Good vitamin E vs BAD
Steve Harris
"Trouser Puppet" <trouse...@aol.comadieu> wrote in
message news:20030515020720...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> There seemed to be allusions to some vitamin E being bad
for one.
No good evidence that vitamin E supplements are harmful.
> Is the dl form the type to be avoided?
Hard to say. The "dl" form can be dl,dl,dl, or just d,d,dl.
You never know from the label whether it's the 2-isomer or
8-isomer mix. In either case the molecules with the l in
the last enantiomeric position are inactive, but there's no
evidence that they are harmful. The lower activity problem
is made up for in all dl preparations by giving you more
vitamin E in the pill, so in theory there's no difference
between on kind and another.
I personally take the d, however, since it's not that much
more money, and on the general principle that you should
avoid molecules not found in nature where it's easy to do
so-- especially molecules in such large doses as to equal
your normal vitamin consumption by many times, if you're
taking an E supplement.
The issue of "synthetic" vs "natural" vitamin E is a
non-starter. It's extremely hard to buy "natural" if what
you mean by that is stuff that is extracted from foods and
none of which has ever been chemically altered (I'm willing
to listen to anyone who thinks they have a source, but I'm
going to want to see your evidence, and it can't just be
some bottle label). Everything on the market contains mostly
semi-synthetic vitamin E, inasmuch as the alpha tocopherol
in the bottle has been sythetically made from the naturally
occuring gamma tocopherol which occurs in most oils. If it
says "natural" on the bottle, that means nothing-- the word
has no legal meaning and is used freely to mean all kinds of
things. Including the fact that the vitamin is the natural
d,d,d compound, but has been made totally synthetically or
semi-synthetically.
SBH
Steve Harris
news:k9dacvc8f4dg114ql...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:32:33 -0700, in sci.med.nutrition
you wrote:
>
> >
> >"Trouser Puppet" <trouse...@aol.comadieu> wrote in
> >message
news:20030515020720...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >> There seemed to be allusions to some vitamin E being
bad
> >for one.
> >
> >
> >No good evidence that vitamin E supplements are harmful.
>
> >
Ball's in your court. HOPE trial says otherwise.
Prev Cardiol 2003 Spring;6(2):85-90
Treatment of atherosclerosis in the new millennium: is there
a role for vitamin E?
Meagher EA.
Center for Experimental Therapeutics and Department of
Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
19104.
Oxidative stress appears to be of fundamental relevance to
diseases as diverse as atherosclerosis, cancer, and
Alzheimer's disease. Observational data in humans have
suggested that antioxidant vitamin intake is associated with
reduced cardiovascular disease. Animal studies are largely
consistent with the concept that dietary supplementation
with antioxidant vitamins reduces the progression of
atherosclerosis. However, recent prospective, controlled
clinical trials of vitamin E, including the Cardiovascular
Disease, Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia, Adult-Onset
Diabetes, Obesity, and Stroke (CHAOS) study, the Heart
Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial, Gruppo Italiano
per lo Studio della Sopravvivvenza nell'Infarto Miocardico
(GISSI)-Prevenzione trial, the Secondary Prevention with
Antioxidants of Cardiovascular Disease in End Stage Renal
Disease (SPACE) trial, and the Heart Protection Study (HPS)
present a confused picture. The various possibilities that
have been advanced to explain this discrepancy are discussed
in this review. A striking feature of these and other trials
of antioxidants is the absence of a biochemical basis for
patient inclusion or, indeed, dose selection. Patients with
high levels of oxidant stress or depletion of natural
antioxidant defense systems may be the most likely to
benefit from antioxidant therapy. If this is the case, then
reliable, quantitative indices of in vivo oxidant stress
such as urinary isoprostane levels should be considered as
an inclusion criterion for patient selection. Future trials
of antioxidant therapy in cardiovascular disease should then
be targeted toward such patients with high levels of oxidant
stress or patients with depletion of natural antioxidant
defense systems. Furthermore, the dose of antioxidant should
be chosen based on a surrogate readout that is a reliable,
reproducible, and easily obtainable in vivo measure of
oxidant stress. In the interim, although the safety of
vitamin E up to doses of 800 IU/day has been determined, the
conflicting nature of the results published to date
encourages us to avoid making premature recommendations with
respect to vitamin E supplementation in the prevention and
treatment of cardiovascular disease. Copyright 2003 CHF,
Inc.
PMID: 12732794 [PubMed - in process]
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Ob-1
USED by the body and catalyses the most minerals...however the "COMPLEX" found in
various seeds including WHEAT. is of EXTRA Value. One constituent is especially
good for the eyes. It runs about 5 to 11 bucks a fluid Ounce, depending on WHO
makes it, or where it is purchased. I use Both! Each has a special "niche" that
it fulfills.
