Showing posts with label vitamin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vitamin. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Women's Health Interview, October 2010

Women’s biggest health challenges tend to be related to three general areas: hormonal health (including PMS and menopause issues), pregnancy, and maintaining health as they age (bone health and avoiding chronic degenerative conditions).

Women do seem to suffer more from certain problems related to inflammatory challenges and hormonal changes. Because of their regular, or sometimes irregular hormonal cycles, there are both advantages and disadvantages compared with men; at least until menopause tends to even the field regarding heart disease, for example. Regular menstruation lowers iron stores, reducing health problems related to oxidative and microbial challenges from free radicals that can be elevated due to the actions of uncontrolled free iron. Because of this, premenopausal women tend to have lower levels of heart disease than either post-menopausal women or adult men.

Also, because of their greater reliance on three major forms of natural estrogen as a dominant hormone complex, women seem to have greater risks of getting hormonal abnormalities and elevated cancer rates related to breast, endometrial tissues, etc. There are numerous factors involved, but oxidation of estrogens into more dangerous forms has been suggested as a major contributor to those risks. The fact that certain volatile plastics containing free BPA and specific other chemicals are known to be strong estrogen mimics makes exposure to those substances very dangerous to women, in particular.

Men do share some of those risks; for example, some estrogenic agricultural chemicals widely used on lawns, golf courses, and farms (herbicides, pesticides) are suggested to elevate the risk of prostate abnormalities. But men’s consequences tend to be more subtle and drawn out than the very real risks that women face from both these exposures and lack of protective nutrients such as a range of antioxidants and detoxification aids such as silymarin, broccoli and cruciferous vegetable consumption, and various liver supporting herbs and nutrients. The regular use of NSAID anti-inflammatory drugs – often utilized for PMS and other aches and pains – is associated with side effects that similar-acting nutrients and herbs lack: negative effects include reducing availability of some important nutrients, upregulation of pain triggers, negative effects on mood, stomach and GI problems, and degenerative cascades. Bless their hearts; many women don’t have it easy.

Women who eat enough legumes, flax seeds, and other sources of plant estrogens (phytoestrogens) tend to have more manageable menstrual cycles. Certain signs, like menstrual-related migraine headaches, indicate a deficiency of adequate natural progesterone levels that can be helped either by supplying the herb Vitex (chaste berry) if premenopausal or by applying natural progesterone cream to the skin. Certain herbal formulas and isoflavones from foods are utilized to preserve healthy and more comfortable menstrual cycles.

One thing that women should do to prepare for menopause is to maintain their bone mass by exercise and getting adequate supplies of not only calcium but also vitamins C, D, and K, magnesium, boron, and other bone support nutrients. The value of an alkalinizing whole food diet is of primary importance. The presence in the diet of legumes and flax seeds eases the transition to menopause, which is a normal part of a women’s life cycle.

The existence of biofilms informs our understanding of areas where bacteria and microbes can gown in the body. The fact that certain organisms – helpful or harmful – can create a mass that is layered like chainmail to resist removal is a powerful visual image that aids in understanding why it takes so long to effect changes in our inner ecology. Ideally, we have friendly probiotic bacteria coating our GI and urinary tracts to crowd out undesirable organisms. In fact, it was recently discovered that the purpose of the appendix was to serve as a reservoir of such probiotics to help “reboot” the system in case of problems that kill off the good bacteria; of course, with antibiotics, high sugar diets, stress, and other factors lowering the vitality of our probiotics, some people will grow the nasty stuff in their appendixes, presenting a serious health risk. The ability of Candida albicans live yeast and other organisms to overgrow at undesirable levels at the expense of more beneficial probiotic microbes means that some of our layered biomass colonies are undesirable and difficult to remove quickly. D-Mannose and cranberry (blueberries, too) tend to help prevent the spread of these colonies by preventing undesirable particles from adhering to the urinary tract walls but don’t kill off existing colonies. Still, these natural substances are helpful in curtailing their spread while other strategies are implemented, such as low sugar intake or even pharmaceuticals.

To support breast health it is wise to avoid BPA plastics, don’t microwave food in plastic, don’t consume agricultural chemicals on food, eat a plant-based diet providing antioxidant-rich produce, and eat plenty of broccoli, cruciferous vegetables, and non-GMO legumes, especially soy.

Various experts warn us against eating soy, with the suggestion that plant estrogens are dangerous. I have investigated the scientific literature to determine the risk and found that the scientific consensus is that there is no risk for healthy women, and even no indication that soy foods are unsafe for women who have had breast cancer! That is amazing when you consider all of the negative theories being hyped on the Internet. Soy prevents oxidation and conversion of estrogen into its more dangerous forms, aids in liver metabolism of these hormones and various toxins, and has been “proven” to protect against heart disease (soy actually has an FDA-approved qualified health claim related to this benefit).


 

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Still Fighting to Protect Our Access to Vitamins!

Over the last week or two, a joint House-Senate conference committee has been considering ways to reconcile two competing federal Wall Street reform bills and turn them into a single bill that both chambers can support. The US House’s Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 (HR.4173) and the US Senate’s Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (S.3217) differ in cost and content, most notably for us in that the Senate version does not give the broad new regulatory powers to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that the House version would. By removing limits on its power that are enshrined in current laws, the FTC could impose harsh new requirements on all businesses, even those completely unrelated to Wall Street, banking, or the financial sector; including NOW Foods and other food and dietary supplement manufacturers.

How do we expect that the FTC would act if given such new power? The agency has indicated that it wants to impose stricter standards on any advertising of dietary supplements. Past consent decrees that settled disputes with supplement companies have required strong disclaimers and much more evidence to support any future promotional claims. Consumer advocate organizations have urged the agency to require that multiple clinical trails be done on any advertised product, not just on its ingredients, to support advertising claims. However, such trials take many months, are very expensive, and are not required by current law allowing claims to be based on the body of science backing the active ingredients in a product. If the FTC and anti-business consumer advocates have their way, label claims and advertising will be far more restricted than is presently allowed. Of course, ads already have to be truthful and not misleading, so that’s not really an issue. But the FTC still wants more power so it can unilaterally impose a new regulatory scheme that bypasses today’s requirements for hearings, public comments, and due process before it can change the rules that we operate under.

Do you support another government takeover of an American industry? But this time, for an industry that is not hurting or asking for federal bailouts? One whose products are overwhelmingly proven in the real world to be safe and that helps Americans to maintain good health? Do you believe in freedom of speech for commercial interests like vitamin makers, as long as their ads continue to be honest and not misleading? If so, we are fighting to be protected from a big federal power grab.

