Here is a study that was just published in the British journal Diabetic Medicine in March 20063.
Twenty patients with type II diabetes mellitus participated in a study involving an overnight fast, followed by ingestion of a standard fatty meal in the morning. The study was then repeated in a double-blinded manner with placebo. Half the group received vitamin C 1,000 mg daily for two days prior to retesting with the fatty meal, while the other group received placebo. It was found that those who supplemented with vitamin C had significant improvement in blood flow after the fatty meal compared to the placebo group. The effect lasted for at least eight hours after the fatty meal. It's not uncommon for individuals to suffer heart attacks after a fatty meal because of alterations in blood flow through arteries from effects of lipids in the bloodstream.
Another study that was done a few years ago and was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) had similar results. Here, half of a group of normal individuals received high dose vitamin C (1,000 mg) and E (800 mg) where the other group was given placebo4. All had the equivalent of a heavy saturated fat Mc Donald's breakfast. Those given vitamins C and E had significant improvement in blood flow compared to the group given placebo. In a related article published in the March 2000 edition of Atherosclerosis5, researchers out of Sweden tested forearm blood flow in 12 young, healthy males. These 12 men then received infusion of endothelin-1, which exerts pro-inflammatory effects and contributes to endothelial dysfunction. When endothelin-1 was infused there was clear decrease in blood flow. However, when these same individuals were pre-treated with vitamin C at 24 mg a minute, the vitamin C was able to prevent the decrease in blood flow by the endothelin-1.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
ADHD teens calmed by omega oils
3/28/2006- Supplements of omega-3 and omega-6 oils could improve the behaviour and the attention span of teens with ADHD, say English researchers.The new study supplemented 20 teenagers aged between 12 and 15 with omega-3 fish oils. Over 90 per cent of the teenagers, recruited from Greenfield Community Arts College in Newton Aycliffe, were assessed to have moderate to severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
ADHD is thought to affect between three to seven per cent of children in the UK, with the problem continuing into adulthood for as many as 60 per cent of sufferers. Boys are reported to be three times more likely than girls to suffer from ADHD, according to the National Attention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service (ADDISS).
The main behavioural traits include impulsiveness, inattentiveness and hyperactivity.
After three months of supplementation the teenagers’ inattentiveness fell from an average of 94 at the start of the trial to a mere 17 per cent at the end. Similar impressive results were observed for impulsivity, with an initial rating of 89 per cent falling to 28 per cent after supplementation with omega 3 fatty acids.
Dr Madeleine Portwood, lead researcher and senior educational psychologist for Durham Council, told NutraIngredients.com that teenagers with persistent difficulties who had clinically diagnosed ADHD had specifically been recruited to participate in the trial.
The trial was open and that the participants were aware that they were taking the fish oils. The results are to be published in the book series Nutrition and Health.
The supplement, provided by Equazen Nutraceuticals, was derived from high-EPA marine fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil (GLA). The eyeq capsules formulation contained Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), Docosahexaenioc acid (DHA), GLA, and vitamin E.
Volunteers took six capsules per day, equal to 500 mg of EPA.
The mechanism behind the supplement's effect seems to be specific to the type of omega oil. (EPA) is proposed to function by increasing blood flow in the body. It is also suggested to affect hormones and the immune system, both of which have a direct effect on brain function.
Docosahexaenioc acid (DHA), on the other hand, is involved in the membrane of ion channels in the brain, making it easier for them to change shape and transit electrical signals.
This is not the first report of improvements in behaviour due to fish oil supplements. The work follows similar improvements due to omega-3 supplements for children aged 18 to 30 months, also reported by Portwood and colleagues.
Dr. Portwood also told NutraIngredients.com that further research using fish oils was due to be published in the future. One study involves the use of the supplements on the food intolerance of 80 autistic children, a group linked to increased incidence of food intolerance, as well as the results of the largest mainstream fish oil supplementation trial of 270 children.
Comment: There have been too many studies like this not to pay attention to this if you know anyone with ADD or ADHD. Fish oils contain EPA & DHA. It is particularly the DHA portion of the EPA that has the most profound effect here, and I have found that adding 25 to 50 mgs of Zinc to this natural approach, especially effective.
NSI Omega 3 Fatty Acids
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
ADHD is thought to affect between three to seven per cent of children in the UK, with the problem continuing into adulthood for as many as 60 per cent of sufferers. Boys are reported to be three times more likely than girls to suffer from ADHD, according to the National Attention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service (ADDISS).
The main behavioural traits include impulsiveness, inattentiveness and hyperactivity.
After three months of supplementation the teenagers’ inattentiveness fell from an average of 94 at the start of the trial to a mere 17 per cent at the end. Similar impressive results were observed for impulsivity, with an initial rating of 89 per cent falling to 28 per cent after supplementation with omega 3 fatty acids.
Dr Madeleine Portwood, lead researcher and senior educational psychologist for Durham Council, told NutraIngredients.com that teenagers with persistent difficulties who had clinically diagnosed ADHD had specifically been recruited to participate in the trial.
The trial was open and that the participants were aware that they were taking the fish oils. The results are to be published in the book series Nutrition and Health.
The supplement, provided by Equazen Nutraceuticals, was derived from high-EPA marine fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil (GLA). The eyeq capsules formulation contained Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), Docosahexaenioc acid (DHA), GLA, and vitamin E.
Volunteers took six capsules per day, equal to 500 mg of EPA.
The mechanism behind the supplement's effect seems to be specific to the type of omega oil. (EPA) is proposed to function by increasing blood flow in the body. It is also suggested to affect hormones and the immune system, both of which have a direct effect on brain function.
Docosahexaenioc acid (DHA), on the other hand, is involved in the membrane of ion channels in the brain, making it easier for them to change shape and transit electrical signals.
This is not the first report of improvements in behaviour due to fish oil supplements. The work follows similar improvements due to omega-3 supplements for children aged 18 to 30 months, also reported by Portwood and colleagues.
Dr. Portwood also told NutraIngredients.com that further research using fish oils was due to be published in the future. One study involves the use of the supplements on the food intolerance of 80 autistic children, a group linked to increased incidence of food intolerance, as well as the results of the largest mainstream fish oil supplementation trial of 270 children.
Comment: There have been too many studies like this not to pay attention to this if you know anyone with ADD or ADHD. Fish oils contain EPA & DHA. It is particularly the DHA portion of the EPA that has the most profound effect here, and I have found that adding 25 to 50 mgs of Zinc to this natural approach, especially effective.
NSI Omega 3 Fatty Acids
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Another look at high dose vitamin C cancer therapy
Life Extension Update Exclusive
The March 28, 2006 issue of the Canadian Medical Journal, reported three cases of individuals with terminal cancer who experienced unexpectedly long survival times following the administration of high dose intravenous vitamin C.
Mark Levine and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland examined the details of three advanced cancer cases in accordance with National Cancer Institute Best Case Series guidelines. Patient 1 was a 51 year old woman with metastasized kidney cancer who declined conventional cancer therapy and received 65 grams intravenous vitamin C twice per week for ten months, along with several other nutritional supplements such as N-acetylcysteine and thymus protein extract. Patient 2 was a 49 year old man with advanced bladder cancer who also refused chemotherapy and radiation, and who received 30 grams vitamin C twice weekly for three months, followed by 30 grams every one to two months for four years. Patient 3, a woman with stage III diffuse B-cell lymphoma, underwent 5 weeks of radiation but declined chemotherapy and opted for 15 grams vitamin C two times per week for two months, followed by once per week for seven months, then once every two to three months for one year. Patients 2 and 3 also combined a number of nutritional supplements with their treatment.
Although patient 1 died of smoking-related lung cancer several years after her initial treatment while the kidney cancer was in complete remission, patients 2 and 3 remain in good health with no symptoms of recurrence.
In their introduction to the case studies, the authors suggest that the failure of high dose vitamin C to effectively treat cancer in trials conducted at the Mayo Clinic could have been due to the oral route of administration which can only elevate plasma levels of the vitamin to a maximum of 220 micromoles per liter, while intravenous administration can raise levels as high as 14,000 micromoles per liter. They note that concentrations of 1,000 to 5,000 micromoles per liter have been shown to be selectively toxic to tumor cells in culture studies. Additionally, studies conducted several decades ago by Linus Pauling and Ewan Cameron which used high doses of both oral and intravenous vitamin C reported success against terminal cancer.
Concerning the current case history review, the authors commented that “most previous case reports lacked independent pathologic confirmation of the tumour and did not follow the NCI Best Case Series guidelines, which makes their interpretation difficult.” They conclude, “In light of recent clinical pharmacokinetic findings and in vitro evidence of anti-tumour mechanisms, these case reports indicate that the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed.”
Protocol
Cancer supplements
Although there are hundreds of published studies showing that the ingestion of certain nutrients may reduce cancer risk, relatively few investigate the effects of dietary supplement intake by those already stricken with cancer. This paucity of data has enabled mainstream oncologists to speculate that certain dietary supplements might protect cancer cells from apoptosis (programmed cell death). The assertion made by some oncologists is that there may be a risk when cancer patients take certain dietary supplements.
Abram Hoffer , MD. PhD, contends that the concept of antioxidants decreasing the efficacy of chemotherapy is conveyed more and more by orthodox oncologists. It is, in fact, speculated that the number of oncologists opposed to patients taking antioxidants while receiving chemotherapy may be as high as 75%.
Dr. Hoffer adds that he has treated more than 1100 cancer patients with high doses of vitamin C (most of whom were concurrently receiving chemotherapy) (Hoffer et al. 1993a; Hoffer et al. 1993b; Hoffer 1994; Hoffer 1996). Upon examining health histories, Hoffer found that the mean difference in prolongation of life was heavily in favor of the use of vitamins. In the first Hoffer/Pauling series published, patients on the Hoffer program lived 10-20 times longer than patients not receiving vitamin C.
Critics argue that antioxidant supplements should not be used while treating cancer patients with conventional therapy because they would protect cancer cells against free radicals that are produced by most anticancer agents (Labriola et al. 1999).
One way of approaching this dilemma is to observe the distinct differences of low-dose compared to high-dose antioxidants on cancer cells (Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b). Antioxidants such as vitamin A (and its drug analogs), vitamin E (tocopheryl succinate), vitamin C, and certain carotenoids, when used in high doses individually, have been shown to induce cell differentiation, growth inhibition, and apoptosis in rodent and human cancer cells in vitro and in vivo (Kline et al. 1995; Cole et al. 1997; Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b).
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
The March 28, 2006 issue of the Canadian Medical Journal, reported three cases of individuals with terminal cancer who experienced unexpectedly long survival times following the administration of high dose intravenous vitamin C.
Mark Levine and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland examined the details of three advanced cancer cases in accordance with National Cancer Institute Best Case Series guidelines. Patient 1 was a 51 year old woman with metastasized kidney cancer who declined conventional cancer therapy and received 65 grams intravenous vitamin C twice per week for ten months, along with several other nutritional supplements such as N-acetylcysteine and thymus protein extract. Patient 2 was a 49 year old man with advanced bladder cancer who also refused chemotherapy and radiation, and who received 30 grams vitamin C twice weekly for three months, followed by 30 grams every one to two months for four years. Patient 3, a woman with stage III diffuse B-cell lymphoma, underwent 5 weeks of radiation but declined chemotherapy and opted for 15 grams vitamin C two times per week for two months, followed by once per week for seven months, then once every two to three months for one year. Patients 2 and 3 also combined a number of nutritional supplements with their treatment.
Although patient 1 died of smoking-related lung cancer several years after her initial treatment while the kidney cancer was in complete remission, patients 2 and 3 remain in good health with no symptoms of recurrence.
In their introduction to the case studies, the authors suggest that the failure of high dose vitamin C to effectively treat cancer in trials conducted at the Mayo Clinic could have been due to the oral route of administration which can only elevate plasma levels of the vitamin to a maximum of 220 micromoles per liter, while intravenous administration can raise levels as high as 14,000 micromoles per liter. They note that concentrations of 1,000 to 5,000 micromoles per liter have been shown to be selectively toxic to tumor cells in culture studies. Additionally, studies conducted several decades ago by Linus Pauling and Ewan Cameron which used high doses of both oral and intravenous vitamin C reported success against terminal cancer.
Concerning the current case history review, the authors commented that “most previous case reports lacked independent pathologic confirmation of the tumour and did not follow the NCI Best Case Series guidelines, which makes their interpretation difficult.” They conclude, “In light of recent clinical pharmacokinetic findings and in vitro evidence of anti-tumour mechanisms, these case reports indicate that the role of high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy in cancer treatment should be reassessed.”
Protocol
Cancer supplements
Although there are hundreds of published studies showing that the ingestion of certain nutrients may reduce cancer risk, relatively few investigate the effects of dietary supplement intake by those already stricken with cancer. This paucity of data has enabled mainstream oncologists to speculate that certain dietary supplements might protect cancer cells from apoptosis (programmed cell death). The assertion made by some oncologists is that there may be a risk when cancer patients take certain dietary supplements.
Abram Hoffer , MD. PhD, contends that the concept of antioxidants decreasing the efficacy of chemotherapy is conveyed more and more by orthodox oncologists. It is, in fact, speculated that the number of oncologists opposed to patients taking antioxidants while receiving chemotherapy may be as high as 75%.
