Showing posts with label cardiovascular. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cardiovascular. Show all posts

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Fish Oils: Ethyl Ester versus Triglyceride forms

Low strength natural fish oils are in triglyceride (TG) form, as are most natural oils. To purify the oils by removing impurities and less desirable fatty acids and to concentrate the EPA and DHA fatty acid components, molecular distillation is used.  This process allows the oil to vaporize at low temperatures under pressure and is also known as vacuum distillation. The resulting vapor is collected and cooled, stratifying into distinct layers of fatty acids. This allows a purer esterified oil (called an ethyl ester form, or EE) with higher levels of EPA-DHA than crude fish oils and removal of triglycerides and cholesterol as well as other undesirable components. 

Some companies like to add triglycerides back in; this dilutes the fish oil concentrate by about 20% and the process also introduces mono- and di-glycerides, which don’t exist in natural fish oils to a significant degree but are thought responsible for higher absorption levels of this reconverted triglyceride form (rTG) oil over natural triglyceride and ethyl ester forms. If no triglycerides are added back, the body’s own store of triglycerides will be used to bond to the fatty acids after absorption, potentially lowering serum triglycerides more than an rTG oil. 

Absorption from our guts is always in the form of free fatty acids, so the oil’s original triglycerides are typically discarded during digestion and reattached later from body stores. This lowers the potential of the TG or rTG oils to lower triglycerides already in our bodies since they introduce additional triglycerides, which may be absorbed either into the body (adding more triglycerides into the liver) or into fiber or other materials that carry cholesterol out through the stool (potentially reducing the removal of cholesterol by competitive absorption). 

The prescription fish oils are in the ethyl ester form, not triglyceride form, because of the higher purity and higher strength of EE fish oils over TG or rTG forms resulting in better study outcomes on cardiovascular health measures. 

Krill oil is distinct because of its phospholipid matrix that greatly enhances omega-3 absorption more than the EE, TG, or rTG forms of fish oil.


Thursday, April 21, 2016

Calcium and Vitamin D are Safe for Heart Health

Huge study of ½ million adults age 40-69: calcium & D supplements pose no cardiovascular risk (heart attack, etc.) in the UK Biobank study:

fb.me/IOHg07RL

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Nutrients for Heart Health interview

From an interview of me by Whole Foods Magazine, february 2011:

Our aging population will naturally turn to nutrients as a core defense of their heart and cardiovascular (CV) health. Research continues to pile up to support the benefits of various vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs, antioxidants, and other dietary supplements to optimize heart health. The trick is to communicate clear benefits associated with specific nutrients and formulas while treading on the right side of the label claims limits.

There are products that support various aspects of CV health. These include circulation, vascular health, heart energetics, fat metabolism, stress and cortisol control targeting abdominal fat, electrolyte metabolism, etc.

Additional heart support could be associated with blood sugar health, since diabetics disproportionately suffer and die from cardiovascular disease. Supporting nutrients to maintain healthy glucose metabolism include alpha lipoic acid, chromium, cinnamon, biotin, Gymnema sylvestre, corosolic acid, and others. The use of stevia as a sweetener can also be helpful in cutting carbohydrate intake; the whole herb, not the “Reb A” fraction commonly sold as a mass market sweetener, also has been shown to have supportive effects on pancreatic function, insulin sensitivity, and antioxidant benefits.

Many isolated nutrients have historically been used to support cardiovascular health, including amino acids (l-arginine, l-citrulline, l-carnitine), lecithin, vitamin E complex, CoQ10, B complex vitamins, methylators like TMG and SAMe, magnesium, antioxidants, plant sterols, sugar cane policosanol, and nattokinase. At the same time there are many botanicals for the same purpose such as hawthorn leaf and flower extract (not the berries, which are not shown to help the heart), and prickly ash bark. Whole foods or botanicals that support heart health include cayenne, garlic, ginger, cayenne, and whole fermented organic red yeast rice. And let’s not forget the benefits of fish oils and fiber, which do have FDA-approved qualified health claims.

Vitamin D also has a role in heart health, a benefit which the Institute of Medicine’s committee that released the new dietary recommendations did not endorse. By contrast, the FDA’s European counterpart EFSA (the European Food Safety Agency) has acknowledged a role for vitamin D in heart health: "The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of vitamin D and contribution to the normal function of the immune system and healthy inflammatory response, and maintenance of normal muscle function." The heart, of course, is a muscle; the body’s control of inflammation, calcium metabolism, and muscle function are all intimately related to heart health.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Bitter Orange Safety Concerns Are Overblown: study

A review of bitter orange safety was published in a peerr-reviewed journal. Analyzing the adverse event reports (AERs) submitted to the FDA, Sidney J. Stohs, dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, reported that, “The belief that p-synephrine exerts serious cardiovascular and other events continues to be believed by the lay public as well as healthcare professionals, in spite of the lack of clearly defined supportive evidence for this supposition, as well as extensive evidence to the contrary.”



"An 8 oz glass of Californian mandarin orange juice may contain up to 35 mg p-synephrine (USDA). A sweet orange typically contains about 6 mg p-synephrine."


http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Industry/Bitter-orange-concerns-unwarranted-and-unjustified-Review/?c=Fe5usULeGc2A9I8d6ljtPw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

Source: Journal of Functional Foods. Published online ahead of print, doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2010.10.003
“Assessment of the adverse event reports associated with Citrus aurantium (bitter orange) from April 2004 to October 2009” Author: S.J. Stohs

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Calcium & Cardiovascular Health: My review of the latest meta-analysis

At the end of July (2010) there was another nasty swipe at dietary supplements (Natural Health Products, for our Canadian friends). Again, the negative report came not from a single study, but from a particularly troubling type of report called a meta-analysis. Rising like a spider on a lethal web, this type of report keeps popping out of nowhere, attempting to make connections between studies where none may have been found before. In fact, we rarely see a competently designed meta-analysis on nutrients because there are many variables that come into play that simply don’t exist for isolated pharmaceutical drugs that aren’t (or at least aren’t supposed to be) present in our normal food supply. The interplay of nutrients affects each others’ metabolism, serum levels, and activities in a live human body. So when I see yet another meta-analysis getting major press coverage based on fairly flimsy evidence, I cringe and wonder why researchers and journalists fail to see the obvious flaws in their big story. Perhaps drug researchers are trying to branch out into nutrient research and just get in over their heads because they fail to see the complexity of nutrient research design.

The alleged danger this time: supplemental calcium was associated with a 30% increased risk of myocardial infarction, so the risks now outweigh the benefits. But was this proven? NO! Absolutely not. Nada. Zilch. Even the authors of this analysis know better than to claim that their report was definitive proof of these alleged dangers.

First of all, there was no increase in deaths in the groups given supplemental calcium. There was an increase in non-fatal heart attacks; but only in people who had already high calcium intake from their diets and also took high doses of supplemental calcium that they apparently didn’t need. And there was no problem demonstrated when calcium was given along with supplemental vitamin D, so maybe the problem was really that some folks had inadequate levels of that essential vitamin to deal with a high calcium intake.

But since vitamin D is both in the diet (as is calcium) and made from sunshine under the right conditions, these meta-analysis authors don’t really know how much vitamin D these people actually had, confounding their data. They don’t know because it would have required a rigorous study design that looked at all three intakes: food, supplements, and sunlight exposure at the times of day and year where vitamin D could be internally produced. Or at least measuring the serum before treatment to detect vitamin D levels and eliminate that as a variable. But that wasn’t done, perhaps because these researchers only looked at other people’s studies rather than running a human clinical trial themselves.

This points out perhaps the major problem with this type of study: since a meta-analysis is only a statistical model that cannibalizes previously published work to “mine” data in ways that were not planned by the original study designers, it has many built-in limitations. For example, cardiovascular outcomes were admittedly not intended as the primary endpoints in any of the 15 studies ‘Mixmastered’ together to make up this meta-analysis, so data on cardiovascular events were not gathered in the usual standardized manner. In plain English: the few cherry-picked studies included in this report had not done the type of standardization and control of variables needed to properly design a robust cardiovascular study because the original studies actually were looking at calcium’s effects on bone health, not heart health. This was, in fact, an admitted limitation of the current meta-analysis.

A good meta-analysis tries to pick the largest possible number of studies with similar designs to pool their results and in effect try to get a larger, hopefully more significant number of virtual test subjects. The farther from that model the meta-analysis gets, the more variables get introduced to confound the researchers. And since control of variables is the essential competence of the scientific method, we unfortunately find that an inexpertly executed meta-analysis is a misleading and erroneous scientific tool; like a ruler that has not been calibrated correctly and implies that our measurements are accurate when they may be way off the mark.

