Vitamins - via pill or kitchen?

Hi All
I wrote this comment on supplements and diet a while back.
I'm not a pathfinder, because others have said similar
things before me, but it's nice to see that scientists are
now starting to confirm it:

http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/20...d-similar.html
"I do NOT buy capsules or pills of cinnamon, or turmeric, or
garlic or anything. I eat them by including the herbs,
spices and specific foods regularly in my normal way of
eating." I have the same philosophy for all supplements; I
only take a supplement if I cannot find a way to include
that item in my normal diet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7349980.stm
"A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.

Scientists at Copenhagen University said vitamins A and E
could interfere with the body's natural defences.

"Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
increase mortality," according to the review by the
respected Cochrane Collaboration."
<snip>
"The Department of Health said people should try to get the
vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
doses of supplements - a market which is worth over £330m in
the UK."

It's not quite identical to the BBC report, but I think this
is the study, or at least one related to it concerning
cancer:

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com...1%2F8301a2.pdf
"OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between antioxidant
use and primary cancer incidence and mortality and to
evaluate these effects across specific antioxidant
compounds, target organs, and participant subgroups.

METHODS: Multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane
Controlled Clinical Trials Register, EMBASE, Science
Citation Index) were searched from their dates of inception
until August 2005 to identify eligible randomized clinical
trials. Random effects meta-analyses estimated pooled
relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that
described the effect of antioxidants vs placebo on cancer
incidence and cancer mortality.

RESULTS: Twelve eligible trials, 9 of high methodological
quality, were identified (total subject population,
104,196). Antioxidant supplementation did not significantly
reduce total cancer incidence (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04)
or mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.92-1.15) or any
site-specific cancer incidence. Beta carotene
supplementation was associated with an increase in the
incidence of cancer among smokers (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-
1.10) and with a trend toward increased cancer mortality
(RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.98-1.37). Selenium supplementation was
associated with reduced cancer incidence in men (RR, 0.77;
95% CI, 0.64-0.92) but not in women (RR, 1.00; 95% CI,
0.89-1.13, value for interaction, P<.001) and with reduced
cancer mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94). Vitamin E
supplementation had no apparent effect on overall cancer
incidence (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or cancer mortality
(RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12).

CONCLUSION: Beta carotene supplementation appeared to
increase cancer incidence and cancer mortality among
smokers, whereas vitamin E supplementation had no effect.
Selenium supplementation might have anticarcinogenic effects
in men and thus requires further research."

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest:What to Eat Until You Get Your Meter.
and Cambodia
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html

On Wed, 07 May 2008 14:54:44 +1000, Alan S
<loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:

>A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
>antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.

A postscript.

This report is in the latest issue of JAMA:

Full text:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/299/17/2027
Effect of Folic Acid and B Vitamins on Risk of
Cardiovascular Events and Total Mortality Among Women at
High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease

"Context
Recent randomized trials among patients with preexisting
cardiovascular disease (CVD) have failed to support benefits
of B-vitamin supplementation on cardiovascular risk.
Observational data suggest benefits may be greater among
women, yet women have been
underrepresented in published randomized trials.

Objective
To test whether a combination of folic acid, vitamin B6, and
vitamin B12 lowers risk of CVD among high-risk women with
and without CVD.

Design, Setting, and Participants
Within an ongoing randomized trial of antioxidant vitamins,
5442 women who were US health professionals aged 42 years or
older, with either a history of CVD or 3 or more coronary
risk factors, were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial to receive a combination pill
containing folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 or a
matching placebo, and were treated for 7.3 years from April
1998 through July 2005.
<snip>

Conclusion
After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination
pill of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not
reduce a combined end point of total cardiovascular events
among high-risk women, despite significant homocysteine
lowering."

