Subject: Supplements in general, and advertising From: Gary Hanson Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 06:44:09 -0800 It seems that every week or so, there'll be a posting here saying something like, "I just heard about this great new supplement X; it'll do Y and Z, sounds like just what I need. Should I try it?" The supplement industry seem to prey on peoples' vanity and desire for easy results in the same way that the cosmetics industry (okay, most any product that is heavily advertised) does, but in a particularly unsubtle way. Cosmetics ads will imply that if you use their particular lipstick or perfume, romance is a heartbeat away. Supplement companies say things like, "Gain up to 10 lbs of rock-hard muscle in 10 days." The statements in these ads have to be literally true, or else they'll eventually be forced to change them. The trick of the advertising is use language that gets you to leap to conclusions that aren't there. Critical thinking seems to be a skill that isn't taught nearly enough, or applied by people reading ads. There are many guides available to show people how deceptive (but, nonetheless, literally true) advertising works. I'd like to show a few of these techniques here, and present a 'law' that suggests that it might not even be worth bothering with supplements anyway. Lyle's Law This 'law' comes from Lyle McDonald, trainer and author, who probably orginated it, though I don't know for sure. Before you consider using any supplement, consult Lyle's Law first. It is, (paraphrased) "95% of your results from training will come from exactly three things: training, nutrition, and rest." They'll be good results if you do the three things right, and less good if you don't. You might quibble about the percentage, but supplements will contribute only a rather small amount to your progress; it's up to you to decide if you really need to spend money for something that may not do what the slick ads say. Remember, supplements are just that, SUPPLEMENTS; they won't substitute for proper training, diet and rest. Studies One common technique in ads is to refer to studies and lab tests. This is SCIENCE, so the supplement has to work, right? Not exactly. Lab studies are expensive, and studies involving humans are VERY expensive. Most studies are performed either in test tubes or on animals. The test tube (in vitro) studies typically take some kind of living tissue, add chemical X, and look for changes. Does this mean that you you take substance X orally/sublingually/whatever, that you'll get the same results? Not necessarily. Or if you feed substance Y to a mouse, something happens. Mice aren't people; substance Y might have an entirely different effect in humans. Human tests are rarely done using experienced weight trainers; often the subjects are random college undergrads or people off the street. Are their results applicable to your situation? Not necessarily. As an example of using misleading research, consider the ads that touted a 700% increase in testosterone after taking a certain prohormone. Yes, this really happened. In postmenopausal women. And how long did this increase last? Not long. Does this have any relevance at all for young, healthy weight trainers? Probably not. Up to... This is a common technique an all forms of advertising, and an easy one to deal with. "Up to 200% cleaner/whiter/brighter!" "Gain up to 100 pounds of muscle!!" Any time you see the words "up to," you should utterly disregard what comes after it. To be literally true, at some time, someone using product Q gained 100 pounds of muscle. Would you? Why would you think so? "Up to" means that this is the best result possible. It's also possible to gain 0 pounds, or to lose muscle while using the product; the statement is still true. The best result isn't necessarily a typical result, in fact, it's rather unlikely that the best possible result is typical. "Up to" is just a compelling way to present some meaningless information. Before/After This is another common supplement company technique; you see a picture of some fat slob, sometimes holding a newspaper. Then, some time later, after using miracle supplement(s) and/or special training info, they've been transformed into buff muscle studs or bikini babes. Fake? Maybe, but I'll assume that this really happened; I think that outright fakes are rare at best. Once again, it's a case of only presenting the best possible results, and allowing you to jump to the conclusion that the pictured results are typical ones. Nope. That really big supplement company put out a video stating that 200,000 people entered one of their recent contests. Of those, they picked the ten best results as winners. This means that quite a lot of people tried to get results like the winners, and failed. Actually, you could say that the odds are 20,000 to 1 AGAINST you having results as good as those ten people. Those aren't especially good odds. And, while nearly all of the entrants probably made worthwhile changes to their physiques, by only showing only the best results, you have no idea what TYPICAL results are. Our own Rosemary Wedderburn once stated that she'd been getting mail from some of these contest entrants, saying that they'd been doing everything they were supposed to, but weren't getting results like those people whose pictures you see in the ads. They were desperate; Uncle Bill promised them that they'd be bikini goddesses in only three months, right? Well, no, actually; saying that this CAN happen to you in three months isn't the same as saying that it WILL happen. Testimonials Another age-old advertising technique; since this post is already rather long, I'll just say that just because person X got result Y doesn't mean that you will too. As long as there a gullible people, supplement companies will have an easy time pushing dubious products. Again, apply critical thinking skills to reading those ads, and remember Lyle's Law. Rather than taking up more space, I'll wrap it up for now; maybe I'll have more to say later, and, as always, your comments help keep the list useful and informative. --Gary Hanson