In one of my products that is especially valuable for Ladies, I do use the
natural complex along with the other supporting ingredients. The MAIN ingredient
is The Synergism itself...especially selected for conformity as well.
The "Product" is especially good for POST Menopausal Women with "hang-on"
symptoms" involving the Endometrium which can be troublesome at any time,
depending on Both HEALTH and the number of Children one has had to the "Activity"
of the lady involved. The "product", which is made from a "kit" actually "cleans"
the endometrium and may help prevent post menopausal Cancers. Also. "ODORS" are
quelled quite nicely.
It's all part of the "YOUTH" program which is part of the whole as well. Why
live 80 plus yrs when you can live possibly 250 yrs with youth as your companion
and perfect health as a gift as well.
The 75 dollar Kits ( excluding shipping) are offered FREE ( first time only) of
Charge along with discussions and directions, I ask that 37 dollars shipping
fees be sent in advance to prove "interest"
I have proven the efficacies of the program since about 1994 and have my own NEW
health as proof of successes. I do have over 50 clients World-wide and ALL have
been happy beyond belief. It takes about 90 days to really SEE and feel a
difference. "SPIRIT" has indeed been GOOD to me as well. Blessings to
all...even to my adversaries who think that TROLLING is NOT a damned vice as well
as a nuisance to the entire www. It is THEY that have triggered the Government
into wanting to intervene in a BIG way! We do NOT want this and acting
"CIVILIZED' will go a LOOONG way in ameliorating same. THIMK ABOWT IT.. Oh ye
Loose-Cannons who go about blasting at everything you can. Sincerely B-0b1
taur...@pacbell.net wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 21:46:07 -0700, "Steve Harris"
> <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
> ><taur...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:k9dacvc8f4dg114ql...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:32:33 -0700, in sci.med.nutrition
> >you wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Trouser Puppet" <trouse...@aol.comadieu> wrote in
> >> >message
> >news:20030515020720...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >> >> There seemed to be allusions to some vitamin E being
> >bad
> >> >for one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >No good evidence that vitamin E supplements are harmful.
> >>
> >> Where did you look? there is plenty of evidence
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Ball's in your court. HOPE trial says otherwise.
> >
> > Prev Cardiol 2003 Spring;6(2):85-90
> >
> although the safety of
> >vitamin E up to doses of 800 IU/day has been determined*, the
> >conflicting nature of the results published to date
> >encourages us to avoid making premature recommendations with
> >respect to vitamin E supplementation in the prevention and
> >treatment of cardiovascular disease. Copyright 2003 CHF,
> >Inc.>
>
> I wonder what "determined" means. Does it mean they have the results but that
> they are conflicting, making it necessary to avoid premature recommendations?
>
> Ora
--
Worlds’ largest producer of Lin Xhi (Kombucha) Synergisms
Moosh:)
Such a large and funny target, B-Ob1 :)
"What have I got?"
Frank Spencer in Some Mothers Do Have 'em.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GOHDE <"My genes do *not* influence my weight!"> GOHDE
Moosh:)
Moosh:)
>> Prev Cardiol 2003 Spring;6(2):85-90
>>
> although the safety of
>>vitamin E up to doses of 800 IU/day has been determined*, the
>>conflicting nature of the results published to date
>>encourages us to avoid making premature recommendations with
>>respect to vitamin E supplementation in the prevention and
>>treatment of cardiovascular disease. Copyright 2003 CHF,
>>Inc.>
>
>I wonder what "determined" means. Does it mean they have the results but that
>they are conflicting, making it necessary to avoid premature recommendations?
Two different results? They have the safety ones, but not yet the
efficacy ones?
Thomas Carter
Meagher EA is unnecessarily confused, but I won't refute him
point by point other than to point out that 3 of his five studies show
a benefit for E. Yes, the GISSI study shows a 5 to 13% benefit. (Note
the difference between 2 and 4 way analysis, and subtract one from the
other.) And his conclusion is terrible, he presents five studies on
treatment, and concludes that E can't be recommended for prevention.
Studies on prevention almost uniformly show a benefit.
The reason for my post is to present some new info I recently
ran across. In the study I attach below. The Hennekens team of Harvard
epidemiologist, perhaps the most influential in the world, once again
demonstrates its bias towards natural medicine. In their abstract they
begrudgingly show a small benefit for E in a very large study of
physicians. Table 3 of the full text, however, not available at
Pubmed, gives an astonding (and significant)SIXTY TO ALMOST SEVENTY
PERCENT reduction in CVD for a subgroup who took vit C or vit E, and
had no pre-existing disease factors. I forget which was for which.