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest:What to Eat Until You Get Your Meter.
and Cambodia
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html

In article <rrb424porgja2bqpldo48eg0eem64mq5sk@4ax.com>,
loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com says...
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 14:54:44 +1000, Alan S
> <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> This report is in the latest issue of JAMA:
>
> Full text:
> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/299/17/2027
> Effect of Folic Acid and B Vitamins on Risk of
> Cardiovascular Events and Total Mortality Among Women at
> High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
>
<snip>
>
> Conclusion
> After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination
> pill of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not
> reduce a combined end point of total cardiovascular events
> among high-risk women, despite significant homocysteine
> lowering."
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Good to see you back Alan:

I started a similar study for kidney transplant patients soon after this
study ended.

http://www.cscc.unc.edu/favorit/

Renal transplant patients, as well as all other transplant patients, are
in a much higher cardio risk group than the normal population, and in
fact, cardio vascular disease is the leading cause of death for
transplant patients. The study is to see if renal transplant patients,
due to their medical conditions and medications, will react differently
than other classes of patients. It is a 4,000 patient, multi-national
study lasting a few years.

I was involved in a 5 year study of a statin for transplant patients
(ALERT Study) ending in 2003 that found that as well as lowering lipids,
transplant survival rates were improved almost 35 % compared to placebo
due to mostly to a one-third reduction in cardio disease related deaths.

http://hugin.info/134323/R/1010068/156824.pdf

I was surprised to find that the statin chosen, fluvostatin (Lescol), is
only one of two statins that can be safely utilized by many transplant
patients. Cyclosporine is still a commonly used med for transplants, and
is metabolized by a different cytochrome (the infamous grapefruit
interaction) than the one for fluvostatin and pravastatin (Pravachol).
All other statins tend to use the grapefruit cytochrome.

Quality Omega-3 from fish oil capsules (3 - 4 GRAMS per day) has a
beneficial effect on survival of the transplanted organ itself. The
effect is thought to be due to possible anti-immflammatory effects on
the blood vessels and organs of Omega-3.

Dennis (Type 2)

Alan S quoted:
> "Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
> increase mortality," according to the review by the
> respected Cochrane Collaboration."

Quite some time ago, there was a study showing increased risk
CHD among diabetics who consumed 400 units of Vitamin E daily.

Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
the study only used one of them, and a synthetic variety at that.
He asked whether all six in the natural form and proportions
might have different results.

He also points out in "Nutrition For Blokes" that Vitamins
C and E affect each other, especially when another type of
compound is also present. Write me if you'd like to know
how to get a copy. (Charter defenders, I beg for leniency!)

> "A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
> antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.

Hmmm.

> "The Department of Health said people should try to get the
> vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
> doses of supplements - a market which is worth over £330m in
> the UK."

Well, I'd go for that approach as well.

--
Wes Groleau

A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

from alan
<<Conclusion
After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination pill of folic
acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not reduce a combined end point of
total cardiovascular events among high-risk women, despite significant
homocysteine lowering.">>

wow! now that's a mind blower! i never heard that before. i have been
taking folate for years but never bothered to follow up on its
effectiveness over the long haul for women. i may as well save my money!

thank you!

On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:14:20 GMT, Wes Groleau
<groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>Alan S quoted:
>> "Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
>> increase mortality," according to the review by the
>> respected Cochrane Collaboration."
>
>Quite some time ago, there was a study showing increased risk
>CHD among diabetics who consumed 400 units of Vitamin E daily.
>
>Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
>the study only used one of them, and a synthetic variety at that.
>He asked whether all six in the natural form and proportions
>might have different results.
>
Excellent point - I had forgotten that.

>He also points out in "Nutrition For Blokes" that Vitamins
>C and E affect each other, especially when another type of
>compound is also present. Write me if you'd like to know
>how to get a copy. (Charter defenders, I beg for leniency!)
>
Still reading my copy...taking my time to try to remember
all the important bits, rather than skim through and forget
it in a week as I usually do.

>> "A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
>> antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.
>
>Hmmm.
>
>> "The Department of Health said people should try to get the
>> vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
>> doses of supplements - a market which is worth over £330m in
>> the UK."
>
>Well, I'd go for that approach as well.