Take action now to tell your Senators and Representative in Congress that you want to continue to impose Congress’ reasonable limits on the FTC, rather than expanding its powers. Go to http://www.csofh.org/ to learn how to Take Action and express your concerns!

Following is a list of the people on the joint Congressional committee deciding how the bill will be reconciled. They have the most immediate say on how the reconciled bill will read. However, all Senators and representatives will be asked to vote on the final reconciled bill, so it doesn't hurt to ask them to tell the negotiators to pull the FTC provision out of the bill even if they're not on the joint committee!

House of Representative members on Conference Committee: Frank (D-Massachusetts); Kanjorski (D-Pennsylvania); Waters (D California); Maloney (D-New York), Gutierrez (D-Illinois); Watt (D-North Carolina); Meeks (D-New York); Moore (D-Kansas); Kilroy (D-Ohio) and Peters (D-Michigan); Bachus (R-Alabama); Barton (R-Texas); Graves (R-Missouri); Issa (D-California); Lucas (R- Oklahoma); Smith (R-Texas); Royce (R-California); Biggert (R-Illinois); Capito (R-West Virginia); Hensarling (R-Texas) and Garrett (R-New Jersey).


Senate conferees: Dodd (D-Connecticut); Shelby (R-Alabama); Johnson (D-South Dakota); Reed (D-Rhode Island); Schumer (D-New York); Corker (R-Tennessee); Crapo (R-Idaho); and Gregg (R-New Hampshire). Also appointed as negotiators are Senators Lincoln (D-Arkansas); Chambliss (R-Georgia); Leahy (D-Vermont); and Harkin (D-Iowa).

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Swine Flu: Does Nutritional Status Aid Immunity?