Dr. Hoffer adds that he has treated more than 1100 cancer patients with high doses of vitamin C (most of whom were concurrently receiving chemotherapy) (Hoffer et al. 1993a; Hoffer et al. 1993b; Hoffer 1994; Hoffer 1996). Upon examining health histories, Hoffer found that the mean difference in prolongation of life was heavily in favor of the use of vitamins. In the first Hoffer/Pauling series published, patients on the Hoffer program lived 10-20 times longer than patients not receiving vitamin C.
Critics argue that antioxidant supplements should not be used while treating cancer patients with conventional therapy because they would protect cancer cells against free radicals that are produced by most anticancer agents (Labriola et al. 1999).
One way of approaching this dilemma is to observe the distinct differences of low-dose compared to high-dose antioxidants on cancer cells (Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b). Antioxidants such as vitamin A (and its drug analogs), vitamin E (tocopheryl succinate), vitamin C, and certain carotenoids, when used in high doses individually, have been shown to induce cell differentiation, growth inhibition, and apoptosis in rodent and human cancer cells in vitro and in vivo (Kline et al. 1995; Cole et al. 1997; Prasad et al. 1998; 1999b).
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Dietary Supplements Attacked by the Media
by William Faloon - The Life Extension Foundation
The media has launched an assault against healthy lifestyles and some popular dietary supplements. The public has been thrust into a state of confusion by these frenzied media reports that contradict long-established scientific principles.
I am impressed by how quickly Life Extension members picked up on the errors contained in the studies used to ridicule those who practice healthy living.
The outrage over these biased reports was not limited to Life Extension members. The front page of the Wall Street Journal carried a scathing report about how the Federal Government issued misleading press releases that gave the media the green light to discredit alternative approaches to disease treatment. According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Design problems in all the trials means the results don’t really answer the questions they were supposed to address. And a flawed communications effort led to widespread misinterpretation of the results by the news media and the public.” 1
What you are about to read might at first seem unbelievable. Please remember, however, that the studies we describe were conducted by mainstream doctors who know virtually nothing about natural ways to prevent and treat disease.
As you will also find out, many of the doctors who designed and authored these flawed studies received financial compensation from the very pharmaceutical companies that stood to gain the most by deriding low-cost natural approaches to disease prevention.
Media says: Eat all the fat you want.
Does eating a low-fat diet reduce the risk of contracting common diseases? The media answered this question by boldly proclaiming that there is no benefit to women eating a low fat diet. According a lead article in the Washington Post:
“Low-fat diets do not protect women against heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer or colon cancer.” 2
The study that this headline story was based on, however, failed to differentiate between health-promoting fats (such as monounsaturated and omega-3 fats) and lethal trans fats. 3-5 It was long ago established that over-consumption of trans fats is related to atherosclerosis, cancer, and chronic inflammation. 6-12 Furthermore, there was no attempt to measure the balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Most Western diets contain an abundance of omega-6 fatty acids (e.g., corn, safflower oils) and completely inadequate levels of omega-3 fatty acids (such as fish oil, flaxseed, and walnut oils).
The “excuse” some researchers gave when confronted with these flaws was that when the low-fat studies were designed, doctors did not know the difference between friendly and deadly fats. The facts are that when these studies were designed, there was an abundance of published scientific data to show that friendly fats like olive oil 13-35, flax oil 36-43, and fish oil 44-57 conferred life-saving benefits while trans fats were proven killers.
Researchers also were unable to rigorously monitor whether or not the participants actually followed low-fat diets. Food-intake questionnaires were used, which are notoriously unreliable indicators of food intake.
In what is perhaps the most outrageous defect in these studies, only 1 in 7 women actually achieved the low-fat diet threshold! Specifically, only 14.4% of the “low-fat” group really followed a low-fat diet. Furthermore, the average reduction in total fat intake in the “low-fat group” was only 8.2% (with just a 2.9% decrease in saturated fat intake). Assuming that this paltry 8.2% figure is accurate (i.e., that the food questionnaires were completely accurate), this number does not come close to the percentage of fat-calorie reduction other studies have shown is needed to reduce disease risk.
These flaws rendered this multimillion-dollar low-fat diet study worthless. This did not stop major newspapers, however, from featuring articles on their front pages stating that reduced-fat diets provide no health benefits.
Media says: calcium does not protect bones
One of the most controversial media stories dealt with a study that supposedly showed that women who took calcium and vitamin D supplements did not obtain any protection against hip fracture. 58
We at Life Extension initially thought this negative finding was because the active group was not given magnesium, zinc, manganese, and other nutrients that are essential to maintaining optimal bone density.
When we got our hands on the study itself, we were startled to find that the women in the study who actually took their calcium and vitamin D supplements suffered 29% fewer hip fractures. 58 This was contrary to what the headlines said. It turned out that the media believed the government’s negative press release and obviously did not read the actual scientific study.
Many study subjects failed to take their calcium-vitamin D supplements
In this study to evaluate the efficacy of calcium and vitamin D compared to placebo, it was startling to learn that many women in the active arm did not take their calcium-vitamin D supplements! According to the study report, about 40% of the women assigned to take calcium and vitamin D did not achieve a standard rate of compliance with their supplements!
When the entire study was tallied, the women in each group (active and placebo) officially remained in their respective group, whether or not they actually followed the study protocol. This meant that women in the active group (the one given the calcium-vitamin D supplements) were counted as having taken the calcium-vitamin D, whether they really took the supplement or not. According to the scientists who conducted this study:
“Participants were followed for major outcomes, regardless of their adherence to the study medication…” 58
The “study medication” mentioned above is the calcium-vitamin D supplement. The fact that a study could be published in a medical journal “regardless” of whether the participants actually took the active ingredient defies logic. The application of common sense would invalidate the findings of this study, regardless of what statisticians might argue.
Placebo group allowed to take calcium and vitamin D
Further confounding the study results were previously unheard-of rules that allowed the placebo group to take multi-vitamin, calcium, and vitamin D supplements on their own if they wanted. It turned out that many in the placebo group were taking calcium and vitamin D. According to the study design, since they were part of the placebo arm, they were officially not taking calcium-vitamin D supplements, even though many of them were indeed taking calcium-vitamin D.
The fact that the placebo group was freely allowed to take multivitamins, calcium and vitamin D meant that many of the placebo participants may have consumed more bone-protecting nutrients (including boron, magnesium, zinc, and manganese) than the active group (who were supposed to be taking only calcium and vitamin D). By failing to separate who was really taking bone-protecting supplements, it was impossible draw a scientific conclusion, yet the media boldly asserted that there was no difference in the hip fracture rate in the group assigned the calcium-vitamin D supplements (many of whom were not taking their supplements) as compared to the placebo group (many who were consuming calcium, vitamin D, and other bone-protecting supplements).
Bone building hormones and drugs also permitted:
Not only was the placebo group allowed to take their own calcium, vitamin D, and other bone-maintenance supplements, but both groups were also allowed to take drugs (bisphosphonates and calcitonin) and hormone therapies that are known to prevent bone loss and restore bone density. In this study that the Federal government spent over $10 million funding, virtually anything was allowed.
Media grossly misleads public:
While the study itself was badly flawed, the media distortion of the findings is nothing short of abominable. Front-page news stories declared calcium-vitamin D supplements had been proven worthless, yet the actual study stated:
“Women receiving calcium with vitamin D supplements had greater preservation of total-hip bone mineral density… 58
“Among women who were adherent (i.e., those who took at least 80 percent of the study medication), calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a 29 percent reduction in hip fracture… 58
“The effect of calcium with vitamin D might require higher doses of vitamin D than were used… 58
“It is also plausible that there was a benefit only among the women who adhered to the study treatment.” 58
As you will read in the June 2006 issue of Life Extension magazine, there are even more serious flaws in this calcium-vitamin D study than what I just described, but it is safe to state that this may have been one of the most poorly designed studies in the history of modern medicine. This did not stop the media from turning it into one of the main headline news stories of the day.
Millions of American women will discard their calcium and vitamin D supplements based on these false and misleading headlines. This is great news for pharmaceutical companies that sell expensive drugs to treat osteoporosis.
Biased attack on glucosamine:
The next victim of the media’s witch hunt was glucosamine, which was one of several agents tested as a treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee.
The media’s deceptive stories were based on a study of people with mild to severe knee pain who were given a form of glucosamine not normally found in dietary supplements. Some participants received this form of glucosamine by itself, while others were given chondroitin sulfate by itself, a combination of glucosamine and chondroitin, or the drug Celebrex®.
The results of this study were encouraging, but the media distorted the findings in a way that made it appear that glucosamine-chondroitin supplements were of little value. A number of media outlets proclaimed that arthritis sufferers were wasting their money by taking glucosamine. While this made compelling headlines, it did not accurately convey what was written in the actual study.
The findings from the actual scientific study made it clear that glucosamine and chondroitin taken together were effective in those with moderate to severe arthritis of the knees. 59
Media may not have read glucosamine study:
The media appears to have relied on a biased editorial that accompanied the actual scientific report on glucosamine. For instance, the New York Times said the following about this arthritis study:
“No effect was found for glucosamine, chondroitin, or the combination of both.” 60
Yet on page 804 of the study (which was published in New England Journal of Medicine, the following was stated about patients with moderate to severe arthritis of the knee who took glucosamine-chondroitin therapy:
“…combined treatment was significantly more effective than placebo” 59
The actual study went on to say that in those with moderate to severe arthritis, the combination of glucosamine-chondroitin resulted in a 24.9% to 26.4% improvement in pain relief. This result exceeded the 20% response to treatment measurement that the scientists themselves stated would prove efficacy. 59
As far as reversing the structural damage inflicted to the knee by osteoarthritis, the scientists stated:
“Treatment with chondroitin sulfate was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of joint swelling, effusion, or both.” 59
In their concluding remarks, the scientists stated:
“Our finding that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may have some efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe pain is interesting, but must be confirmed by another trial.” 59
As anyone who understands the English language can read, even this different form of glucosamine, when combined with chondroitin sulfate, demonstrated efficacy in patients most in need, i.e., those with moderate-to-severe pain! The media overlooked these clearly written findings in their haste to viciously attack glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplements.
Comment: Please don't believe what the media tells you about nutritional studies on face value.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
The media has launched an assault against healthy lifestyles and some popular dietary supplements. The public has been thrust into a state of confusion by these frenzied media reports that contradict long-established scientific principles.
I am impressed by how quickly Life Extension members picked up on the errors contained in the studies used to ridicule those who practice healthy living.
The outrage over these biased reports was not limited to Life Extension members. The front page of the Wall Street Journal carried a scathing report about how the Federal Government issued misleading press releases that gave the media the green light to discredit alternative approaches to disease treatment. According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Design problems in all the trials means the results don’t really answer the questions they were supposed to address. And a flawed communications effort led to widespread misinterpretation of the results by the news media and the public.” 1
What you are about to read might at first seem unbelievable. Please remember, however, that the studies we describe were conducted by mainstream doctors who know virtually nothing about natural ways to prevent and treat disease.
As you will also find out, many of the doctors who designed and authored these flawed studies received financial compensation from the very pharmaceutical companies that stood to gain the most by deriding low-cost natural approaches to disease prevention.
Media says: Eat all the fat you want.
Does eating a low-fat diet reduce the risk of contracting common diseases? The media answered this question by boldly proclaiming that there is no benefit to women eating a low fat diet. According a lead article in the Washington Post:
“Low-fat diets do not protect women against heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer or colon cancer.” 2
The study that this headline story was based on, however, failed to differentiate between health-promoting fats (such as monounsaturated and omega-3 fats) and lethal trans fats. 3-5 It was long ago established that over-consumption of trans fats is related to atherosclerosis, cancer, and chronic inflammation. 6-12 Furthermore, there was no attempt to measure the balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Most Western diets contain an abundance of omega-6 fatty acids (e.g., corn, safflower oils) and completely inadequate levels of omega-3 fatty acids (such as fish oil, flaxseed, and walnut oils).
The “excuse” some researchers gave when confronted with these flaws was that when the low-fat studies were designed, doctors did not know the difference between friendly and deadly fats. The facts are that when these studies were designed, there was an abundance of published scientific data to show that friendly fats like olive oil 13-35, flax oil 36-43, and fish oil 44-57 conferred life-saving benefits while trans fats were proven killers.
Researchers also were unable to rigorously monitor whether or not the participants actually followed low-fat diets. Food-intake questionnaires were used, which are notoriously unreliable indicators of food intake.
In what is perhaps the most outrageous defect in these studies, only 1 in 7 women actually achieved the low-fat diet threshold! Specifically, only 14.4% of the “low-fat” group really followed a low-fat diet. Furthermore, the average reduction in total fat intake in the “low-fat group” was only 8.2% (with just a 2.9% decrease in saturated fat intake). Assuming that this paltry 8.2% figure is accurate (i.e., that the food questionnaires were completely accurate), this number does not come close to the percentage of fat-calorie reduction other studies have shown is needed to reduce disease risk.
These flaws rendered this multimillion-dollar low-fat diet study worthless. This did not stop major newspapers, however, from featuring articles on their front pages stating that reduced-fat diets provide no health benefits.