I do:-)

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
Latest:What to Eat Until You Get Your Meter.
and Cambodia
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html

Hi Dennis R. and Alan S.:

> In article <rrb424porgja2bqpldo48eg0eem64mq5sk@4ax.com>,
> loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com says...
>
>>On Wed, 07 May 2008 14:54:44 +1000, Alan S
>><loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This report is in the latest issue of JAMA:
>>
>>Full text:
>>http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/299/17/2027
>>Effect of Folic Acid and B Vitamins on Risk of
>>Cardiovascular Events and Total Mortality Among Women at
>>High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease

We find statistics that some type 2 diabetics as having equivalent risks
factors for heart attacks as non-diabetics who had previous heart
attacks. Also some reports support folic acid supplementation while show
negatives for vitamin C diabetic women. This points out that diabetes
can effect the way the body processes a number of things including
drugs. Some components of foods have there impact on drugs and
supplements as well. Our decisions can be ultra conservative or
engaging in consumption without regard as well as anything in between
when it comes to food, drugs, and supplements. Consequently, YMMV!
Mega doses of polyphenols like quercetin or resveratrol are being used
in clinical trials
(http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/N...ercetin&rank=2
and http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=resveratrol).

"Vitamin C intake from supplements was positively related to mortality
from all CVD, CAD, and stroke among postmenopausal women who reported
diabetes at baseline. No such association was observed among women who
did not have diabetes at baseline.

Although the reasons for accelerated atherosclerosis in diabetic
subjects are still not completely understood, CVD risk in diabetes
largely depends on both diabetes-related variables such as glycemic
control, diabetes duration, proteinuria, and overall artery disease as
well as the classic risk factors blood pressure, smoking, and
dyslipidemia (13). We adjusted for most classic risk factors. Although
we did not measure blood pressure or blood lipids, typically these have
not been correlated strongly with vitamin C intake (14, 15).
Furthermore, because vitamin C supplement users tend to have healthy
behaviors and diet patterns, consumers of high amounts of vitamin C
likely had lower blood pressures and lower atherogenic blood lipid
concentrations than did consumers of low amounts. Adjustment for these
factors would likely strengthen the association. Moreover, vitamin C
intake was not associated with medication type or duration of diabetes;
therefore, the severity of diabetes is unlikely to be a strong
confounder in the association between vitamin C consumption and CVD
mortality.

Nevertheless, there is still a possibility that patients with more
severe diabetes tend to consume more vitamin C, including that from
supplements. Vitamin C is a known antioxidant, and patients with type 2
diabetes might interpret general advice to consume more vegetables and
fruit to include supplemental vitamin C. However, if this were true,
other nutrients with characteristics similar to vitamin C for which
similar recommendations exist should also show a positive association
with CVD mortality. However, vitamin E and ß-carotene intakes were not
associated with CVD mortality, and folate intake showed an inverse
association. Therefore, we think that confounding was an unlikely
explanation of the positive association between supplementary vitamin C
and CVD among these postmenopausal women with diabetes. [...]Recently,
the Nurses' Health Study reported a beneficial effect of vitamin C
supplements among diabetic persons and among all study subjects in the
only other study that explored the relation among diabetic persons (27).
Although a reduced risk of fatal and nonfatal CAD was observed in the
entire group of women who took high doses of vitamin C supplements, the
results for diabetic women who took high doses of vitamin C supplements
(ie, ≥300 mg) were not presented separately. In partial agreement with
the findings in the women in the Nurses' Health Study, the diabetic
women in the Iowa Women's Health Study who took 1–99 mg vitamin C/d
showed a weak inverse trend." Source: Does supplemental vitamin C
increase cardiovascular disease risk in women with diabetes? -
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1194

Diabetes can also effect the way some vitamins such as C operate in the
body. A good case in point involves the cell/tissue types that use a
glucose transporters to transfer ascorbic acid (vitamin C) from the
extracellular space into cells. Some glucose transporters are also used
to move glucose into the cell/tissue so they are competing particularly
at high blood glucose levels. The ascorbic acid is converted into an
oxidized form prior to the transfer into cells. "Some aspects of the
reported effects of flavonoids on transport inhibition are generally
consistent given the structural similarities of glucose, dehydroascorbic
acid, and ascorbic acid. However, some reported findings are surprising
because of the distinct transport mechanisms for these substrates.
Glucose is transported by facilitated sodium-independent glucose
transporters GLUT1-GLUT4, GLUT6, GLUT8 and by sodium-dependent
transporters SGLT1 and SGLT2 (12-18). Dehydroascorbic acid transport is
sodium-independent and is mediated by only GLUT1, GLUT3, and GLUT4
(19-21). No glucose transporters transport ascorbate (20). Ascorbate
transport is sodium-dependent and is mediated by ascorbate transporters
SVCT1 and SVCT2, neither of which transport glucose and dehydroascorbic
acid (22, 23)." Source: Flavonoid Inhibition of Sodium-dependent Vitamin
C Transporter 1 (SVCT1) and Glucose Transporter Isoform 2 (GLUT2),
Intestinal Transporters for Vitamin C and Glucose -
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/277/18/15252. (For other finds -
ascorbic+acid+GLUT2+ diabetes+blood+glucose - http://tinyurl.com/55xdn2)