Swine Flu: Does Nutritional Status Aid Immunity? By Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA A new health threat has arrived in our shrinking world: the swine flu. It is an organism for which there is no preventive vaccine; the commonly available flu vaccine does not include this strain, so offers no protection. Likewise, antibiotics target only bacterial strains so are useless to stop the viruses responsible for colds and flus. There are a couple of drugs (Tamiflu® and Relenza®) which are prescribed for those who have actually come down with the flu, and sometimes recommended for those who may come into contact with flu sufferers. However, they are expensive and typically work if you have one at home and take it at the first sign of illness. For example, the Tamiflu® website reports that, if taken within 48 hours of the first appearance of symptoms, adults may feel better about 1.5 days faster than patients who did not take it. When the avian flu (another Type A Influenza, the most common type) scare was around two or three years ago (remember SARS? Avian Flu? Bird Flu?), our family physician offered both my wife and me precautionary prescriptions of Tamiflu®, for which we would have had to pay about $200 out of pocket for a two person one-time supply. It wouldn’t be covered by insurance since we didn’t have an actual diagnosis of influenza. Besides that, there is a shortage and these drugs typically have a relatively short shelf life of only about a year. We respectfully declined the offer. While that is certainly an option for those who want to or need to pay to see a physician and get a prescription, and it may be covered by your insurance, it is not a practical option for most of us just wanting to improve our natural resistance to a known threat; and certainly not a cure. Besides, drugs have their own side effects (including shrinkage of the wallet) that should be noted by potential users. That’s precisely why they are controlled substances that are only available from medical professionals. What is the swine flu and what can we do to protect ourselves from it? According to Dr. Joe Bresee, Chief of the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Influenza Division, “Swine flu is a respiratory disease of pigs caused by Type A Influenza viruses. The symptoms of [swine] flu in people are similar to the symptoms of regular human flu and include fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people have reported diarrhea and [vomiting] associated with swine flu as well. There is no vaccine available right now to protect against swine flu. However, there are everyday actions that people can take to help prevent the spread of germs that cause respiratory illnesses like influenza. Take these everyday steps to protect your health. Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. Throw the tissue in the trash can after you use it. Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based hand cleaners are also effective. Try to avoid contact with sick people.” Well, that is helpful, but only to a point. Also seemingly important is the fact that Americans who have come down with swine flu to date have had only one death - compared to well over a hundred Mexican deaths - and seem to have had contracted a much milder form of the illness than our unfortunate neighbors to the south. I speculate that the American diet, despite its known shortcomings, may in some ways still be superior in its content of some important nutrients to the average diet of many Mexican citizens, and perhaps support a better immune response. At the time of this writing though, only 20 of the 140 Mexican deaths attributed to pneumonia-like symptoms have actually been confirmed as the swine flu. No doubt new information will be coming in daily. But there are reportedly an estimated 36,000 deaths from the common flu every year, mostly the very old and the very young. After reviewing a number of scientific papers to assess the potential of foods and food supplements to improve our bodies’ natural response to the flu, there are a number of things that you and your physician may want to consider. In the battle to maintain healthy respiratory function and properly modulate immune response, natural nutritional substances can be helpful. Various vitamins, minerals, herbs and amino acids support optimal immune function and respiratory health. In fact, there is evidence that nutrient status of the host even affects the genetic expression of viruses; that is, an unsuitable environment (the well-nourished body) inhibits the ability of the virus to freely replicate and thrive. This is not a list of cures; it is a list of natural substances that have shown promise in improving survival or resistance to influenza as recorded in published studies. Those who want to support their immune system should investigate these with the knowledge and consent of your physician; physicians may want to note these natural products that may support the nutritional status of your patients. · AHCC In a recent study, supplementation with AHCC resulted in a dose-dependent increase in survival in mice in response to acute influenza infection (influenza A virus: avian flu, H1N1, PR8). · Andrographis paniculata has been shown in studies to support a healthy and balanced immune response by modulating the immune system’s production of immune cells (Interferon gamma (IFNg), Interleukin-2 (IL-2), and T-cells). Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated its ability to significantly increase cell-mediated immunity in response to stresses, such as those encountered during seasonal changes. · Astragalus (Astragalus membranaceous) is an Oriental herb well known for aiding the immune system. Astragalus has been shown in non-clinical studies to support a number of aspects of healthy immune function, including the enhancement of T-Cell and Natural Killer (NK) cell activity. Natural killer cells destroy unhealthy cells in the body virtually on contact. · Black Elderberry (Sambucus nigra) standardized extract may provide protection against oxidative stress and modulate inflammatory cytokines to protect respiratory function. Elderberry provides Vitamins A and C, as well as anthocyanins, which are potent free radical scavengers. Clinical and non-clinical studies have demonstrated Elderberry's immune-supporting properties. One article reported that, “Constituents of European elderberry neutralize the hemagglutinin spikes found on the surface of viruses, including flu viruses, preventing the viruses from piercing cell walls and replicating. European elderberry extracts also enhance immune function by increasing cytokine production.” It also reported that two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials have shown that a European elderberry preparation “can inhibit influenza A and B viruses when given to patients within 48 hours of symptom development”. · Echinacea (Echinacea purpurea and Echinacea angustifolia) is well known for its immune modulating effects. E. purpurea extracts demonstrate significant immunomodulatory activities. “Among the many pharmacological properties reported, macrophage activation has been demonstrated most convincingly.” E. purpurea has been shown to have antiviral effects, with most studies looking at either rhinoviruses (colds) or herpes simplex virus type-1 (HSV-1). Its polysaccharides were able to exert an antiviral action on the development of HSV-1 disease when supplied prior to infection. Reductions in numbers of upper respiratory infections have been noted in several trials, but generally the differences in the large variety of commercial and non-commercial products studied have resulted in conflicting reports. However, a meta-analysis of previously published studies was published in the British medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases and concluded, “Published evidence supports echinacea’s benefit in decreasing the incidence and duration of the common cold.” · Garlic (Allium sativum) compounds have been shown to have some antiviral effects. For example, a compound called allitridin (diallyl trisulfide) has anti-human herpes virus (HCMV) activity via a mechanism associated with suppression of the virus’ gene expression. Other important and better known compounds include allicin and ajoene. Allicin has been shown to reduce the incidence of colds and flus. “Among the viruses which are sensitive to garlic extracts are the human cytomegalovirus, influenza B, herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, parainfluenza virus type 3, vaccinia virus, vesicular stomatitis virus, and human rhinovirus type 2. · Larch tree (Larix occidentalis) polysaccharides (arabinogalactans) help to support healthy intestinal flora and aid healthy immune function. “They stimulate the immune system through the activation of phagocytosis, competitive binding of bacterial fimbrae, and the potentiation of the reticuloendothelial system's effects.” · Resveratrol, naturally occurring in grape vines, grape skins and red wine, improves immune response and down-regulates the activation and production of proinflammatory cytokines. · Selenium has been shown to help the immune system modulate inflammatory response in mice challenged with reactive agents. Animals deficient in the mineral had much poorer outcomes than those whose diets were supplemented with this antioxidant mineral. · Vitamin C (ascorbic acid, ascorbate) in divided doses supports immunity. Taking about 500 mg at a time enhances absorption and avoids a laxative effect possible at higher doses. In a two-year long controlled study, “vitamin C administration resulted in an 85-percent decrease in cold and flu symptoms compared to the control group”. In a controlled trial of 226 patients with influenza A, where about half received 300 mg of vitamin C daily: “Pneumonia was reported in two cases in the treatment group and 10 in the control group, while hospital stays for influenza or related complications averaged nine days in the vitamin C group and 12 days in the control group.” · Vitamin D (cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol) deficiencies have been associated with immune challenges (such as the flu) during the winter months when sunlight is not as able to produce the vitamin in our bodies. A deficiency can inhibit the body’s ability to maintain health and immunity. · Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) deficiencies have been shown to decrease immune response and increase inflammatory responses leading to possible tissue damage in the respiratory system. · Zinc is recommended for immunity. Use up to 30 mg per day for this use; higher doses could increase the need for copper. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. The information provided by this article is intended for scientific and historical reference only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, prevent or cure any disease. If you have been exposed to or think you may have flu or any disease, see a physician as soon as possible. Do not try to self treat swine flu or any other disease; influenza can be life-threatening. Please inform your physician before taking any food supplements if you take any medications or have a known medical condition. Read all product labels carefully and follow all directions and label cautions, and do not exceed the highest recommended servings. Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA is a board certified clinical nutritionist with a Diplomate in Advanced Nutritional Laboratory Assessment. He is a professional member of the International & American Associations of Clinical Nutritionists and serves on the Scientific Council of the national Clinical Nutrition Certification Board. REFERENCES http://www.tamiflu.com/treat.aspx http://www.relenza.com/ http://foodasmedicine.blogspot.com/2009/04/dr-joe-bresee-swine-flu.html http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/ http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r030107.htm Cunningham-Rundles S, McNeeley DF, Moon A. Mechanisms of nutrient modulation of the immune response. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005 Jun;115(6):1119-28; quiz 1129. Review. Zaslaver M, Offer S, Kerem Z, Stark AH, Weller JI, Eliraz A, Madar Z. Natural compounds derived from foods modulate nitric oxide production and oxidative status in epithelial lung cells. J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Dec 28;53(26):9934-9. Calder PC, Kew S. The immune system: a target for functional foods? Br J Nutr. 2002 Nov;88 Suppl 2:S165-77. Janeway, Charles A.; Travers, Paul; Walport, Mark; Shlomchik, Mark (2001) Immunobiology, 5th Ed., Garland Publishing, New York and London. Beck MA, Handy J, Levander OA. Host nutritional status: the neglected virulence factor. Trends Microbiol. 2004 Sep;12(9):417-23. Review. PMID: 15337163 Nogusa S, Gerbino J, Ritz BW. Low-dose supplementation with active hexose correlated compound improves the immune response to acute influenza infection in C57BL/6 mice. Nutr Res. 2009 Feb;29(2):139-43. PMID: 19285605 Ritz BW, Nogusa S, Ackerman EA, Gardner EM. Supplementation with active hexose correlated compound increases the innate immune response of young mice to primary influenza infection. J Nutr. 2006 Nov;136(11):2868-73. PMID: 17056815 Ritz BW. Supplementation with active hexose correlated compound increases survival following infectious challenge in mice. Nutr Rev. 2008 Sep;66(9):526-31. Review. PMID: 18752476 Hancke JL. PARACTIN® useful for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, and Alzheimer disease by activation of PPAR-Receptor. Instituto de Farmacologia, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia Chile. Poolsup N, Suthisisang C, Prathanturarug S, Asawamekin A, Chanchareon U. Andrographis paniculata in the symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004 Feb;29(1):37-45. Paractin® website: http://www.paractinpr.com/research.php McKenna DJ, Hughes K, Jones K (2002) Astragalus. Alt Ther 8(6):34-40. Lei H, Wang B, Li, W-P, Yang Y, Zhou A-W, Chen M-Z (2003) Anti-aging effect of astragalosides and its mechanism of action. Acta Pharmacol Sin 245(3):230-234. Youdim KA, Martin A, Joseph JA (2000). Incorporation of the elderberry anthocyanins by endothelial cells increases protection against oxidative stress. Free Radic Biol Med 29(1):51-60. Zakay-Rones A, Varsano N, Zlotnik M, Manor O, Regev L, Schlesinger M, Mumcuoglu M 1995) Inhibition of several strains of influenza virus in vitro and reduction of symptoms by an elderberry extract (Sambucus nigra L.) during an outbreak of influenza B Panama. J Altern Complement Med 1(4):361-369. Roxas M, Jurenka J. Colds and influenza: a review of diagnosis and conventional, botanical, and nutritional considerations Altern Med Rev. 2007;12(1):25-48. Zakay-Rones A, Thom E, Wollan T, Wadstein J (2004) Randomized study of the efficacy and safety of oral elderberry extract in the treatment of influenza A and B virus infections. J Int Med Res 32(2):132-140. Manganelli REU, Zaccaro L, Tomei PE (2005) Antiviral activity in vitro of Urtica dioica L., Parietaria Diffusa M. et K. and Sambucus nigra L. J Ethnopharmacol 98(3):323-327. Barak V, Halperin T, Kalickman I (2001) The effect of Sambucol, a black elderberry-based, natural product, on the production of human cytokines: I. Inflammatory cytokines. Eur Cytokine Netw 12(2):290-6. Barrett B. Medicinal properties of Echinacea: a critical review. Phytomedicine. 2003 Jan;10(1):66-86. Review. PMID: 12622467 Schoop R, Klein P, Suter A, Johnston SL. Echinacea in the prevention of induced rhinovirus colds: a meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2006 Feb;28(2):174-83. Review. Saunders PR, Smith F, Schusky RW. Echinacea purpurea L. in children: safety, tolerability, compliance, and clinical effectiveness in upper respiratory tract infections. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2007 Nov;85(11):1195-9. PMID: 18066121 Senchina DS, McCann DA, Flinn GN, Wu L, Zhai Z, Cunnick JE, Wurtele ES, Kohut ML. Echinacea tennesseensis ethanol tinctures harbor cytokine- and proliferation-enhancing capacities. Cytokine. 2009 Mar 13. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19286391 Ghaemi A, Soleimanjahi H, Gill P, Arefian E, Soudi S, Hassan Z. Echinacea purpurea Polysaccharide Reduces the Latency Rate in Herpes Simplex Virus Type-1 Infections. Intervirology. 2009 Apr 17;52(1):29-34. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19372701 Binns SE, Hudson J, Merali S, Arnason JT. Antiviral activity of characterized extracts from echinacea spp. (Heliantheae: Asteraceae) against herpes simplex virus (HSV-I). Planta Med. 2002 Sep;68(9):780-3. PMID: 12357386 Shah SA, Sander S, White CM, Rinaldi M, Coleman CI. Evaluation of echinacea for the prevention and treatment of the common cold: a meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Jul;7(7):473-80. Review. Erratum in: Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Sep;7(9):580. PMID: 17597571 Zhen H, Fang F, Ye DY, Shu SN, Zhou YF, Dong YS, Nie XC, Li G. Experimental study on the action of allitridin against human cytomegalovirus in vitro: Inhibitory effects on immediate-early genes. Antiviral Res. 2006 Oct;72(1):68-74. Epub 2006 Apr 27. PMID: 16844239 Ankri S, Mirelman D. Antimicrobial properties of allicin from garlic. Microbes Infect. 1999 Feb;1(2):125-9. Review. PMID: 10594976 Josling P. Preventing the common cold with a garlic supplement: a double-blind, placebo-controlled survey. Adv Ther. 2001 Jul-Aug;18(4):189-93. PMID: 11697022 Choi EM, Kim AJ, Kim YO, Hwang JK. Immunomodulating activity of arabinogalactan and fucoidan in vitro. J Med Food. 2005 Winter;8(4):446-53. Currier NL, Lejtenyi D, Miller SC Effect over time of in-vivo administration of the polysaccharide arabinogalactan on immune and hemopoietic cell lineages in murine spleen and bone marrow. Phytomedicine. 2003 Mar;10(2-3):145-53. Friel H, Lederman H. A nutritional supplement formula for influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans. Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(3):578-87. Epub 2006 Apr 18. PMID: 16624496 Beck MA. Selenium and vitamin E status: impact on viral pathogenicity. J Nutr. 2007 May;137(5):1338-40. Review. PMID: 17449602 Beck MA. Antioxidants and viral infections: host immune response and viral pathogenicity. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Oct;20(5 Suppl):384S-388S; discussion 396S-397S. Review. PMID: 11603647 Friel H, Lederman H. A nutritional supplement formula for influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans. Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(3):578-87. Epub 2006 Apr 18. PMID: 16624496 Nandi BK, Subramanian N, Majumder AK, Chatterjee IB. Effect of ascorbic acid on detoxification of histamine under stress conditions. Biochem Pharmacol. 1974 Feb 1;23(3):643-7. Johnston CS. The antihistamine action of ascorbic acid. Subcell Biochem. 1996;25:189-213. Johnston CS, Martin LJ, Cai X. Antihistamine effect of supplemental ascorbic acid and neutrophil chemotaxis. J Am Coll Nutr. 1992 Apr;11(2):172-6. Wintergerst ES, Maggini S, Hornig DH. Immune-enhancing role of vitamin C and zinc and effect on clinical conditions. Ann Nutr Metab. 2006;50(2):85-94. Carcamo JM, Pedraza A, Borquez-Ojeda O, Golde DW. Vitamin C suppresses TNF alpha-induced NF kappa B activation by inhibiting I kappa B alpha phosphorylation. Biochemistry. 2002 Oct 29;41(43):12995-3002. Kimbarowski JA, Mokrow NJ. Colored precipitation reaction of the urine according to Kimbarowski (FARK) as an index of the effect of ascorbic acid during treatment of viral influenza. Dtsch Gesundheitsw. 1967;22:2413-2418. [Article in German] Cannell JJ, Hollis BW. Use of vitamin D in clinical practice. Altern Med Rev. 2008 Mar;13(1):6-20. Review. PMID: 18377099 Cannell JJ, Zasloff M, Garland CF, Scragg R, Giovannucci E. On the epidemiology of influenza. Virol J. 2008 Feb 25;5:29. Review. PMID: 18298852 Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Umhau JC, Holick MF, Grant WB, Madronich S, Garland CF, Giovannucci E. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2006 Dec;134(6):1129-40. Epub 2006 Sep 7. Review. PMID: 16959053 Beck MA. Selenium and vitamin E status: impact on viral pathogenicity. J Nutr. 2007 May;137(5):1338-40. Review. PMID: 17449602 Friel H, Lederman H. A nutritional supplement formula for influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans. Med Hypotheses. 2006;67(3):578-87. Epub 2006 Apr 18. PMID: 16624496 Arroll B. Non-antibiotic treatments for upper-respiratory tract infections (common cold). Respir Med. 2005 Dec;99(12):1477-84. PMID: 16291073