Media says: calcium does not protect bones
One of the most controversial media stories dealt with a study that supposedly showed that women who took calcium and vitamin D supplements did not obtain any protection against hip fracture. 58
We at Life Extension initially thought this negative finding was because the active group was not given magnesium, zinc, manganese, and other nutrients that are essential to maintaining optimal bone density.
When we got our hands on the study itself, we were startled to find that the women in the study who actually took their calcium and vitamin D supplements suffered 29% fewer hip fractures. 58 This was contrary to what the headlines said. It turned out that the media believed the government’s negative press release and obviously did not read the actual scientific study.
Many study subjects failed to take their calcium-vitamin D supplements
In this study to evaluate the efficacy of calcium and vitamin D compared to placebo, it was startling to learn that many women in the active arm did not take their calcium-vitamin D supplements! According to the study report, about 40% of the women assigned to take calcium and vitamin D did not achieve a standard rate of compliance with their supplements!
When the entire study was tallied, the women in each group (active and placebo) officially remained in their respective group, whether or not they actually followed the study protocol. This meant that women in the active group (the one given the calcium-vitamin D supplements) were counted as having taken the calcium-vitamin D, whether they really took the supplement or not. According to the scientists who conducted this study:
“Participants were followed for major outcomes, regardless of their adherence to the study medication…” 58
The “study medication” mentioned above is the calcium-vitamin D supplement. The fact that a study could be published in a medical journal “regardless” of whether the participants actually took the active ingredient defies logic. The application of common sense would invalidate the findings of this study, regardless of what statisticians might argue.
Placebo group allowed to take calcium and vitamin D
Further confounding the study results were previously unheard-of rules that allowed the placebo group to take multi-vitamin, calcium, and vitamin D supplements on their own if they wanted. It turned out that many in the placebo group were taking calcium and vitamin D. According to the study design, since they were part of the placebo arm, they were officially not taking calcium-vitamin D supplements, even though many of them were indeed taking calcium-vitamin D.
The fact that the placebo group was freely allowed to take multivitamins, calcium and vitamin D meant that many of the placebo participants may have consumed more bone-protecting nutrients (including boron, magnesium, zinc, and manganese) than the active group (who were supposed to be taking only calcium and vitamin D). By failing to separate who was really taking bone-protecting supplements, it was impossible draw a scientific conclusion, yet the media boldly asserted that there was no difference in the hip fracture rate in the group assigned the calcium-vitamin D supplements (many of whom were not taking their supplements) as compared to the placebo group (many who were consuming calcium, vitamin D, and other bone-protecting supplements).
Bone building hormones and drugs also permitted:
Not only was the placebo group allowed to take their own calcium, vitamin D, and other bone-maintenance supplements, but both groups were also allowed to take drugs (bisphosphonates and calcitonin) and hormone therapies that are known to prevent bone loss and restore bone density. In this study that the Federal government spent over $10 million funding, virtually anything was allowed.
Media grossly misleads public:
While the study itself was badly flawed, the media distortion of the findings is nothing short of abominable. Front-page news stories declared calcium-vitamin D supplements had been proven worthless, yet the actual study stated:
“Women receiving calcium with vitamin D supplements had greater preservation of total-hip bone mineral density… 58
“Among women who were adherent (i.e., those who took at least 80 percent of the study medication), calcium with vitamin D supplementation resulted in a 29 percent reduction in hip fracture… 58
“The effect of calcium with vitamin D might require higher doses of vitamin D than were used… 58
“It is also plausible that there was a benefit only among the women who adhered to the study treatment.” 58
As you will read in the June 2006 issue of Life Extension magazine, there are even more serious flaws in this calcium-vitamin D study than what I just described, but it is safe to state that this may have been one of the most poorly designed studies in the history of modern medicine. This did not stop the media from turning it into one of the main headline news stories of the day.
Millions of American women will discard their calcium and vitamin D supplements based on these false and misleading headlines. This is great news for pharmaceutical companies that sell expensive drugs to treat osteoporosis.
Biased attack on glucosamine:
The next victim of the media’s witch hunt was glucosamine, which was one of several agents tested as a treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee.
The media’s deceptive stories were based on a study of people with mild to severe knee pain who were given a form of glucosamine not normally found in dietary supplements. Some participants received this form of glucosamine by itself, while others were given chondroitin sulfate by itself, a combination of glucosamine and chondroitin, or the drug Celebrex®.
The results of this study were encouraging, but the media distorted the findings in a way that made it appear that glucosamine-chondroitin supplements were of little value. A number of media outlets proclaimed that arthritis sufferers were wasting their money by taking glucosamine. While this made compelling headlines, it did not accurately convey what was written in the actual study.
The findings from the actual scientific study made it clear that glucosamine and chondroitin taken together were effective in those with moderate to severe arthritis of the knees. 59
Media may not have read glucosamine study:
The media appears to have relied on a biased editorial that accompanied the actual scientific report on glucosamine. For instance, the New York Times said the following about this arthritis study:
“No effect was found for glucosamine, chondroitin, or the combination of both.” 60
Yet on page 804 of the study (which was published in New England Journal of Medicine, the following was stated about patients with moderate to severe arthritis of the knee who took glucosamine-chondroitin therapy:
“…combined treatment was significantly more effective than placebo” 59
The actual study went on to say that in those with moderate to severe arthritis, the combination of glucosamine-chondroitin resulted in a 24.9% to 26.4% improvement in pain relief. This result exceeded the 20% response to treatment measurement that the scientists themselves stated would prove efficacy. 59
As far as reversing the structural damage inflicted to the knee by osteoarthritis, the scientists stated:
“Treatment with chondroitin sulfate was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of joint swelling, effusion, or both.” 59
In their concluding remarks, the scientists stated:
“Our finding that the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may have some efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe pain is interesting, but must be confirmed by another trial.” 59
As anyone who understands the English language can read, even this different form of glucosamine, when combined with chondroitin sulfate, demonstrated efficacy in patients most in need, i.e., those with moderate-to-severe pain! The media overlooked these clearly written findings in their haste to viciously attack glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplements.
Comment: Please don't believe what the media tells you about nutritional studies on face value.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
No hope in a bottle? Are supplements worthless or even harmful?
Supplements lose luster after studies question claims...
By Fran Kritz
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 4:56 p.m. ET March 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - If you’ve ever suspected those cure-all claims for dietary supplements were too good to be true, you’re in some pretty good company.
Two recent studies appearing in the highly-respected New England Journal of Medicine punctured the promises of some of the most popular pills found on drug-store shelves.
Turns out calcium isn't much help for preventing broken bones as we grow older. And glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, top-sellers for the aches and pains of osteoarthritis, hardly make a difference.
Vitamins C and E fared even poorer as preventives against prostate cancer in a study last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. It found no reduction of risk whatsoever, except perhaps in some smokers.
"People have been seeing supplements as all they needed to do to avoid disease,’" says Dr. Meir Stampfer, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "These studies provide a wake-up call to say, no, you need to do more than that.’’
Could the $5 billion dietary supplement industry finally be losing its luster?
Andrew Vickers, Ph.D., a research methodologist in the Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, say the recent spate of studies -- including one last year that showed echinacea didn't fight the common cold after all -- doesn't signal a downward plummet. Instead, it's a more accurate reflection of the more limited benefits many supplements offer.
"Small trials, which many supplements have gone through, often show a great deal of benefit,’’ says Vickers. "It’s only when you greatly increase the size of the population studied that you are able to see a more accurate picture, which is what we’re seeing now.’’
For example, just over 36,000 women, ages 50 to 79, were enrolled in the calcium study, a large number for a clinical trial. Half the participants were given placebos, the others received 1,000 mg of calcium and 400 iu of vitamin D, just slightly less than the National Osteoporosis Foundation's guidelines of 1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 iu of vitamin D for women over 50.
'If it works for me...'Clear benefit was seen only for women over 60; hip fractures in that group were reduced by 21 percent. But overall, women in the supplement group did not have fewer fractures than women who took the placebo.
And in the 30,000-strong osteoarthritis study, patients with mild joint pain saw no improvement by using glucosamine and chondroitin, though there was some relief for people with more severe pain.
Even industry members think the studies may lead to a recalibration of an over-hyped industry. "Marketers tended to go overboard with their claims -- so instead of suggesting support for a particular area of health, many implied curative effects,’’ says Shawn Talbott, editor of an industry Web site, SupplementWatch. "When supplements are actually studied for those curative effects ... they do not always fare so well,’’ Talbott says
Rather than push consumers away, experts hope the studies will relegate supplements to a complementary role, amid a host of other healthy efforts.
The National Osteoporosis Foundation posted a notice on its Web site saying the latest findings would not change the group’s calcium and vitamin D recommendations but reminded women that bone health also requires other steps such as weight-bearing exercise.
Dr. Mary Jo DiMilia, an integrative medicine physician at Mount Sinai Medical Center, says none of her patients have asked about foregoing calcium, and she’s not giving up the glucosamine she’s relied on to relieve arthritis pain for the last two years. "If it works for me,’’ asks DiMilia, "why should it matter that the study didn’t find benefit for all patients?"
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Comment: There will be lots of these stories in Months to come. Supplement companies and drug companies are at war, and you need to make a choice. If you have followed the news over the last few years, you have seen many drugs found to be dangerous and even potentially fatal. Supplements on the other hand are very safe, but do they work, or are they just creating expensive urine. The example of Glucosamine is a great one. Some studies show it works and some show it does not. The truth is very simple. Glucosamine works, but it is dose dependent. Depending on your weight, you have to consume enough to make a biochemical difference, it's that simple. Take too little, it has little effect, take enough and it is very effective. I have been studying supplements for over 27 years. If I didn't find that they worked, I would have stopped recommending and using them along time ago.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
By Fran Kritz
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 4:56 p.m. ET March 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - If you’ve ever suspected those cure-all claims for dietary supplements were too good to be true, you’re in some pretty good company.
Two recent studies appearing in the highly-respected New England Journal of Medicine punctured the promises of some of the most popular pills found on drug-store shelves.
Turns out calcium isn't much help for preventing broken bones as we grow older. And glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, top-sellers for the aches and pains of osteoarthritis, hardly make a difference.
Vitamins C and E fared even poorer as preventives against prostate cancer in a study last week in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. It found no reduction of risk whatsoever, except perhaps in some smokers.
"People have been seeing supplements as all they needed to do to avoid disease,’" says Dr. Meir Stampfer, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "These studies provide a wake-up call to say, no, you need to do more than that.’’
Could the $5 billion dietary supplement industry finally be losing its luster?
Andrew Vickers, Ph.D., a research methodologist in the Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, say the recent spate of studies -- including one last year that showed echinacea didn't fight the common cold after all -- doesn't signal a downward plummet. Instead, it's a more accurate reflection of the more limited benefits many supplements offer.
"Small trials, which many supplements have gone through, often show a great deal of benefit,’’ says Vickers. "It’s only when you greatly increase the size of the population studied that you are able to see a more accurate picture, which is what we’re seeing now.’’
For example, just over 36,000 women, ages 50 to 79, were enrolled in the calcium study, a large number for a clinical trial. Half the participants were given placebos, the others received 1,000 mg of calcium and 400 iu of vitamin D, just slightly less than the National Osteoporosis Foundation's guidelines of 1,200 mg of calcium and 400-800 iu of vitamin D for women over 50.
'If it works for me...'Clear benefit was seen only for women over 60; hip fractures in that group were reduced by 21 percent. But overall, women in the supplement group did not have fewer fractures than women who took the placebo.
And in the 30,000-strong osteoarthritis study, patients with mild joint pain saw no improvement by using glucosamine and chondroitin, though there was some relief for people with more severe pain.
Even industry members think the studies may lead to a recalibration of an over-hyped industry. "Marketers tended to go overboard with their claims -- so instead of suggesting support for a particular area of health, many implied curative effects,’’ says Shawn Talbott, editor of an industry Web site, SupplementWatch. "When supplements are actually studied for those curative effects ... they do not always fare so well,’’ Talbott says
Rather than push consumers away, experts hope the studies will relegate supplements to a complementary role, amid a host of other healthy efforts.
The National Osteoporosis Foundation posted a notice on its Web site saying the latest findings would not change the group’s calcium and vitamin D recommendations but reminded women that bone health also requires other steps such as weight-bearing exercise.
Dr. Mary Jo DiMilia, an integrative medicine physician at Mount Sinai Medical Center, says none of her patients have asked about foregoing calcium, and she’s not giving up the glucosamine she’s relied on to relieve arthritis pain for the last two years. "If it works for me,’’ asks DiMilia, "why should it matter that the study didn’t find benefit for all patients?"
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Comment: There will be lots of these stories in Months to come. Supplement companies and drug companies are at war, and you need to make a choice. If you have followed the news over the last few years, you have seen many drugs found to be dangerous and even potentially fatal. Supplements on the other hand are very safe, but do they work, or are they just creating expensive urine. The example of Glucosamine is a great one. Some studies show it works and some show it does not. The truth is very simple. Glucosamine works, but it is dose dependent. Depending on your weight, you have to consume enough to make a biochemical difference, it's that simple. Take too little, it has little effect, take enough and it is very effective. I have been studying supplements for over 27 years. If I didn't find that they worked, I would have stopped recommending and using them along time ago.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Scientist concerned at plummeting nutrient levels ...