The same data base for the Iowa Women longitudinal study concerning
dietary sources of fibers and magnesium. Look at the relative risks in
the following report:
"Conclusion: These data support a protective role for grains
(particularly whole grains), cereal fiber, and dietary magnesium in the
development of diabetes in older women."
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/4/921

TABLE 4. Multivariate-adjusted relative risks of incident type 2
diabetes across quintiles of energy-adjusted dietary fiber and magnesium
intakes among 35988 Iowa women, 1986–1992 -
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/4/921/T4
The source of the fiber effects the relative risks.


> I started a similar study for kidney transplant patients soon after this
> study ended.
>
> http://www.cscc.unc.edu/favorit/
>
> Renal transplant patients, as well as all other transplant patients, are
> in a much higher cardio risk group than the normal population, and in
> fact, cardio vascular disease is the leading cause of death for
> transplant patients. The study is to see if renal transplant patients,
> due to their medical conditions and medications, will react differently
> than other classes of patients. It is a 4,000 patient, multi-national
> study lasting a few years.
>
> I was involved in a 5 year study of a statin for transplant patients
> (ALERT Study) ending in 2003 that found that as well as lowering lipids,
> transplant survival rates were improved almost 35 % compared to placebo
> due to mostly to a one-third reduction in cardio disease related deaths.
>
> http://hugin.info/134323/R/1010068/156824.pdf
>
> I was surprised to find that the statin chosen, fluvostatin (Lescol), is
> only one of two statins that can be safely utilized by many transplant
> patients. Cyclosporine is still a commonly used med for transplants, and
> is metabolized by a different cytochrome (the infamous grapefruit
> interaction) than the one for fluvostatin and pravastatin (Pravachol).
> All other statins tend to use the grapefruit cytochrome.
>
> Quality Omega-3 from fish oil capsules (3 - 4 GRAMS per day) has a
> beneficial effect on survival of the transplanted organ itself. The
> effect is thought to be due to possible anti-immflammatory effects on
> the blood vessels and organs of Omega-3.

Frank

In alt.support.diabetes Alan S <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:14:20 GMT, Wes Groleau
> <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>>Alan S quoted:
>>> "Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
>>> increase mortality," according to the review by the
>>> respected Cochrane Collaboration."
>>
>>Quite some time ago, there was a study showing increased risk
>>CHD among diabetics who consumed 400 units of Vitamin E daily.
>>
>>Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
>>the study only used one of them, and a synthetic variety at that.
>>He asked whether all six in the natural form and proportions
>>might have different results.
>>
> Excellent point - I had forgotten that.

>>He also points out in "Nutrition For Blokes" that Vitamins
>>C and E affect each other, especially when another type of
>>compound is also present. Write me if you'd like to know
>>how to get a copy. (Charter defenders, I beg for leniency!)
>>
> Still reading my copy...taking my time to try to remember
> all the important bits, rather than skim through and forget
> it in a week as I usually do.

>>> "A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
>>> antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.
>>
>>Hmmm.
>>
>>> "The Department of Health said people should try to get the
>>> vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
>>> doses of supplements - a market which is worth over ?330m in
>>> the UK."
>>
>>Well, I'd go for that approach as well.

> I do:-)

The danger with interpreting the results of lots of medical research
is that they find it too expensive or difficult to measure what they
really want to achieve, such as reduced risk of dying, and substitute
something generally supposed to correlate well with risk of dying and
easily measureable, such as something a standard lab blood test can
find in your blood. So you can end up taking a supplement or
medication which improves the lab measurements your doc makes, but
doesn't actually improve your health or longevity.

I actually consider longevity to be one of these pseudo end points
which are adopted for convenience of discovery instead of what I'm
really interested in, which is what state I'll be in for the last five
or ten years of my life. Will I be shuffling around confused, in pain,
and needing care, or will I be alert, mobile, happily doing my own
shopping, cooking, and housework, and enjoying life? Research which
simply looks at date of death misses that very important point.