Monday, April 20, 2009

Folic Acid: Risks or Myths?

There are theoretical risks for isolated folic acid in high doses. But these supposed risks fly in the face of established science and are controversial, not at all conclusive. There is also confusion over the significance of the supposed risks of high dose isolated folic acid in test tube and animal studies which do not identify a danger for moderate level supplementation - or even higher dose supplementation if combined with multivitamins or vitamin B-12. In other words, if the theoretical risks do not reflect real world human activities and the way that people actually obtain essential vitamins from their diet, including supplementation, aren’t these improbable risks really irrelevant to us? On the other hand, these negative reports may stop people from taking essential vitamins in quite reasonable amounts even though they are known to promote human health. Published human clinical science has determined that folic acid can reduce birth defects and has been proven to do so. Clinical science has also found mechanisms by which folic acid can prevent cancers, as well as the theoretical possibility that very high doses given in isolation can stimulate colorectal cancers including prostate cancer. There is stronger evidence that taking B-12 or a multivitamin along with high folic acid actually reduces rates of prostate and colon cancers. For example, in one human clinical trial where food intake, blood and plasma levels of folic acid were considered, Multivitamin users had about 2/3 the risk of subsequent prostate cancer as Non-Multivitamin users; only the independent use of folic acid was considered a risk factor. The report concluded, “…on the whole, the biological and epidemiological evidence supports the potential for folate supplementation to prevent colorectal neoplasia in humans.” (Cole) This shows that single nutrient studies, especially if unpublished and not peer reviewed or subjected to subsequent comments by experts in the field, should not be given overinflated importance when they are merely preliminary studies that may conflict with more relevant published human clinical studies. In the case of such conflicts, the human clinicals should bear more weight and be seen as more convincing, especially those that mimic the full range of variables (nutrients) in the human diet. Folic acid itself is considered non-toxic. Also, “data from in vitro and in vivo studies indicate that folic acid is not genotoxic [damaging to genetic material]”. (UK Food Standards Agency) There have been reports of levels as high as 50,000 micrograms per day given with no signs of toxicity in humans. There are accepted problems associated with levels exceeding 5,000 micrograms a day, which resulted in a far more conservative Upper Limit of 1,000 micrograms daily being set. This effect has been demonstrated in patients suffering from pernicious anemia taken off of their successful medicine (vitamin B-12), which was replaced by 5,000 mcg/day of folic acid. The substitution of one vitamin for another was unsuccessful in treating pernicious anemia, but did mask some symptoms. This test – and a large safety margin - provided the rationale given for the current Upper Limit. But it does not logically imply danger to those who are not severely anemic and who obtain B-12 in adequate amounts. (Oakley) It is very uncommon for people to take folic acid singly in doses of thousands of micrograms daily, but this is the method which test tube and animal studies often use. Overemphasizing unproven cancer risks requires ignoring valid studies showing reductions of cancers by taking folic acid and multivitamins. Needlessly scaring people from taking their vitamins, which have in human clinical trials shown significant improvements in birth defect and cancer rates, is not helpful to our common goal of protecting public health. Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA QUOTES & REFERENCES: Dr. Gideon Koren, director of the Motherisk Program at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto , note that rates of birth defects such as spina bifida and cancers such as neuroblastoma have plummeted since folic acid supplementation was begun. He believes that the known benefits outweigh theoretical risks. "I think it is very important to remember that the scares about cancer are mostly from animal studies and laboratory studies, not from human experience," he says. "We are still awaiting to see such human experience." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090417/folic_acid_090418/20090419?hub=SciTech Health Canada recommends all women of childbearing age take 0.4 mg of folic acid a day, but says taking more than 1 mg a day of folic acid without the advice of a doctor is not recommended. "We continue to encourage all women who could become pregnant to take a daily supplement," the agency says on its website. "We caution against taking more than one multivitamin tablet a day, as excess amounts of certain vitamins can be toxic." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090417/folic_acid_090418/20090419?hub=SciTech “All women who could become pregnant should take a multivitamin containing 0.4 mg of Folic Acid every day. To help reduce the risk of NTDs, you should start taking the vitamin supplement at least three months before you get pregnant and continue through the first three months of your pregnancy. Talk to your health professional to find the supplement best for you…If you have had a previous pregnancy affected by an NTD or have a family history of this problem, see your doctor. You may be advised to take a higher dosage of Folic Acid. If you have diabetes, obesity or epilepsy, you may be at higher risk of having a baby with an NTD, and you should see your doctor before planning pregnancy… Do not take more than one daily dose of vitamin supplement as indicated on the product label. Increasing your dose of Folic Acid beyond 1 mg per day without the advice of a doctor is not recommended.” (Public Health Agency of Canada , 2/27/08; http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/fa-af/index-eng.php) The NIH’s Office of Dietary Supplement reports on the prevention of cancer with the use of supplemental folic acid as part of a multivitamin: “Over 88,000 women enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study who were free of cancer in 1980 were followed from 1980 through 1994. Researchers found that women ages 55 to 69 years in this study who took multivitamins containing folic acid for more than 15 years had a markedly lower risk of developing colon cancer.” (Giovannucci E, et al. Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the Nurses' Health Study. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:517-24; http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/folate.asp) Cole BF, et al. Folic acid for the prevention of colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial. Polyp Prevention Study Group. JAMA. 2007 Jun 6;297(21):2351-9. PMID: 17551129 Figueiredo JC, et al. Folic acid and risk of prostate cancer: results from a randomized clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Mar 18;101(6):432-5. Epub 2009 Mar 10. PMID: 19276452 Folic Acid, CASRN: 59-30-3. NLM TOXNET Hazardous Substances Database accessed online 28 March, 2009. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@na+folic+acid Lonn E, Yusuf S, Arnold MJ, Sheridan P, Pogue J, Micks M, McQueen MJ, Probstfield J, Fodor G, Held C, Genest J Jr; Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) 2 Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2006 Apr 13;354(15):1567-77. Epub 2006 Mar 12. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 17;355(7):746. PMID: 16531613 Oakley GP Jr. When will we eliminate folic acid-preventable spina bifida? Epidemiology. 2007 May;18(3):367-8. PMID: 17435446 http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/evm_folicacid.pdf

