Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2005
Are you taking your vitamins?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ignoramus24806 - 16 Mar 2005 01:53 GMT http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Daily vitamin E supplements do not prevent cancer, strokes or heart attacks in older people with vascular disease or diabetes, and may increase their risk of heart failure, a study said on Tuesday.
Millions of people take the supplements hoping for longer and healthier lives.
"In conjunction with its lack of efficacy, the potential for harm suggested by our findings strongly supports the view that vitamin E supplements should not be used in patients with vascular disease or diabetes mellitus," said the study from Canada's McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences Corp.
People in the study taking vitamin E were 40 percent more likely to be hospitalized for heart failure than those who were not taking it.
It adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests taking vitamins is not always a fast route to good health and can even be harmful.
In a study released in November 2004, doctors at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found that elderly people taking 200 international units or more of vitamin E a day died at a higher rate.
That research came from a review of 19 studies involving 136,000 mostly elderly patients in North America, Europe and China.
'CERTAINLY NOT THE FINAL WORD'
A group representing the supplement industry said it was important to note that the latest study involved only older people with a history of heart disease, stroke or diabetes.
"This is certainly not the final word on vitamin E and should not obscure the fact that for millions of healthy people vitamin E has many long-term benefits, including protecting against oxidative damage in body cells and reducing harmful inflammation," the Washington-based Council for Responsible Nutrition said.
The study's chief author, Dr. Eva Lonn, said: "In high risk people vitamin E does not prevent cardiovascular disease, namely heart attack and stroke, and it does not prevent cancer. Furthermore, we noticed an increased risk of heart failure, so there is a potential for harm in people receiving vitamin E."
The study was published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association. It involved thousands of people age 55 and older with heart disease or diabetes, who were given 400 international units of vitamin E daily -- a standard dosage -- or a placebo.
The vitamin "had no clear impact on fatal and nonfatal cancers, major cardiovascular events or deaths," the study said.
But there was "an increase in the risk of heart failure, which is of concern. Although this adverse effect of vitamin E was unexpected and cannot be confirmed at this time by other trials, our data are internally consistent."
In an editorial commenting on the Canadian study and appearing in the same journal on Tuesday, experts at the University of Washington said the study "effectively closes the door on the prospect of a major protective effect of long-term exposure to this supplement, taken in moderately high dosage, against complications of atherosclerosis and overall cancer incidence."
 Signature 223/173.3/180
Dr_Dickie - 16 Mar 2005 18:25 GMT > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > moderately high dosage, against complications of atherosclerosis and > overall cancer incidence." Haven't seen this study yet, so take this with a grain of salt--I'll try to get to it this weekend. Most every study I have seen involved the application of alpha tocopherol (actually d-L alpha what is commonly called vitamin E). Real vitamin E is a mixture of alpha, beta, and gamma tocopherols (actually 8 different isomers in all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it displaces the others and can lead to some problems. This is being recognized and corrected by some researchers, but the advance is slow. See here http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/ss03/vitamine.html for example. As usual it is best to get you vitamins naturally, but if you must supplement (especially with lipid soluble vitamins), keep the dose low and for vitamin E, look for complete tocopherols. The vitamin industry with MEGA doses is doing us no favor-IMHO. The Greeks had it right soooo long ago. Everything is moderation.
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
Ignoramus1084 - 16 Mar 2005 18:31 GMT >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > MEGA doses is doing us no favor-IMHO. The Greeks had it right soooo long > ago. Everything is moderation. Very interesting thoughts. If you find out anything further, I will appreciate if you could share what you find. What interests me the most is calcium supplementation. I keep changing my mind on whether I should or should not do it. The reason why I am considering is it that I take thyroid supplements, which tend to interfere with calcium absorption, and do not eat much dairy, which probably means I do not get even close to 100% of the calcium RDA. Long term thyroid supplementation is known to reduce bone density. What I do get is plenty of vitamin D. The real question is, is whether calcium supplementation going to help me, in my specific circumstances.
 Signature 223/173.3/180
Dr_Dickie - 16 Mar 2005 19:03 GMT > >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 > >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > plenty of vitamin D. The real question is, is whether calcium > supplementation going to help me, in my specific circumstances. Anything I have seen (not a lot) is that at worse, calcium supplementation is benign. I do not get dairy at all either (not full lactose intolerant, but I think I was on my way--Dad and Mom both are). I take calcium, magnesium, zinc--(lower than RDA--about 1/3) and do that for leg cramps at night--does it work? I really do not know, might help, might be placebo effect, but no harm done. Only thing I can add is stay away from soft drinks (colas mostly). Anything with phosphoric acid, forms calcium phosphate. Calcium phosphate is Highly insoluble and will not get picked up in the small intestine (where nutrients are absorbed). I like the diet Sprite (citric acid is okay). If I get some time, I'll hunt out info on calcium studies.
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
avid - 16 Mar 2005 19:04 GMT Diet Sprite ... thanks for that tip!