That's why I raise a sceptical eyebrow at these cheapskate longevity
studies :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Thu, 08 May 2008 08:44:08 +1000, Alan S
<loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Conclusion
>After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination
>pill of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not
>reduce a combined end point of total cardiovascular events
>among high-risk women, despite significant homocysteine
>lowering."
>
>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.

This has been a puzzle. While the combination of folic acid, Vit B6
and B12 lower homocysteine and lowering homocysteine ought to reduce
risk it doesn't appear to.

At first it was thought that the method of lowering the homocysteine
was the problem as the early researchers used very high doses of folic
acid without the B-group vitamins.

Apparently the situation is more complicated than first thought. As
your header suggests perhaps there is something about food that works
where supplements don't. Often the geometry of the compounds used in
the supplements is at fault. Frankly though I can't see how this
could be a problem here.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:2tea24he4rmpfs6dnm6lrmbtndpj5aim2h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 08:44:08 +1000, Alan S
> <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Conclusion
>>After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination
>>pill of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not
>>reduce a combined end point of total cardiovascular events
>>among high-risk women, despite significant homocysteine
>>lowering."
>>
>>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>
> This has been a puzzle. While the combination of folic acid, Vit B6
> and B12 lower homocysteine and lowering homocysteine ought to reduce
> risk it doesn't appear to.
>
> At first it was thought that the method of lowering the homocysteine
> was the problem as the early researchers used very high doses of folic
> acid without the B-group vitamins.
>
> Apparently the situation is more complicated than first thought. As
> your header suggests perhaps there is something about food that works
> where supplements don't. Often the geometry of the compounds used in
> the supplements is at fault. Frankly though I can't see how this
> could be a problem here.
>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Quentin Grady ^ ^ /

Mirror images of the natural vitamins tend not to work as well as the
natural
vitamins, and sometimes cause problems. The usual ways of making synthetic
vitamins tend to turn out roughly matching amounts of vitamins matching the
natural ones, and their mirror images.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:57:32 -0500, "Robert Miles"
<robertmiles@bellsouthNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>
>"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:2tea24he4rmpfs6dnm6lrmbtndpj5aim2h@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 08:44:08 +1000, Alan S
>> <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Conclusion
>>>After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination
>>>pill of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not
>>>reduce a combined end point of total cardiovascular events
>>>among high-risk women, despite significant homocysteine
>>>lowering."
>>>
>>>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>>
>> This has been a puzzle. While the combination of folic acid, Vit B6
>> and B12 lower homocysteine and lowering homocysteine ought to reduce
>> risk it doesn't appear to.
>>
>> At first it was thought that the method of lowering the homocysteine
>> was the problem as the early researchers used very high doses of folic
>> acid without the B-group vitamins.
>>
>> Apparently the situation is more complicated than first thought. As
>> your header suggests perhaps there is something about food that works
>> where supplements don't. Often the geometry of the compounds used in
>> the supplements is at fault. Frankly though I can't see how this
>> could be a problem here.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> --
>> Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
>
>Mirror images of the natural vitamins tend not to work as well as the
>natural
>vitamins, and sometimes cause problems. The usual ways of making synthetic
>vitamins tend to turn out roughly matching amounts of vitamins matching the
>natural ones, and their mirror images.

G'day G'day Robert,

Many readers will appreciate your explanation. Don't be surprised
though if some still don't fully understand it. After all it requires
some background knowledge of molecules and what is meant by mirror
images. You and I will understand these terms easily enough since it
is likely we share a similar background. The problems associated
with the wrong geometry to found in some synthetic molecules is
something I rave on about on ASD often enough.

The question that is relevant here though is whether synthetic folic
acid has this problem. Put simply some molecules are so simple it is
quite possible the geometry problems common with other molecules like
beta-carotene doesn't exist.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

In article <0cv4241lv9gvivrj2jv4jkidhb7gv9hd5q@4ax.com>,
Alan S <loralgtweightandcarbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:14:20 GMT, Wes Groleau
><groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

>>Alan S quoted:
>>> "Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
>>> increase mortality," according to the review by the
>>> respected Cochrane Collaboration."

