Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Selenium Protection of Hearts another Health Myth ?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jbuch - 26 Apr 2006 16:17 GMT
This 13 year long placebo-controlled clinical study does not show any
positive cardiac protection from Selenium nutrients, in spite of the
known "antioxidative character" of Selenium.

Selenium appears to join the ranks of the nutrients Vitamins C, and E
which do not live up to common cardiac nutritional clams in controlled
studies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antioxidant Selenium Offers No Heart-Disease Protection

04/25/06

Contact

Lois Baker

ljbaker@buffalo.edu

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Selenium does not protect against cardiovascular
disease, despite its documented antioxidant and chemopreventive
properties, analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial
covering 13 years has shown.

The selenium-CVD association was a secondary endpoint in the Nutritional
Prevention of Cancer Trial, which was designed primarily to determine if
selenium supplementation could prevent the recurrence of non-melanoma
skin cancer.

Results of the trial, the only large randomized clinical trial to date
to examine selenium supplementation alone in the prevention of CVD,
appear in the April 15 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
Saverio Stranges, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of social and
preventive medicine in the School of Public Health and Health
Professions, University at Buffalo, is first author.

"Our results extend previous research based on smaller intervention
trials focusing on cardiovascular risk factors," said Stranges. "Our
findings are consistent with those from previous studies that have shown
no beneficial effect of selenium supplementation in combination with
other antioxidants on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease."

Several antioxidants, vitamins C and E in particular, that were thought
to play a role in preventing heart disease based on observational
studies have turned out not to be protective in randomized clinical
trials, and selenium now has joined this group.

The main findings of this report focus on the 1,004 participants in the
study, conducted from 1983-96, who were free of cardiovascular disease
when they were recruited. Participants came from seven dermatology
clinics in low selenium areas of the eastern United States: Augusta and
Macon, Ga.; Columbia, S.C.; Miami, Fla.; Wilson and Greenville, N. C.;
and Newington, Conn.

Enrollees were assigned randomly to take a tablet containing 200
micrograms of selenium daily or a placebo. Information on
sociodemographics, health habits, education and body mass index also was
collected.

Participants provided blood samples at their respective clinics twice a
year and reported any new illnesses or medications. Individuals were
followed for an average of 7.6 years.

Results showed no association between selenium supplementation on any of
the endpoints studied: coronary heart disease, stroke or deaths from
cardiovascular disease, Stranges said. There also was no difference in
the endpoints based on the level of selenium at baseline. In addition,
the lack of significant association with CVD endpoints was confirmed
even in the 246 participants who had CVD at baseline. (This data does
not appear in the published manuscript.)

"These results must be interpreted cautiously," said Stranges, "because
they result from exploratory analyses, although from the largest
randomized clinical trial available that has selenium only as the
intervention. However, this report adds important information to our
knowledge on the role of selenium in cardiovascular-disease prevention,
indicating no overall benefit of supplementation by selenium alone in
prevention of cardiovascular disease."

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

tunderbar@hotmail.com - 26 Apr 2006 16:48 GMT
The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one dosage
- 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to vitamins C and E.
When you test an inadequate dosage and ignore other larger and possibly
useful dosages, you pretty much will get the results you want.

TC

> This 13 year long placebo-controlled clinical study does not show any
> positive cardiac protection from Selenium nutrients, in spite of the
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
> book
> 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
Jbuch - 26 Apr 2006 17:12 GMT
MDR of selenium about 50 mcg/day vs 200 mcg/day in study.

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/selenium/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Immune function

Selenium deficiency has been associated with impaired function of the
immune system. Moreover, selenium supplementation in individuals who are
not overtly selenium deficient appears to stimulate the immune response.
In two small studies, healthy (12, 13) and immunosuppressed individuals
(14) supplemented with 200 mcg/day of selenium as sodium selenite for 8
weeks showed an enhanced immune cell response to foreign antigens
compared with those taking a placebo. A considerable amount of basic
research also indicates that selenium plays a role in regulating the
expression of cell signaling molecules called cytokines, which
orchestrate the immune response (15).