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:25:13 -0500, Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke@chembench.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > are absorbed). I like the diet Sprite (citric acid is okay). > If I get some time, I'll hunt out info on calcium studies. Ignoramus1084 - 16 Mar 2005 19:17 GMT > Anything I have seen (not a lot) is that at worse, calcium supplementation > is benign. I can say the same thing about everything that I have seen.
> I do not get dairy at all either (not full lactose intolerant, but I > think I was on my way--Dad and Mom both are). I take calcium, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nutrients are absorbed). I like the diet Sprite (citric acid is > okay). If I get some time, I'll hunt out info on calcium studies. I avoid colas like the plague.
 Signature 223/173.3/180
Dr_Dickie - 16 Mar 2005 20:06 GMT > > Anything I have seen (not a lot) is that at worse, calcium supplementation > > is benign. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I avoid colas like the plague. Good for you. Only other thing is the TYPE of exercise you get is very important. Pounding (running) is better than just weight lifting (IIRC the research I read). Of course, any better than none. Haven't looked into this for years (my mom used to be deputy director at FDA for endocrinology, so she used to keep me up to snuff on this stuff, but she retired years ago).
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
Ignoramus1084 - 16 Mar 2005 20:12 GMT >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:03:20 -0500, Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dickie@chembench.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > for years (my mom used to be deputy director at FDA for endocrinology, so > she used to keep me up to snuff on this stuff, but she retired years ago). My exercise (on a calorie basis) is 70% running, 25% walking, 5% resistance training.
i
 Signature 223/173.3/180
DZ - 16 Mar 2005 21:48 GMT >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > all). When given 10X the recommended dose of a single isomer it > displaces the others and can lead to some problems. The study IS about d-alpha. That's the point of the study. Most people do take d-alpha, not mixed tocopherols and it makes perfect sense to examine its long term effects since lots of data is available. This is all acknowledged in their JAMA article.
"Other potential mechanisms of harm associated with vitamin E supplements in doses much higher than those provided by balanced diets may relate to displacement of other fat-soluble antioxidants, such as lambda-tocopherol, disrupting the natural balance of antioxidant systems and a reduction in high-density lipoprotein (HDL2)cholesterol."
DZ
Robert - 17 Mar 2005 00:01 GMT What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and all those bad diseases caused by it. Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of course. That must be the answer.
> >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > DZ DZ - 17 Mar 2005 00:33 GMT >> >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 >> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Not taking the right form of vitamin E of course. That must be the > answer. There is no "them". Just a bunch of scientists doing honest, perhaps even boring analysis of now large available data.
DZ
Robert - 17 Mar 2005 01:22 GMT > >> >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > DZ The them I am referring to are the scientists or researchers who write the articles they publish. In order to gain revenue for their research they engage in hyperbole to the max in the discussion section of the paper. Manufacturers of products then jump on the bandwagon in selling products. You also have the elitist nutritionist who think they are on the cutting edge of research by advocating supplemental use. To not do so makes them out of touch with modern research. A lot of people have caught on to that scenario that even the scientist now are corruptible by corporate America. In short their is a lack of critical thinking going on outside of research.
Dr_Dickie - 17 Mar 2005 14:44 GMT > What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and all > those bad diseases caused by it. > Jump on the anti-oxidant bandwagon with vitamin E of course. > Let's see them back track now. Not taking the right form of vitamin E of > course. That must be the answer. That's funny. Scientists I know, and certainly no biological scientists I know, ever blame one cause or one cure. The point is, taking mega doses of one isomer is not the cure and may be a problem (in this case natural is better). Remember our genes were developed without the introduction of processed food (or vitamins). I suspect that taking the right mix may help. A panacea, no, only the hucksters say so. In certain circumstances can it be very beneficial, hell yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by the media, not the scientists. It is their ignorance and desire for ratings that drives them, not science (as for hucksters, just greed). Or do you think that oxidation and its association with disease is simply a conspiracy?
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
Robert - 17 Mar 2005 21:46 GMT > > What happened to all those people who discovered the word oxidation and > all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > yes. Again, the "cure-all" stance is hinted at by the media, not the > scientists. The scientist are skepical in private but certainly become promotional when seeking money for their research. I do not know any scientist that does not hype the worth of his own research. Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which Dr Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs. She did not recognize the significance of the pattern and here comes Watson and Crick and right away came up the the double helix interpretation and figured out the DNA connection. They got the glory and the lady got nothing. What this tells scientists is that it is not good enough to do the bench work but you must come up with the proper interpretation of your own work. This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so they can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else.
It is their ignorance and desire for ratings that drives them,
> not science (as for hucksters, just greed). > Or do you think that oxidation and its association with disease is simply a > conspiracy? It is both. There is solid evidense and a conspiracy in seeking funding for future research and greed by manufacturers and hucksters.
DZ - 18 Mar 2005 22:10 GMT >> "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote >> > What happened to all those people who discovered the word [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > promotional when seeking money for their research. I do not know any > scientist that does not hype the worth of his own research. Most scientists I know do not hype the worth of their own research.