People sometimes ask me why we need to supplement and doctors often tell you that you can get everything you need from food. Here is why that is not correct...
3/15/2006- Nutrient levels in fruits, vegetables and some food crops have dramatically declined in the past 50 years, something that could further push consumers to opting for more nutritious organic goods.
The primary reason for the decline in nutrient content and quality of several foods is the way the food is grown, processed and prepared, according to Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas.
“High-yield crops grow bigger or faster, but are not necessarily able to make or uptake sufficient nutrients to maintain their nutritional value,” said Davis at a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in St Louis.
Recent studies of vegetables, fruits and wheat have revealed a 5 to 35 percent decline in concentrations of some vitamins, minerals and protein over the last half-century, a phenomenon that has come to be known as ‘the dilution effect.’
And according to Davis, an important research goal would now be to find ways to maintain yield levels while reversing dilution effects.
Other changes in agriculture during the last 50 years include the widespread use of pesticides, plant growth regulators, and highly soluble sources of plant nutrients, along with decreased use of humus-containing fertilizers.
Recent studies, which have tested the effects on antioxidant levels of reversing these changes, have revealed that several organic growing methods can increase the broad antioxidant content of produce.
“On average, antioxidant levels increased by about 30 percent in carefully designed comparative trials,” said Davis. “Organically grown produce offers significantly enhanced health-promoting qualities, contributing to the achievement of important national public health goals.”
But fruits and vegetables are not the only products becoming less nutritious. Dr David Thomas, a primary healthcare practitioner and independent researcher recently made a comparison of government nutritional tables published in the UK in 1940, and again in 2002. His findings, which were published by the Food Commission last month, certainly make for alarming reading.
For example, the iron content in 15 different varieties of meat had decreased on average by 47 percent, with some products showing a fall as high as 80 per cent, while the iron content of milk had dropped by over 60 per cent.
Copper and magnesium, essential for enzyme functioning, also showed losses in meat products. Magnesium levels have typically fallen by 10 per cent while copper levels have fallen by 60 per cent.
Thomas argues that the gradual degradation of the micronutrient value of food must be tackled by industry, consumers and regulators.
And perhaps the most immediate way to overcome this deficiency is through the use of functional food ingredients.
Indeed, the market for functional food has soared in recent years, on the back of a growth in demand for vitamin-fortified, heart-healthy and organic food. Increasingly, companies are developing healthier products and using health messages in their marketing campaigns.
The recent AAAS symposium highlighted how consumers need to select foods naturally high in antioxidants and vitamins, and learn how to prepare and store them in ways that retain antioxidants.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
3/15/2006- Nutrient levels in fruits, vegetables and some food crops have dramatically declined in the past 50 years, something that could further push consumers to opting for more nutritious organic goods.
The primary reason for the decline in nutrient content and quality of several foods is the way the food is grown, processed and prepared, according to Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas.
“High-yield crops grow bigger or faster, but are not necessarily able to make or uptake sufficient nutrients to maintain their nutritional value,” said Davis at a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in St Louis.
Recent studies of vegetables, fruits and wheat have revealed a 5 to 35 percent decline in concentrations of some vitamins, minerals and protein over the last half-century, a phenomenon that has come to be known as ‘the dilution effect.’
And according to Davis, an important research goal would now be to find ways to maintain yield levels while reversing dilution effects.
Other changes in agriculture during the last 50 years include the widespread use of pesticides, plant growth regulators, and highly soluble sources of plant nutrients, along with decreased use of humus-containing fertilizers.
Recent studies, which have tested the effects on antioxidant levels of reversing these changes, have revealed that several organic growing methods can increase the broad antioxidant content of produce.
“On average, antioxidant levels increased by about 30 percent in carefully designed comparative trials,” said Davis. “Organically grown produce offers significantly enhanced health-promoting qualities, contributing to the achievement of important national public health goals.”
But fruits and vegetables are not the only products becoming less nutritious. Dr David Thomas, a primary healthcare practitioner and independent researcher recently made a comparison of government nutritional tables published in the UK in 1940, and again in 2002. His findings, which were published by the Food Commission last month, certainly make for alarming reading.
For example, the iron content in 15 different varieties of meat had decreased on average by 47 percent, with some products showing a fall as high as 80 per cent, while the iron content of milk had dropped by over 60 per cent.
Copper and magnesium, essential for enzyme functioning, also showed losses in meat products. Magnesium levels have typically fallen by 10 per cent while copper levels have fallen by 60 per cent.
Thomas argues that the gradual degradation of the micronutrient value of food must be tackled by industry, consumers and regulators.
And perhaps the most immediate way to overcome this deficiency is through the use of functional food ingredients.
Indeed, the market for functional food has soared in recent years, on the back of a growth in demand for vitamin-fortified, heart-healthy and organic food. Increasingly, companies are developing healthier products and using health messages in their marketing campaigns.
The recent AAAS symposium highlighted how consumers need to select foods naturally high in antioxidants and vitamins, and learn how to prepare and store them in ways that retain antioxidants.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Supplements that fight periodontal disease...
Life Extension Update Exclusive
The 35th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Dental Research held in Orlando, Florida this year was the site of a presentation on March 10 by researchers from Laval University in Quebec on the finding that polyphenols, which are antioxidant compounds found in red wine, grape seeds, cranberries and other plant foods, can help prevent and treat periodontitis. Periodontitis is an infectious, inflammatory disease of the gums and bone surrounding the teeth that can lead to loose teeth and tooth loss. Approximately 65 percent of adults over the age of 50 are affected by the disease.
Laval researchers V. Houde, D. Grenier and S. Chandad investigated the effect of polyphenols, including some from red wine, on scavenging free radicals generated by immune cells stimulated with lipopolysaccharides from the bacteria that cause periodontal disease. These free radicals, along with nitric oxide, may be involved in tissue and bone destruction.
They found that macrophages treated with bacterial lipopolysaccharides generated a significant amount of nitric oxide and free radicals compared to untreated cells. Pretreatment with polyphenols from grape seed extract reduced nitric oxide by 60 percent and free radicals by 40 percent. Treatment with the polyphenol epigallocatechin 3-gallate (EGCG, which is abundant in green tea) inhibited nitric oxide by 37% and free radicals by 44%.
Doctors Grenier and Chandad collaborated with C. Bodet on another study published in the March, 2006 issue of the Journal of Dental Research which found that cranberry constituents helped inhibit the inflammatory response induced by periodontal disease bacteria.
In their abstract summarizing the current study, the authors conclude, “ Our findings demonstrate that red wine polyphenols have potent antioxidant properties, supporting the hypothesis of beneficial effects of red wine in oxidative stress mediated by periodontogenic bacteria.”
Protocol
Periodontitis and cavities:
Periodontal diseases, including gingivitis and periodontitis, are inflammatory diseases that affect the supporting structures that anchor the teeth in place (periodontium). Gingivitis and periodontitis are related conditions: if left untreated, gingivitis, or inflammation of the gingival tissue (gums), can progress to periodontitis, a more serious condition. Gingivitis is a treatable and reversible condition, while periodontitis is an irreversible condition that can lead to tooth loss.
Avoid behaviors that contribute to gum disease and tooth decay, especially tobacco use and consumption of refined sugar. Instead, focus on consuming a diet rich in fruits and vegetables that provide important phytochemicals and nutrients. In addition, patients with gum disease and existing heart disease should monitor their levels of inflammation. C-reactive protein and homocysteine are both indicators of inflammation, which can be determined by blood test.
In addition, a number of nutrients have been shown to improve oral health, including:
Coenzyme Q10 —100 milligrams (mg) daily
Folic acid —400 micrograms (mcg) to 800 mcg daily
Green tea extract —725 mg daily (93 percent polyphenols)
Vitamin C —2 to 4 grams (g) a day (taken as 500 mg every few hours)
Calcium —1200 mg to 1500 mg daily
Vitamin D —800 mg to 1000 mg daily
Omega-3 fatty acids —Up to 3000 mg daily of EPA/DHA
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
The 35th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Dental Research held in Orlando, Florida this year was the site of a presentation on March 10 by researchers from Laval University in Quebec on the finding that polyphenols, which are antioxidant compounds found in red wine, grape seeds, cranberries and other plant foods, can help prevent and treat periodontitis. Periodontitis is an infectious, inflammatory disease of the gums and bone surrounding the teeth that can lead to loose teeth and tooth loss. Approximately 65 percent of adults over the age of 50 are affected by the disease.
Laval researchers V. Houde, D. Grenier and S. Chandad investigated the effect of polyphenols, including some from red wine, on scavenging free radicals generated by immune cells stimulated with lipopolysaccharides from the bacteria that cause periodontal disease. These free radicals, along with nitric oxide, may be involved in tissue and bone destruction.
They found that macrophages treated with bacterial lipopolysaccharides generated a significant amount of nitric oxide and free radicals compared to untreated cells. Pretreatment with polyphenols from grape seed extract reduced nitric oxide by 60 percent and free radicals by 40 percent. Treatment with the polyphenol epigallocatechin 3-gallate (EGCG, which is abundant in green tea) inhibited nitric oxide by 37% and free radicals by 44%.
Doctors Grenier and Chandad collaborated with C. Bodet on another study published in the March, 2006 issue of the Journal of Dental Research which found that cranberry constituents helped inhibit the inflammatory response induced by periodontal disease bacteria.
In their abstract summarizing the current study, the authors conclude, “ Our findings demonstrate that red wine polyphenols have potent antioxidant properties, supporting the hypothesis of beneficial effects of red wine in oxidative stress mediated by periodontogenic bacteria.”
Protocol
Periodontitis and cavities:
Periodontal diseases, including gingivitis and periodontitis, are inflammatory diseases that affect the supporting structures that anchor the teeth in place (periodontium). Gingivitis and periodontitis are related conditions: if left untreated, gingivitis, or inflammation of the gingival tissue (gums), can progress to periodontitis, a more serious condition. Gingivitis is a treatable and reversible condition, while periodontitis is an irreversible condition that can lead to tooth loss.
Avoid behaviors that contribute to gum disease and tooth decay, especially tobacco use and consumption of refined sugar. Instead, focus on consuming a diet rich in fruits and vegetables that provide important phytochemicals and nutrients. In addition, patients with gum disease and existing heart disease should monitor their levels of inflammation. C-reactive protein and homocysteine are both indicators of inflammation, which can be determined by blood test.
In addition, a number of nutrients have been shown to improve oral health, including:
Coenzyme Q10 —100 milligrams (mg) daily
Folic acid —400 micrograms (mcg) to 800 mcg daily
Green tea extract —725 mg daily (93 percent polyphenols)
Vitamin C —2 to 4 grams (g) a day (taken as 500 mg every few hours)
Calcium —1200 mg to 1500 mg daily
Vitamin D —800 mg to 1000 mg daily
Omega-3 fatty acids —Up to 3000 mg daily of EPA/DHA
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Monday, March 13, 2006
Cholesterol Drug Reverses Heart Disease
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical WriterMon Mar 13, 11:11 AM ET
People in a new study got their "bad cholesterol" to the lowest levels ever seen and saw blockages in their blood vessels shrink by taking a high dose of cholesterol drug, researchers reported Monday.
Doctors say it is the best evidence yet that heart disease actually can be reversed, not just kept from getting worse.
Two-thirds of the 349 study participants had regression of heart artery buildups when they took the maximum dose of Crestor, the strongest of the cholesterol-lowering statin drugs on the market and one under fire by a consumer group that contends it has more side effects than its competitors.
It's too soon to tell whether this shrinkage of artery blockages will result in fewer heart attacks, but doctors were excited by the possibility.
"The holy grail has always been to try to reverse the disease," and this shows a way to do that, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who led the research and reported results at the American College of Cardiology meeting.
The study was paid for by AstraZeneca PLC, the maker of Crestor, a drug that a consumer group has been lobbying to have pulled from the market. Some reports have linked Crestor to higher rates of serious muscle problems and kidney damage, especially among Asians.
The Food and Drug Administration last year refused to order the drug off the market but required a warning of the side effects on its label.
In the study, Crestor got people's LDL or "bad cholesterol" levels to around 60 milligrams per deciliter of blood, down from roughly 130 at the start of the experiment. HDL or "good cholesterol" levels rose modestly, from 43 to 49.
"The body needs about 40 LDL, so we're getting pretty close to what the body needs for general repair," said Dr. Christopher O'Connor, a Duke University cardiologist who had no role in the study.
Study results were released Monday by the Journal of the American Medical Association, which will publish it in its April 5 edition.
