From: Sal De Lello <saldel@erols.com>

Dear Bruce:

As a new member to this list, I had no idea that I would receive such a

reaction, as I did not realize that a reply would be sent to the whole

list, but let me clarify what I said.

I spoke about one brand of product which I indicated was one of many

that employ the cocktail approach to anti-oxidants. I made that

statement to contrast the limited range of nutrients contained in any

one food, (with examples of other "super foods") to the types of broad

based supplements on the market that are not RDA based.

There are many companies with excellent products that follow that

approach, i.e. multiple anti-oxidants at potencies that scientific

studies have shown to produce verifiable results. I frankly thought that

it was common knowledge that this so called cocktail approach was

recognized as more effective across the board than the use of any single

antioxidant. I also thought that in a list such as this the so called

snyergistic effect produced from multiple antioxidants was well

recognized. (Doesn't everyone know that E works better in combination

with C?)

My point, perhaps not articulated well, is that any product which

follows that cocktail approach should be able to actually deliver on the

results of those studies as that is the fundamental purpose of the

scientific method. I put forth a specific product so that Mary could

obtain content analysis to illustrate that point.

Put another way, the scientific research shows that antioxidants do

work, work better at certain levels, and work best when done in

combination with each other, and if such research is valid, then one

should be able to assemble a combination of nutrients to duplicate that

"formula". Hence by looking at the content one could make that decision

for him or herself, i.e., does this or that product contain the types

and amounts of antioxidants to parallel the studies which have proven

results.

You say "If the product works, then put up the scientific evidence that

it does so and let all of us scrutinize that evidence ourselves..", which seems to assert that you would not accept that vitamin C, E or any mirco-nutrients are

effective at certain dosages as antioxidants, unless that particular

"brand" is run through a double blind placebo test. That is the

distinction I sought to point out between supplements and foods.

Supplement brands do not need tests so long as you have access to

content analysis. A simple comparison of the content to the studies,

should allow one to determine if they think the product will be

effective.

On the other hand, the "hype" often offered in connection with super

foods, is that somehow, they have some unknown "natural" element or

characteristic that makes them more effective than a simple examination

of their content analysis would reveal. It appeared to me, that this

was exactly what Mary was asking about.

If you disagree that the "cocktail approach" is common knowledge, or

accepted in the literature, I would be happy to share a list of articles

I have read in support of thereof.

I continue to hold the opinion that with super foods, the highest

correlation would be between persons with specific deficiencies and not

by disease type, vis a vis the studies that specifically measure the

effect of one or more anti-oxidants on specific diseases, which can be

duplicated through the use of supplements.

Very truly yours, Sal De Lello, J.D.

P.S. Thank you for publicly correcting my error, of course

"synergistic" is correct in this context. Although my doctorate is not

in nutrition, and I must admit I find grammatical errors and typos

abound in e-mail, both mine and from others. Although I have never found

it necessary to point out such errors either as a "tact" to impeach

their credibility or to implicitly "assist" them.

> Dear Sal,

>

> In your response to Mary, you commit the same

> pseudo-scientific fallacy of attacking a micro-nutrient product that has no >medical/clinical research that supports its health claims and then cleverly promote >another productline (USANA) without indicating or showing that this company's product

> has medical/clinical research to support your "ideas" about a synergetic

> produced in such cases." (I believe you intended to say "synergistic

> effect") You then try to say that your notion is somehow "documented by

> the literature which demonstrates the synergetic effective produced in

> such cases" but you fail to cite the literature that supports your

> statements and/or USANA's specific products. Like so many others who have

> written on this website about nutrition and products manufactured by specific

> companies, you have failed to prove your case scientifically, albeit

> objectively. It sounds like you have employed "pseudo-scientific

> hype. And I believe we have already seen this tact on this website

> in the past and found it to be misleading advertisements for some company's

> products. We don't need another clever way to advertise a company's product. If

> the product works, then put up the scientific evidence that it does so and

> let all of us scrutinize that evidence ourselves and come to our own

> conclusions. If the product has value, it will stand the test of

> scientific rigor -- otherwise it won't.

>

> Sincerely, Bruce Harshman, Ph.D.

> Dr Bruce Harshman

> Sherman Oaks California USA