>>Quite some time ago, there was a study showing increased risk
>>CHD among diabetics who consumed 400 units of Vitamin E daily.

>>Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
>>the study only used one of them, and a synthetic variety at that.
>>He asked whether all six in the natural form and proportions
>>might have different results.

>Excellent point - I had forgotten that.

Vitamin E comes in 8 forms, alpha, beta, gamma, and
delta, and tocopherol or tocotrienol, and each of these
come in either d ("right-handed") or l ("left-handed")
varieties at three sites. Natural vitamin E is all d,
but the synthetic version has equal amounts of all dl
combinations (ddd, ddl, ..., lll), and is considered
equivalent to 45% as much ddd.

Partly because of the FDA, just about all on the market
in the US is alpha tocopherol, sometimes d, but mostly
the mixture described above, usually labeled dl. I recall
back when the proportions of the eight types was on the
label, but I have seen little recently with other than
just the alpha variety. It is easy to convert the other
types to the alpha variety by replacing the hydrogens
in two sites to methyl groups, and the FDA considers
400 mg to mean 400 mg of alpha.

Now if you want to get 400 mg of vitamin E from food, to
get it from the richest natural sources, cod liver oil
or wheat germ oil, you would have to get more than 1500
calories from the oil. The current RDA of 45 mg is much
easier.

>>He also points out in "Nutrition For Blokes" that Vitamins
>>C and E affect each other, especially when another type of
>>compound is also present. Write me if you'd like to know
>>how to get a copy. (Charter defenders, I beg for leniency!)

>Still reading my copy...taking my time to try to remember
>all the important bits, rather than skim through and forget
>it in a week as I usually do.

>>> "A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
>>> antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.

>>Hmmm.

I would like to see the statistical analysis used
for this. I have a major mistrust of the way
medical statisticians "handle" their data.

>>> "The Department of Health said people should try to get the
>>> vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
>>> doses of supplements - a market which is worth over 330m in
>>> the UK."

>>Well, I'd go for that approach as well.

>I do:-)

>Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
>d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
>Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

On May 7, 9:13*pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:14:20 GMT, Wes Groleau
>
> <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> >Alan S quoted:
> >> "Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
> >> increase mortality," according to the review by the
> >> respected Cochrane Collaboration."
>
> >Quite some time ago, there was a study showing increased risk
> >CHD among diabetics who consumed 400 units of Vitamin E daily.
>
> >Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
> >the study only used one of them, and a synthetic variety at that.
> >He asked whether all six in the natural form and proportions
> >might have different results.
>
> Excellent point - I had forgotten that.

Err, there are 4 forms of natural tocopherols alpha, beta, gamma, and
delta.
Whereas synthetic vitamin E is all alpha and there are eight
variations in that in the side chain, rrr (the one natural form), srr,
rsr, rrs, ssr, rss, srr,
and sss as I recall. Moreover of the natural forms that function
as vitamin E there are two families on natural chemicals besides
the tocopherols, tocotrienols, and a marine (fish) form whose spelling
escapes me at the moment.

Taking huge dose of alpha compete for absorption with beta, gamma,
and delta. And synthetic alpha form mention earlier have
a shorter biological half life. Nor should be assumed that
the serum alpha e measure is the be all and end of all of
the E's. It is possible that the other E's such as gamma
may have importance in specific compartments at least
according to some idea out there in the ether.

I take a high gamma supplement for at least part of my
supplemental dose. Though I will add, I had an intake
study and was found to have one of the highest natural intake
of E that the instructor had ever seen at least in my diet
over those three days. She said the VAST majority
of people struggle to get 15 milligrams
much less than the 45 to 60 milligrams of alpha E I got
in my diet. And I was getting fairly large dose of the other
other forms beta, gamma, delta not included in the
nutrient charts. Most people diet even dietican
designed diet leave alot to be desired. Too much
common sense and FAR FAR too little good sense.
Common sense is rarely ever good on any topic.