___
Comment: It might be true that Crestor can reverse HD, but there are side effects:
More common
Body aches or pain ; congestion; cough; dryness or soreness of throat ; headache; hoarseness; runny nose; tender, swollen glands in neck; trouble in swallowing; voice changes
Less common
Accidental injury; accumulation of pus, swollen, red, tender area of infection near a tooth; acid or sour stomach; arm, back or jaw pain; arthritis; back pain; belching; bladder pain; bloated; bloody or cloudy urine; blurred vision; bruising; burning, crawling, itching, numbness, prickling, "pins and needles" , or tingling feelings; burning feeling in chest or stomach; chest pain or discomfort; chest tightness or heaviness; chills; constipation ; depression; diarrhea; difficult, burning, or painful urination; difficult or labored breathing; difficulty having a bowel movement (stool); difficulty in moving; discouragement; dizziness; dry mouth; excess air or gas in stomach or intestines; excessive muscle tone; fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse; fatigue; fear; feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings; feeling of warmth or heat; feeling faint; feeling sad or empty; flatulence; flushed, dry skin; flushing or redness of skin especially on face and neck; frequent urge to urinate; fruit-like breath odor; full feeling; general feeling of discomfort or illness; heartburn; increased hunger; increased thirst; increased urination; indigestion; infection; irritability; itching skin; joint pain; lack of appetite; lack or loss of strength ; large, flat, blue or purplish patches in the skin ; light-headedness; loss of appetite; loss of consciousness; loss of interest or pleasure; lower back or side pain; muscle tension or tightness; nausea; neck pain; nerve pain; nervousness; noisy breathing; pain; pain or swelling in arms or legs without any injury; pain, swelling, or redness in joints; pain or tenderness around eyes and cheekbones; painful or difficult urination; pale skin; passing gas; pounding in the ears; sensation of spinning; shivering; shortness of breath; sleeplessness; slow heartbeat; sneezing; sore throat; stomach pain, discomfort, tenderness, or upset; stuffy nose; sweating; swelling of hands, ankles, feet, or lower legs; tightness in chest; troubled breathing; trouble concentrating; trouble sleeping; unable to sleep; unexplained weight loss; unusual bleeding or bruising; vomiting; wheezing.
I prefer this option, which has no side effects that I am aware of except loose stools, if you go too high to soon, but it's not life threatening.
Dr Linus Pauling's Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease ...Over ten years ago, the two-time Nobel prize Laureate, Dr Linus Pauling and his associate Dr Matthias Rath, advocated and published a definitive thesis on the root cause, treatment, and actual cure for all forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including congestive heart failure, heart disease, and stroke. Today, cardiovascular related health problems together comprise fully one half of all causes of death in the US. Pauling and Rath's brilliant analysis of CVD is absolutely compelling and amply supported by numerous epidemiological and clinical studies. His unified theory of CVD constitutes one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern science, and yet has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream medical establishment, and received almost no press.
The Only Patent for the Cure of Cardiovascular Disease:Pauline and Raths theory of CVD is so scientifically compelling and demonstrable that in 1994 they were granted the only US patent for the cure of cardiovascular disease. This was no small feat since the US Office of Patents will only grant a patent for an invention that has been demonstrated to work. The non-prescription therapy advocated by Pauling and Rath has become know as the Pauline Therapy. The efficacy of the Pauline Therapy has been amply proven in thousands of cardiovascular patients who have been so fortunate to discover the remarkable treatment. The Pauline and Rath heart protocols in lower dosage levels will prevent cardiovascular disease and in higher dosages will actually reverse arterial plaque build up and reverse heart disease! Heart patients moving to the Pauling Therapy commonly avoid open-heart surgery and angioplasty. This is accomplished by dealing directly with the root causes of CVD and arterial plaque buildup. Almost without exception patients experience rapid recovery.
For more information on the Pauling/Rath Therapy, see How to Mend a Broken Heart...
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
People in a new study got their "bad cholesterol" to the lowest levels ever seen and saw blockages in their blood vessels shrink by taking a high dose of cholesterol drug, researchers reported Monday.
Doctors say it is the best evidence yet that heart disease actually can be reversed, not just kept from getting worse.
Two-thirds of the 349 study participants had regression of heart artery buildups when they took the maximum dose of Crestor, the strongest of the cholesterol-lowering statin drugs on the market and one under fire by a consumer group that contends it has more side effects than its competitors.
It's too soon to tell whether this shrinkage of artery blockages will result in fewer heart attacks, but doctors were excited by the possibility.
"The holy grail has always been to try to reverse the disease," and this shows a way to do that, said Dr. Steven Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who led the research and reported results at the American College of Cardiology meeting.
The study was paid for by AstraZeneca PLC, the maker of Crestor, a drug that a consumer group has been lobbying to have pulled from the market. Some reports have linked Crestor to higher rates of serious muscle problems and kidney damage, especially among Asians.
The Food and Drug Administration last year refused to order the drug off the market but required a warning of the side effects on its label.
In the study, Crestor got people's LDL or "bad cholesterol" levels to around 60 milligrams per deciliter of blood, down from roughly 130 at the start of the experiment. HDL or "good cholesterol" levels rose modestly, from 43 to 49.
"The body needs about 40 LDL, so we're getting pretty close to what the body needs for general repair," said Dr. Christopher O'Connor, a Duke University cardiologist who had no role in the study.
Study results were released Monday by the Journal of the American Medical Association, which will publish it in its April 5 edition.
___
Comment: It might be true that Crestor can reverse HD, but there are side effects:
More common
Body aches or pain ; congestion; cough; dryness or soreness of throat ; headache; hoarseness; runny nose; tender, swollen glands in neck; trouble in swallowing; voice changes
Less common
Accidental injury; accumulation of pus, swollen, red, tender area of infection near a tooth; acid or sour stomach; arm, back or jaw pain; arthritis; back pain; belching; bladder pain; bloated; bloody or cloudy urine; blurred vision; bruising; burning, crawling, itching, numbness, prickling, "pins and needles" , or tingling feelings; burning feeling in chest or stomach; chest pain or discomfort; chest tightness or heaviness; chills; constipation ; depression; diarrhea; difficult, burning, or painful urination; difficult or labored breathing; difficulty having a bowel movement (stool); difficulty in moving; discouragement; dizziness; dry mouth; excess air or gas in stomach or intestines; excessive muscle tone; fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse; fatigue; fear; feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings; feeling of warmth or heat; feeling faint; feeling sad or empty; flatulence; flushed, dry skin; flushing or redness of skin especially on face and neck; frequent urge to urinate; fruit-like breath odor; full feeling; general feeling of discomfort or illness; heartburn; increased hunger; increased thirst; increased urination; indigestion; infection; irritability; itching skin; joint pain; lack of appetite; lack or loss of strength ; large, flat, blue or purplish patches in the skin ; light-headedness; loss of appetite; loss of consciousness; loss of interest or pleasure; lower back or side pain; muscle tension or tightness; nausea; neck pain; nerve pain; nervousness; noisy breathing; pain; pain or swelling in arms or legs without any injury; pain, swelling, or redness in joints; pain or tenderness around eyes and cheekbones; painful or difficult urination; pale skin; passing gas; pounding in the ears; sensation of spinning; shivering; shortness of breath; sleeplessness; slow heartbeat; sneezing; sore throat; stomach pain, discomfort, tenderness, or upset; stuffy nose; sweating; swelling of hands, ankles, feet, or lower legs; tightness in chest; troubled breathing; trouble concentrating; trouble sleeping; unable to sleep; unexplained weight loss; unusual bleeding or bruising; vomiting; wheezing.
I prefer this option, which has no side effects that I am aware of except loose stools, if you go too high to soon, but it's not life threatening.
Dr Linus Pauling's Unified Theory of Cardiovascular Disease ...Over ten years ago, the two-time Nobel prize Laureate, Dr Linus Pauling and his associate Dr Matthias Rath, advocated and published a definitive thesis on the root cause, treatment, and actual cure for all forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including congestive heart failure, heart disease, and stroke. Today, cardiovascular related health problems together comprise fully one half of all causes of death in the US. Pauling and Rath's brilliant analysis of CVD is absolutely compelling and amply supported by numerous epidemiological and clinical studies. His unified theory of CVD constitutes one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern science, and yet has been almost completely ignored by the mainstream medical establishment, and received almost no press.
The Only Patent for the Cure of Cardiovascular Disease:Pauline and Raths theory of CVD is so scientifically compelling and demonstrable that in 1994 they were granted the only US patent for the cure of cardiovascular disease. This was no small feat since the US Office of Patents will only grant a patent for an invention that has been demonstrated to work. The non-prescription therapy advocated by Pauling and Rath has become know as the Pauline Therapy. The efficacy of the Pauline Therapy has been amply proven in thousands of cardiovascular patients who have been so fortunate to discover the remarkable treatment. The Pauline and Rath heart protocols in lower dosage levels will prevent cardiovascular disease and in higher dosages will actually reverse arterial plaque build up and reverse heart disease! Heart patients moving to the Pauling Therapy commonly avoid open-heart surgery and angioplasty. This is accomplished by dealing directly with the root causes of CVD and arterial plaque buildup. Almost without exception patients experience rapid recovery.
For more information on the Pauling/Rath Therapy, see How to Mend a Broken Heart...
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Saturday, March 11, 2006
More vitamin C means less inflammation
Life Extension Update
The March, 2006 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published the findings of UK researchers of an association between dietary and plasma levels of vitamin C and reduced markers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in older men.
S. Goya Wannamethee and colleagues studied 3,258 men between the ages of 60 and 79 who had not been diagnosed with heart attack, stroke, or diabetes. Responses to food frequency questionnaires provided information concerning vitamin C intake. Blood samples were analyzed for plasma vitamin C, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein, tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, which is a marker of endothelial dysfunction (abnormal function of the lining of the blood vessels); and other factors.
It was found that higher plasma vitamin C levels, greater fruit intake, and greater vitamin C intake were all correlated with lower levels of C-reactive protein and t-PA. High vegetable intake was associated with a reduction in t-PA but not C-reactive protein. Men whose plasma vitamin C was in the highest one-fourth of participants had a 44 percent less risk of having elevated C-reactive protein and a 21 percent lower risk of an elevated t-PA than those whose levels were in the lowest fourth. For those whose fruit intake was in the top quarter the risk of having either factor elevated was 24 percent lower than that of men whose fruit intake was in the bottom fourth. Additionally, higher plasma vitamin C levels were associated with reduced blood viscosity and fibrinogen concentrations.
“Several studies have reported that vitamin C can improve endothelial dysfunction in smokers, hypertension patients, and patients with coronary artery disease,” the authors write. “Our finding is consistent with a protective effect of vitamin C on endothelial function, which could be mediated by the effects of vitamin C on low-grade inflammation, effects that may result from its antioxidant properties.
Protocol
Chronic inflammation:
The New England Journal of Medicine published several studies in the year 2000 showing that the blood indicators of inflammation are strong predictive factors for determining who will suffer a heart attack (Lindahl et al. 2000; Packard et al. 2000; Rader 2000). The January 2001 issue of Life Extension magazine described these studies and explained how individuals could protect themselves against these inflammatory markers (such as C-reactive protein, homocysteine, and fibrinogen).
A critical inflammatory marker is C-reactive protein. This marker indicates an increased risk for destabilized atherosclerotic plaque and abnormal arterial clotting. When arterial plaque becomes destabilized, it can burst open and block the flow of blood through a coronary artery, resulting in an acute heart attack. One of the New England Journal of Medicine studies showed that people with high levels of C-reactive protein were almost three times as likely to die from a heart attack (Ridker et al. 1997).
Those who are in relative good health, but have elevated C-reactive protein, can try to lower it using a variety of diet modifications, supplements and/or drugs. Supplements such as vitamin E, borage oil, fish oil, DHEA, vitamin K and nettle leaf extract can lower C-reactive protein. Diets low in arachidonic acid, omega-6 fatty acids, saturated fats, high-glycemic food and overcooked food can suppress inflammatory factors in the body.
C-reactive protein is not only an inflammatory marker, but also directly damages the endothelium. Chronic inflammation, as evidenced by persistent high levels of C-reactive protein, creates initial injuries to the endothelium and also accelerates the progression of existing atherosclerotic lesions.
Comment: From all the research I have seen on Vitamin C, everyone would be wise to take at least 3,000 mgs a day of Ascorbic Acid and more is better. I take 12,000 mgs a day and have for many years and recently it saved my life, when my appendix burst, and it took almost a week to have it removed surgically.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
The March, 2006 issue of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published the findings of UK researchers of an association between dietary and plasma levels of vitamin C and reduced markers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction in older men.
S. Goya Wannamethee and colleagues studied 3,258 men between the ages of 60 and 79 who had not been diagnosed with heart attack, stroke, or diabetes. Responses to food frequency questionnaires provided information concerning vitamin C intake. Blood samples were analyzed for plasma vitamin C, the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein, tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, which is a marker of endothelial dysfunction (abnormal function of the lining of the blood vessels); and other factors.
It was found that higher plasma vitamin C levels, greater fruit intake, and greater vitamin C intake were all correlated with lower levels of C-reactive protein and t-PA. High vegetable intake was associated with a reduction in t-PA but not C-reactive protein. Men whose plasma vitamin C was in the highest one-fourth of participants had a 44 percent less risk of having elevated C-reactive protein and a 21 percent lower risk of an elevated t-PA than those whose levels were in the lowest fourth. For those whose fruit intake was in the top quarter the risk of having either factor elevated was 24 percent lower than that of men whose fruit intake was in the bottom fourth. Additionally, higher plasma vitamin C levels were associated with reduced blood viscosity and fibrinogen concentrations.
“Several studies have reported that vitamin C can improve endothelial dysfunction in smokers, hypertension patients, and patients with coronary artery disease,” the authors write. “Our finding is consistent with a protective effect of vitamin C on endothelial function, which could be mediated by the effects of vitamin C on low-grade inflammation, effects that may result from its antioxidant properties.
Protocol
Chronic inflammation:
The New England Journal of Medicine published several studies in the year 2000 showing that the blood indicators of inflammation are strong predictive factors for determining who will suffer a heart attack (Lindahl et al. 2000; Packard et al. 2000; Rader 2000). The January 2001 issue of Life Extension magazine described these studies and explained how individuals could protect themselves against these inflammatory markers (such as C-reactive protein, homocysteine, and fibrinogen).
A critical inflammatory marker is C-reactive protein. This marker indicates an increased risk for destabilized atherosclerotic plaque and abnormal arterial clotting. When arterial plaque becomes destabilized, it can burst open and block the flow of blood through a coronary artery, resulting in an acute heart attack. One of the New England Journal of Medicine studies showed that people with high levels of C-reactive protein were almost three times as likely to die from a heart attack (Ridker et al. 1997).
Those who are in relative good health, but have elevated C-reactive protein, can try to lower it using a variety of diet modifications, supplements and/or drugs. Supplements such as vitamin E, borage oil, fish oil, DHEA, vitamin K and nettle leaf extract can lower C-reactive protein. Diets low in arachidonic acid, omega-6 fatty acids, saturated fats, high-glycemic food and overcooked food can suppress inflammatory factors in the body.
C-reactive protein is not only an inflammatory marker, but also directly damages the endothelium. Chronic inflammation, as evidenced by persistent high levels of C-reactive protein, creates initial injuries to the endothelium and also accelerates the progression of existing atherosclerotic lesions.
Comment: From all the research I have seen on Vitamin C, everyone would be wise to take at least 3,000 mgs a day of Ascorbic Acid and more is better. I take 12,000 mgs a day and have for many years and recently it saved my life, when my appendix burst, and it took almost a week to have it removed surgically.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Sushi may be bad for health: California group says...
Mon Mar 6, 5:43 PM ET
Sushi is more popular than ever before but eating it "has become the new Russian roulette" in terms of safety, a group campaigning against mercury in fish said on Monday.
Eli Saddler of gotmercury.org, a campaign of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, went to six top sushi restaurants in Los Angeles to test mercury levels in the fish they serve.
"The level of mercury in tuna these restaurants serve is so high they should be keeping this food off their lists," Saddler said. "Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette."
Gotmercury.org proposes to take the study to various cities across the United States and educate sushi consumers on the risks of mercury intake, which can permanently damage the nervous system in fetuses and may cause temporary memory loss in adults.
Tuna samples from six popular sushi restaurants in Los Angeles were taken to a Southern California lab for testing.
They returned an average mercury level of 0.721 parts per million, about 88 percent higher than the reported Food and Drug Administration level of 0.383 ppm for all fresh and frozen tuna.
A couple of samples had mercury levels the FDA has declared "unsafe for anyone to eat," Saddler said.
Big-eyed tuna and blue and yellow-finned tuna are the most popular varieties used in sushi restaurants. Older and bigger fish are considered best suited for sushi but Saddler said it was not widely known that fish with longer lives carry more mercury than others.
Studies show seafood like shrimp and salmon with short life spans pose almost no risk of carrying mercury.
Nobi Kusuhara, owner of Sushi Sasabune in Los Angeles said even though the mercury level in the samples was higher than he expected, sushi is still healthy to eat.
"Even in Japan we have warnings out like FDA has issued here," Kusuhara said. "As long as restaurants warn pregnant women and people to eat smaller fish, it is definitely safer and healthier than beef or chicken."
Businesses with more than 10 employees are bound under California law to post a mercury-in-seafood warning if they serve or sell any seafood.
But Saddler said that, of the six restaurants checked, only one had an explicit sign posted on the door.
"There are cheap and easy ways to test fish, so it should be done in the United States to protect sushi consumers," Saddler said.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Sushi is more popular than ever before but eating it "has become the new Russian roulette" in terms of safety, a group campaigning against mercury in fish said on Monday.
Eli Saddler of gotmercury.org, a campaign of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, went to six top sushi restaurants in Los Angeles to test mercury levels in the fish they serve.
"The level of mercury in tuna these restaurants serve is so high they should be keeping this food off their lists," Saddler said. "Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette."
Gotmercury.org proposes to take the study to various cities across the United States and educate sushi consumers on the risks of mercury intake, which can permanently damage the nervous system in fetuses and may cause temporary memory loss in adults.
Tuna samples from six popular sushi restaurants in Los Angeles were taken to a Southern California lab for testing.
They returned an average mercury level of 0.721 parts per million, about 88 percent higher than the reported Food and Drug Administration level of 0.383 ppm for all fresh and frozen tuna.
A couple of samples had mercury levels the FDA has declared "unsafe for anyone to eat," Saddler said.
Big-eyed tuna and blue and yellow-finned tuna are the most popular varieties used in sushi restaurants. Older and bigger fish are considered best suited for sushi but Saddler said it was not widely known that fish with longer lives carry more mercury than others.
Studies show seafood like shrimp and salmon with short life spans pose almost no risk of carrying mercury.
Nobi Kusuhara, owner of Sushi Sasabune in Los Angeles said even though the mercury level in the samples was higher than he expected, sushi is still healthy to eat.
"Even in Japan we have warnings out like FDA has issued here," Kusuhara said. "As long as restaurants warn pregnant women and people to eat smaller fish, it is definitely safer and healthier than beef or chicken."
Businesses with more than 10 employees are bound under California law to post a mercury-in-seafood warning if they serve or sell any seafood.
But Saddler said that, of the six restaurants checked, only one had an explicit sign posted on the door.
"There are cheap and easy ways to test fish, so it should be done in the United States to protect sushi consumers," Saddler said.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Soda Targeted in Fight Against Obesity
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical WriterSun Mar 5, 5:15 AM ET
Low-fat, low-cal, low-carb. Atkins, South Beach, The Zone. Food fads may be distracting attention from something more insidiously piling on pounds: beverages.
One of every five calories in the American diet is liquid. The nation's single biggest "food" is soda, and nutrition experts have long demonized it.
Now they are escalating the fight.
In reports to be published in science journals this week, two groups of researchers hope to add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don't just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it. Not that these drinks are the only cause — genetics, exercise and other factors are involved — but that they are one cause, perhaps the leading cause.
A small point? In reality, proving this would be a scientific leap that could help make the case for higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold — maybe even a surgeon general's warning on labels.
"We've done it with cigarettes," said one scientist advocating this, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Comparing soda and obesity to tobacco and lung cancer is a baseless crusade, industry spokesmen say.
"I think that's laughable," said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association. Lack of exercise and poor eating habits are far bigger contributors to America's weight woes, he said.
"The science is being stretched," said Adam Drewnowski, director of nutritional sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. He owns stock in beverage companies and has done extensive research in the field, much of it financed by industry but also some by government.
However, those making the case against soda include some of the nation's top obesity researchers at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale.
"There are many different lines of evidence, just like smoking," said Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard pediatrician who wants a "fat tax" on fast food and drinks.
Beverage companies seem worried. Some are making sodas "healthier" by adding calcium and vitamins, and pushing fortified but sugary sports drinks in schools that ban soda. This could help them duck any regulations aimed at "empty calorie" drinks, said Jennifer Follett, a USDA nutritionist at the University of California in Davis.
"Even defining 'milk' is getting tough these days," with so many flavored varieties and sweetened liquid yogurts, she complained. "It tastes like you're sucking on ice cream."
Proving that something causes disease is not easy. It took decades with tobacco, asbestos and other substances now known to cause cancer, and met strong industry opposition. It would be especially tough for a disease as complex as obesity.
Diet is hard to study. Most people drink at least some sweetened beverages and also get calories from other drinks like milk and orange juice, diluting the strength of any observations about excess weight from soda alone.
Children are growing and gaining weight naturally, "so we have this added complication" of trying to determine how much extra gain is due to sweet-drink consumption, said Alison Field, a nutrition expert at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital in Boston.
"Given these caveats, it's amazing the association we do see," she said.
She was among hundreds of scientists who packed a "mock trial" of such drinks at a conference of the Obesity Society last year in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Here is the "food police" indictment of soda and its sugar-sweetened co-conspirators. You be the judge:
_Count One: Guilt by association.
Soft drink consumption rose more than 60 percent among adults and more than doubled in kids from 1977-97. The prevalence of obesity roughly doubled in that time. Scientists say these parallel trends are one criterion for proving cause-and-effect.
Numerous studies link sugary drink consumption with weight gain or obesity. One by Ludwig of 548 Massachusetts schoolchildren found that for each additional sweet drink consumed per day, the odds of obesity increased 60 percent.
Another at Harvard of 51,603 nurses compared two periods, 1991-95 and 1995-99, and found that women whose soda drinking increased had bigger rises in body-mass index than those who drank less or the same.
_Count Two: Physical evidence.
Biologically, the calories from sugar-sweetened beverages are fundamentally different in the body than those from food.
The main sweetener in soda — high-fructose corn syrup — can increase fats in the blood called triglycerides, which raises the risk of heart problems, diabetes and other health woes.
This sweetener also doesn't spur production of insulin to make the body "process" calories, nor does it spur leptin, a substance that tamps down appetite, as other carbohydrates do, explained Dr. George Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La.
"There's a lack of fullness or satiety. The brain just seems to add it on," said Dr. Louis Aronne, a Weill-Cornell Medical College doctor who is president of the Obesity Society.
Two studies by Penn State nutritionist Barbara Rolls illustrate this. One gave 14 men lemonade, diet lemonade, water or no drink and then allowed them to eat as much as they wanted at lunch. Food intake didn't vary, no matter what they drank.
The second study gave 44 women water, diet soda, regular soda, orange juice, milk or no drink before lunch. Total intake was 104 calories greater for those given caloric beverages than those given diet soda, water or no beverage. Caloric drinks didn't help women feel any fuller either.
Then there is the "jelly bean study." Purdue University researchers gave 15 men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers did not.
_Count Three: Bad influence on others.
Sugar-sweetened beverages affect the intake of other foods, such as lowering milk consumption. Popkin contends they also may be psychological triggers of poor eating habits and cravings for fast food.
He examined dietary patterns of 9,500 American adults in a federal study from 1999-2002. Those who drank healthier beverages — water, low-fat milk, unsweetened coffee or tea — were more likely to eat vegetables and less likely to eat fast food.
Conversely, "fast-food consumption was doubled if they were high soda consumers and vegetable consumption was halved," he said.
Harvard epidemiologist Eric Rimm saw a similar effect in a different federally funded study of more than 5,000 young adults. With high soda consumption, "you see this pattern of less healthy intake across the board," he said at the obesity meeting.
_Count Four: Consistency of evidence.
Many studies of different types link sugary drinks and weight gain or obesity. Some even show a "dose-response" relationship — as consumption rises, so does weight.
Collectively, they meet many criteria for proving cause and effect, Dr. William Dietz, director of nutrition at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in an editorial accompanying a study in February's Journal of Pediatrics.
In rebuttal, Adamson, the beverage industry spokesman, sees no such consistency. He cites a 2004 Harvard study of more than 10,000 children and teens. Consumption of sugar-added beverages was tied to body-mass index gain in boys but not girls, a gender difference that warrants a "jaundiced eye" to claims that soda is at fault, he said.
He also points to a Harvard study finding no link between weight changes and soda consumption among 1,345 North Dakota children ages 2 to 5 — a group that arguably drinks far less soda than teens and adults.
"Whatever association there is doesn't seem to be large," said Richard Forshee, deputy director of the Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy at the University of Maryland who has received research funding from the beverage industry and global sugar producers.
As for soda being linked to poor eating patterns, "you don't know which is cause and which is effect," Drewnowski said.
People who consume lots of fresh-squeezed juice, vegetables and fruits are fundamentally not the same as those who subsist on colas and bologna sandwiches, he contends.
"There is a difference: The first group is rich," Drewnowski said. He thinks government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would be better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories.
He also disputes the claim that soda calories are not satisfying. He did a study in which 32 men and women were given either colas or fat-free Raspberry Newtons before lunch on four separate occasions.
"There was absolutely no difference in satiety" as measured by how much they ate or how hungry they said they were, he said.
That research was paid for by industry, a factor that can affect study outcomes, said Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and food policy researcher at Yale University and a vocal advocate for curbs on soda and fast food.
When you look at studies according to who footed the bill, "the literature parts like Moses parting the ocean," he said, referring to the biblical parting of the Red Sea.
Does the evidence add up to a conviction of soda?
One of the nation's leading epidemiologists who has no firm stake in the debate, the American Cancer Society's Dr. Michael Thun, thinks it does.
"Caloric imbalance causes obesity, so in the sense that any one part of the diet is contributing excess calories, it's contributing causally to the obesity," Thun said. "It doesn't mean that something is the only cause. It means that in the absence of that factor there would be less of that condition."
Does it merit a warning on soda cans?
"I think it would be a good candidate for a warning," Thun said. "It's something that should be seriously considered."
Comment: Don't be mislead by people that represent the interests of the beverage industry, they are not looking out for your health interests. High-fructose corn syrup is the worst offender and I do not recommend anyone consume drinks or foods that contain this sugar additive.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Low-fat, low-cal, low-carb. Atkins, South Beach, The Zone. Food fads may be distracting attention from something more insidiously piling on pounds: beverages.
One of every five calories in the American diet is liquid. The nation's single biggest "food" is soda, and nutrition experts have long demonized it.
Now they are escalating the fight.
In reports to be published in science journals this week, two groups of researchers hope to add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don't just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it. Not that these drinks are the only cause — genetics, exercise and other factors are involved — but that they are one cause, perhaps the leading cause.
A small point? In reality, proving this would be a scientific leap that could help make the case for higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold — maybe even a surgeon general's warning on labels.
"We've done it with cigarettes," said one scientist advocating this, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Comparing soda and obesity to tobacco and lung cancer is a baseless crusade, industry spokesmen say.
"I think that's laughable," said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association. Lack of exercise and poor eating habits are far bigger contributors to America's weight woes, he said.
"The science is being stretched," said Adam Drewnowski, director of nutritional sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. He owns stock in beverage companies and has done extensive research in the field, much of it financed by industry but also some by government.
However, those making the case against soda include some of the nation's top obesity researchers at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale.
"There are many different lines of evidence, just like smoking," said Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard pediatrician who wants a "fat tax" on fast food and drinks.
Beverage companies seem worried. Some are making sodas "healthier" by adding calcium and vitamins, and pushing fortified but sugary sports drinks in schools that ban soda. This could help them duck any regulations aimed at "empty calorie" drinks, said Jennifer Follett, a USDA nutritionist at the University of California in Davis.
"Even defining 'milk' is getting tough these days," with so many flavored varieties and sweetened liquid yogurts, she complained. "It tastes like you're sucking on ice cream."
Proving that something causes disease is not easy. It took decades with tobacco, asbestos and other substances now known to cause cancer, and met strong industry opposition. It would be especially tough for a disease as complex as obesity.
Diet is hard to study. Most people drink at least some sweetened beverages and also get calories from other drinks like milk and orange juice, diluting the strength of any observations about excess weight from soda alone.
Children are growing and gaining weight naturally, "so we have this added complication" of trying to determine how much extra gain is due to sweet-drink consumption, said Alison Field, a nutrition expert at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital in Boston.
"Given these caveats, it's amazing the association we do see," she said.
She was among hundreds of scientists who packed a "mock trial" of such drinks at a conference of the Obesity Society last year in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Here is the "food police" indictment of soda and its sugar-sweetened co-conspirators. You be the judge:
_Count One: Guilt by association.
Soft drink consumption rose more than 60 percent among adults and more than doubled in kids from 1977-97. The prevalence of obesity roughly doubled in that time. Scientists say these parallel trends are one criterion for proving cause-and-effect.
Numerous studies link sugary drink consumption with weight gain or obesity. One by Ludwig of 548 Massachusetts schoolchildren found that for each additional sweet drink consumed per day, the odds of obesity increased 60 percent.
Another at Harvard of 51,603 nurses compared two periods, 1991-95 and 1995-99, and found that women whose soda drinking increased had bigger rises in body-mass index than those who drank less or the same.
_Count Two: Physical evidence.
Biologically, the calories from sugar-sweetened beverages are fundamentally different in the body than those from food.
The main sweetener in soda — high-fructose corn syrup — can increase fats in the blood called triglycerides, which raises the risk of heart problems, diabetes and other health woes.
This sweetener also doesn't spur production of insulin to make the body "process" calories, nor does it spur leptin, a substance that tamps down appetite, as other carbohydrates do, explained Dr. George Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La.
"There's a lack of fullness or satiety. The brain just seems to add it on," said Dr. Louis Aronne, a Weill-Cornell Medical College doctor who is president of the Obesity Society.
Two studies by Penn State nutritionist Barbara Rolls illustrate this. One gave 14 men lemonade, diet lemonade, water or no drink and then allowed them to eat as much as they wanted at lunch. Food intake didn't vary, no matter what they drank.
The second study gave 44 women water, diet soda, regular soda, orange juice, milk or no drink before lunch. Total intake was 104 calories greater for those given caloric beverages than those given diet soda, water or no beverage. Caloric drinks didn't help women feel any fuller either.
Then there is the "jelly bean study." Purdue University researchers gave 15 men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers did not.
_Count Three: Bad influence on others.
Sugar-sweetened beverages affect the intake of other foods, such as lowering milk consumption. Popkin contends they also may be psychological triggers of poor eating habits and cravings for fast food.
He examined dietary patterns of 9,500 American adults in a federal study from 1999-2002. Those who drank healthier beverages — water, low-fat milk, unsweetened coffee or tea — were more likely to eat vegetables and less likely to eat fast food.
Conversely, "fast-food consumption was doubled if they were high soda consumers and vegetable consumption was halved," he said.
Harvard epidemiologist Eric Rimm saw a similar effect in a different federally funded study of more than 5,000 young adults. With high soda consumption, "you see this pattern of less healthy intake across the board," he said at the obesity meeting.
_Count Four: Consistency of evidence.
Many studies of different types link sugary drinks and weight gain or obesity. Some even show a "dose-response" relationship — as consumption rises, so does weight.
Collectively, they meet many criteria for proving cause and effect, Dr. William Dietz, director of nutrition at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in an editorial accompanying a study in February's Journal of Pediatrics.
In rebuttal, Adamson, the beverage industry spokesman, sees no such consistency. He cites a 2004 Harvard study of more than 10,000 children and teens. Consumption of sugar-added beverages was tied to body-mass index gain in boys but not girls, a gender difference that warrants a "jaundiced eye" to claims that soda is at fault, he said.
He also points to a Harvard study finding no link between weight changes and soda consumption among 1,345 North Dakota children ages 2 to 5 — a group that arguably drinks far less soda than teens and adults.
"Whatever association there is doesn't seem to be large," said Richard Forshee, deputy director of the Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy at the University of Maryland who has received research funding from the beverage industry and global sugar producers.
As for soda being linked to poor eating patterns, "you don't know which is cause and which is effect," Drewnowski said.
People who consume lots of fresh-squeezed juice, vegetables and fruits are fundamentally not the same as those who subsist on colas and bologna sandwiches, he contends.
"There is a difference: The first group is rich," Drewnowski said. He thinks government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would be better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories.
He also disputes the claim that soda calories are not satisfying. He did a study in which 32 men and women were given either colas or fat-free Raspberry Newtons before lunch on four separate occasions.
"There was absolutely no difference in satiety" as measured by how much they ate or how hungry they said they were, he said.
That research was paid for by industry, a factor that can affect study outcomes, said Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and food policy researcher at Yale University and a vocal advocate for curbs on soda and fast food.
When you look at studies according to who footed the bill, "the literature parts like Moses parting the ocean," he said, referring to the biblical parting of the Red Sea.
Does the evidence add up to a conviction of soda?
One of the nation's leading epidemiologists who has no firm stake in the debate, the American Cancer Society's Dr. Michael Thun, thinks it does.
"Caloric imbalance causes obesity, so in the sense that any one part of the diet is contributing excess calories, it's contributing causally to the obesity," Thun said. "It doesn't mean that something is the only cause. It means that in the absence of that factor there would be less of that condition."
Does it merit a warning on soda cans?
"I think it would be a good candidate for a warning," Thun said. "It's something that should be seriously considered."
Comment: Don't be mislead by people that represent the interests of the beverage industry, they are not looking out for your health interests. High-fructose corn syrup is the worst offender and I do not recommend anyone consume drinks or foods that contain this sugar additive.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Green tea could protect against Alzheimer’s
01/03/2006-
Drinking more than two cups of green tea a day could cut the risk of dementia by half, claims a population-based study of elderly Japanese subjects.“Any association between the intake of green tea, a drink with little toxicity and no calorific value, and cognitive function could have considerable clinical and public health relevance,” wrote lead author Shinichi Kuriyama from the Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
Green tea is a rich source of catechins, compounds suggested to play a beneficial role in weight loss, cardiovascular and oral health, with some, namely epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), now emerging as particularly powerful.
The new study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Vol. 83, pp. 355-361), analysed the consumption of six drinks (green, black and oolong tea, coffee, cola or juice, and 100 per cent vegetable juice) for 1003 Japanese subjects with an average age of 74.
The analysis was done using the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) questionnaire, which also asked about 55 other food items, as well as demographic, social, lifestyle, and physical habits of the participants.
Cognitive function was tested using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which has a maximum score of 30 points. Three cut-offs were used to discriminate levels of cognitive impairment: less than 24 for severe, 24 to 26 for medium, and 26 to 28 for slight impairment.
Using the cut-offs, 85.3 per cent of people who drank less than three cups of green tea a week had some level of cognitive impairment.
Only 59.8 per cent of people who drank more than two cups a day had some level of cognitive impairment (39.2 per cent with slight impairment).
After statistical analysis, using the cut off at less than 26 points, the researchers found that people who drank more than two cups of green tea per day had a 50 per cent lower chance of having cognitive impairment, compared to those who drank less than three cups a week.
“In contrast, a weak or null relation between consumption of black or oolong tea or coffee and cognitive impairment was observed,” reported Kuriyama.
“Green tea polyphenols, especially EGCG, might explain the observed association with improved cognitive function… Green tea contains 67.5 mg catechins per 100 mL, whereas black tea contains only 15.5 mg per 100 mL,” said Kuriyama.
EGCG is said to be brain permeable, and its protection of the brain is proposed to be due to mechanisms other than its antioxidant and iron-chelating properties.
Possible mechanisms included “modulation of cell survival and cell cycle genes and promotion of neurite overgrowth activity.”
The study does have limitations, with the authors noting: “Healthier and more active individuals might have more opportunities to consume green tea. Among the Japanese, green tea is often consumed as a social activity, and this in itself may contribute to maintaining higher cognitive function.”
This study is good news for both the tea market and the tea extract market. European demand for tea extracts is currently surging, having reached 500 metric tonnes by 2003.
This has seen companies such as DSM, with its Teavigo boasting 95 per cent purity of EGCG, and Taiyo International, with its Sunphenon claiming more than 90 per cent purity, position themselves firmly in specific catechin markets.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Drinking more than two cups of green tea a day could cut the risk of dementia by half, claims a population-based study of elderly Japanese subjects.“Any association between the intake of green tea, a drink with little toxicity and no calorific value, and cognitive function could have considerable clinical and public health relevance,” wrote lead author Shinichi Kuriyama from the Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
Green tea is a rich source of catechins, compounds suggested to play a beneficial role in weight loss, cardiovascular and oral health, with some, namely epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), now emerging as particularly powerful.
The new study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Vol. 83, pp. 355-361), analysed the consumption of six drinks (green, black and oolong tea, coffee, cola or juice, and 100 per cent vegetable juice) for 1003 Japanese subjects with an average age of 74.
The analysis was done using the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) questionnaire, which also asked about 55 other food items, as well as demographic, social, lifestyle, and physical habits of the participants.
Cognitive function was tested using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which has a maximum score of 30 points. Three cut-offs were used to discriminate levels of cognitive impairment: less than 24 for severe, 24 to 26 for medium, and 26 to 28 for slight impairment.
Using the cut-offs, 85.3 per cent of people who drank less than three cups of green tea a week had some level of cognitive impairment.
Only 59.8 per cent of people who drank more than two cups a day had some level of cognitive impairment (39.2 per cent with slight impairment).
After statistical analysis, using the cut off at less than 26 points, the researchers found that people who drank more than two cups of green tea per day had a 50 per cent lower chance of having cognitive impairment, compared to those who drank less than three cups a week.
“In contrast, a weak or null relation between consumption of black or oolong tea or coffee and cognitive impairment was observed,” reported Kuriyama.
“Green tea polyphenols, especially EGCG, might explain the observed association with improved cognitive function… Green tea contains 67.5 mg catechins per 100 mL, whereas black tea contains only 15.5 mg per 100 mL,” said Kuriyama.
EGCG is said to be brain permeable, and its protection of the brain is proposed to be due to mechanisms other than its antioxidant and iron-chelating properties.
Possible mechanisms included “modulation of cell survival and cell cycle genes and promotion of neurite overgrowth activity.”
The study does have limitations, with the authors noting: “Healthier and more active individuals might have more opportunities to consume green tea. Among the Japanese, green tea is often consumed as a social activity, and this in itself may contribute to maintaining higher cognitive function.”
This study is good news for both the tea market and the tea extract market. European demand for tea extracts is currently surging, having reached 500 metric tonnes by 2003.
This has seen companies such as DSM, with its Teavigo boasting 95 per cent purity of EGCG, and Taiyo International, with its Sunphenon claiming more than 90 per cent purity, position themselves firmly in specific catechin markets.
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Consumers shrug off studies on supplements
Recent research finds herbal remedies no better than placebos
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2006
CHICAGO - For years, millions of Americans have spent billions of dollars on alternative remedies with unproven effects. Now, rigorous science is starting to test those treatments and mostly finds them lacking.
Last week, major government-funded research indicated that two wildly popular arthritis pills, glucosamine and chondroitin, did no better than dummy pills at relieving mild arthritis pain.
Earlier this month a study revealed negative results for saw palmetto to treat prostate problems; last July, ditto for echinacea and the common cold. Those followed similar disappointments for St. John’s wort to treat major depression, and powdered shark cartilage for some cancers.
Yet despite the U.S. government’s multimillion-dollar investment to scientifically scrutinize a little regulated $20 billion-a-year industry, the big question is, do the results really matter when so many consumers swear by these remedies?
“I’ll wrestle anybody who says it’s no good,” Carl Haupt, 79, says of glucosamine and chondroitin, pills he credits with helping him resume mountain hiking, a hobby he quit seven years ago because of arthritis pain.
Haupt spends about $25 monthly on the pills. Debilitating pain returned when he quit taking them once, and he said the government’s results won’t change his mind.
“I wouldn’t quit taking it again. I learned my lesson,” Haupt said.
Even the researchers themselves, funded by the National Institutes of Health, say their results don’t necessarily mean consumers are pouring their money down the drain.
“If someone tells me this is working for them, I’m not going to tell them not to take it,” said Dr. Thomas Schnitzer, a Northwestern University arthritis specialist and co-author of the glucosamine/chondroitin study.
That’s partly because the three most recent studies found no real harm; also, in some cases, the results are not completely clear-cut.
For example, while most people taking the arthritis pills in the study got no significant benefit, the pills did appear to help those with more severe pain. And critics of the echinacea study say different doses might have found a benefit in fighting colds.
Also, studying these herbs and extracts is far more challenging than researching prescription drugs, which are subject to Food and Drug Administration scrutiny. Alternative health products with the same name can have vastly different ingredients and potencies, and research results from one may not apply to others, said Gail Mahady, a botanicals researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She was not involved in the federal studies.
'Wishful thinking' works but another important factor is what scientists call the placebo effect — meaning that just thinking you’re taking something useful can make you think there’s a benefit.
Imaging tests have shown changes in the brains of placebo users, suggesting that the effect is not just “in your mind,” it’s also in the brain, said Dr. Stephen Straus, director of NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
“Their wishful thinking that they’re going to get better is harnessing the body’s own mechanism for relieving pain,” said Straus, whose agency was formed seven years ago to stringently test non-conventional remedies.
The placebo effect was huge in patients unknowingly taking dummy pills in the arthritis study and could have overshadowed any potential benefit from the real pills.
But it’s also likely that the placebo effect contributes to benefits that many people say they get from alternative remedies, and it’s something doctors shouldn’t dismiss, said Dr. Anthony Miksanek, a family physician in rural southern Illinois who has many arthritis patients on glucosamine and chondroitin.
“My thought is if you give somebody a pill and say this may help you,” that might be the spark they need to “get out and do more things, walk more,” or get more exercise, all of which can help relieve arthritis pain, said Miksanek, of Benton, Ill.
“Maybe it’s a message of hope ... and the brain kind of takes that and runs with it,” he said.
Milly Navarro, a 33-year-old public relations specialist in Dallas, said she doesn’t care if the placebo effect explains why echinacea keeps her from getting colds — she’ll keep taking it anyway.
“I know the mind is a powerful thing and even if it’s that that does the trick, whatever it is, it works for me,” Navarro said.
Barrie Cassileth, an alternative medicine researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said some products, including echinacea and St. John’s wort, can interfere with conventional medicine and should not be considered harmless.
But others, including saw palmetto, are cheaper and have fewer side effects than prescription medicine. “If the results that people swear by work by placebo, who cares?” she asks.
Not the final answer?
Some data suggest that more than one-third of Americans use alternative medicine, and many remedies are even more popular abroad. It’s too soon to know if this month’s studies have changed any habits, but anecdotal evidence suggests all five products studied remain popular.
Ben Pratt, a spokesman for the General Nutrition Centers, a national chain of stores that sell nutritional supplements, said sales of echinacea remain strong and were not affected by last summer’s negative study.
Some consumers use alternative medicine because of safety concerns about prescription drugs, including reports of heart problems that doomed the once-popular arthritis drug Vioxx. Others mistrust the medical establishment because it bombards them with contradictory studies.
“You can just wait long enough and someone else will have an opposite opinion,” said Richard Peterson, 62, a Baltimore property manager who says he won’t stop taking glucosamine.
But even if some consumers ignore the results, the rigorous government studies are extremely useful for doctors seeking to rely on more than word of mouth, said Miksanek, the family physician in Benton, Ill.
“We are very much relying now on evidence-based medicine,” said Miksanek. “We’re trying to get away from things like Doc Welby saying, ’I’ve used snake oil for years and it’s the greatest thing around.”’
Miksanek said now he can tell patients with minor arthritis pain that the pills may not work for everybody while offering more hopeful advice to patients with more severe pain.
Straus, of the NIH’s alternative medicine center, says his agency is committed to continuing research on supplements. The center’s research budget has steadily grown to $107.7 million for fiscal year 2005.
“I think that consumers should pay attention,” Straus said, “understanding that a single study may not provide the final answer.”
Comment: All of you should know that there is a concerted effort by the drug companies and government agencies that are in bed with them to discredit any alternative answer to health issues, other than patented drugs. "In recent years the pharmaceutical industry has been exposed as a multi-trillion dollar ‘investment business with disease’ the future of which is dependent on the continuation and expansion of diseases. The very existence of the pharmaceutical industry is currently threatened. Damage claims from the deadly side-effects of one single drug are bringing down Bayer, the flag ship of this industry. The ensuing ‘domino effect’ would inevitably cripple this largest investment sector on earth. At the same time, scientific advances in non-patentable natural health offer effective, safe and affordable alternatives to the multi-trillion dollar market of patented drugs."
"The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry. To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:
(1) Withholding life-saving health information from millions of people. It is simply unacceptable that today so few know that the human body cannot produce vitamin C and lysine, two key molecules for connective tissue stability and disease prevention.
(2) Discrediting natural health therapies. The most common way is through global PR campaigns organized by the Pharma-Cartel that spread lies about the alleged side effects of natural substances – molecules that have been used by Nature for millennia.
(3) Banning by law the dissemination of information about natural health therapies. To that end, the pharmaceutical industry has placed its lobbyists in key political positions in key markets and leading drug export nations." Dr. Rath Health Foundation
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:31 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2006
CHICAGO - For years, millions of Americans have spent billions of dollars on alternative remedies with unproven effects. Now, rigorous science is starting to test those treatments and mostly finds them lacking.
Last week, major government-funded research indicated that two wildly popular arthritis pills, glucosamine and chondroitin, did no better than dummy pills at relieving mild arthritis pain.
Earlier this month a study revealed negative results for saw palmetto to treat prostate problems; last July, ditto for echinacea and the common cold. Those followed similar disappointments for St. John’s wort to treat major depression, and powdered shark cartilage for some cancers.
Yet despite the U.S. government’s multimillion-dollar investment to scientifically scrutinize a little regulated $20 billion-a-year industry, the big question is, do the results really matter when so many consumers swear by these remedies?
“I’ll wrestle anybody who says it’s no good,” Carl Haupt, 79, says of glucosamine and chondroitin, pills he credits with helping him resume mountain hiking, a hobby he quit seven years ago because of arthritis pain.
Haupt spends about $25 monthly on the pills. Debilitating pain returned when he quit taking them once, and he said the government’s results won’t change his mind.
“I wouldn’t quit taking it again. I learned my lesson,” Haupt said.
Even the researchers themselves, funded by the National Institutes of Health, say their results don’t necessarily mean consumers are pouring their money down the drain.
“If someone tells me this is working for them, I’m not going to tell them not to take it,” said Dr. Thomas Schnitzer, a Northwestern University arthritis specialist and co-author of the glucosamine/chondroitin study.
That’s partly because the three most recent studies found no real harm; also, in some cases, the results are not completely clear-cut.
For example, while most people taking the arthritis pills in the study got no significant benefit, the pills did appear to help those with more severe pain. And critics of the echinacea study say different doses might have found a benefit in fighting colds.
Also, studying these herbs and extracts is far more challenging than researching prescription drugs, which are subject to Food and Drug Administration scrutiny. Alternative health products with the same name can have vastly different ingredients and potencies, and research results from one may not apply to others, said Gail Mahady, a botanicals researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She was not involved in the federal studies.
'Wishful thinking' works but another important factor is what scientists call the placebo effect — meaning that just thinking you’re taking something useful can make you think there’s a benefit.
Imaging tests have shown changes in the brains of placebo users, suggesting that the effect is not just “in your mind,” it’s also in the brain, said Dr. Stephen Straus, director of NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
“Their wishful thinking that they’re going to get better is harnessing the body’s own mechanism for relieving pain,” said Straus, whose agency was formed seven years ago to stringently test non-conventional remedies.
The placebo effect was huge in patients unknowingly taking dummy pills in the arthritis study and could have overshadowed any potential benefit from the real pills.
But it’s also likely that the placebo effect contributes to benefits that many people say they get from alternative remedies, and it’s something doctors shouldn’t dismiss, said Dr. Anthony Miksanek, a family physician in rural southern Illinois who has many arthritis patients on glucosamine and chondroitin.
“My thought is if you give somebody a pill and say this may help you,” that might be the spark they need to “get out and do more things, walk more,” or get more exercise, all of which can help relieve arthritis pain, said Miksanek, of Benton, Ill.
“Maybe it’s a message of hope ... and the brain kind of takes that and runs with it,” he said.
Milly Navarro, a 33-year-old public relations specialist in Dallas, said she doesn’t care if the placebo effect explains why echinacea keeps her from getting colds — she’ll keep taking it anyway.
“I know the mind is a powerful thing and even if it’s that that does the trick, whatever it is, it works for me,” Navarro said.
Barrie Cassileth, an alternative medicine researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said some products, including echinacea and St. John’s wort, can interfere with conventional medicine and should not be considered harmless.
But others, including saw palmetto, are cheaper and have fewer side effects than prescription medicine. “If the results that people swear by work by placebo, who cares?” she asks.
Not the final answer?
Some data suggest that more than one-third of Americans use alternative medicine, and many remedies are even more popular abroad. It’s too soon to know if this month’s studies have changed any habits, but anecdotal evidence suggests all five products studied remain popular.
Ben Pratt, a spokesman for the General Nutrition Centers, a national chain of stores that sell nutritional supplements, said sales of echinacea remain strong and were not affected by last summer’s negative study.
Some consumers use alternative medicine because of safety concerns about prescription drugs, including reports of heart problems that doomed the once-popular arthritis drug Vioxx. Others mistrust the medical establishment because it bombards them with contradictory studies.
“You can just wait long enough and someone else will have an opposite opinion,” said Richard Peterson, 62, a Baltimore property manager who says he won’t stop taking glucosamine.
But even if some consumers ignore the results, the rigorous government studies are extremely useful for doctors seeking to rely on more than word of mouth, said Miksanek, the family physician in Benton, Ill.
“We are very much relying now on evidence-based medicine,” said Miksanek. “We’re trying to get away from things like Doc Welby saying, ’I’ve used snake oil for years and it’s the greatest thing around.”’
Miksanek said now he can tell patients with minor arthritis pain that the pills may not work for everybody while offering more hopeful advice to patients with more severe pain.
Straus, of the NIH’s alternative medicine center, says his agency is committed to continuing research on supplements. The center’s research budget has steadily grown to $107.7 million for fiscal year 2005.
“I think that consumers should pay attention,” Straus said, “understanding that a single study may not provide the final answer.”
Comment: All of you should know that there is a concerted effort by the drug companies and government agencies that are in bed with them to discredit any alternative answer to health issues, other than patented drugs. "In recent years the pharmaceutical industry has been exposed as a multi-trillion dollar ‘investment business with disease’ the future of which is dependent on the continuation and expansion of diseases. The very existence of the pharmaceutical industry is currently threatened. Damage claims from the deadly side-effects of one single drug are bringing down Bayer, the flag ship of this industry. The ensuing ‘domino effect’ would inevitably cripple this largest investment sector on earth. At the same time, scientific advances in non-patentable natural health offer effective, safe and affordable alternatives to the multi-trillion dollar market of patented drugs."
"The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world’s largest investment industry. To protect the strategic development of its investment business against the threat from effective, natural and non-patentable therapies, the pharmaceutical industry has – over an entire century - used the most unscrupulous methods, such as:
(1) Withholding life-saving health information from millions of people. It is simply unacceptable that today so few know that the human body cannot produce vitamin C and lysine, two key molecules for connective tissue stability and disease prevention.
(2) Discrediting natural health therapies. The most common way is through global PR campaigns organized by the Pharma-Cartel that spread lies about the alleged side effects of natural substances – molecules that have been used by Nature for millennia.
(3) Banning by law the dissemination of information about natural health therapies. To that end, the pharmaceutical industry has placed its lobbyists in key political positions in key markets and leading drug export nations." Dr. Rath Health Foundation
CW
Christopher Wiechert's Healthblogger is for educational or informational purposes only, and is not intended to diagnose or provide treatment for any condition. If you have any concerns about your own health, you should always consult with a healthcare professional. If you decide to use this information on your own, it's your constitutional right, but I assume no responsibility.
Visit our website at: www.cwiechert.com
Have your nutritional questions answered by e-mail: www.cwiechert.com/QAMAIL.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)