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

Thursday, February 01, 2007

OCA Nutri-con Campaign Full of Errors

Dear OCA (Organic Consumers Association), I am personally concerned about the misleading and inaccurate statements made regarding the OCA’s Nutri-Con program (http://organicconsumers.org/nutricon.cfm). The lack of accurate scientifically valid information and the application of misleading science within inappropriate examples will only serve to put the whole program in a questionable light. Don’t get me wrong, it is preferable to get nutrients from food. But as government studies have shown that up to 95% of the public suffer from deficiencies below RDA levels of vitamins and minerals (not the 99% stated in your article), it is important to have a cost-effective and simple means to correct nutrient deficiencies and enhance healthy homeostasis. Ten of thousands of scientific studies have shown that the common forms of nutrients used in today’s dietary supplements are safe, suitable and effective for this purpose. Your web page seems to promote specific brands, which calls the integrity of the information into question. For example, Neo-Life is touted as good and other brands seem to be bad. You post an article taking us to a commercial webpage (http://www.nutriteam.com/natural.htm) Why are explicit commercial endorsements being made? Here are some specific problems with the accuracy of the information: Synthetic vitamins: This term is misleading unless you are speaking about vitamins with separate natural and synthetic forms, like alpha tocopherol (vitamin E). For most other vitamins the term is meaningless because most synthesized B vitamins (many are actually naturally grown by a fermentation process) are identical to the forms found in food. This is called a natural form or a nature-identical form. When a vitamin is synthesized, it is not called a synthetic form unless it is chemically/structurally different from the natural form. You will only cause confusion if you refuse to follow this important distinction that is essential to a common understanding of chemistry and biology. You simply should not just make up terms for nutrient forms that are confusing to scientists and laypersons alike. Your terminology should be true and accurate and not likely to confuse the reader; but so far, I fear that you have failed to accomplish this. The author claims that “synthetic” vitamins cause disease. Please provide some real proof. I have read hundreds of studies to the contrary and toxicology records also indicate a good margin of safety for conventional vitamins. To claim that a synthesized nature-identical B vitamin produced by fermentation will provoke the same immune reaction as an invasive organism is simply incredible (as in not credible). He also claims, “Certain studies on natural vs. synthetic vitamins have shown that synthetic vitamins are 50 to 70% less biologically active than natural vitamins,” without making it obvious that he is only referring to vitamin E, which is the only one that has a “dl” form, not to other vitamins. I see it as intellectually dishonest to falsely imply that all synthesized vitamins share this problem. Regarding beta carotene: Your statement: “It's no wonder that some of the testing done with the synthetic form of beta-carotene has produced mixed results, and in one study on smokers, produced a negative result.” In fact, the problems with beta carotene were largely the result of other confounding factors and poor science, not the synthetic production of the nature-identical pro-vitamin. I certainly prefer the complexes to the isolates, but the fact is that the beta carotene molecule itself is the same exact form and molecule, whether produced from food or by synthesis. It is actually the presence or absence of total antioxidants that is the determining factor for people’s health in these studies. 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. (1) 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 exact same Finnish smokers' study data, but now taking into account total antioxidant intake, which cleared away the scientific controversy. The smokers’ risk of getting lung cancer was inversely associated with total antioxidants in the diet, with more total antioxidants meaning fewer cancers. (2) 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: the combination of antioxidants lowered lung cancer risk in male smokers. Another large study has noted that high beta carotene intake, confirmed by measures of blood levels, was associated with lower mortality rates among the elderly over a ten year period. (3) 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.” (4) Still, news reports continue to refer to beta-carotene as harmful, largely because of the original study reports. The “media myth” continues long after the science has moved on. Nutra-con seems to have bought into the myth. The same beta-carotene molecule is produced either synthetically or as a food extract, with the exact same optical rotation and measured by the exact same blood tests. Beta Carotene REFERENCES: 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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. 4. 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. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602485; published online 12 July 2006. Supported by the European Community IST-2001–33204 'Healthy Market', the Italian Ministry of University and Research COFIN 2001 and the National Research Council CU01.00923.CT26 research projects. Regarding “Biological Activity Reduced 50%”: This is certainly true for vitamin E, but your website inaccurately implies that this is true for many other vitamins. In fact, it is only true for vitamin E, but it is also true that some vitamins and minerals are absorbed better from dietary supplements than from food. This is the case for non-heme iron from plant sources, which is poorly absorbed, while chelated iron supplements are relatively well absorbed. This is also the case for folic acid, which is demonstrably less well absorbed from food than from supplementation. REFERENCES Heme iron is absorbed better than nonheme iron, but most dietary iron is nonheme iron. [8]. Absorption of heme iron ranges from 15% to 35%, and is not significantly affected by diet [15]. In contrast, 2% to 20% of nonheme iron in plant foods such as rice, maize, black beans, soybeans and wheat is absorbed [16]. Nonheme iron absorption is significantly influenced by various food components [1,3,11-15]. Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Iron, Office of Dietary Supplements • NIH Clinical Center • National Institutes of Health Bioavailability of food folates is 80% of that of folic acid. RM Winkels, IA Brouwer, E Siebelink, MB Katan, and P Verhoef Am J Clin Nutr 2007 85 (2): p. 465 Regarding Polarized Light and Optical Rotation: The difference is certainly true for Vitamin E, but not at all true for B-Vitamins. Your article has falsely implied that this is true for all “synthetic” vitamins. Finally: This is just a sampling of data - not a complete list of all issues of sloppy or incorrect science - to show that OTC Nutri-con's program is not accurate in:

  • Implying that synthesized vitamins are all synthetic forms
  • Stating that all natural source supplements are better utilized than all synthesized nature-identical materials
  • Stating that synthesized material is less safe than natural material (in fact, the micro contamination from natural materials far exceeds that of synthesized ingredients)
OCA is not uniquely qualified to pass judgment on these matters after having produced such mixed-up nonsense as background material. Nutra-con seems to be a con job, in my opinion. I support OCA and do not understand why it would embark on a divisive campaign based on such highly questionable science that is so easily proven to be false or misleading. It is also questionable in promoting specific companies as providing better ingredients, even though they may not match the materials used in scientific studies that provide components that the public wants to use, in light of their proven safety and efficacy. Please allow me to ask you to reconsider your program, in the interest of truth in science. Your organization’s credibility will be challenged by the scientific community and will justifiably suffer if you proceed on this erroneous course of action in a field so far removed from your experience and expertise. This could be disastrous for OCA if all of your positions are dismissed by many people because of one seriously flawed program that could harm your reputation for integrity and scientific accuracy. It is one thing to promote naturally occurring nutrients from food sources, which is fine if the science is accurately presented. It is quite another to promote specific brands with poor scientific justification, as you seem to already be doing. This is just one man’s opinion, but I would hate to see OCA be isolated by pushing an untrue Truth campaign. I have spent a good part of my adult life defending the natural products industry, but there is no good defense for a misguided effort that misfires and winds up “shooting you in the foot”. Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Certified clinical nutritionist with diplomate in advanced nutritional laboratory assessment Author of - or contributor to - many articles defending natural products:
  • Say No To GMOs
  • Bittter Harvest
  • Benefits of herbs
  • Cancer patients may very well tolerate the use of certain dietary supplements (CA: The Journal of the American Cancer Society)
  • Childhood Obesity (Vitamin Retailer magazine)
  • Europe Biotech
  • FDA Scientists Report Political Interference in Their Work
  • Green Foods (Whole Foods magazine)
  • Grocery Headquarters: Biotechnology still hasn’t lived up to its promises
  • LAND OF CONFUSION: HOW POOR SCIENCE AND MISLEADING MEDIA COVERAGE CREATE PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT HOW DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS AFFECT HEALTH (Journal of Applied Nutrition)
  • Modified foods, modified truth
  • More evidence of vitamin E safety!
  • No appetite for biotech foods
  • Organic Spices (Organic Products Retailer magazine)
  • Raw Deal on Vitamins (Organic Style rebuttal)
  • Reducing Healthcare Costs Naturally
  • Sweeteners (Whole Foods magazine)
  • The Case for Multiple Vitamins
  • Who’s Afraid of GMO’s? –Me!
Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA Board Certified Clinical Nutritionist with Diplomate in Advanced Nutritional Laboratory Assessment www.honestnutrition.com

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Another Decade of AIDS (HIV)

In 1995 a protocol for nutritional support of people who were HIV positive was published by a nutrition group headed by Willis H. Reisen, PhD, who received his PhD in biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin in the 1950's and was board certified as a clinical nutritionist in the early 1990's. Dr. Reisen, and his colleague David B. Tardy, self-published their short pamphlet, A Decade of AIDS, after a ten-year period during which they claimed that not a single one of the approximately one hundred HIV-positive people following this protocol had gone from HIV-positive to full-blown AIDS. (Both of these good gentlemen have since passed away at a ripe age.)

I am providing the recommendations of their original protocol in a very short form largely for historical purposes, but also to open people's minds to the possibilities of using nutrition to complement conventional medical care. I'm also providing independent scientific references that I have dug up to document the current science backing up their original protocol, which I present below.

A bit of explanation of the supplemental options was also added by me, along with a few examples of modern formulas providing these nutrients more efficiently than those available on the market some 10-12 years ago.

Please remember that this protocol was designed to be used under a physician's care, and should NOT be used as a substitute for medical care!

HIV nutritional support protocol (to be used only under the medical supervision of a physician):

This protocol has traditionally (since 1985) been used by some clinical nutritionists for the nutritional support of people with HIV for nutritional restoration of the digestive and immune systems. Use this protocol only as directed by your physician.

Nutritional Protocol:

  • Probiotics include acidophilus, bifidus, and other ‘beneficial bacteria’ that are healthy for the human gut. If you are not using an antibiotic prescription drug, simply take a good quality, strong probiotic formula as directed on the label. If you are currently taking an antibiotic prescription drug, supplement with a good quality, strong probiotic formula an hour or two after each dose of antibiotic, then continue taking the probiotics for some weeks after the antibiotic course is over.
  • Take a good hi-potency multiple vitamin to provide basic nutritional supplementation.1, 2, 17-33, 45
  • Take antioxidants to increase detoxification and glutathione production. Cysteine or NAC 3,4, whey protein isolate 34-36, GliSODin ™ 37, 39-44 Silymarin (milk thistle extract) VitaBerry™ or other hi-ORAC antioxidant formula Selenium, preferably selenomethionine, 200-400 mcg/day. 5-8, 39
  • Do a Vitamin C flush, maintaining appropriate levels: http://www.askrph3.com/healthcare/article_cflush.shtml 9-11, 38
  • Natural carotenoids 46-48 AIDS-related weight loss and chronic diarrhea ("HIV enteropathy") may respond to a gluten-free diet. 12
  • Progressive resistance training (weight training) and exercise may be used as an alternative or adjunct to steroids. 13,14
  • DHEA may alleviate fatigue and depression (200-500 mg per day for eight weeks). DHEA supplementation had no effect on CD4 cell (helper T-cell) counts or testosterone levels. 15,16

