"Nature Made", "Cholest-Off", Up to "24% On Average" Reduction In Cholesterol, is There a Problem With this?

Question

SAMI, does Saying "Up to" and "On Average", In an Ad, Cause you Any Problem?

Apparently, gandalf, SAMI (Like the Advertiser), has No Problem With Pulling Figures Out of their A$$.

Thanks K, On their Site, the Studies Aren't Mentioned.

I don't Remember a Great Deal From my Prior Use of Statistics, but their Statement, Raised a Red Flag.

I did a Medline Search On "Reducol" and "Phytrol" (2004 On), and Found Nothing.

K, About Journals, I Call Them "Vanity Journals".

K, I had In Mind Non Reputable Journals, In particular Journals That Only Exist So a Company or person Can Say they Are Published, Not Typically Peer-Reviewed.

K, I don't Know What Medline does, I Should, I Would Hope they Are All Reputable Peer-Reviewed Journals, I don't Think Having Scam-Artists or Con-Artists Review your "Study", Makes it Legitimate.

Answer 1

A statement like this leads me to believe that no study was performed. Let me explain:

"Up to" implies that IF a study was done, the extreme or outlying case has been cited from merely a range of outcome scores....which, means nothing. Outliers and extreme scores skew a distribution which can seriously affect the assumptions involved in using particular analyses but also the validity and reliablity of results. Researchers typically do not retain them in analyses unless they can be shown to have not occurred by various errors and do in fact represent the population sampled. And, this is very rarely the case. Statistical analyses require normal distributions. So, efforts to normalize the data (e.g., a log transformation) would have to be performed if the cases were retained...Regardless, statistical significance is not based on a "range" of scores. Ranges are descriptive characteristics of a sample. If there is no significance, then there is no "effect" of treatment.

Using "average" though in the same sentence leads me to believe that no study was even performed. See, in statistical analyses, percentages can be calculated as precise figures within a 95% confidence interval. For example, in regression, Eta squared provides the precentage of variance explained by particular independent variables. "Up to a percentage of a given average" does not make a lick of sense.

It is obviously crap. Fancy, wanna-be statistical terms have been used erroneously to trick people into believing there is some scientific basis to the claims. But, hey, in today's world, knowledge, evidence, and even logic doesn't sell products. Sex, manipulation, subliminal messaging, anecdotes, the prospect of making money, and living up to unattainable, unrealistic societal standards does. If the efficacy of any product was empirically based, why wouldn't the advertisers or manufacturers cite the published journal?

I think these advertisers could have done a better job of faking. At the very least had some woman with big breasts uttering the statement. HA!

I have no idea how most ads remain when they are clearly scams.

PS. I think something is wrong with your regular email. I emailed you back and got a failure message (i.e., "service not available"). So, tried sending again, but also opted to write you using the Y!A "mdgreg" link.

EDIT: Well, then they're full of crap like many, many other advertisers. IF such study existed, it would be boasted about, would it not? Could give them the benefit of the doubt and say well: "maybe the stats were erroneously reported". That *does* happen all the time, which is a huge pete peeve of mine. But, no cited study=bullsh*t in my mind.

And, yes definitely a red flag. Even if you discounted all the mombo jombo I mentioned, the statement isn't even logical: "Up to a percentage on average". So scores (or mostly likely *a* score) in a range on average. Whaaaa?

EDIT 2: Interesting, yet not at all surprised. I've heard through ads that some claim to be performing "their own", "private", or "within company" experiments. Have you heard this? I think I remember the company "Vichy" making these claims. I think I remember this from a Vichy ad. I suspect though that these "experiments" would have just as much reliability and validity as no study at all. If "real" MD's, PhD's or statisticians were hired to conduct the research, then again, why aren't the findings published or the details (like, the methodology and statistics) at least available on the website?