Cardiovascular diseases

Theoretically, optimizing selenoenzyme activity could decrease the risk
of cardiovascular diseases by decreasing lipid peroxidation and
influencing the metabolism of cell signaling molecules known as
prostaglandins. However, prospective studies in humans have not
demonstrated strong support for the cardioprotective effects of
selenium. While one study found a significant increase in illness and
death from cardiovascular disease in individuals with serum selenium
levels below 45 mcg/liter compared to matched pairs above 45 mcg/liter
(30), another study, using the same cutoff points for serum selenium,
found a significant difference only in deaths from stroke (31). A study
of middle aged and elderly Danish men found an increased risk of
cardiovascular disease in men with serum selenium levels below 79
mcg/liter (32), but several other studies found no clear inverse
association between selenium nutritional status and cardiovascular
disease risk (33). In a multi-center study in Europe, toenail selenium
levels and risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack) were only
associated in the center where selenium levels were the lowest (34).

While some epidemiological evidence suggests that low levels of selenium
(lower than those commonly found in the U.S.) may increase the risk of
cardiovascular diseases, definitive evidence regarding the role of
selenium in preventing cardiovascular diseases will require controlled
clinical trials.

---------------------

Maybe very low serum selenium levels are associated with cardiovascular
diseases.

At last, there is a controlled clinical study.

Let's hear a chear for Selenium.

> The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one dosage
> - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to vitamins C and E.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

tunderbar@hotmail.com - 26 Apr 2006 17:14 GMT
> The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one dosage
> - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to vitamins C and E.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > positive cardiac protection from Selenium nutrients, in spite of the
> > known "antioxidative character" of Selenium.

And just because 200 mcg per day does not show "positive cardiac
protection" does not mean that higher amounts will not show "positive
cardiac protection" as well and does not mean that selenium is not
needed for other major health benefits.

TC
Noway2 - 26 Apr 2006 17:24 GMT
> The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one dosage
> - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to vitamins C and E.
> When you test an inadequate dosage and ignore other larger and possibly
> useful dosages, you pretty much will get the results you want.

As a teacher I used to have always said, "Figures don't lie, but liars
do figure"
Jbuch - 26 Apr 2006 18:00 GMT
>>The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one dosage
>>- 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to vitamins C and E.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> As a teacher I used to have always said, "Figures don't lie, but liars
> do figure"

As a researcher I have always said "Liars dispute figures."

A good alternative quote which means as little as the quote given above.

Unfounded hope dies hard.

It seems clear that the 200 mcg dose is not beneficial.

It is said that the maximum tolerable daily dose is 400 mcg/day.

So what data is around to tell one what would be a "Safe but Effective"
dose?

It is embarrassing (and legally expensive) if your study uses too high a
dose and harms the study participants.

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

Roger Zoul - 26 Apr 2006 18:18 GMT
:: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
:: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
:: vitamins C and E. When you test an inadequate dosage and ignore
:: other larger and possibly useful dosages, you pretty much will get
:: the results you want.

So, if we follow this thru, we'd be taking really large doses of C, E and
selenuim.

Where does it stop, TC?

:: TC
::
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
::: 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or
::: Other)
Marengo - 27 Apr 2006 01:15 GMT
|:: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
|:: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
|So, if we follow this thru, we'd be taking really large doses of C, E and
|selenuim.

*ahem*  

I take 2000 mg of vitamin C each say, 800mcg of Vitamin E and 400mcg
of Selenium, along with my other fistfuls of supplements.

Signature

Peter

Roger Zoul - 27 Apr 2006 04:54 GMT
:: On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:18:34 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:: I take 2000 mg of vitamin C each say, 800mcg of Vitamin E and 400mcg
:: of Selenium, along with my other fistfuls of supplements.