> Another problem is that if you take the DNA double helix fame in which Dr > Rosalyn (???) did most of the work involving X ray defraction specs. She [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This makes scientist speculate into outer-space involving their work so they > can get credit for any future work performed by anybody else. Doesn't tell anything of the kind to me.
DZ
Dr_Dickie - 19 Mar 2005 13:34 GMT > >> "Robert" <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote > >> > What happened to all those people who discovered the word [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > DZ I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life behind you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV).
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
Robert - 19 Mar 2005 20:06 GMT "Dr_Dickie" <Dr_Dicke@chembench.com> wrote in message > > I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life behind
> you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). > I suspect that Robert is not a scientist (perhaps he plays one on TV). I am state licensed as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist and that is real life and not TV. I am involved in applied science in the medical field. I think you guys need a to live in the real world and not one in which all scientist are humble and don't hype the research they do and the next thing you will say is that they don't profit from their research. I am not saying they are nasty people or unnecessary, quite the contrary. Major advances are made that profit everyone and not just the scientist who invented or came up with something useful. Most of the stuff they come up with is useless with dead ends but necessary in order to find the right path. Those that are good at it profit immensely in terms of money, positions and prestige. Those that aren't very good at it are humbled by their own lack of success. Who discovered the HIV virus? Two humble scientists? The one from the US or the one from France?
DZ - 19 Mar 2005 21:34 GMT >>I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life >>behind you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > humbled by their own lack of success. Who discovered the HIV virus? > Two humble scientists? The one from the US or the one from France? Seems to me the problem is elsewhere. As long as you have qualifications (bureaucratic piece of paper) and your free will, you can lead your own independent research program. No "hype" needed. Publications is what makes a name recognized and the resume impressive. Scientists that hype their research don't look too good among their colleagues and manuscripts doing so have low chances to survive through the review process. I've spent several years in pharma industry before moving out to do more theoretical stuff which I like more. Even there I had no problems publishing independent research. I would not list my supervisors or anyone else as co-authors unless they contributed to actiual results AND writing.
DZ
Robert - 19 Mar 2005 22:41 GMT > >>I think that a closed mind is a terrible thing to drag through life > >>behind you. I think we are wasting our time DZ ;-). I suspect that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > qualifications (bureaucratic piece of paper) and your free will, you > can lead your own independent research program. No "hype" needed. Money is needed to do any research along with access to equipment and or research material or in survey studies computer access and data access. In order to get money you need to make proposels for your research. You have to sell yourself and your proposal. There is no way around that. Once you obtain grants you must produce papers or work products.
> Publications is what makes a name recognized and the resume > impressive. Scientists that hype their research don't look too good > among their colleagues and manuscripts doing so have low chances to > survive through the review process. The mere conclusions of papers or findings based on substance and not on writing style can "hype" the findings.
I've spent several years in pharma
> industry before moving out to do more theoretical stuff which I like > more. Even there I had no problems publishing independent research. I > would not list my supervisors or anyone else as co-authors unless they > contributed to actiual results AND writing. > > DZ The names on papers is pretty much situational as institutions have teams with senior leaders signing off on all the research. The work product you did was under the institution you worked for so any revenue generated would fall on the institution. Associates and fellows have no say on who signs off on papers. They may be given the green light to do independent work but that is still in the hands for seniors to have such permission. They control the money unless you have outside sources or grants gained on your own. Institutional affiliation helps on gaining money and prestige. Two way street.
Ok, good luck
Dr_Dickie - 17 Mar 2005 14:36 GMT > >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > DZ Okay, like I said I haven't read the study yet. Didn't mean to imply otherwise (like I said, this is being picked up by researchers). Funny thing is, of course, the press acts like this all NEW. Hell, I first heard about this about 10 years ago, this latest study is simply more proof. The vitamin industry is starting to take notice as well, more and more mixed tocopherols are being added to supplements. Not always fast, but in the end some semblance of knowledge is achieved by persistence. Like Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
DZ - 17 Mar 2005 20:18 GMT >> Dr_Dickie <Dr_Dicke@chembench.com> wrote: >> >> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7910550 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > persistence. Like Einstein said, "If we knew what it was we were doing, it > would not be called research, would it?" Sounds good to me!
DZ
Polar Light - 16 Mar 2005 22:17 GMT [SNIP]
> As usual it is best to get you vitamins naturally, but if you must > supplement (especially with lipid soluble vitamins), keep the dose low and > for vitamin E, look for complete tocopherols. The vitamin industry with > MEGA doses is doing us no favor-IMHO. The Greeks had it right soooo long > ago. Everything is moderation. This last sentence can really be applied to everything: fat, sugar, refined carbs, alcohol, junk food... well, food in general...
Dr_Dickie - 17 Mar 2005 14:36 GMT > [SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This last sentence can really be applied to everything: fat, sugar, refined > carbs, alcohol, junk food... well, food in general... Yep, that's the point.
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
|
|
|