Researchers utilizing the imprecise tool of meta-analysis should not delude themselves that their work is definitive, because it almost never is. Nor should they become media darlings because they have espoused new theories - based on an unproven brew of mathematical models - that usually are already contradicted by a lot of better designed primary science. Nor should their attempts to re-examine previously published studies for results which were never intended to be measured scare us away from taking essential nutrients, which are commonly more healthful than harmful. As the current meta-analysis reported, the problem was that people who ate a lot of calcium who also took a lot of supplemental calcium without the benefits of taking vitamin D or other bone-forming cofactors had more non-fatal heart attacks. No one died. This implies that, at the most, one should not take a single nutrient in excess as if it were a magic drug, especially when they probably already get plenty in the diet. Don’t most of us know that already?

Nutrients are synergistic; therefore an imbalanced diet, including unneeded supplements that may tilt one even more into imbalance, may not properly support good health. Heck, I could have told you that before all this media fuss. But, with enough vitamin D the problem magically disappeared!. Supplementation of vitamin D apparently re-established good calcium metabolism, even at high levels of intake. The true issue then isn’t so much related to variations in calcium and vitamin D supplies, not to mention the unknown availability of other essential bone nutrients. It’s the misapplication of a drug model to a nutrient while ignoring known variables that affect the body’s proper use of that nutrient. One shouldn’t give a lot of calcium to those with adequate dietary intake, nor to those with insufficient vitamin D (and K, magnesium, et al) intake. This type of thought process is elementary to a nutritionist, of course, but apparently not to the well credentialed authors of many flawed drug model meta-analyses and their often overreaching conclusions.

You may be interested to know that a world-class researcher who has been working on calcium metabolism and osteoporosis for more than 50 years, the respected scientist who drafted the World Health Organization’s dietary calcium recommendations, strongly opposed the conclusions of the current calcium meta-analysis. Professor Chris Nordin from the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia was interviewed by ABC News. This news report cited Professor Nordin as saying that the meta-analysis was misleading because it improperly included studies involving a mixture of men and women, and the findings were not statistically significant. "Men are much more liable to heart attacks than women but women need calcium far more than men, so it is absurd to publish a study of the effect of calcium on the heart without separating men from women," he was quoted. Professor Nordin noted the fact that calcium supplements are predominantly recommended for and used by postmenopausal women because their bone loss is due to an increase in bone breakdown, which responds well to calcium supplementation (and vitamin D, if necessary). But he reports that calcium is seldom recommended for elderly men because their bone loss has a different cause, which is seldom caused by a need for more of that mineral. "Concluding that calcium supplements can lead to a 30 per cent increase in heart attack risk is quite premature and alarmist and can only set back the cause of osteoporosis prevention which should be our primary objective," he said.

According to ABC News, Osteoporosis Australia has also questioned the findings of the meta-analysis because many long-term studies have shown calcium supplements are safe and effective. In a statement posted on its website, Osteoporosis Australia says the weight of evidence to date indicates no increased risk of heart attacks from taking calcium supplements, which it says are an effective way of reducing fracture risk and bone loss in older men and women who have diets low in calcium.

This should point out the folly of well-meaning researchers who design studies to investigate topics that they don’t properly understand. In those cases, they simply don’t realize that there are other essential factors that can change everything and require a completely different and more comprehensive study design. That’s par for the course when meta-analyses are used to sort through previously published nutrient studies. Basic design flaws often make meta-analyses fatally flawed, despite the apparently sophisticated mathematical models and methods that researchers incorrectly try to apply to the data. Is it any wonder that we’re so confused about nutrition when researchers gain worldwide prominence for issuing highly questionable sensational reports that contradict the scientific consensus - but never have to say they’re sorry?

Calcium does not cause more heart attacks in well-designed primary human clinical studies. Healthy people should not be concerned about taking essential nutrients just because certain studies were flawed or performed on sick or at-risk populations and may have had negative results. Many of those negative reports have been challenged and may not have been verified and replicated in well designed clinical trails. The conclusions of such reports are sensational and well publicized precisely because they seem to negate our previous scientific consensus; which should make them more, not less, suspect. But the modern news cycle seems to thrive on such controversy, without caring how confused we get about what’s healthy and what’s not. But don’t worry; you have Honest Nutrition to help you sort it all out!

REFERENCES:

Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Baron JA, Grey A, Maclennan GS, Gamble GD, Reid IR. Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010 Jul 29;341:c3691. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3691. PubMed PMID: 20671013.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/341/jul29_1/c3691?view=long&pmid=20671013

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/03/2972399.htm?section=justin

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Neil was interviewed about CoQ10 for a trade magazine

* How would you rate consumer awareness of the health benefits of CoQ10? Neil: There is actually a fair amount of consistently positive press on CoEnzyme Q10 (CoQ10), with a significant part of that because of this antioxidant nutrient’s role in cardiovascular and heart health. Many cardiologists recommend CoQ10 to their patients and popular books, such as by Dr. Sinatra, promote the healthful effects of CoQ10 to at-risk people. I would go so far as to suggest that CoQ10 has picked up some of the wide popularity as a heart nutrient that vitamin E had several years ago (but lost due to consumer confusion caused by unwarranted negative publicity). The fact that CoQ10 is so obviously safe, versatile, and useful has propelled it to a high place on the list of cardiovascular nutrients. * What is driving consumer interest in CoQ10 products? Neil: The multiple roles of CoQ10 in the human body make it uniquely useful in protecting cells and energizing essential processes such as heart action and immunity. Energy supports the constant pumping of the heart muscle, but also supports immune functions and antioxidant activity. Lack of energy is a common complaint heard by doctors, and active people need good sources of energy, so nutrients that promise to improve the energetics of the body are always in demand. In addition, new technologies to improve the historically poor absorption of CoQ10 have expanded the product category as prices have moderated, which is a perfect place for people selling CoQ10 to be in. Tell us more about CoQ10: Neil: Ubiquinol doubles as an antioxidant, and like other antioxidants the body can convert from one to the other and back again. Although Ubiquinol lacks much in the way of human clinical trials, supplemental Ubiquinone mostly converts to Ubiquinol during transport from the gut to the circulatory system. Ubiquinol is the primary form of the nutrient that circulates in the body. Ubiquinol converts to Ubiquinone to stimulate the production of cellular energy. CoQ10 is a fat-soluble nutrient and therefore should only be taken with meals containing significant amounts of fat. That has traditionally been the main limiting factor in absorption. Blending CoQ10 into an oily base to make softgel capsules is somewhat superior to dry capsules because a little oil is provided, but again there just isn’t enough oil in a capsule to make a big difference when the nutrient is not dissolved into the oil. When CoQ10 is completely dissolved into an oil, forming a crystal-free solution, it does make it several times more absorbable. But all oily solvents are not created equal! Some manufacturers use the synthetic chemical polysorbate 80 as the base and main ingredient in the softgel capsule, whereas others use only natural citrus or coconut oil fractions to do the same job because we prefer to have natural bases.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Nutrients of interest to stroke victims

Sorry there's not much detail but this is a list that I made of nutrients that may be useful for someone who has had a stroke. I would suggest that you look each one up at a reputable online database, if interested. Of course, there are often difficulties at getting stroke survivors to take nutritional pills/caps; everything from swallowing to drug interactions. In no particular order: Vinpocetine Pycnogenol Nattokinase Rosemary Thyme Proline CoQ10 Phosphatidyl Choline Acetyl-l-carnitine vitamin E (all 8 tocopherols and tocotrienols) alpha-lipoic acid silymarin magnesium acetylcholine precursors: choline, PC, B5, huperzine

Monday, January 07, 2008

Selective facts produce poor journalism (or science).

Selective facts produce poor journalism (or science). For example, the Women's Health Study had a 7% reduction in major cardiovascular events with vitamin E, a number that was not significant. But there was a significant 24% reduction in cardiovascular death in the vitamin E group. Would you characterize that as a failure for vitamin E? The media did. Yet, the authors of the study admitted that, "This was largely attributable to fewer sudden deaths in the vitamin E group (38 vs 51 among women assigned to placebo) and fewer deaths from other cardiovascular disease (ie, deaths due to cardiovascular diseases other than ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, 20 vs 34, respectively)." The Williams College ginkgo study in JAMA allowed participants to miss up to 6 daily doses over a 2-week period (nearly 50%!) before they were eliminated for non-compliance. It also tested only one brand of ginkgo (Ginkoba) on healthy volunteers for only six weeks, with results (by convention) not applicable to other brands. This was an obvious attempt to see whether a quick, drug-like effect could be obtained from a short course of supplementation. Longer term studies are more authoritative, especially if compliance is better. The CoQ10 statement is laughably wrong: "Coenzyme Q10 has not been carefully tested to see if it is safe and effective. Because coenzyme Q10 is sold as a dietary supplement rather than a drug, it is not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration." This is a complaint that the FDA does not test individual dietary supplement products for potency or approve individual label claims. The agency does have the longstanding right to veto dietary supplement label claims and to remove any mislabeled or adulterated product from the national market. This contrasts with the FDA's explicit approval of drugs and drug claims, though the agency doesn't test individual pharmaceuticals for potency or safety, either. Of course, the FDA would take issue with their supposed inability to regulate dietary supplements. They even claim the opposite on their web page. Note the first 4 words: "FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading. FDA's post-marketing responsibilities include monitoring safety, e.g. voluntary dietary supplement adverse event reporting, and product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising." regarding the CNN report: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/09/chasing.supplements/index.html