References
1. Ince S. Vitamin supplements may help delay onset of AIDS. Med Tribune 1993;9:18.
2. Fawzi WW, Msamanga G, Hunter D, et al. Randomized trial of vitamin supplements in relation to vertical transmission of HIV-1 in Tanzania. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000;23:246–54.
3. Roederer M, Staal FJ, Raju PA, et al. Cytokine-stimulated human immunodeficiency virus replication is inhibited by N-acetyl-L-cysteine. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1990;87:4884–8.
4. Herzenberg LA, De Rosa SC, Dubs JG, et al. Glutathione deficiency is associated with impaired survival in HIV disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1997;94:1967–72.
5. Baum MK, Shor-Posner G, Lai S, et al. High risk of HIV-related mortality is associated with selenium deficiency. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1997;15:370–4.
6. Olmsted L, Schrauzer GN, Flores-Arce M, Dowd J. Selenium supplementation of symptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infected patients. Biol Trace Elem Res 1989;25:89–96.
7. Chariot P, Perchet H, Monnet I. Dilated cardiomyopathy in HIV-infected patients [letter; comment]. N Engl J Med 1999;340:732 (discussion 733–5).
8. Zazzo JF, Lafont A, Darwiche E, et al. Is non-obstructive myocardiopathy (NOMC) in AIDS selenium-deficiency related? In: Neve J, Favier A, eds. Selenium in biology and medicine. W. DeGruyter & Co.: Berlin New York, 1988, 281–2.
9. Harakeh S, Jariwalla RJ, Pauling L. Suppression of human immunodeficiency virus replication by ascorbate in chronically and acutely infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1990;87:7245–9.
10. Tang AM, Graham NMH, Saah AJ. Effects of micronutrient intake on survival in human immunodeficiency type 1 infection. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:1244–56.
11. Cathcart RF III. Vitamin C in the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Med Hypotheses 1984;14:423–33.
12. Nellen H, Flores G, Wacher N. Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus enteropathy with a gluten-free diet. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:244 [letter].
13. Roubenoff R, McDermott A, Weiss L, et al. Short-term progressive resistance training increases strength and lean body mass in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS 1999;13:231–9.
14. Mustafa T, Sy FS, Macera CA, et al. Association between exercise and HIV disease progression in a cohort of homosexual men. Ann Epidemiol 1999;9:127–31.
15. Ferrando SJ, Rabkin JG, Poretsky L. Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) and testosterone: relation to HIV illness stage and progression over one year. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999;22:146–54.
16. Rabkin JG, Ferrando SJ, Wagner GJ, Rabkin R. DHEA treatment for HIV + patients: effects on mood, androgenic and anabolic parameters. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2000;25:53–68.
17. Semba RD, Graham NMH, Caiaffa WT, et al. Increased mortality associated with vitamin A deficiency during human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2149–54.
18. Semba RD, Miotti PG, Chiphangwi JD, et al. Maternal vitamin A deficiency and mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. Lancet 1994;343:1593–7.
19. Coutsoudis A, Pillay K, Spooner E, et al. Randomized trial testing the effect of vitamin A supplementation on pregnancy outcomes and early mother-to-child HIV-1 transmission in Durban, South Africa. South African Vitamin A Study Group. AIDS 1999;13:1517–24.
20. Kennedy CM, Coutsoudis A, Kuhn L, et al. Randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of vitamin A supplementation on maternal morbidity during pregnancy and postpartum among HIV-infected women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2000;24:37–44.
21. Fawzi WW, et al. (2004). A randomized trial of multivitamin supplements and HIV disease progression and mortality. N Engl J Med 351, 23–32
22. Coutsoudis A, Bobat RA, Coovadia HM, et al. The effects of vitamin A supplementation on the morbidity of children born to HIV-infected women. Am J Public Health 1995;85:1076–81.
23. Kanter AS, Spencer DC, Steinberg MH, et al. Supplemental vitamin B and progression to AIDS and death in black South African patients infected with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999;21:252–3 [letter].
24. Butterworth RF, Gaudreau C, Vincelette J, et al. Thiamine deficiency in AIDS. Lancet 1991;338:1086.
25. Baum MK, Mantero-Atienza E, Shor-Posner G, et al. Association of vitamin B6 status with parameters of immune function in early HIV-1 infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1991;4:1122–32.
26. Tang AM, Graham NMH, Saah AJ. Effects of micronutrient intake on survival in human immunodeficiency type 1 infection. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:1244–56.
27. Boudes P, Zittoun J, Sobel A. Folate, vitamin B12, and HIV infection. Lancet 1990;335:1401–2.
28. Murray MF. Niacin as a potential AIDS preventive factor. Med Hypotheses 1999;53:375–9.
29. Murray MF, Srinivasan A. Nicotinamide inhibits HIV-1 in both acute and chronic in vitro infection. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1995;210:954–9.
30. Tang AM, Graham NMH, Saah AJ. Effects of micronutrient intake on survival in human immunodeficiency type 1 infection. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:1244–56.
31. Graham NMH, Saah AJ. Effects of micronutrient intake on survival in human immunodeficiency type 1 infection. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:1244–56.
32. Fabris N, Mocchegiani E, Galli M, et al. AIDS, zinc deficiency, and thymic hormone failure. JAMA 1988;259:839–40.
33. Mocchegiani E, Veccia S, Ancarani F, et al. Benefit of oral zinc supplementation as an adjunct to zidovudine (AZT) therapy against opportunistic infections in AIDS. Int J Immunopharmacol 1995;17:719–27.
34. Micke P, Beeh KM, Buhl R. Effects of long-term supplementation with whey proteins on plasma glutathione levels of HIV-infected patients. Eur J Nutr 2002;41:12–8.
35. Wong KF, Middleton N, Montgomery M, et al. Immunostimulation of murine spleen cells by materials associated with bovine milk protein fractions. J Dairy Sci 1998;81:1825–32.
36. Minehira K, Inoue S, Nonaka M, et al. Effects of dietary protein type on oxidized cholesterol-induced alteration in age-related modulation of lipid metabolism and indices of immune function in rats. Biochim Biophys Acta 2000;1483:141–53.
37. Muth CM, Glenz Y, Klaus M, Radermacher P, Speit G, Leverve X. Sektion. Influence of an orally effective SOD on hyperbaric oxygen-related cell damage. Free Radic Res. 2004 Sep;38(9):927-32. PMID: 15621710
38. Stephensen CB, et al. Vitamins C and E in adolescents and young adults with HIV infection. Am J Clin Nut. Vol. 83, No. 4, 754-759, April 2006
39. Foster HD. How HIV-1 causes AIDS: implications for prevention and treatment. Med Hypotheses. 2004;62(4):549-53. Review. PMID: 15050105
40. The effects of an orally effective SOD (Glisodin) on AIDS West African patients in a randomized double-blinded clinical study. http://www.health-strategy.com/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/3787
41. Dugas B (2002) Glisodin®, a nutraceutical product that promotes the oral delivery of superoxide dismutase. Free Radic Biol Med 33: S64
42. Vouldoukis I, Conti M, Kolb JP, et al.(2003) Induction of Th1-dependent immunity by an orally effective melon superoxide dismutase extract. Curr Trends Immunol 5: 141-5
43. Vouldoukis I, Conti M, Krauss P, et al. (2004) Supplementation with gliadin-combined plant superoxide dismutase extract promotes antioxidant defences and protects against oxidative stress. Phytother Res 18 (12): 957-62
44. Vouldoukis I, Lacan D, Kamate C, et al. (2004) Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties of a Cucumis melo LC. extract rich in superoxide dismutase activity. J Ethnopharmacol 94 (1): 67-75
45. Jiamton S, et al. (2003). A randomized trial of the impact of multiple micronutrient supplementation on mortality among HIV-infected individuals living in Bangkok. AIDS 17, 2461–2469
46. Austin J. A community randomized controlled clinical trial of mixed carotenoids and micronutrient supplementation of patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Eur J Clin Nutr 60: 1266-1276; advance online publication, May 24, 2006; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602447
47. Baum MK, Shor-Posner G, Lu Y, Rosner B, Sauberlich HE, Fletcher MA et al. (1995). Micronutrients and HIV-1 disease progression. AIDS 9, 1051–1056 48. Stephensen CB (2003). Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Nutr Rev 61, 280–284

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.