EDIT 3: Why "Vanity Journals"? Hmm, interesting...I can think of many reasons for the nick name. Are you referring to the "publish or perish" mentality of stuffy profs, how one journal will claim to be different (if not better) than another...even though it accepts the same types of works, how "reputation" is overemphasized and attributed meaning way beyond reality, or do you refer to how stuffed shirts use publications to attribute meaning to their lives, to bolster their self-esteem, and feel "worthy" within their own brains? HA-HA....Or, did you mean something different altogether?

EDIT 4: Ahhh, I knew there would be a sound explanation.

Obviously, there is a difference between peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed. I think there is already too much disconnect between and within areas of knowledge, but also between empirical work and public knowledge. Non-peer reviewed sources can contribute to that..in the minds of some.

In my mind an obvious difference though. "Magazines" versus journals. I'm not even sure non-peer reviewed sources can be located using Medline, Psyclit, or other scholarly search engines...

Are you making a distinction beyond peer-reviewed versus non-peer reviewed journals? Or, do you mean something else by non-peer reviewed? I consider non-peer reviewed "journals" to be magazines, like articles in "Popular Science" maybe...articles that are not empirical or theoretical studies/clinical trials, and not reviewed by an editorial board of expert scholars etc.

EDIT 5: Yeah, you're right. I don't think I've ever read an article though from something claiming to be an actual scholarly journal. Magazine articles, well of course. But, not something from a source claiming to be an actual journal without an expert review board, where articles are not subjected to regulated review and standards etc. I would like to though. I would like to read the article but also the "comments" from "editors"/aka, scam artists....just to learn something....or, uhhh, perhaps to just develop some new scorn for the workings of the world. LOL!...Maybe I'm not thinking hard enough or correctly. I can't believe I haven't come across this type of thing...

Answer 2

Alternative medicines are curing cancers,psoriasis,schizophrenia,and a number of other problems. High cholesterol should not be a problem.

Upto 24%means from 4% to24%. It is to be coupled with exercise. This means no figure is committed by advertiser. Of the six clinical studies one group might contain only two people .
So an average in each group divided by six is "mean" average. If the six studies included 5 containing less than 5 atheletes and the sixth contains 10 people the "mode" average can be more than 24% reduction.

Answer 3

All of these expressions seem to promise a lot, but don't really say anything when you think about it. 'Nature Made'? Well what isn't nature made, ultimately?
'Cholest-Off' what does that mean? Puts you off cholesterol? LDL or HDL? This expression in particular is just a claim made, nothing has to be proven.
'24% On Average', that again means nothing. It may reduce your cholesterol, and then again it may not.

Add to that the fact that a) cholesterol is by no means proven to be the culprit for thromboses and b), there are indications that certain people have certain cholesterol levels, no matter what and how much they eat, and all those claims turn out to be so much hot air.
In Europe, legislation has been passed that only allows such claims towards a food being beneficial to health have to have a scientific foundation, so I guess this business will go down a bit now.

Answer 4

Nah, causes me no problem at all. I've become accustomed to empty and vacuous statements--and this is an empty and vacuous statement.

I mean, really--is this an average being compared to an average, the mean of one being 24% less than the other mean, or is it an average of the percentage drop in the cholesterols, or what?

And "up to 24%." Oh, puh-LEEZE. So, one person dropped the cholesterol 24%, eh? Well, well, well. And did the others have their cholesterol go up? Or down? Or did it run in little circles around the erythrocytes? Oh, I'm sorry--it did a polka on the platelets, right?

Furthermore, there is no indication as to whether there is any statistical significance to the differences listed. If there isn't, and on the whole statements like this are devoid of statistical significance, then excuse me, I have to go yawn myself to death.

Pardon the sarcasm, but this sort of blurb is intended to hype the product to the statistically innumerate--those folks who don't really understand statistics and the related mathematics--and who are impressed by the pseudo-science that lies behind the numbers.

I once saw a brief analysis of the use of percentages where the author used different ways of computing percentages, and was able to show that group A had fewer cavities than group B, and then that group B had fewer cavities than group A. The math of each demonstration was sound (I checked it, just to be sure); the problem was the chosen methods.

So--no problem. It's an empty and vacuous statement. Life is full of those, especially near election time.