>
> >He also points out in "Nutrition For Blokes" that Vitamins
> >C and E affect each other, especially when another type of
> >compound is also present. *Write me if you'd like to know
> >how to get a copy. *(Charter defenders, I beg for leniency!)
>
> Still reading my copy...taking my time to try to remember
> all the important bits, rather than skim through and forget
> it in a week as I usually do.
>
> >> "A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
> >> antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.
>
> >Hmmm.
>
> >> "The Department of Health said people should try to get the
> >> vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
> >> doses of supplements - a market which is worth over £330m in
> >> the UK."
>
> >Well, I'd go for that approach as well.
>
> I do:-)

I dare you to to get a gram of alpha lipoic acid out of any diet or
100 milligrams of benfotiamine out of roasted garlic.
By the time one is diabetic, natural diet in my opinion
is too late and more aggressive measure make much
more sense, IMO. When the pain of neuropathy comes
blame your "natural' diet and your Doctors.
>
> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
> d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
> Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
> --http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com
> Latest:What to Eat Until You Get Your Meter.
> and Cambodiahttp://loraltravel.blogspot.com/2008/03/cambodia.html

On May 7, 11:14�pm, Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
> the study only used one of them

8 forms. 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols. And it is true that very
few studies look at the mixture of eight. Studies almost exclusively
use dl-alpha-tocopherol.
CB

On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:38:34 -0700 (PDT), "trigonometry1972@gmail.com
|" <trigonometry1972@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 7, 9:13*pm, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:14:20 GMT, Wes Groleau
>>
>> <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote:
>> >Alan S quoted:
>> >> "Even more, beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E seem to
>> >> increase mortality," according to the review by the
>> >> respected Cochrane Collaboration."
>>
>> >Quite some time ago, there was a study showing increased risk
>> >CHD among diabetics who consumed 400 units of Vitamin E daily.
>>
>> >Quentin pointed out that vitamin E comes in six forms and that
>> >the study only used one of them, and a synthetic variety at that.
>> >He asked whether all six in the natural form and proportions
>> >might have different results.
>>
>> Excellent point - I had forgotten that.
>
>Err, there are 4 forms of natural tocopherols alpha, beta, gamma, and
>delta.

G'day G'day

Thank you for making this correction. Obviously there are at least
eight naturally compounds and Wes has quoted an unfortunate typo that
requires correction. There is one more that I know of that doesn't
fit in the tocopherols or toccotrienols. It is found in flax fibre.

>Whereas synthetic vitamin E is all alpha and there are eight
>variations in that in the side chain, rrr (the one natural form), srr,
>rsr, rrs, ssr, rss, srr,
>and sss as I recall. Moreover of the natural forms that function
>as vitamin E there are two families on natural chemicals besides
>the tocopherols, tocotrienols, and a marine (fish) form whose spelling
>escapes me at the moment.

Only the cheapest Vit E is truly synthetic. Most of the better
quality Vit E for sale is extracted from sunflower seed oil. This
allows it to be called "natural" even though the gamma tocopherol has
been modified to produce alpha tocopherol. Gamma tocopherol is the
most common of the naturally occurring forms of Vit E. However thanks
to a historical accident where the potency of Vit E was judged by its
effects on the fertility of rodents all Vit E is assessed in
International Units IU which is equivalents of alpha tocopherol. To
get high numbers on the supplements manufacturers convert much of the
gamma tocopherol to alpha tocopherol.

>Taking huge dose of alpha compete for absorption with beta, gamma,
>and delta. And synthetic alpha form mention earlier have
>a shorter biological half life. Nor should be assumed that
>the serum alpha e measure is the be all and end of all of
>the E's. It is possible that the other E's such as gamma
>may have importance in specific compartments at least
>according to some idea out there in the ether.
>
>I take a high gamma supplement for at least part of my
>supplemental dose. Though I will add, I had an intake
>study and was found to have one of the highest natural intake
>of E that the instructor had ever seen at least in my diet
>over those three days. She said the VAST majority
>of people struggle to get 15 milligrams
>much less than the 45 to 60 milligrams of alpha E I got
>in my diet. And I was getting fairly large dose of the other
>other forms beta, gamma, delta not included in the
>nutrient charts. Most people diet even dietican
>designed diet leave alot to be desired. Too much
>common sense and FAR FAR too little good sense.
>Common sense is rarely ever good on any topic.

Do we need high doses of Vit E? The researchers on morbidity suggest
that supplementation has a negative influence. I find it fascinating
that so many decide to ignore their conclusions. That might be the
wise course where T2 diabetics are concerned as you've pointed out
later in your post. We are after all damaged people and need to treat
some thing as pharmacological rather than nutritional.