Monday, March 05, 2007

Antioxidant Confusion

Antioxidant Confusion By Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Board certified clinical nutritionist with diplomate in advanced nutritional laboratory assessment March 2, 2007 A meta-analysis published in the medical journal JAMA this week reported that antioxidant vitamins do not extend life and may even increase death rates slightly. 1 These conclusions make no sense, based on the scientific record. A meta-analysis relies on a statistical model of existing science, and this model has severe limitations. Even the authors admit some of the basic problems inherent in this type of analysis. More importantly, the authors could not find a dose-dependent or cause-and-effect relationship between antioxidants and deaths (from all causes) of study participants. In other words, they couldn’t show that antioxidants actually caused any deaths or that there was risk at a particular dosage. Yet this questionable speculation received widespread publicity from the sensation-hungry media during “Sweeps Month”, dutifully spreading the lie that antioxidants are now worthless and dangerous. The researchers pooled 68 previously published trials but arbitrarily excluded all published studies that had no deaths reported from any cause. Indeed, 405 otherwise eligible studies were excluded solely for this reason, which if included would likely have dramatically changed the results and conclusion. The researchers did not disclose why they decided to exclude these. This is equivalent to playing a card game after removing all but 7 cards from the deck. (That wouldn’t be a fair game, would it?) They largely ignored the original outcome measures of the studies, many of which had shown positive results for antioxidants, to look only for deaths from any cause in a tiny segment of all published research. This arbitrary decision echoes a frequently cited complaint by scientists commenting to the journal Annals of Internal Medicine when the infamous Miller meta-analysis of vitamin E was released a few years ago, which led to a dramatic slowdown of vitamin E sales. 2 It is interesting that the Miller study’s negative conclusions about vitamin E safety have since been thoroughly debunked by a more rigorous analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by leading antioxidant experts. 3 It is even more interesting that the flawed Miller review was cited as a reference by the JAMA authors but the second, more thorough analysis of the same data by real nutrition experts was not. The lesson learned is that a flawed meta-analysis of nutrients by statisticians and physicians may not hold up to a more competent review done by actual experts in the field of nutrient interactions, though the initial report may have scared people and changed their behavior. Critical comments and corrections typically go ignored, uncited and unreported, in contrast with the sensational initial report. 4 I question both the selection of studies reviewed and the references cited in this meta-analysis. Obviously, excluding six times as many potentially eligible studies as were actually chosen solely because of a requirement that someone in the study population had to die unfairly magnifies negative results by dramatically reducing the pool of studies with potentially positive results and healthier populations. This negative shift is a result of limiting the combined patient population to those studies with at least one dying patient. This population shifts to those individuals who are more likely to be deficient in a variety of antioxidant substances and who are unlikely to respond to limited amounts of one or few supplemental antioxidants. The lack of additional supporting antioxidants may even sometimes increase the oxidative stress on the body. A review of antioxidant science noted, “These negative results…should not be taken as evidence that the free radical theory of aging is flawed. In fact, they prove merely that a complex organism like a human or rodent is unlikely to respond predictably to crude manipulations such as supplementation with one or a small number of compounds.” 1, 5, 6 This mirrors the JAMA authors’ admissions that “antioxidant supplements may show interdependency and may have effects only if given in combination,” and that their findings “should not be translated to potential effects of fruits or vegetables,” which are sources of numerous and varied antioxidant substances. 1 Previous studies have shown the folly of such a protocol. Some years ago an antioxidant study in Finland was halted early because of a widely reported increase in cancer rates among male smokers taking beta-carotene. 7 Headlines associated this supplement with cancer risk. Despite objections that the study was flawed, beta-carotene use dropped. A later analysis published in July 2004 took another look at that same Finnish smokers' study data, but now taking into account total antioxidant intake, which (should have) cleared away the scientific controversy. 8 A composite antioxidant index was generated for each of the 27,000 men over 14 years. The calculated amounts of carotenoids, flavonoids, Vitamin E, selenium and Vitamin C were compared to actual lung cancer rates, with a clear result: an increased intake of a combination of antioxidants lowered lung cancer risk in male smokers. Another large study has noted that high carotenoid intake, as confirmed by measures of blood levels, was associated with lower mortality rates among the elderly over a ten year period. 9 The dietary level of antioxidants is an independent predictor of plasma beta-carotene, especially in moderate alcohol drinkers. A more recent study reports, “This may explain, at least in part, the inverse relationship observed between plasma beta-carotene and risk of chronic diseases associated to high levels of oxidative stress (i.e., diabetes and CVD), as well as the failure of beta-carotene supplements alone in reducing such risk.” 10 In other words, we shouldn’t expect one or two supplemented antioxidants to compensate for a deficiency of total antioxidants in the diet. In fact, many of the protocols for supplementation in the included studies may have actually been of too low potency to achieve noticeable health benefits by remedying latent nutrient deficiencies in fragile patient populations. In other words: many of the interventions were too little, too late. Don’t blame the vitamins. The JAMA report admits that the study populations, the variety of antioxidants used, their potencies and the protocols for taking them were extremely variable, complicating their data with many uncompensated variables. Yet the authors actually claim that, “This increases the trustworthiness of our findings.” I don’t think so! One trial included gave only a single serving of antioxidants and then monitored participants for 3 months. Others used doses of as little as 10 IU of vitamin E (a low amount that is below the Daily Value) and 20 mcg of selenium 1 (an amount far below the 70 mcg DV and not anywhere near the 200+ mcg/day associated with lower cancer rates). 11, 12 I am not alone in these criticisms. Alexander Schauss, PhD, FACN has written, “The range of doses in the different trials they selected for the meta-analysis is dramatic. For example, vitamin A ranged from 1333 IU to 200,000 IU, and vitamin E from 10 IU to 1000 IU. The duration of the studies range from 28 days to 12 years. Nevertheless they were all lumped together.” An Associated Press article quoted other experts criticizing this meta-analysis: ‘Meir Stampfer, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the new analysis hasn't discouraged him from taking his vitamins. Stampfer said the studies were too diverse to pool together because they looked at various combinations and doses of antioxidants tested in different groups of people. The trials ranged from a three-month study of 109 elderly nursing home residents to a 12-year study of 22,071 male doctors. "This study does not advance our understanding, and could easily lead to misinterpretation of the data," said Stampfer, who was not connected to the new report.’ The AP report also quoted Donald Berry, chairman of the department of biostatistics at the University of Texas’ M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, stating that this expert also disagreed with the researchers' finding of an increased risk of dying. "There are so many choices you can make when you're doing these analyses," he said. A study of approximately 90,000 nurses suggested that the incidence of heart disease was 30% to 40% lower among nurses with the highest intake of vitamin E from diet and supplements. Researchers found that the apparent benefit was mainly associated with intake of vitamin E from dietary supplements. High vitamin E intake from food was not associated with significant cardiac risk reduction. 13 Levels of Vitamin E above 100 IU daily are associated with decreased risk of coronary heart disease and certain types of cancer, as well as enhancement of immune function. These increased vitamin E intakes are considerably above levels obtainable from diet alone. 14, 15, 16 In a report on the Women’s Health Study published in JAMA, subjects supplementing with vitamin E were reported to have a significant 24% reduction in cardiovascular deaths. 17 Have these previously published benefits of antioxidants miraculously vanished simply because some doctors manipulated a statistical model to elicit unreliable data with no solid basis? Many of the studies included were of patients with specific, serious medical conditions, including one of elderly nursing home patients measuring incidences of bacterial infections (contrasting with a 2004 study published in JAMA noted that, “we observed a protective effect of vitamin E supplementation on upper respiratory tract infections, particularly the common cold, that merits further investigation.” 18), patients with tumors removed from their colon/rectum (antioxidants are associated with apoptosis, a desirable change that leads to death of cancer cells 19, 20), patients with age-related macular degeneration (a condition associated with a deficiency of various antioxidants 21-24), patients with coronary heart disease (a condition related to oxidative damage 14-16), dialysis patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (a condition related to oxidative damage that is reduced by supplemental vitamin E 17), cataract patients (another condition related to oxidative damage 25), male cigarette smokers/present and former cigarette smokers/asbestos workers (all related to low levels of total antioxidants and high toxic load), as well as patients with alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, lupus, heart failure, ALS, etc. This meta-analysis will not stand the test of time because of its many variables, flaws and the arbitrary structuring of its statistical model. When better studies exist, often supported by blood assays, that show higher serum antioxidant levels reduce actual death rates in large populations, then no arbitrary statistical model should be able to negate that robust science with a merely theoretical danger based on such preliminary, questionable criteria. All studies cited here were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but that does not make them all of equal quality. Remember my story of the meta-analysis on vitamin E that was refuted by a better meta-analysis, yet both were peer-reviewed? A meta-analysis has more validity if fewer variables are included and if the selection of studies included is not biased by a presumed conclusion. Were hundreds of studies without dying participants ineligible for this particular meta-analysis review simply because of a selection bias, with an intent to demonstrate the dangers of supplementation? These scientists should know better. I see their report as an ill-disguised partisan attack by medical special interests on dietary supplements, a smokescreen for those that don’t look at the quality and quantity of well-designed studies that do show the benefits of vitamins to protect health and prevent deaths. The Lewin Group has presented evidence that the use of antioxidants could save the vision and independence of many senior citizens, while saving the public billions of dollars in healthcare costs. 26 The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, after reviewing hundreds of well-designed studies, has set safe upper limits for several antioxidants at levels far above the Daily Values. 27 Antioxidants are safe, and proven so in better studies than this one. REFERENCES: 1. Bjelakovic G, et.al. Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements for Primary and Secondary Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2007. 297(8):842-857 2. Miller ER 3rd, et al. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 4;142(1):37-46. Epub 2004 Nov 10. Summary for patients in: Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 4;142(1):I40. PMID: 15537682 3. Hathcock JN, et al. Vitamins E and C are safe across a broad range of intakes. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Apr;81(4):736-45. Review. PMID: 15817846 4. Levin, N. Land of Confusion: How Poor Science and Misleading Media Coverage Create Public Confusion About How Dietary Supplements Affect Health. J App Nutr, Vol 55, No. 1, 2005 8-15 5. Beckman KB, Ames BN. The free radical theory of aging matures. Physiol Rev. 1998 Apr;78(2):547-81. Review. PMID: 9562038 6. BLOCK, G. Are clinical trials really the answer? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 62, Suppl.: 15175-15205, 1995 7. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med. 1994 Apr 14;330(15):1029-35. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/330/15/1029?ijkey=bd47b716724d0dad4cad0fb19337308753658337 8. Wright ME, et al. Development of a Comprehensive Dietary Antioxidant Index and Application to Lung Cancer Risk in a Cohort of Male Smokers. July 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/1/68?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=beta+carotene&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1100534768534_1530&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/2004&tdate=7/31/2004&journalcode=amjepid 9. Buijsse B, et al. Plasma carotene and alpha-tocopherol in relation to 10-y all-cause and cause-specific mortality in European elderly: The Survey in Europe on Nutrition and the Elderly, a Concerted Action (SENECA). Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:879–886. 10. Brighenti F. The total antioxidant capacity of the diet is an independent predictor of plasma beta-carotene. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2007) 61, 69–76. 11. Clark LC, Marshall JR. Randomized, controlled chemoprevention trials in populations at very high risk for prostate cancer: elevated prostate-specific antigen and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, Urology 57 (2001), pp. 185–187. 12. Duffield-Lillico, AJ, et al. Baseline characteristics and the effect of selenium supplementation on cancer incidence in a randomized clinical trial: a summary report of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 11 (2002), pp. 630–639. 13. Stampfer MJ, et al. Vitamin E consumption and the risk of coronary disease in women. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1444-9 14. Bauernfeind, J. Tocopherols in Foods. In: Vitamin E: A Comprehensive Treatise. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, pp. 99-167, 1980. 15. Horwitt, M.K. The Promotion of Vitamin E. J. Nutr. 116:1371-1377, 1986. 16. Weber, P., Bendich, A. and Machlin, L.J. Vitamin E and Human Health: Rationale for Determining Recommended Intake Levels. Nutrition 13:450-460, 1997. 17. I-Min Lee, MBBS, ScD; et al. Vitamin E in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer. The Women’s Health Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2005;294:56-65 18. Meydani SN, et al. Vitamin E and respiratory tract infections in elderly nursing home residents: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 Aug 18;292(7):828-36. Erratum in: JAMA. 2004 Sep 15;292(11):1305. PMID: 15315997 19. Narayanan BA. Chemopreventive agents alters global gene expression pattern: predicting their mode of action and targets. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2006 Dec;6(8):711-27. Review. PMID: 17168675 20. Valko M, et al. Free radicals and antioxidants in normal physiological functions and human disease. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2007;39(1):44-84. Epub 2006 Aug 4. Review. PMID: 16978905 21. Chiu CJ, Taylor A. Nutritional antioxidants and age-related cataract and maculopathy. Exp Eye Res. 2007 Feb;84(2):229-45. Epub 2006 Jul 31. Review. PMID: 16879819 22. Moriarty-Craige SE, et al. Antioxidant supplements prevent oxidation of cysteine/cystine redox in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Dec;140(6):1020-6. PMID: 16376645 23. Richer S, et al. Double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of lutein and antioxidant supplementation in the intervention of atrophic age-related macular degeneration: the Veterans LAST study (Lutein Antioxidant Supplementation Trial). Optometry. 2004 Apr;75(4):216-30. PMID: 15117055 24. Koh HH, et al. Macular Pigment Optical Density in Early, Age-Related Maculopathy (ARM); Comparisons With Normals and Effects of a Lutein Supplement. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43:2562 25. Meyer CH, Sekundo W. Nutritional supplementation to prevent cataract formation. Dev Ophthalmol. 2005;38:103-19. Review. PMID: 15604620 26. DaVanzo JE, et al. An Evidence-Based Study of the Role of Dietary Supplements in Helping Seniors Maintain their Independence. The Lewin Group Inc. January 20, 2006 27. National Institutes of Health, Institute of Medicine, Office of Dietary Supplements. Vitamin E Fact Sheet