These rr's were for a subgroup with no previous signs of
cardiovascular disease. (or no risk factors, sorry my memory is not
that good) The comment to their paper took them to task for not
commenting on this PREVENTATIVE aspect of supplementation. They
responding mildly to their chastisement, aggreeing with the comment
and only saying that a conservative approach should be taken until
final results are from large clinical studies. They hypothesized that
perhaps E and C prevented the start of artherosclerosis, but not the
progress.
It has long been hypothesized that vitamin supplementation is of
benefit for those with a poor life style, but not for those with a
healthy one. This study, however, shows a synergism between C and E
supplementaion and a healty lifestyle. The widely accepted synergism
betwee C and E themselves is not included and could result is benefits
beyond the 70% range.
I also attach a recent study that indicates a possible danger
for women of taking too much C.
Thomas
Arch Intern Med 2002 Jul 8;162(13):1472-6
Comment in:
Arch Intern Med. 2002 Dec 9-23;162(22):2630; author reply 2630.
Vitamin supplement use in a low-risk population of US male physicians
and
subsequent cardiovascular mortality.
Muntwyler J, Hennekens CH, Manson JE, Buring JE, Gaziano JM.
Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich,
Switzerland.
BACKGROUND: Although basic research suggests that vitamins
may have an important role in the prevention of cardiovascular
diseases (CVD), the data from cohort
studies and clinical trials are inconclusive. METHODS: This
prospective cohort
study was conducted among 83 639 male physicians residing in the
United States
who had no history of CVD or cancer. At baseline, data on use of
vitamin E,
ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and multivitamin supplements were provided
by a
self-administered questionnaire. Mortality from CVD and coronary heart
disease
(CHD) was assessed by death certificate review. RESULTS: Use of
supplements was
reported by 29% of the participants. During a mean follow-up of 5.5
years, 1037
CVD deaths occurred, including 608 CHD deaths. After adjustment for
several
cardiovascular risk factors, supplement use was not significantly
associated
with total CVD or CHD mortality. For vitamin E use, the relative risks
(RRs)
were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.21) for total CVD
mortality and
0.88 (95% CI, 0.61-1.27) for CHD mortality; for use of vitamin C, the
RRs were
0.88 (95% CI, 0.70-1.12) for total CVD mortality and 0.86 (95% CI,
0.63-1.18)
for CHD mortality; and for use of multivitamin supplements, the RRs
were 1.07
(95% CI, 0.91-1.25) for total CVD mortality and 1.02 (95% CI,
0.83-1.25) for CHD
mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of apparently healthy US
male
physicians, self-selected supplementation with vitamin E, vitamin C,
or
multivitamins was not associated with a significant decrease in total
CVD or CHD
mortality. Data from ongoing large randomized trials will be necessary
to
definitely establish small potential benefits of vitamin supplements
on
subsequent cardiovascular risk. PMID: 12090883
J Am Coll Nutr 2001 Jun;20(3):255-63
Relation of serum ascorbic acid to mortality among US adults.
Simon JA, Hudes ES, Tice JA.
General Internal Medicine Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
San
Francisco, California 94121, USA. jas...@itsa.ucsf.edu
PURPOSE: To examine the relation between serum ascorbic acid (SAA), a
marker of
dietary intake (including supplements), and cause-specific mortality.
SUBJECTS
AND METHODS: We analyzed data from a probability sample of 8,453
Americans age >
or = 30 years at baseline enrolled in the Second National Health and
Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES II), who were followed for mortality
endpoints. We
calculated relative hazard ratios as measures of disease association
comparing
the mortality rates in three biologically relevant SAA categories.
RESULTS:
Participants with normal to high SAA levels had a marginally
significant 21% to
25% decreased risk of fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) (p for trend
= 0.09)
and a 25% to 29% decreased risk of all-cause mortality (p for trend
<0.001)
compared to participants with low levels. Because we determined that
gender
modified the association between SAA levels and cancer death, we
analyzed these
associations stratified by gender. Among men, normal to high SAA
levels were
associated with an approximately 30% decreased risk of cancer deaths,
whereas
such SAA levels were associated with an approximately two-fold
increased risk of
cancer deaths among women. This association among women persisted even
after
adjustment for baseline prevalent cancer and exclusion for early
cancer death or
exclusion for prevalent cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Low SAA levels were
marginally
associated with an increased risk of fatal CVD and significantly
associated with
an increased risk for all-cause mortality. Low SAA levels were also a
risk
factor for cancer death in men, but unexpectedly were associated with
a
decreased risk of cancer death in women. If the association between
low SAA
levels and all-cause mortality is causal, increasing the consumption
of ascorbic
acid, and thereby SAA levels, could decrease the risk of death among
Americans
with low ascorbic acid intakes.
PMID: 11444422