the terms “zeolite (and) chronic disease in humans” yields NO references to improvements in human health.




      1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This