Friday, November 10, 2006

More evidence of vitamin E safety!

More evidence of vitamin E safety! According to a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition1, male smokers in a study population who had the highest blood levels of vitamin E suffered significantly fewer deaths than comparable male smokers who had lower blood levels of this essential vitamin. Researchers from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health teamed up with their counterparts in Finland to review the relationship of blood levels of vitamin E (alpha tocopherol) and all-cause mortality in male smokers age 50-69 in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention (ATBC) Study. The study included 29,092 men, with follow-ups continuing over a period of up to 19 years. For those in the groups with the highest blood levels of alpha-tocopherol, there was an 18% lower risk of deaths from all causes. Included in this figure are results relating to specific causes of death, including a 21% reduction in deaths from cancer, a 19% reduction in deaths from cardiovascular disease and a whopping 30% reduction in deaths from all other causes. The report reached this conclusion: “Higher circulating concentrations of alpha-tocopherol within the normal range are associated with significantly lower total and cause-specific mortality in older male smokers.” A non-reproduced meta-analysis6 warning of the largely theoretical dangers of taking vitamin E supplements has generated a lot of concern and a large decline in vitamin E usage, though this flies in the face of other, more rigorous studies showing that higher levels of serum vitamin E are associated with lower mortality numbers.1, 3-4, 7 These largely unsubstantiated warnings may be doing a disservice to figures showing that “93% of men and 96% of women in the United States do not consume the recommended daily amount of dietary vitamin E”.2, 5 In another study, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) mortality was 62% lower among long-term users of vitamin E than among nonusers.8 Also, in a study of cancer patients done for the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, “Subgroup analysis did identify a statistically significant 9% reduction in all cause mortality” and “13% reduction in all-cancer mortality associated with supplemental vitamin E in combination with other micro-nutrients.”9 REFERENCES: Margaret E Wright, Karla A Lawson, Stephanie J Weinstein, Pirjo Pietinen, Philip R Taylor, Jarmo Virtamo and Demetrius Albanes. Higher baseline serum concentrations of vitamin E are associated with lower total and cause-specific mortality in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 84, No. 5, 1200-1207, November 2006. (Researchers were from the Nutritional Epidemiology and the Genetic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, and the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and the Department of Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland) Maras JE, Bermudez OI, Qiao N, Bakun PJ, Boody-Alter EL, Tucker KL. Intake of alpha-tocopherol is limited among US adults. J Am Diet Assoc2004; 104 :567 –75. Traber MG. How much vitamin E? ... Just enough! Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov;84(5):959-960. PMID: 17093143 Wright ME, Lawson KA, Weinstein SJ, et al. Higher baseline serum concentrations of vitamin E are associated with lower total and cause-specific mortality in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study. Am J Clin Nutr2006; 84 :1200–7. Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. Edgar R. Miller, III, MD, PhD; et al. High-dose vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality, a dose response meta-analysis of randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine: Online: Nov. 10, 2004: Print: 4 January 2005 Volume 142 Issue 1 John N Hathcock, et al. REVIEW ARTICLE: Vitamins E and C are safe across a broad range of intakes. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 81, No. 4, 736-745, April 2005. Vitamin E intake and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2005 Jan;57(1):104-10. PMID: 15529299 Shekelle P, et al. Effect of the supplemental use of antioxidants vitamin C, vitamin E, and coenzyme Q10 for the prevention and treatment of cancer. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2003 Oct;(75):1-3. Review. PMID: 15523748

Friday, October 20, 2006

Text of Speech on Nutrition Given to a Diabetic Support Group

Diabetic Support Group-St. Alexander’s Church. 300 S. Cornell, Villa Park, IL 1/22/2002 Healthy Living Through Nutrition – presented by Neil E. Levin, Certified Clinical Nutritionist What is Diabetes? People with diabetes can’t properly process glucose, the main sugar that the body uses for energy. So glucose stays in the blood, making blood glucose rise. Ironically, at the same time the cells of the body can be starved for glucose. Diabetes can lead to wounds not healing, more infections, and problems involving the eyes, kidneys, nerves, and heart. Neuropathy from diabetic complications may lead to amputation of extremities, especially the feet. There are two types of diabetes mellitus. Childhood-onset diabetes is also called type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. In type 1 diabetes, the pancreas can’t make insulin needed to process glucose. This is theorized to be an autoimmune disease, where the pancreatic cells are attacked and destroyed by the immune system. Natural therapies can’t cure type 1 diabetes, but they may help by making the body more receptive to injected insulin. It is critical for people with type 1 diabetes to work carefully with the doctor prescribing insulin before contemplating the use of any herbs, supplements, or dietary changes. Any change that makes the body more receptive to insulin could require critical changes in insulin dosage that must be determined by the treating physician. Adult-onset diabetes is also called type 2, or non-insulin-dependent, diabetes. With type 2 diabetes, the pancreas may make enough insulin, but the body has trouble using the insulin at the cellular level. Type 2 diabetes responds well to natural therapies. Again, medications may need to be adjusted to provide safety if you change your diet or dietary supplement program. People with diabetes have a higher risk for heart disease and atherosclerosis. Diabetics especially have a higher mortality rate if they also have high levels of homocysteine, associated with low intake of certain B vitamins. What causes insulin resistance? It is estimated that 1 in 4 people non-diabetic have genetic predisposition to insulin resistance. Whether or not the insulin resistance develops may depend on your eating and exercise habits. Low physical activity is the main reason why insulin resistance develops. Gaining weight/body fat around the mid-section is a common trigger. With insulin resistance it’s more difficult to lose weight. So, obesity and insulin resistance becomes a viscous cycle--obesity contributes to insulin resistance, and insulin resistance contributes to weight gain! People who maintain a healthy weight and enjoy regular physical activity rarely develop insulin resistance, even if they have an underlying genetic predisposition. NOTE: Some medications (like Depakote, an anti-seizure medication) and some disease states (like PolyCystic Ovarian Syndrome, or PCOS) have also been associated with insulin resistance and weight gain. It’s always important to rule-out these non-diet/non-exercise related problems with your doctor. Syndrome X can increase symptoms of aging, increasing your risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, and other age-related diseases. Many of these diseases have an oxidative or inflammatory component and may be mitigated by antioxidant and anti-inflammatory nutrients or drugs. Syndrome X refers specifically to a group of health problems that can include insulin resistance (the inability to properly deal with dietary carbohydrates and sugars), abnormal blood fats (such as elevated cholesterol and triglycerides), being overweight, and having high blood pressure; leading to nervous system disorders, eye disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease. In addition to physical symptoms, you may feel exhausted, spacey, depressed, irritable, or angry when you shouldn't be. Doctors have known for years that each of these health problems can increase the risk of other diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes. However, until relatively recently, they failed to see these health problems as part of a syndrome. We now know that eating large amounts of certain dietary carbohydrates can raise cholesterol, triglyceride, and insulin levels. Insulin resistance and Syndrome X are caused primarily by a diet high in refined carbohydrates, which probably include many of your favorite and frequently eaten foods, such as cereals, muffins, breads and rolls, pastas, cookies, donuts, and soft drinks. These refined carbohydrates not only raise glucose and insulin to unhealthy levels, but they also are devoid of the many vitamins, minerals, and vitamin-like nutrients our bodies need to properly utilize these foods. Two of the key players in this life-and-death drama affecting you are substances regarded as absolutely essential for health: glucose (also known as blood sugar) and the hormone insulin. Because of the foods we, as a population, now eat, our bodies' levels of glucose and insulin have gone out of control. Quite simply, we are overdosing on glucose and insulin. Both substances in high doses accelerate the aging of our bodies and encourage the development of disease. We know also that elevated insulin can promote obesity and high blood pressure. Because these problems are related and tend to occur in clusters, they form a syndrome. Syndrome X is primarily a nutritional disease caused by eating the wrong types of foods. You have the power to easily modify your lifestyle to protect yourself against Syndrome X. It is a disease caused by your body's inability to make the most of the food you eat. Doctors who recognize the underlying cause of this epidemic call it by one of several, often overlapping names: insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, glucose intolerance, prediabetes, or Syndrome X. But few people have recognized the full scope of this disorder: it affects, to one degree or another, the majority of people in the country. If you are over the age of 35, you may be more familiar with some of the early signs and symptoms than the names of this condition: feeling sluggish, physically and mentally, after you eat and at many other times as well. Gaining a pound here and a pound there-and having increasing difficulty in losing them. Having your blood pressure creep up year and after year. And finding that your cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood sugar levels are doing the same. These are all accepted signs of getting older, but they are all easily reversible. Such symptoms indicate that something is fundamentally wrong with your health, and they have an "additive" effect, meaning that two or three of these symptoms (such as obesity plus high blood pressure) increase your risk of serious disease far more than just one symptom. Reducing Insulin Sensitivity the Natural Way There are many healthy lifestyle choices that you can make to improve your insulin sensitivity. These healthy choices are important whether or not you have diabetes and whether or not you are also taking medication for your condition. 1) Exercise! -- Regular physical activity (both aerobics and strength training) increase your cells' sensitivity to insulin. Aim for 20-60 minutes of aerobic activity (e.g. brisk walking, jogging, swimming, or cycling) 3-5 days per week. In addition, aim for 30 minutes of strength training (with free weights, machines, resistance bands, or your own body’s resistance) 2-3 times per week. Gradually work up to these exercise goals, and discover a variety of different activities that you enjoy and can fit into your busy life. 2) Maintain normal weight -- Even as little as a 10% reduction in weight can help improve your cells' insulin sensitivity. To lose weight safely and effectively, reduce your total calorie intake by about 500 calories each day (that’s equal to about one candy bar and one 16 oz. glass of juice or soda). Aim for a 1-2 pound weight loss per week. NOTE: Restrictive dieting (<> 2 pounds per week) are NOT recommended. Both can contribute to nutrient deficiencies, excessive loss of lean body mass vs. fat, reduced metabolic rate, food preoccupation, depression, fatigue, irritability, binge eating, and rapid weight re-gain. 3) Eat a moderate carbohydrate diet (about 45% of total calories)! -- Carbohydrates (especially low fiber, refined white grains and sugary foods/beverages) stimulate the most insulin secretion after you eat them. Your insulin levels are already high, so eating a diet that further increases insulin is not desirable. • Choose a diet rich in mostly nonstarchy vegetables (leafy greens, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, zucchini, etc.). Aim for about 3 cups of chopped veggies per day (6 servings per day). • Choose a diet with whole fruits instead of juices, most of the time. Aim for about 3 small pieces of fruit per day (3 servings per day). • Choose mostly high fiber, whole grains and legumes (brown rice, whole wheat pasta, beans, whole wheat bread, whole grain cereals), and keep portion sizes moderate. Aim for about 5-7 servings per day. One serving equals one slice of bread, one 6” tortilla, ½ cup grains, legumes, or starchy vegetables, or ½ small bagel. • If you enjoy sweet desserts on occasion, just balance them out by eating fewer amounts of other carbohydrate-rich foods (like bread, pasta, and rice) at that meal. 4) Replace excess carbs with more heart healthy monounsaturated fats! (nuts, peanut butter, olive/canola oil, avocados) These fats don't affect your insulin levels, and they are good for your heart! But, like all foods high in fat, they have a lot of calories, so be sensible about your serving sizes. For instance, enjoy 1/4 cup of nuts for a snack instead of "bready" things. Enjoy 1-2 Tbsp. oil/vinegar dressings on your salads. Add a couple slices of avocado to sandwiches/salads. 5) Consume adequate protein with meals! Protein-rich foods (like tofu, fish, chicken, lean meat, low fat cottage cheese, and eggs) will help promote satiety so you don't feel hungry all the time. 6) Manage stress, and get enough sleep! Stress and inadequate sleep increase stress hormones (like cortisol) that increase insulin levels. Again, your goal is to lessen your already high insulin levels, so be sure to practice daily relaxation exercises and get to bed at a reasonable hour. Nutrition is Your Best Medicine One of the problems people face in reversing insulin resistance and Syndrome X is perceptual: the long-held belief that food has relatively little to do with the development and progression of disease and the maintenance of health. We believe-and are supported with overwhelming scientific evidence-that the quality of our foods has a direct and fundamental bearing on the quality of our health, more so even than the genes that we inherit. from Syndrome X: The Complete Nutritional Program to Preventing and Reversing Insulin Resistance. Copyright © 2000 by Jack Challem, Burt Berkson, and Melissa Diane Smith. Syndrome X: The Complete Nutritional Program to Preventing and Reversing Insulin Resistance ($24.95) is available at all bookstores, online booksellers, and from the Wiley web site at www.wiley.com. To order, call John Wiley & Sons publishers at 1-800-225-5945, or go to www.amazon.com. Syndrome X: The Complete Nutritional Program to Prevent and Reverse Insulin Resistance Jack Challem Burt Berkson, M.D., Ph.D. Melissa Diane Smith Glycemic Index of Foods: Eating carbohydrate-containing foods, whether high in sugar or starch (such as bread, potatoes, processed breakfast cereals, and rice), temporarily raises blood sugar and insulin levels. The blood sugar-raising effect of a food, called its “glycemic index,” depends on how rapidly its carbohydrate is absorbed. Many starchy foods have a glycemic index similar to sucrose (table sugar). People eating large amounts of foods with high glycemic indices (such as those mentioned above), have been reported to be at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, eating a diet high in carbohydrate-rich foods with low glycemic indices is associated with a low risk of type 2 diabetes. Beans, peas, fruit, and oats, have low glycemic indices, despite their high carbohydrate content, due mostly to the health-promoting effects of soluble fiber. Diabetes disrupts the mechanisms by which the body controls blood sugar. Until recently, health professionals have recommended sugar restriction to people with diabetes, even though short-term high-sugar diets have been shown, in some studies, not to cause blood sugar problems in people with diabetes. Currently, the American Diabetic Association (ADA) guidelines do not prohibit the use of moderate amounts of sugar, as long as the goals of normalizing blood levels of glucose, triglycerides, and cholesterol are being achieved. Most doctors recommend that people with diabetes cut intake of sugar from snacks and processed foods, and replace these foods with high-fiber, whole foods. This tends to lower the glycemic index of the overall diet and has the additional benefit of increasing vitamin, mineral, and fiber intake. Other authorities also recommend lowering the glycemic index of the diet to improve the control of diabetes. Other Diets: FIBER: A high-fiber diet has been shown to work better in controlling diabetes than the diet recommended by the ADA, and may control blood sugar levels as well as oral diabetes drugs. In this study, the increase in dietary fiber was accomplished exclusively through the consumption of foods naturally high in fiber—such as leafy green vegetables, granola, and fruit—to a level beyond that recommended by the ADA. No fiber supplements were given. All participants received both the ADA diet (providing 24 grams of fiber per day) and the high-fiber diet (providing 50 grams of fiber per day), for a period of six weeks. After six weeks of following each diet, tests were performed to determine blood glucose, insulin, cholesterol, triglyceride, and other values. When glucose levels were monitored over a 24-hour period, participants eating the high-fiber diet had an average glucose level that was 10% lower than participants eating the ADA diet. Insulin levels were 12% lower in the group eating the high-fiber diet compared to the group eating the ADA diet, indicating a beneficial increase in the body’s sensitivity to insulin. Moreover, people eating the high-fiber diet experienced significant reductions in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol compared to those eating the ADA diet. They also had slight decreases in glycosylated hemoglobin, a measure of chronically high blood glucose levels. High-fiber supplements, such as psyllium, guar gum (found in beans), pectin (from fruit), oat bran, and glucomannan have improved glucose tolerance in some studies. Positive results have also been reported with the consumption of 1–3 ounces of powdered fenugreek seeds per day. A review of the research revealed that the extent to which moderate amounts of fiber help people with diabetes in the long term is still unknown, and the lack of many long-term studies has led some researchers to question the importance of fiber in improving diabetes. Still, most doctors advise people with diabetes to eat a diet high in fiber. Focus should be placed on fruits, vegetables, seeds, oats, and whole-grain products. OTHER RESTRICTED DIETS: Eating fish also may afford some protection from diabetes. Incorporating a fish meal into a weight-loss regimen was more effective than either measure alone at improving glucose and insulin metabolism and high cholesterol. Vegetarians have been reported to have a low risk of type 2 diabetes. When people with diabetic nerve damage switch to a vegan diet (no meat, dairy, or eggs), improvements have been reported after several days. In one trial, pain completely disappeared in 17 of 21 people. Fats from meat and dairy also contribute to heart disease, the leading killer of people with diabetes. Some of these benefits may be due to the better food and oils consumed by health-conscious people plus the lack of animal fats in their diet. Vegetarians eat less protein than do meat eaters. The reduction of protein intake has lowered kidney damage caused by diabetes and may also improve glucose tolerance. However, in a group of 13 obese males with high blood-insulin levels (as is often seen in diabetes), a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet (like the Atkins Diet) resulted in greater weight loss and control of insulin levels, compared with that of a low-carbohydrate diet. Switching to either a high- or low-protein diet should be discussed with a doctor. The high protein diets seem to be better suited to people with Type O Blood types than for others. Diets high in fat, especially saturated fat, worsen glucose tolerance and increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, an effect that is not simply the result of weight gain caused by eating high-fat foods. Saturated fat is found primarily in meat, dairy fat, and the dark meat and skins of poultry. In contrast, glucose intolerance has been improved by diets high in monounsaturated oils, which may be good for people with diabetes.47 There is often difficulty in changing the overall percentage of calories from fat and carbohydrates in the diets of people with type 1 diabetes. However, modifying the quality of the dietary fat is achievable. In adolescents with type 1 diabetes, increasing monounsaturated fats relative to other fats in the diet is associated with better control over blood sugar and cholesterol levels. The easiest way to incorporate monounsaturates into the diet is to use oils containing olive oil. However, those who are overweight need to be aware—olive oil is high in calories. Glucose tolerance improves in healthy people taking omega-3 fatty acid supplements. Some studies have found that fish oil supplementation improves glucose tolerance, high triglycerides, and cholesterol levels in people with diabetes. In one trial, people with diabetic neuropathy and diabetic nephropathy experienced significant improvement when given 600 mg three times per day of purified EPA—one of the two major omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil supplements—for 48 weeks. Another consideration regards the inflammatory nature of certain oils. Inflammations are associated with animal fats and most vegetable oils, especially the refined and hydrogenated types. The Omega-3 oils are actually anti-inflammatory. These are mostly from cold water fish and from flaxseed oil. Those with inflammatory conditions, including arthritis, Parkinson’s, cancer and other chronic ailments, should seriously consider getting the vast bulk of their oil intake from only quality Omega-3 oils as a means to stop conditions that promote inflammation in the body. Should children avoid milk to prevent type 1 diabetes? Worldwide, children whose dietary energy comes primarily from dairy (or meat) products have a significantly higher chance of developing type 1 diabetes than do children whose dietary energy comes primarily from vegetable sources. Countries with high milk consumption have a high risk of type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes. Animal research also indicates that avoiding milk affords protection from type 1 diabetes. Milk contains a protein related to a protein in the pancreas, the organ where insulin is made. Some researchers believe that children who are allergic to milk may develop antibodies that attack the pancreas, causing type 1 diabetes. Several studies have linked cows’ milk consumption to the occurrence of type 1 diabetes in children. Different genetic strains of cows’ milk protein (casein) are associated with different levels of risk. Some children who drink cows’ milk produce antibodies to the milk, and it has been hypothesized that these antibodies can cross-react with and damage the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. Immune problems in people with type 1 diabetes have been tied to other allergies as well, and it’s important to not focus only on avoiding dairy products. Preliminary studies have found that early introduction of cows’ milk formula feeding increases the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. A study of Finnish children (including full-term children with diabetes) showed that early introduction of cows’ milk formula feeding before three months of age (vs. after three months of age) was associated with increased risk of type 1 diabetes. This research supports abstaining from dairy products in infancy and early childhood, particularly for children with a family history of type 1 diabetes. Recent research also suggests a possible link between milk consumption in infancy and an increased risk of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes. The risk seems to be associated with milk proteins rather than sugars. Eye Problems (Retinopathy): Some sugars are actually potentially harmful to the eyes, especially for those with diabetic neuropathies that may affect vision. Animal studies suggest that dietary fructose may contribute to the development of retinopathy. Although such an association has not been demonstrated in humans, some doctors advise their diabetic patients to avoid foods containing added fructose or high-fructose corn syrup. Fructose that occurs naturally in fruit has not been found to be harmful. The accumulation of another sugar alcohol called sorbitol is another risk factor. In a study of people with diabetes, cigarette smoking was found to be a risk factor for the development of retinopathy. In a study of people with type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes, those who maintained their blood sugar levels close to the normal range had less severe retinopathy, compared with those whose blood sugar levels were higher. Tighter control of blood-sugar levels can be achieved with a medically supervised program of diet, exercise, and, when appropriate, medication. Nutritional supplements that may be helpful: Free radicals have been implicated in the development and progression of several forms of retinopathy. Retrolental fibroplasia, a retinopathy that occurs in some premature infants who have been exposed to high levels of oxygen, is an example of free radical-induced damage to the retina. In an analysis of the best published trials, large amounts of vitamin E were found to reduce the incidence of severe retinopathy in premature infants by over 50%. Some of the evidence supporting the use of vitamin E in the prevention of retrolental fibroplasia comes from trials that have used 100 IU of vitamin E per 2.2 pounds of body weight in the form of oral supplementation. Use of large amounts of vitamin E in the prevention of retrolental fibroplasia requires the supervision of a pediatrician. Vitamin E has also been found to prevent retinopathy in people with a rare genetic disease known as abetalipoproteinemia. People with this disorder lack a protein that transports fat-soluble nutrients, and can therefore develop deficiencies of vitamin E and other nutrients. In one trial, vitamin E failed to improve vision in people with diabetic retinopathy, although in a double-blind trial, people with type 1 diabetes given very high amounts of vitamin E were reported to show a normalization of blood flow to the retina. This finding has made researchers hopeful that vitamin E might help prevent diabetic retinopathy. However, no long-term trials have yet been conducted with vitamin E in the actual prevention of diabetic retinopathy. Because oxidation damage is believed to play a role in the development of retinopathy, antioxidant nutrients might be protective. One doctor has administered a daily regimen of 500 mcg selenium, 800 IU vitamin E, 10,000 IU vitamin A, and 1,000 mg vitamin C for several years to 20 people with diabetic retinopathy. During that time, 19 of the 20 people showed either improvement or no progression of their retinopathy. People who wish to supplement with more than 250 mcg of selenium per day should consult a healthcare practitioner. Low blood levels of magnesium have been found to be a risk factor for retinopathy for some people with diabetes. One study investigated the effect of adding 100 mcg per day of vitamin B12 to the insulin injections of 15 children with diabetic retinopathy. After one year, signs of retinopathy disappeared in 7 of 15 cases; after two years, 8 of 15 were free of retinopathy. Adults with diabetic retinopathy did not benefit from vitamin B12 injections. Consultation with a physician is necessary before adding injectable vitamin B12 to insulin. Quercetin (a flavonoid) has been shown to inhibit the enzyme, aldose reductase. This enzyme appears to contribute to worsening of diabetic retinopathy.. Although human studies have not been done using quercetin to treat retinopathy, some doctors prescribe 400 mg of quercetin three times per day. Another flavonoid, rutin, has been used with success to treat retinopathy in preliminary research. Proanthocyanidins (OPCs), a group of flavonoids found in pine bark, grape seed, and other plant sources have been reported in preliminary French trials to help limit the progression of retinopathy. Nutritional supplements that may be helpful: Medical reports dating back to 1853, as well as modern research, indicate that chromium-rich brewer’s yeast (9 grams per day) can be useful in treating diabetes. In recent years, chromium has been shown to improve glucose and related variables in people with glucose intolerance and type 1, type 2, gestational, and steroid-induced diabetes. Improved glucose tolerance with lower or similar levels of insulin have been reported in more than ten trials of chromium supplementation in people with varying degrees of glucose intolerance. Chromium supplements improve glucose tolerance in people with both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, apparently by increasing sensitivity to insulin. Chromium improves the processing of glucose in people with prediabetic glucose intolerance and in women with diabetes associated with pregnancy. Chromium even helps healthy people, although one such report found chromium useful only when accompanied by 100 mg of niacin. Chromium may also lower total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides (risk factors in heart disease). A few trials that reported no beneficial effects from chromium supplementation. used 200 mcg or less of supplemental chromium, which is often not adequate for people with diabetes, especially if it is in a poorly absorbed form. The typical amount of chromium used in research trials is 200 mcg per day, although as much as 1,000 mcg per day has been used. Many doctors recommend up to 1,000 mcg per day for people with diabetes. Supplementation with chromium or brewer’s yeast could potentially enhance the effects of drugs for diabetes (e.g., insulin or other blood sugar-lowering agents) and possibly lead to hypoglycemia. Therefore, people with diabetes taking these medications should supplement chromium or brewer’s yeast only under the supervision of a doctor. People with diabetes tend to have low magnesium levels. Double-blind research indicates that supplementing with magnesium overcomes this problem. Magnesium supplementation has improved insulin production in elderly people with type 2 diabetes. Elders without diabetes can also produce more insulin as a result of magnesium supplements, according to some trials. Insulin requirements are often lower in people with type 1 diabetes who supplement with magnesium. Diabetes-induced damage to the eyes is more likely to occur in magnesium-deficient people with type 1 diabetes. In magnesium-deficient pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the lack of magnesium may even account for the high rate of spontaneous abortion and birth defects associated with type 1 diabetes. The American Diabetes Association admits “strong associations...between magnesium deficiency and insulin resistance”. Many doctors recommend that people with diabetes and normal kidney function supplement with 200–600 mg of magnesium per day. Alpha lipoic acid is a powerful natural antioxidant. Preliminary and double-blind trials have found that supplementing 600–1,200 mg of lipoic acid per day improves insulin sensitivity and the symptoms of diabetic neuropathy. Supplementing with 4 grams of evening primrose oil per day for six months has been found in double-blind research to improve nerve function and to relieve pain symptoms of diabetic neuropathy. Glucomannan is a water-soluble dietary fiber that is derived from konjac root (Amorphophallus konjac). Glucomannan delays stomach emptying, leading to a more gradual absorption of dietary sugar. This effect can reduce the elevation of blood sugar levels that is typical after a meal. After-meal blood sugar levels are lower in people with diabetes given glucomannan in their food, and overall diabetic control is improved with glucomannan-enriched diets, according to preliminary and controlled clinical trials. One preliminary report suggested that glucomannan may also be helpful in pregnancy-related diabetes. For controlling blood sugar, 500–700 mg of glucomannan per 100 calories in the diet has been used successfully in controlled research. People with low blood levels of vitamin E are more likely to develop type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Vitamin E supplementation has improved glucose tolerance in people with type 2 diabetes in most, but not all, double-blind trials. Vitamin E has also improved glucose tolerance in elderly people without diabetes. Three months or more of supplementation may be required for benefits to become apparent. The amount used is at least 900 IU of vitamin E per day. In one of the few trials to find vitamin E supplementation ineffective for glucose intolerance in people with type 2 diabetes, damage to nerves caused by the diabetes was nonetheless partially reversed by supplementing with vitamin E for six months. Animal and preliminary human data indicate that vitamin E supplementation may protect against diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy, serious complications of diabetes involving the eyes and kidneys. Glycosylation is an important measurement of diabetes; it refers to how much sugar attaches abnormally to proteins. Vitamin E supplementation reduces this problem in many, although not all, studies. Vitamin E appears to lower the risk of cerebral infarction, a type of stroke, in people with diabetes who smoke. A review of a large Finnish study of smokers concluded that smokers with diabetes (or hypertension) represent a subset population that can benefit from small amounts of vitamin E (50 IU per day) without experiencing an increased risk of bleeding. People with type 1 diabetes appear to have low vitamin C levels. As with vitamin E, vitamin C may reduce glycosylation. Vitamin C also lowers sorbitol in people with diabetes. Sorbitol is a sugar that can accumulate and damage the eyes, nerves, and kidneys of people with diabetes. Vitamin C may improve glucose tolerance in type 2 diabetes, although not every study confirms this benefit. Vitamin C supplementation (500 mg twice daily for one year) has significantly reduced urinary protein loss in people with diabetes. Urinary protein loss (also called proteinuria) is associated with poor prognosis in diabetes. Many doctors suggest that people with diabetes supplement with 1–3 grams per day of vitamin C. Higher amounts could be problematic, however. In one person, 4.5 grams per day was reported to increase blood sugar levels. Many people with diabetes have low blood levels of vitamin B6. Levels are even lower in people with diabetes who also have nerve damage (neuropathy). Vitamin B6 supplementation has improved glucose tolerance in women with diabetes caused by pregnancy. Vitamin B6 supplementation is also effective for glucose intolerance induced by birth control pills. For other people with diabetes, 1,800 mg per day of a special form of vitamin B6—pyridoxine alpha-ketoglutarate—has improved glucose tolerance dramatically in some research. Standard vitamin B6 has helped in some, but not all, trials. Biotin is a B vitamin needed to process glucose. When people with type 1 diabetes were given 16 mg of biotin per day for one week, their fasting glucose levels dropped by 50%. Similar results have been reported using 9 mg per day for two months in people with type 2 diabetes.186 Biotin may also reduce pain from diabetic nerve damage. Some doctors try 16 mg of biotin for a few weeks to see if blood sugar levels will fall. Blood levels of vitamin B1 (thiamine) have been found to be low in people with type 1 diabetes. In the 1930s, a trial using 10 mg of vitamin B1 per day for four weeks reported reduced blood sugar levels in six of eleven people with diabetes. More recently, administration of both vitamin B1 (25 mg per day) and vitamin B6 (50 mg per day) led to significant improvement of symptoms of diabetic neuropathy after four weeks. However, this was a trial conducted among people in a vitamin B1-deficient developing country. Therefore, these improvements might not occur in other people with diabetes. Another trial found that combining vitamin B1 (in a special fat-soluble form) and vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 in high but variable amounts, led to improvement in some aspects of diabetic neuropathy in 12 weeks. As a result, some doctors recommend that people with diabetic neuropathy supplement with vitamin B1, though the optimal level of intake remains unknown. Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is needed for normal blood sugar metabolism. Animals with diabetes have been reported to be CoQ10 deficient. People with type 2 diabetes have been found to have significantly lower blood levels of CoQ10 compared with healthy people. CoQ10 is lowered by all “statin” drugs to control cholesterol. L-carnitine is an amino acid needed to properly utilize fat for energy. When people with diabetes were given L-carnitine (1 mg per 2.2 pounds of body weight), high blood levels of fats—both cholesterol and triglycerides—dropped 25–39% in just ten days in one trial. In higher amounts (1 gram per day by injection), L-carnitine has been reported to reduce pain from diabetic nerve damage as well. Zinc supplements have lowered blood sugar levels in people with type 1 diabetes, though some evidence indicates that zinc supplementation in people with type 2 diabetes does not improve their ability to process sugar. Nonetheless, people with type 2 diabetes also have low zinc levels, caused by excess loss of zinc in their urine. Many doctors recommend that people with type 2 diabetes supplement with moderate amounts of zinc (15–25 mg per day) as a way to correct for the deficit. Some doctors are concerned about having people with type 1 diabetes supplement with zinc because of a report that zinc supplementation increased glycosylation, generally a sign of deterioration of the condition. This trial is hard to evaluate because zinc supplementation increases the life of blood cells and such an effect artificially increases the lab test results for glycosylation. Until this issue is resolved, those with type 1 diabetes should consult a doctor before considering supplementation with zinc. Vitamin B12 is needed for normal functioning of nerve cells. Vitamin B12 taken orally, intravenously, or by injection has reduced nerve damage caused by diabetes in most people studied. In a preliminary trial, people with nerve damage due to kidney disease or to diabetes plus kidney disease received intravenous injections of 500 mcg of methylcobalamin (the main form of vitamin B12 found in the blood) three times a day for six months in addition to kidney dialysis. Nerve pain was significantly reduced and nerve function significantly improved in those who received the injections. Oral vitamin B12 up to 500 mcg three times per day is recommended by some practitioners. The intake of large amounts of niacin (a form of vitamin B3), such as 2–3 grams per day, may impair glucose tolerance and should be used by people with diabetes only with medical supervision. Smaller amounts (500–750 mg per day for one month followed by 250 mg per day) may help some people with type 2 diabetes, though this research remains preliminary. Vitamin D is needed to maintain adequate blood levels of insulin. Vitamin D receptors have been found in the pancreas where insulin is made and preliminary evidence suggests that supplementation can increase insulin levels in some people with type 2 diabetes; prolonged supplementation might also help reduce blood sugar levels. Not enough is known about optimal amounts of vitamin D for people with diabetes, and high amounts of vitamin D may be somewhat toxic. However, newer studies indicate that our use of large doses of naturally-occurring Vitamin D from sunlight is much higher than previously thought. Statin drugs also may lower body levels of other substances made from cholesterol, such as Vitamin D and hormones that help our bodies deal with sex, repair and stress. Diabetics considering vitamin D supplementation should talk with, and have vitamin D status assessed by, a doctor. Inositol is needed for normal nerve function. Diabetes can cause a type of nerve damage known as diabetic neuropathy. This condition has been reported in some, but not all, trials to improve with inositol supplementation (500 mg taken twice per day). Taurine is an amino acid found in protein-rich food. People with type 1 diabetes have been reported to have low blood taurine levels, a condition that increases the risk of heart disease by altering blood viscosity. Supplementing with taurine (1.5 grams per day) has restored blood taurine to normal levels and corrected the problem of blood viscosity within three months. Taurine supplementation (2 grams per day for 12 months) failed to improve kidney complications associated with type 2 diabetes. Doctors have suggested that quercetin might help people with diabetes because of its ability to reduce levels of sorbitol—a sugar that accumulates in nerve cells, kidney cells, and cells within the eyes of people with diabetes—and has been linked to damage to those organs. Vanadyl sulfate, a form of vanadium, may improve glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, though it may not help people with type 1 diabetes. Groups receiving 150 mg or 300 mg had glucose metabolism improve, fasting blood sugar decrease, and another marker for chronic high blood sugar reduced. At the 300 mg level, total cholesterol decreased, although not without an accompanying reduction in the protective HDL cholesterol. Vanadium doe not improve insulin sensitivity. Gastrointestinal side effects were experienced by some of the participants taking 150 mg per day and by all of the participants taking 300 mg per day. People with diabetes may have low blood levels of manganese. Animal research suggests that manganese deficiency can contribute to glucose intolerance and may be reversed by supplementation. Herbs that may be helpful: Double-blind trials have shown that topical application of creams containing 0.025–0.075% capsaicin (from cayenne [Capsicum frutescens]) can relieve symptoms of diabetic neuropathy (numbness and tingling in the extremities caused by diabetes). Four or more applications per day may be required to relieve severe pain. This should be done only under a doctor’s supervision. Supplementing with psyllium has been shown to be a safe and well-tolerated way to improve control of blood glucose and cholesterol. In a double-blind trial, men with type 2 diabetes who took 5.1 grams of psyllium per day for eight weeks lowered their blood glucose levels by 11% to 19.2%, their total cholesterol by 8.9%, and their LDL (bad) cholesterol by 13%, compared to a placebo. Asian ginseng is commonly used in Traditional Chinese Medicine to treat diabetes. It has been shown in test tube and animal studies to enhance the release of insulin from the pancreas and to increase the number of insulin receptors. Animal research has also revealed a direct blood sugar-lowering effect of ginseng. A double-blind trial found that 200 mg of ginseng extract per day improved blood sugar control, as well as energy levels in people with type 2 diabetes. In a small preliminary trial, 3 grams of American ginseng was found to lower the rise in blood sugar following the consumption of a drink high in glucose by people with type 2 diabetes. The study found no difference in blood sugar-lowering effect if the herb was taken either 40 minutes before the drink or at the same time. A follow-up to this study found that increasing the amount of American ginseng to either 6 or 9 grams did not increase the effect on blood sugar following the high-glucose drink in people with type 2 diabetes. This study also found that American ginseng was equally effective in controlling the rise in blood sugar whether it was given together with the drink or up to two hours before. Gymnema may stimulate the pancreas to produce insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Gymnema also improves the ability of insulin to lower blood sugar in people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. One preliminary trial found that 400 mg of gymnema extract per day could reduce or eliminate the need for oral blood sugar-lowering drugs in some people with type 2 diabetes. Another preliminary trial suggested the same amount of the extract could allow for use of less insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Gymnema is not a substitute for insulin. Two preliminary trials found that aloe vera juice (containing 80% aloe gel) helps lower blood sugar levels in people with type 2 diabetes. One trial found that 1 Tbsp (15 grams) twice daily reduced the amount of the blood sugar-lowering drug glibenclamide required to manage blood sugar levels.260 The other trial found the juice by itself was effective. Whole, fried slices, water extracts, and juice of bitter melon may improve blood-sugar control in people with type 2 diabetes, according to preliminary trials. However, double-blind trials are needed to confirm this potential benefit. Preliminary trials and at least one double-blind trial have shown that large amounts of onions can lower blood sugar levels in people with diabetes. The mechanism of onion’s blood sugar-lowering action is not precisely known, though there is evidence that constituents in onions block the breakdown of insulin in the liver. This would lead to higher levels of insulin in the body. Bilberry may lower the risk of some diabetic complications, such as diabetic cataracts and retinopathy. One preliminary trial found that supplementation with a standardized extract of bilberry improved signs of retinal damage in some people with diabetic retinopathy. Ginkgo biloba extract may prove useful for prevention and treatment of early-stage diabetic neuropathy, though research is at best very preliminary in this area. Other herbs that may help are fenugreek seeds and eleuthero (Siberian ginseng). Mistletoe extract has been shown to stimulate insulin release from pancreas cells, and animal research found that it reduces symptoms of diabetes. No research in humans has yet been published; however, given mistletoe’s worldwide reputation as a traditional remedy for diabetes, clinical trials are warranted to validate these promising preliminary findings. Olive leaf extracts have been used experimentally to lower elevated blood-sugar levels in diabetic animals. Animal studies and some very preliminary trials in humans suggest reishi may have some beneficial action in people with diabetes.