See!
tunderbar@hotmail.com - 27 Apr 2006 17:55 GMT
> :: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
> :: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> So, if we follow this thru, we'd be taking really large doses of C, E and
> selenuim.

> Where does it stop, TC?

It stops at the optimum amount. No more, no less.

But our "researchers" and the research industry need to make a true
effort at determining these optimal amounts. Not some food industry and
pharma marketting biased research effort to discredit vitamins or to
minimize their importance or even to demonize them as dangerous.

The fact is that by their very definition, vitamins are absolutely
necessary for optimal health. The next question is what is the optimum
dosage that will provide enough amounts without overdoing it. Right now
the RDIs are arbitraily set by govt agencies with too many ties to the
food and pharma industries. They are not based on real science, they
are based on govt and industry agendas.

TC

> :: TC
> ::
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
> ::: 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or
> ::: Other)
Jbuch - 28 Apr 2006 01:54 GMT
>>:: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
>>:: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> TC

Just who is going to PAY for these careful (repeated for verification)
studies?

Do you work for free, too?

Until someone comes up with how to PAY for the research, you might as
well be passing gas instead of making recommendations like the ones you
made above.

I am laughing inside at your "OPTIMUM AMOUNT", as if there is such a
thing for the diverse population of human beings.

Your mileage may vary.....

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

tunderbar@hotmail.com - 28 Apr 2006 18:52 GMT
> >>:: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
> >>:: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Just who is going to PAY for these careful (repeated for verification)
> studies?

The FOOD and Drug Administration? the National Institutes of HEALTH?

You would think that by now we would have a complete and thourough
understanding of these fundamental essential nutrients and our optimal
dosages. Christ, it's not like sending someone to the moon. It is basic
and simple science, and not nearly as costly as lunar flight. And way
more important in a direct way.

Is this not OBVIOUS?

TC
Jbuch - 28 Apr 2006 23:02 GMT
>>>>:: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
>>>>:: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> TC

To those who have actually studied biochemistry and physiology, it is
not obvious and simple.

However, there are people who are obviously simpleminded.

You.

Get some real academic education.

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

tunderbar@hotmail.com - 01 May 2006 16:24 GMT
> >>>>:: The main problem with this study is that they only looked at one
> >>>>:: dosage - 200 mcg per day. They did the same kind of thing to
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> To those who have actually studied biochemistry and physiology, it is
> not obvious and simple.

So, you are saying that for those who have "studied biochemistry and
physiology", it is not an obvious or simple concept that we actually
determine the optimal amounts of essential nutrients? You are saying
that our advanced degreed scientific leadership cannot be bothered to
understand our basic nutritional requirements because it is too complex
and not obvious enough for them?

> However, there are people who are obviously simpleminded.
>
> You.

I guess it is too simpleminded to expect those charged with educating
us on nutrition and treating us for health problems to actually know
something about the fundamentals of real nutrition. In spite of the
simpleminded, but still altogether true, fact that good health is
IMPOSSIBLE without good NUTRITION.

No one gets a chronic disease because they did not have a specific
medicine in their diet.

> Get some real academic education.

If getting some real academic education means that I don't need to
actually know something useful about nutrition and/or remain completely
ignorant of basic and fundamental nutritional and health concepts, then
I'll forgo the advanced degree.

If, at this point, you know, the 21st century, hundreds of year after
we first learned about nutritional deficiency diseases like scurvy and
rickets, we cannot say with some certainty, what the optimum dosages
are for the essential nutrients, based on age, sex, size, etc., then we
can clearly understand how it is that millions upon millions upon
millions suffer from chronic disease without any chance for cure.
Sufferers are treated to the tune of billion$, with very few actually
being cured of anything. In fact, they tend to get sicker and suffer
more from the initial condition as well as new symptoms from the
treatments themselves such as pharmaceuticals, surgeries, etc.

The fact that the healing classes can go on with this farce without
effecting any significant actual improvements in health, while milking
the masses for all of their wealth, is mind boggling on so many levels.

TC
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.