How certain are we that it is safe to do so?
IMHO it is a gamble and we need to be aware that it is so.


>> >He also points out in "Nutrition For Blokes" that Vitamins
>> >C and E affect each other, especially when another type of
>> >compound is also present. *Write me if you'd like to know
>> >how to get a copy. *(Charter defenders, I beg for leniency!)
>>
>> Still reading my copy...taking my time to try to remember
>> all the important bits, rather than skim through and forget
>> it in a week as I usually do.
>>
>> >> "A review of 67 studies found "no convincing evidence" that
>> >> antioxidant supplements cut the risk of dying.
>>
>> >Hmmm.
>>
>> >> "The Department of Health said people should try to get the
>> >> vitamins they need from their diet, and avoid taking large
>> >> doses of supplements - a market which is worth over £330m in
>> >> the UK."
>>
>> >Well, I'd go for that approach as well.
>>
>> I do:-)
>
>I dare you to to get a gram of alpha lipoic acid out of any diet or
>100 milligrams of benfotiamine out of roasted garlic.
>By the time one is diabetic, natural diet in my opinion
>is too late and more aggressive measure make much
>more sense, IMO. When the pain of neuropathy comes
>blame your "natural' diet and your Doctors.

I am unaware of any evidence of alpha lipoic acid supplementation
causing an increase in morbidity. The research seems to be confined
to Vit E, Vit C, beta-carotene and selenium and some other common
antioxidants.

>> Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On 8 May 2008 10:28:41 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>The danger with interpreting the results of lots of medical research
>is that they find it too expensive or difficult to measure what they
>really want to achieve, such as reduced risk of dying, and substitute
>something generally supposed to correlate well with risk of dying and
>easily measureable, such as something a standard lab blood test can
>find in your blood. So you can end up taking a supplement or
>medication which improves the lab measurements your doc makes, but
>doesn't actually improve your health or longevity.
>
>I actually consider longevity to be one of these pseudo end points
>which are adopted for convenience of discovery instead of what I'm
>really interested in, which is what state I'll be in for the last five
>or ten years of my life. Will I be shuffling around confused, in pain,
>and needing care, or will I be alert, mobile, happily doing my own
>shopping, cooking, and housework, and enjoying life? Research which
>simply looks at date of death misses that very important point.

Good point there Chris, quality of life should be the ultimate goal.

I prefer morbidity trials in comparison to the intermediates often
used in that they are harder to fake. People are either dead or they
aren't. This much more definite than having high blood glucose or
high cholesterol levels. It is all to easy for the researchers to
decide on levels that suit their desired outcomes.

>That's why I raise a sceptical eyebrow at these cheapskate longevity
>studies :-)

They might however be the best we're going to get.
>--
>Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On 12 May 2008 13:56:51 -0400, hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>Vitamin E comes in 8 forms, alpha, beta, gamma, and
>delta, and tocopherol or tocotrienol, and each of these
>come in either d ("right-handed") or l ("left-handed")
>varieties at three sites. Natural vitamin E is all d,
>but the synthetic version has equal amounts of all dl
>combinations (ddd, ddl, ..., lll), and is considered
>equivalent to 45% as much ddd.
>
>Partly because of the FDA, just about all on the market
>in the US is alpha tocopherol, sometimes d, but mostly
>the mixture described above, usually labeled dl. I recall
>back when the proportions of the eight types was on the
>label, but I have seen little recently with other than
>just the alpha variety. It is easy to convert the other
>types to the alpha variety by replacing the hydrogens
>in two sites to methyl groups, and the FDA considers
>400 mg to mean 400 mg of alpha.
>
>Now if you want to get 400 mg of vitamin E from food, to
>get it from the richest natural sources, cod liver oil
>or wheat germ oil, you would have to get more than 1500
>calories from the oil. The current RDA of 45 mg is much
>easier.

I wouldn't choose synthetic alpha tocopherol. As I understand it the
liver will filter out all the wrong geometry forms of alpha tocopherol
in the first pass through the liver. It would appear to put an
unnecessary load on the liver.

The liver also appears to remove the other non-alpha forms but it
could be argued that the liver benefits in some way from these forms.
Delta tocotrienol is supposed to help with cholesterol for instance.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin