![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by bluedog on December 1, 2002, at 22:14:01
In reply to Re: My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - , posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2002, at 11:25:41
> Seems to be a rather comprehensive supplement plan. Some comments:
>
> 1. DLPA (d-,l-phenylalanine) may be more beneficial than l-tyrosine. A substantial portion of phenylalanine is converted to tyrosine, but some is also available as a precursor to PEA, a feel-good chemical. You could probably go to 2g/day.Thanks. I'll give this a go. By the way I started taking the L-Tyrosine after reading the book "The Way Up" by P Slagle MD that you had linked to in a post you made a while back. I've lost the link but this doesn't matter because I have downloaded the complete PDF file.
>
> 2. That's a lot of turmeric. Total inhibition of COX is probably not a good idea.
>Do you think one heaped teaspoon in the morning would be sufficient?
> 3. Given your osteoarthritis, you might want to add some bromelain. It's quite a good anti-inflammatory, and has been shown to promote soft-tissue healing. Osteoarthritis is in some respects recurrent joint injury. It might help you maintain your current joint function, or even improve on it.
>
>I've actually tried Bromelain. I didn't notice any pain relief but maybe I was taking it wrong. I was taking it as and when I needed it. Does this work or is it like Glucosamine where you need to take it consistently for a period of time before you see results? (the brand I was taking contained 300mg bromelain and 100mg calcium phosphate in each tablet. I used to take 2 tablets for attempted pain relief)
As always, thanks for your tips Larry.
By the way, what supplements do you take?
regards
bluedog
Posted by McPac on December 1, 2002, at 22:49:57
In reply to Re: Supplement Plan » Larry Hoover, posted by bluedog on December 1, 2002, at 22:14:01
I found this on another board:
"My feelings are, unless you KNOW what you need, you should stick MOSTLY to whole food supplements. Whole food supplements are basically foods that have been concentrated into powder which can be mixed with water. For example, it could take up to 30 pounds of vegetables to produce one bottle of a food supplement. This means that the nutrients in the supplement will be more than you could get from food, thus solving that problem. The body picks and chooses what nutrients it needs because the nutrients have all of their natural co-factors. The body is designed to recognize these co-factors which makes it easier for the body to handle them. When the body is handed a synthetic vitamin with no co-factors, it is treated like a drug in the body and has profound effects on every function of your body. So, in a sense, taking isolated nutrients is like taking drugs. Now, of course, most isolated supplements will not cause the kind of damage that drugs will cause but they can upset your body chemistry if you take the wrong amounts and in the wrong combinations for your particular body.
Isolated supplements - vitamin c, folic acid, amino acids,...these supplements definitely have a place in our lives. However, these should be used on a short-term basis for the following reasons:
1. To fix a deficiency or excess of a particular nutrient
2. To affect a particular biochemical pathway in the body that can have profound effects on many bodily functions
3. To counteract the effects of stress, catching the flu or getting a cold, or in alleviatin specific symptoms while the cause is being dealt with.For example, if you have trouble sleeping or suffer from osteoporosis, you would want to take extra calcium/magnesium but the balance, the form, and timing would depend on your body chemistry and how you metabolize nutrients. This is called Biochemical individuality and can be tested through a process called Metabolic Typing.
So, feel free to take your isolated nutrients but remember, do you really know how much your body needs or what form to take? If you are going to work with a nutritionist or nutritionally-oriented physician, he/she can test you in order to discover what isolated nutrients would be helpful for your particular situation. I hope that clears things up"
Posted by bluedog on December 2, 2002, at 0:28:02
In reply to Re: Supplement Plan; Larry---Comments? , posted by McPac on December 1, 2002, at 22:49:57
> I found this on another board:
>
> "My feelings are, unless you KNOW what you need, you should stick MOSTLY to whole food supplements. Whole food supplements are basically foods that have been concentrated into powder which can be mixed with water. This means that the nutrients in the supplement will be more than you could get from food, thus solving that problem.
>I am taking my supplement plan in the context of a healthy diet. I try to eat as much organically grown, natural unprocessed food as possible. Lots of fruit and vegetables, free range chicken, free range eggs, avoiding foods with added flavours, colours and preservatives (including the supplements I take), drinking lots of filtered water and so on. However I take my supplement plan as "insurance" (I know this is the biggest sales pitch of the supplement manufacturers but despite my natural cynicism I actually do believe there is a grain of truth to this "hype").
==================================================================================================
>The body picks and chooses what nutrients it needs because the nutrients have all of their natural co-factors. The body is designed to recognize these co-factors which makes it easier for the body to handle them.
>Do you think that the food I eat in my healthy (as possible - I have some weaknesses)diet will provide the necessary Co-factors for all my supplements to be properly synthesised and metabolised in my system?
==================================================================================================>When the body is handed a synthetic vitamin with no co-factors, it is treated like a drug in the body and has profound effects on every function of your body. So, in a sense, taking isolated nutrients is like taking drugs.
>Do you think my supplement plan is producing a drug like effect in my body rather than a "natural" balancing effect? Again I am very keen to get your opinions on this question. The reason I take such an extensive supplement plan is that I am trying to avoid the isolated supplement syndrome and the problems this can create. I have tried to make my entire supplement plan as "Synergistic" and balanced as possible based on my research and my own (rather limited) knowledge that I personally have gained to date. Do you think that my supplement plan is unbalanced? Can you see any improvements I could make? I am extremely open to any suggestions!!
==================================================================================================>Now, of course, most isolated supplements will not cause the kind of damage that drugs will cause but they can upset your body chemistry if you take the wrong amounts and in the wrong combinations for your particular body.
>Again do you think my particular plan has any "glaring" imbalances that could upset my body chemistry? I don't want to find out 6-12 months down the track that I have created a whole new set of problems that I didn't anticipate?
==================================================================================================> Isolated supplements - vitamin c, folic acid, amino acids,...these supplements definitely have a place in our lives. However, these should be used on a short-term basis for the following reasons:
> 1. To fix a deficiency or excess of a particular nutrient
> 2. To affect a particular biochemical pathway in the body that can have profound effects on many bodily functions
> 3. To counteract the effects of stress, catching the flu or getting a cold, or in alleviatin specific symptoms while the cause is being dealt with.
>Do you think some people need to take supplements for life or on a "long term" basis to correct deficiencies in nutrients and bio-chemical pathways with a genetic origin? In other words stopping the supplements will always cause a relapse in the symptoms you tried overcome?
==================================================================================================> Biochemical individuality and can be tested through a process called Metabolic Typing.
>
Can you let me know a little more about this process? I'm very interested!!!!
==================================================================================================
>I hope that clears things up"
>Yes!!!. Thankyou that has cleared some things up for me but has also "picqued" my interest and created a whole new set of questions. I hope my question are not imposing on you too much.
regards
bluedog
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 2, 2002, at 12:40:42
In reply to Re: Supplement Plan; Larry---Comments? , posted by McPac on December 1, 2002, at 22:49:57
I'm going to comment on supplemental nutrition in general, as my philosophy is quite broad.
First, are we getting enough nutrients from food? I'll get to definitions of what "enough" is later, but first, dietary assessments across the Western world generally show that a substantial number of people do not meet RDAs of important nutrients. One of the most important assessment tools is NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), actually now in its third survey period. From the following study (link), you can see that a substantial proportion of Americans fall below the RDA in a number of key nutritional intake levels (see Tables).
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/8/2177
Other studies from developed nations show similar characteristics with respect to dietary deficiencies.
Environ Res 2001 Dec;87(3):160-74
Dietary intakes of selected elements from longitudinal 6-day duplicate diets for pregnant and nonpregnant subjects and elemental concentrations of breast milk and infant formula.Gulson BL, Mizon KJ, Korsch MJ, Mahaffey KR, Taylor AJ.
Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia. bgulson@gse.mq.edu.au
As part of a longitudinal investigation into mobilization of lead from the maternal skeleton during pregnancy and lactation, we have determined the daily intake of selected elements (hereafter called micronutrients) for various subjects and compared these intakes with recommended and/or published intakes, especially those of the United States, through the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We also sought to ascertain whether there was any seasonal effect in the diets. Six-day duplicate diets were collected from 15 pregnant and 16 nonpregnant migrants to Australia, 6 pregnant Australian control subjects, and 8 children of nonpregnant migrants (6 to 11 years). Samples of breast milk and infant formula were also analyzed. Blended samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for the elements Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, P, K, Na, Zn, Ba, Sr, and Pb. Daily intakes of micronutrients were only about half of the daily intake estimated for non-Hispanic white females and infants in the U.S. NHANES III. Estimates of daily intakes from breast milk were also considerably lower for the migrant and Australian infants compared with the values extracted from tables of food composition and dietary recall for non-Hispanic white infants in the U.S. NHANES III. For example, Ca was a factor of approximately 3 times lower, Fe approximately 50, and Zn approximately 4. We consider our estimates a reliable indication of the daily intakes for several reasons, including the collection of up to nine quarterly collections of 6-day duplicate diets and retention of subjects in a longitudinal prospective study. The low intakes of the essential elements such as Ca, Fe, and Zn in all these population groups are of potential concern from a public health viewpoint.
Am J Clin Nutr 1989 Oct;50(4):718-27
Nutrient intake and vitamin status of healthy French vegetarians and nonvegetarians.
Millet P, Guilland JC, Fuchs F, Klepping J.
Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Dijon, France.
The status of thiamin, riboflavin, folate, and vitamins B-6, B-12, C, A, D, and E was investigated in 37 middle-aged and healthy French vegetarians by means of a dietary survey and biochemical studies. Values were compared with those of a group of nonvegetarians. Unsatisfactory intakes of vitamin B-6 were observed: vitamin B-6 intake as a percentage of the French Recommended Dietary Allowances was approximately 66% for vegetarians and approximately 58% for nonvegetarians. Vegetarians had a higher mean intake of thiamin, riboflavin, and vitamins C, A, D, and E than did nonvegetarians. Vegetarians did not have a higher risk rate for a biochemical vitamin deficiency of thiamin, riboflavin, folates, and vitamins B-6, C, A, and E than the nonvegetarians. The percentage of subjects assessed as abnormal by blood vitamin concentrations was higher in vegetarians for vitamin B-12 (serum vitamin B-12) and vitamin D, which indicated a higher risk for a deficiency of vitamins B-12 and D in this group.
J Adolesc Health 1996 Jul;19(1):39-47
Marginal vitamin and mineral intakes of young adults: the Bogalusa Heart Study.Zive MM, Nicklas TA, Busch EC, Myers L, Berenson GS.
Department of Pediatrics, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, USA.
PURPOSE: To determine reported vitamin and mineral intakes, vitamin supplement use, and food consumption patterns of young adults. METHODS: Twenty-four-hour dietary recalls were collected from 1988-1991 on a cross-sectional sample of 504 young adults in Bogalusa, Louisiana, between the ages of 19 and 28 years (58% female; 70% white). Reported vitamin and mineral intake data were analyzed for race and gender differences. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated where appropriate. Food sources of selected vitamins and minerals were also examined. RESULTS: Reported intakes of vitamins A, B6, E, D, and C, folacin, magnesium, iron, zinc, and calcium were most likely to be inadequate compared with the Recommended dietary Allowances (RDA); with more females than males reported nutrient intakes less than two thirds of the RDA. Approximately 10% of the population reported taking a vitamin/mineral supplement over the 24-h survey period. Food source data indicated that breads and grains, milk, vegetables and soups, fruits, and beef were the primary contributors of the selected vitamins and minerals. CONCLUSIONS: Public health organizations and dietitians need to educate young adults on practical strategies for making wise food choices rich in nutrient content relative to energy value to ensure intakes that approach the RDAs.
Ann Nutr Metab 1996;40(1):24-51
Vitamin status of healthy subjects in Burgundy (France).
de Carvalho MJ, Guilland JC, Moreau D, Boggio V, Fuchs F.
Department of Nutrition, University of Paraiba, Jaoa Pessoa, Brazil.
A nutrition survey was conducted in Burgundy (France) with a population sample of 337 middle-aged and healthy subjects (157 males and 180 females) recruited at a health examination center in 1985-1986. The status of beta-carotene, thiamin, riboflavin, folate, vitamin B6, B12, C, A, D, and E was assessed by means of 7-day food records and biochemical studies. Results were compared with two other recent nutritional surveys conducted in France: ESVITAF (control group only) and Val de Marne surveys. The dietary information collected for each subject was compared to the 1992 French Recommended Dietary Allowances (FRDA). Dietary vitamin intakes were higher in males than in females. Low vitamin intakes (< 1/2 FRDA) were found in 5% of males and 7% of females for thiamin, in 11% of males and 28% of females for vitamin B6, in 6% of males and 3% of females for vitamin C, in 87% of males and 91% of females for vitamin D, and in 8% of males and 13% of females for vitamin E. No subject had a vitamin intake < 1/2 FRDA for riboflavin, folate, vitamins A and B12. ESVITAF and Val de Marne studies also show low vitamin intakes for vitamin B6, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamins D and E. Biochemical status was examined using erythrocyte enzyme function and blood vitamin levels. The percent of subjects with deficient biochemical values was high for vitamin B6 (15% of all males and 20% of all females), and vitamin D (13% of all males, and 15% of all females). With regard to thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin C, folate, vitamin B12, vitamin A, and vitamin E, < 5% of subjects had values in the range of major vitamin deficiency. However, in both genders, except for vitamin C and vitamin A (only for females), low values corresponding to a moderate risk of vitamin deficiency was high for most vitamins. The incidence of a severe deficient vitamin status for thiamin and riboflavin was higher in Val de Marne than in Burgundy, or ESVITAF. In Val de Marne, the probability of a moderate risk of vitamin deficiency was high for thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B6, vitamin A and vitamin E. Our results (as other studies performed in France and in other industrialized countries) raise the issue of the health significance of marginally deficient vitamin status.
Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993 Mar 15;678:244-54
Vitamin and mineral status of women of childbearing potential.
Block G, Abrams B.
Public Health Nutrition Program, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley 94720.
Increasing data suggest a role for micronutrients in pregnancy outcome, and in some cases nutritional status must be adequate in the first weeks of pregnancy. We examined nationally representative survey data on women of childbearing age: the NHANES II data for serum measures of iron status and the CSFII four-day data for dietary measures of intake of protein, iron, zinc, folic acid, and vitamins A, C, and B6. For those nutrients, women below or near poverty had consistently lower levels, with median intakes below the RDA for all but protein (e.g., folic acid, 150 micrograms in contrast with the RDA of 180 for nonpregnant and 400 for pregnant women; for B6, 0.96 mg instead of 1.6 or 2.2). Even among women with incomes as high as three times the poverty level or more, large segments of the population had very low intakes. For example, the 25th percentile in that group was only 142 micrograms/day of folic acid, 4.6 alpha-tocopherol equivalents of vitamin E, 6.7 mg zinc, and 433 mg of calcium. Approximately 15% of women had low transferrin saturation.
Exp Gerontol 1993 Jul-Oct;28(4-5):473-83Does diet provide adequate amounts of calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc in a well-educated adult population?
Hallfrisch J, Muller DC.
Metabolism Section, National Institute of Aging, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
Standard advice from dietitians, nutritionists, and physicians is that if one eats a well-balanced diet containing a variety of foods, supplements are not necessary. Little information is available, especially in those over 75, to determine whether actual diets do provide adequate amounts of these minerals. The participants of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging provide seven-day records which include vitamin and mineral supplement intakes. Median daily dietary intakes from diet in all 564 subjects and from diet plus supplements in those who use them were analyzed by age group and gender. More women than men took supplements. Median intakes of calcium from diet were below the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for unsupplemented women and for supplemented women over 60. Approximately 25% of women under 50 and 10% of women over 50 consumed less than two thirds of the RDA for iron from diet. For both men and women, all groups had median diet intakes below the RDA for magnesium. Forty percent of men and about half of women consumed less than two thirds of the RDA. These results indicate that many people in this well-educated, presumably well-nourished population did not consume adequate amounts of calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc from diet. More women than men are at risk. Even those taking supplements did not consume adequate levels of some minerals.
OK, so what is the RDA? How is it determined? I looked for hours, and I could never find a concise definition. Here is a composite: "The RDA is the amount of a nutrient which is required to prevent deficiency states in the majority of healthy people." Scientifically, the RDA is that amount of a nutrient which supplies the *known* requirement to avoid deficiency symptoms, set at 2 standard deviations above the median amount. That means that the RDA will prevent deficiency symptoms in 97.5% of healthy people. I emphasized the word "known" above, because the assessment is based on proven requirements.So, what about sick people? How much is required for optimal health? Those issues are not considered. Period.
The RDA evolved from the MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement), a concept arising from an awareness of the minimal nutritional needs of soldiers during the second world war. Now, ignoring the fact that soldiers were probably in the prime of their lives, and selected for health and vigour, and that they took substantial stores of nutrients with them (in their bodies), the MDR was, by definition, the minimum required to avoid overt deficiency symptoms. Somehow, that sense of the nutritional definition has been lost. The RDA was higher than the MDR, as it took the standard from one standard deviation (95% prevention) to two standard deviations (97.5% prevention).
In the 1970's (at the same time fat was demonized), a political decision was made that the typical diet would supply all the nutrition needed for the typical person. This decision was not based on any scientific principles. It simply became the doctrine of the FDA.
More recently, terms such as the TDI (Tolerable Daily Intake) have appeared. The TDI is the maximum amount recommended to protect *the most intolerant* subjects from toxicity symptoms. Please note the substantial difference in definition: "most...healthy" vs. "most intolerant". And, the RDA is currently morphing into RDI (Recommended Daily Intake), which is generally lower than the RDA, but still based on *proven need for healthy people*. It's no wonder people get confused.
What are the nutrient needs for sick people? That is as individual as we are. Please understand that I am NOT *NOT* advocating indiscriminate supplementation of any nutrients. However, the RDA may well be grossly inadequate for many people.
It has been estimated that a typical person is born with 100 genetic defects. It has further been estimated that a person acquires 100 more defects through interactions with the environment. Genes code for proteins, and many proteins are enzymes. Enzymes require co-factors to function at their maximum potential. Vitamins and essential minerals are all cofactors, or essential to the enzyme structure itself.
My personal experience has shown me that food does not meet my nutritional needs, no matter how well-selected that food is. But, I have taken care to test individual nutrient supplements, one at a time. It takes time. It takes attention. It takes a knowledge of what they're supposed to do. It takes a knowledge of what it seems my body isn't doing well. I'm very lucky to have the knowledge that I do.
I don't know how to help others with their needs, other than to make broad recommendations.
Just read the next three papers (two by Bruce Ames, a renowned geneticist), if you need further inspiration.
Med Hypotheses 1999 May;52(5):417-22
Toward a new definition of essential nutrients: is it now time for a third 'vitamin' paradigm?Challem JJ.
Aloha, Oregon 97006, USA. 74543.2122@compuserve.com
The concepts of vitamin 'deficiency' diseases and the recommended dietary allowances (RDAs) have not kept pace with the growing understanding of the cellular and molecular functions of vitamins and other micronutrients. As a consequence, many researchers and clinicians rely on outdated signs and symptoms in assessing nutritional deficiencies. A new paradigm, presented here, proposes that: (1) deficiencies can be identified on biochemical and molecular levels long before they become clinically visible; (2) the definition of essential micronutrients be broadened to include some carotenoids and flavonoids, as well as various human metabolites, such as coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and alpha-lipoic acid, which are also dietary constituents; (4) individual nutritional requirements are partly fixed by genetics but also dynamically influenced by variations in the body's biochemical milieu and external stresses; and (5) the distinction between nutritional and pharmacological doses of vitamins is meaningless, since high doses of micronutrients may be required to achieve normal metabolic processes in some people.
Am J Clin Nutr 2002 Apr;75(4):616-58
High-dose vitamin therapy stimulates variant enzymes with decreased coenzyme binding affinity (increased K(m)): relevance to genetic disease and polymorphisms.Ames BN, Elson-Schwab I, Silver EA.
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA. bames@chori.org
As many as one-third of mutations in a gene result in the corresponding enzyme having an increased Michaelis constant, or K(m), (decreased binding affinity) for a coenzyme, resulting in a lower rate of reaction. About 50 human genetic dis-eases due to defective enzymes can be remedied or ameliorated by the administration of high doses of the vitamin component of the corresponding coenzyme, which at least partially restores enzymatic activity. Several single-nucleotide polymorphisms, in which the variant amino acid reduces coenzyme binding and thus enzymatic activity, are likely to be remediable by raising cellular concentrations of the cofactor through high-dose vitamin therapy. Some examples include the alanine-to-valine substitution at codon 222 (Ala222-->Val) [DNA: C-to-T substitution at nucleo-tide 677 (677C-->T)] in methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (NADPH) and the cofactor FAD (in relation to cardiovascular disease, migraines, and rages), the Pro187-->Ser (DNA: 609C-->T) mutation in NAD(P):quinone oxidoreductase 1 [NAD(P)H dehy-drogenase (quinone)] and FAD (in relation to cancer), the Ala44-->Gly (DNA: 131C-->G) mutation in glucose-6-phosphate 1-dehydrogenase and NADP (in relation to favism and hemolytic anemia), and the Glu487-->Lys mutation (present in one-half of Asians) in aldehyde dehydrogenase (NAD + ) and NAD (in relation to alcohol intolerance, Alzheimer disease, and cancer).
Mutat Res 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20
DNA damage from micronutrient deficiencies is likely to be a major cause of cancer.Ames BN.
University of California, 94720-3202, Berkeley, CA, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu
A deficiency of any of the micronutrients: folic acid, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc, mimics radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. For example, the percentage of the US population that has a low intake (<50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2 to >20%. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that Vitamin B12 (14% US elderly) and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. For example, 80% of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies should lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.
Posted by Jaynee on December 2, 2002, at 20:33:43
In reply to My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - , posted by bluedog on November 30, 2002, at 0:38:52
Bluedog, you should, well everyone should with your symptoms look up hemochromatosis and get tested.
I have it, and was diagnosed only after insisting on the genetic test. They were about to put me through pill hell, but I insisted on the test. I basically saved my own life.
You may not have it, but then again you may. Don't take iron unless you are low in iron. Iron is lethal, we need some, but not as much as most of us get.
Posted by McPac on December 2, 2002, at 22:39:05
In reply to Re: Supplement Plan; Larry---Comments? » McPac, posted by bluedog on December 2, 2002, at 0:28:02
Hi bluedog,
the MAIN point in my post was that there is NO WAY of knowing which supplement(s) , the doseage, whether or not you are absorbing it (many people have malabsorption problems, etc., UNLESS you have the proper testing done. I went to The Pfeiffer Treatment Center and had the testing done.
Perhaps some people (perhaps quite a few people) would need to take supplements long term (lifetime) but the only way to definitively know which ones, what amounts, etc., would be to have the proper testing. Keep eating as many whole foods as you can. The whole food supplements will provide your body with the necessary cofactors needed; these whole food supplements are your "insurance plan". These ARE nutrients that your body can decide which ones it needs and which ones it is already getting enough of and doesn't need. This way your body picks and chooses what it needs rather than you more or less 'guessing'. Here's a perfect example....before going to Pfeiffer, I was taking my folic acid supplement every day, figuring that surely my body needed that. The tests showed that, for me, folic acid was a 'no-no'...it was NOT something that I should be taking...the same with boron and niacin....both no-no's FOR ME. Again, FOR ME. But how was I to know???Without being tested properly, I was just making 'educated guesses' which turned out to be WRONG guesses! As for whole foods and diet, read Beth Loiselle's "The Healing Power of Whole Foods". Take care!
Posted by bluedog on December 3, 2002, at 11:03:22
In reply to bluedog Re: Supplement Plan; Larry---Comments?, posted by McPac on December 2, 2002, at 22:39:05
Thanks for all the information. It has given me something to go away with and think about!
Like I said my diet and supplement plan is constantly evolving as my knowledge of these matters changes and increases. I need to go back and do some more research of my own with the information you gave providing some good leads as to the research paths I should be heading down.
I can probably guarantee you that I will come back with dozens more questions for you :)
Take care
bluedog
Posted by bluedog on December 3, 2002, at 11:18:19
In reply to Re: My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - , posted by Jaynee on December 2, 2002, at 20:33:43
> Bluedog, you should, well everyone should with your symptoms look up hemochromatosis and get tested.
>Jaynee, forgive my ignorance but could you possibly explain a little bit more about this condition? I would normally do my own research on such matters but I'm not having such a good day today and simply don't have the energy. I hope you don't mind?
> I have it, and was diagnosed only after insisting on the genetic test. They were about to put me through pill hell, but I insisted on the test. I basically saved my own life.
>
> You may not have it, but then again you may. Don't take iron unless you are low in iron. Iron is lethal, we need some, but not as much as most of us get.
>I have heard the same thing about copper supplements!!
I found it exceedingly difficult to find well balanced multi-vitamin supplements without iron or copper. In the end I settled for a well balanced multi-vitamin supplement with a relatively low level of iron in it (also the supplement is in a slow release tablet and releases the nutrient over an 8 hour period). To save you looking up my previous post again, the amount of elemental iron in my daily supplement is 5mg ( as 15.3mg Ferrous fumerate ).
Do you think this level of daily iron would be doing me any harm?
Thanks
bluedog
Posted by dave40252 on December 3, 2002, at 12:01:47
In reply to My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - , posted by bluedog on November 30, 2002, at 0:38:52
what is the Turmeric for?
Posted by IsoM on December 3, 2002, at 14:15:54
In reply to Re: My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - , posted by dave40252 on December 3, 2002, at 12:01:47
Dave, follow this thread to learn more about tumeric & why many are taking it:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20021127/msgs/129624.html
Posted by sjb on December 4, 2002, at 9:07:04
In reply to Re:uses of tumeric » dave40252, posted by IsoM on December 3, 2002, at 14:15:54
I'm drinking a glass now. mmmmmmm. How soon due you notice it's effects? I'm having chronic hamstring/sciatic problems and want to cut back on the Ibuprofen. I know it's not good to take like I do.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2002, at 9:28:14
In reply to Re:uses of tumeric, posted by sjb on December 4, 2002, at 9:07:04
> I'm drinking a glass now. mmmmmmm. How soon due you notice it's effects? I'm having chronic hamstring/sciatic problems and want to cut back on the Ibuprofen. I know it's not good to take like I do.
>One hour is my response time.
Posted by bluedog on December 4, 2002, at 22:36:26
In reply to Re: My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - , posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2002, at 11:25:41
> Seems to be a rather comprehensive supplement plan. Some comments:
>
> 1. DLPA (d-,l-phenylalanine) may be more beneficial than l-tyrosine. A substantial portion of phenylalanine is converted to tyrosine, but some is also available as a precursor to PEA, a feel-good chemical. You could probably go to 2g/day.
>Hi Larry
You recommend (d-,l-phenylalanine). I have looked in my supermarket and can find l-phenylalanine tablets.
Could you clarify whether you mean I can take EITHER the d form (does this mean the natural form?) or the l form (does this mean the synthetic form?) OR do you mean a combination d,l form of phenylalanine? Or have I misunderstood your advice? I hope I don't sound ignorant asking this question?
Thanks for your comments
bluedog
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 8:29:54
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine?? » Larry Hoover, posted by bluedog on December 4, 2002, at 22:36:26
> > Seems to be a rather comprehensive supplement plan. Some comments:
> >
> > 1. DLPA (d-,l-phenylalanine) may be more beneficial than l-tyrosine. A substantial portion of phenylalanine is converted to tyrosine, but some is also available as a precursor to PEA, a feel-good chemical. You could probably go to 2g/day.
> >
>
> Hi Larry
>
> You recommend (d-,l-phenylalanine). I have looked in my supermarket and can find l-phenylalanine tablets.
>
> Could you clarify whether you mean I can take EITHER the d form (does this mean the natural form?) or the l form (does this mean the synthetic form?) OR do you mean a combination d,l form of phenylalanine? Or have I misunderstood your advice? I hope I don't sound ignorant asking this question?
>
> Thanks for your comments
> bluedogI don't expect everyone to have a degree in biochem. No worries.
Natural phenylalanine is all l-. When you come across the d-,l- designation, that means it's man-made. Nature makes her biochemicals with enzymes, where the three-dimensional structure is always pre-determined. We make our chemicals in open vats, where three-dimensional structures are not controllable. Even if we wanted all l-phenylalanine, our product will always be a mixture of d- and l-, termed a racemic mixture. You can separate them out by physical means, if necessary.
For a lot of nutrients, taking a racemate (i.e. d-,l-)provides only about 50% of the desired substance, because half won't be able to fit into our enzymes to be converted to other uses. This is one of the rare cases where that's a good thing, because the unnatural isomer can still be put to good use in the synthesis of PEA.
Posted by bluedog on December 5, 2002, at 9:10:00
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine??, posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 8:29:54
>
> Natural phenylalanine is all l-. When you come across the d-,l- designation, that means it's man-made. Nature makes her biochemicals with enzymes, where the three-dimensional structure is always pre-determined. We make our chemicals in open vats, where three-dimensional structures are not controllable. Even if we wanted all l-phenylalanine, our product will always be a mixture of d- and l-, termed a racemic mixture. You can separate them out by physical means, if necessary.
>
> For a lot of nutrients, taking a racemate (i.e. d-,l-)provides only about 50% of the desired substance, because half won't be able to fit into our enzymes to be converted to other uses. This is one of the rare cases where that's a good thing, because the unnatural isomer can still be put to good use in the synthesis of PEA.
So just to be absolutely clear is my following summary of your advice correct?l-phenylalanine is probably going to be more beneficial to my mood than l-tyrosine but d-,l-phenylalanine is the preferable form of phenylalanine to supplement with because the synthetic isomer can be used by the body to synthesise the feel good chemical PEA.
I therefore assume that the natural l-phenylalanine is not able to be utilised by the body to synthesise PEA? Is it healthy to put an unnatural molecule into your body or is a molecule simply a molecule (whether natural or synthetic) and the body is smart enough to be able to deal with it without any adverse side effects? In other words would this create a pharmaceutical drug effect in my body rather than a natural food effect?
I suppose the analogy I would draw would be to Vitamin E supplements. Whereas dl-alpha tocopheral and d-alpha tocopheral are both beneficial to the body, the natural d isomer form is more readily useable by the body and nutritionists recommend that you look for the natural form in your supplements. Are you saying that in the case of phenylalanine that the opposite is the case and the dl form is actually the more beneficial supplement to take?
I hope you can make some sort of sense of my questions.
Thanks Larry
bluedog
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 9:44:33
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine?? » Larry Hoover, posted by bluedog on December 5, 2002, at 9:10:00
> >
> > Natural phenylalanine is all l-. When you come across the d-,l- designation, that means it's man-made. Nature makes her biochemicals with enzymes, where the three-dimensional structure is always pre-determined. We make our chemicals in open vats, where three-dimensional structures are not controllable. Even if we wanted all l-phenylalanine, our product will always be a mixture of d- and l-, termed a racemic mixture. You can separate them out by physical means, if necessary.
> >
> > For a lot of nutrients, taking a racemate (i.e. d-,l-)provides only about 50% of the desired substance, because half won't be able to fit into our enzymes to be converted to other uses. This is one of the rare cases where that's a good thing, because the unnatural isomer can still be put to good use in the synthesis of PEA.
>
>
> So just to be absolutely clear is my following summary of your advice correct?
>
> l-phenylalanine is probably going to be more beneficial to my mood than l-tyrosineSort of. You'll get more dopamine from a given amount of tyrosine than phenylalanine, because not 100% of Phe is converted to Tyr. However, the Phe can go to PEA, which has an independent mood effect.
>but d-,l-phenylalanine is the preferable form of phenylalanine to supplement with because the synthetic isomer can be used by the body to synthesise the feel good chemical PEA.The d-isomer cannot go to Tyr, so it is wholly available for other uses.
> I therefore assume that the natural l-phenylalanine is not able to be utilised by the body to synthesise PEA?No, it can go to PEA, but the d-isomer will compete for the opportunity, actually enhancing the amount of the l-isomer going to Tyr.
Think of a crowd trying to push through two doors. Let's say women (to represent l-Phe) can go through either door, but men (to represent d-Phe) can only go through one of the doors. A steady stream of women through their special door will reduce the number available to go through the door that both sexes can use. If purely women were in the crowd, then half could go through either door. Add men, and you get more women going through their special door, because of competition with men at the other door.
>Is it healthy to put an unnatural molecule into your body or is a molecule simply a molecule (whether natural or synthetic) and the body is smart enough to be able to deal with it without any adverse side effects?
You get d-aminos all the time. They are produced in relatively high yields by bacteria. 10% or more of the aminos in beer are d-isomers. 30% in some cheeses. It's not so much unnatural, but normal protein sources (meat, soya) are all l-.
>In other words would this create a pharmaceutical drug effect in my body rather than a natural food effect?
You're enhancing one particular outcome, but not as a drug would do. The enzyme that makes PEA is not specific to l-phenylalanine, whereas the one to Tyr is.
> I suppose the analogy I would draw would be to Vitamin E supplements. Whereas dl-alpha tocopheral and d-alpha tocopheral are both beneficial to the body, the natural d isomer form is more readily useable by the body and nutritionists recommend that you look for the natural form in your supplements.You see, that's a falsehood. Natural isn't always better, although some philosophies of health make that assumption. There is no chemical reason to select natural vitamin E over synthetic. It takes no part in any metabolic process of any consequence, but instead, it just floats around. It's kind of like a sacrificial substance. It readily reacts with oxydizing substances, "killing" them before they can do damage to other essential components of our body, like DNA. There are eight isomers of tocopherol. If you're really focussed on this, take all eight, usually labelled as "mixed tocopherols".
>Are you saying that in the case of phenylalanine that the opposite is the case and the dl form is actually the more beneficial supplement to take?
Only because it has a tendency to produce about as much PEA as tyrosine.
> I hope you can make some sort of sense of my questions.
>
> Thanks Larry
> bluedogIf there's more, keep asking.
Lar
Posted by pelorojo on December 5, 2002, at 12:15:54
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine??, posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 9:44:33
I've been wondering about d-phenylalanine alone - any benefit of taking it alone instead of in the d,l form? There's a product called 'endorphenyl" which is d-phenylalanine alone. It allegedly inhibits endorphin/enkephalin breakdown. I believe that's a good thing if you have chronic pain but would it be if you have PTSD (which, at some points in the disorder, you supposedly have too much endorphins)?
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 13:41:45
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine?? » Larry Hoover, posted by pelorojo on December 5, 2002, at 12:15:54
> I've been wondering about d-phenylalanine alone - any benefit of taking it alone instead of in the d,l form? There's a product called 'endorphenyl" which is d-phenylalanine alone. It allegedly inhibits endorphin/enkephalin breakdown. I believe that's a good thing if you have chronic pain but would it be if you have PTSD (which, at some points in the disorder, you supposedly have too much endorphins)?
I don't recall anything that suggests that PTSD is linked to too much endorphin. Do you have any idea where you saw that?
I love these questions people throw around. I had not realized that d-phenylalanine inhibited the breakdown of endorphins and enkephalins, but it clearly does.
Unless I find that DLPA (the racemic mix of isomers) is contra-indicated for PTSD, there is no reason to take pure l- or pure d-. DLPA is cheaper, and supplies two different beneficial effects.
Thanks, dude. Time to go check the PTSD thing.
Lar
Posted by pelorojo on December 5, 2002, at 17:30:42
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine??, posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 13:41:45
The article below I was reading last night on the endorphin volatility in PTSD. This article is aimed at alcoholism and PTSD, however, it appears that non-alcoholic individuals with PTSD probably undergo the same volatility.
I have chronic, complex PTSD so this issue is particularly salient for me. The article discusses how implicit memories of the traumatic event can be triggered without the individual knowing it (traumatic reminders). Endorphin release follows that is nearly concurrent with the trigger (endorphins numb the pain of the trauma - but importantly they can also fog up one's memory). As the endorphins dissipate, withdrawal is experienced.
Other sources have speculated that this cycle is what underlies the reexperiencing symptom of PTSD. One is drawn to reexperience the trauma because the endorphin release is itself addictive and the withdrawal so uncomfortable. So to get more endorphins, individuals may be drawn to situations (or somehow create similar circumstances) to the 'original' or subsequent past trauma to trigger the release again. Even if you could break the reexperiencing cycle, the process would also be triggered by analogous situations the individual did not create as well (in other words, accidentally, as in hearing a car backfire if you had PTSD from explosions).
This makes intuitive sense to me because it maps well to the abstracted nature of my trauma.
If one aspect of PTSD can be seen as an endorphin rollercoaster then I'm not sure if an endorphin breakdown inhibitor is a good idea. But it might be a great idea. My brain begins to melt when I contemplate the complexity. I haven't read anywhere that it is contraindicated; I'm just wondering as I use DLPA myself and I definitely don't want to make my situation worse by accident. It feels good - but - so do other things that aren't good for me. In fact, the article speculates that an opioid blocker may be a useful treatment for both PTSD and alcoholism. If true, does it follow then that a chemical intervention (d-phenylalanine) that has the effect of raising opioid levels (by slowing their breakdown) is good? I suppose it could be because it could even out the peaks and valleys. But perhaps not because it might change receptor sensitivity? Blah blah blah. Sorry I get carried away.
Here's the link (note it's a PDF file):
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh23-4/256-262.pdf
Posted by pelorojo on December 5, 2002, at 18:30:41
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine??, posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 13:41:45
I found this and to be honest, I don't understand it, although my intuition tells me it could be important ?
5: Neuropsychopharmacology 1999 Feb;20(2):188-97
Serotonergic and noradrenergic markers of post-traumatic stress disorder with
and without major depression.Maes M, Lin AH, Verkerk R, Delmeire L, Van Gastel A, Van der Planken M, Scharpe
S.Clinical Research Center for Mental Health, Antwerp, Belgium.
Some studies have suggested that disorders in the peripheral and central
metabolism of serotonin (5-HT) and noradrenaline (NE) may play roles in the
pathophysiology of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This study examines
(1) the availability of plasma total tryptophan, the precursor of 5-HT, and
tyrosine, the precursor of NE; and (2) the platelet 5-HT transporter and alpha
2-adrenoceptor (alpha 2-AR) binding sites in patients with PTSD and healthy
volunteers. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was employed to
measure plasma tryptophan and tyrosine as well as amino acids known to compete
with the same cerebral transport system; that is, valine, leucine,
phenylalanine, and isoleucine. The maximum number of binding sites (Bmax) and
their affinity (Kd) for binding to [3H]-paroxetine and [3H]-rauwolscine, a
selective alpha 2-AR antagonist, were determined. [3H]-paroxetine and
[3H]-rauwolscine binding Kd values were significantly higher in patients with
PTSD than in healthy volunteers. [3H]-rauwolscine binding Kd values were
significantly higher in patients with PTSD and concurrent major depression (MD)
than in PTSD patients without MD and healthy volunteers. Plasma tyrosine
concentrations and the ratio of tyrosine/valine + leucine + isoleucine +
phenylalanine + tryptophan were significantly higher in PTSD patients with MD
than in those without MD and healthy volunteers. The results show that PTSD is
accompanied by lower affinity of paroxetine binding sites and that PTSD with
concurrent MD is accompanied by lower affinity of alpha 2-ARs and increased
plasma tyrosine availability to the brain. The results suggest that (1)
serotonergic mechanisms, such as defects in the 5-HT transporter system, may
play a role in the pathophysiology of PTSD; and (2) that catecholaminergic
mechanisms, such as increased precursor availability and lowered affinity of
alpha 2-ARs, may play a role in the pathophysiology of PTSD with concurrent MD.Publication Types:
Clinical trialPMID: 9885798 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posted by Jaynee on December 5, 2002, at 19:23:26
In reply to Re: My healthy body=healthy mind supplement regime - » Jaynee, posted by bluedog on December 3, 2002, at 11:18:19
Wilsons Disease, causes you to absorb too much copper. Unless you have Wilsons Disease, the copper shouldn't bother you. No-one should take extra iron unless they have been diagnosed with low iron, and that can only be found by a ferritin or transferrin saturation test, not hemoglobin. Hemochromatosis is the most common hereditary disorder in North America and Northern Europe. 1 in 200 in North America has it and 1 in 8 people carry the gene. Irish people have a very high rate. 1 in 36 have hemochromatosis. It is a sad state of affairs that not many people have even heard of it. Doctors are just starting to pay attention. It is misdiagnosed 90% of the time.
This is from the Canadian Hemochromatosis Society.
What are the symptoms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptoms vary, but many Hemochromatotics experience chronic fatigue, joint and abdominal pains, diminished memory and disorientation for many years before diagnosis. In later years there could be some degree of hearing loss. Frequently, HHC is not identified as the underlying cause of disorders such as hepatitis, diabetes, gall bladder, menstrual and thyroid problems, polycythemia and iron deficiency.
As some sufferers exhibit pronounced mood swings and other personality changes such as severe depression or anger, they can be incorrectly treated for mental illness. In some cases Alzheimer's has been suspected. ONLY THE CORRECT TESTS will provide the key!
Frequently one of the earliest symptoms is arthritis of the knuckles of the first and second fingers.
The liver, heart, endocrine glands (glands of internal secretion, such as the pancreas), skin and joints are principally affected, and liver cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy (disease of the heart muscle), diabetes mellitus, hypogonadism (deficient activity of testis or ovary) and arthritis are the usual manifestations.(iii) Common causes of death are cardiac failure, arrhythmia (irregularity in the beating of the heart), hepatic (liver) failure, hepatoma (tumour of the liver) or other malignancy, or the complications of diabetes.(iii) Before the advent of insulin, diabetes topped the list; today victims who are not discovered in the pre-cirrhotic stage, invariably die of hepatoma. Perhaps one of the most tragic affects is that of testicular atrophy in men and premature menopause in woman. Loss of libido may often antedate the other clinical manifestations of the disease.(iv)
Jul-01This is from PUBMED. Although the results say 1% in this study had too much iron, other studies have yeilded higher results.
Iron overload among a psychiatric outpatient population.
Feifel D, Young CW.
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093-8620, USA.
BACKGROUND: Iron overload has been suggested to be an unrecognized cause of psychiatric morbidity. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of iron overload in a large outpatient psychiatric clinic. METHOD: A retrospective review of screening blood chemistries was conducted on 661 active outpatients at a large, university outpatient psychiatric clinic to identify elevated iron status results (plasma iron, percentage of iron saturation) suggestive of iron overload. Patients with positive profiles were asked to undergo a subsequent blood chemistry to confirm positive results (plasma iron, percentage of iron saturation, plus plasma ferritin). Patients with positive repeated iron chemistry results were considered likely candidates for iron overload. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (3.2%) were identified as meeting one of the criteria suggestive of iron overload on initial screening reports. Thirty-one percent of those who underwent subsequent, confirmatory testing (5/16) continued to meet one of the criteria. On the basis of these results, we estimated a 1% (3.2 x 0.31) prevalence rate of likely candidates for iron overload. A review of these patients' charts indicated that they carried an unexpectedly high rate of bipolar affective disorder (80%) as a diagnosis and were, without exception, atypical in that they were resistant to conventional psychiatric treatment and lacked a family history for this disorder. The prevalence of positive iron overload profiles on a routine blood chemistry was similar to the prevalence of positive thyroid abnormalities based on TSH results in this population. CONCLUSION: Blood chemistry profiles suggestive of iron overload may be associated with a small portion of treatment-resistant psychiatric patients. Routine screening for iron abnormalities, especially in treatment-resistant patients, should be considered. Further studies are required to determine the causal association, if any, between iron excess and primary psychiatric illnesses.
PMID: 9062376 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posted by bluedog on December 6, 2002, at 1:55:09
In reply to Re: Supplement plan - d-,l-phenylalanine??, posted by Larry Hoover on December 5, 2002, at 9:44:33
> > So just to be absolutely clear is my following summary of your advice correct?
> >
> > l-phenylalanine is probably going to be more beneficial to my mood than l-tyrosine?
>
> Sort of. You'll get more dopamine from a given amount of tyrosine than phenylalanine, because not 100% of Phe is converted to Tyr. However, the Phe can go to PEA, which has an independent mood effect.
>
>
> but d-,l-phenylalanine is the preferable form of phenylalanine to supplement with because the synthetic isomer can be used by the body to synthesise the feel good chemical PEA?
>
> The d-isomer cannot go to Tyr, so it is wholly available for other uses.
>
> > I therefore assume that the natural l-phenylalanine is not able to be utilised by the body to synthesise PEA?
>
> No, it can go to PEA, but the d-isomer will compete for the opportunity, actually enhancing the amount of the l-isomer going to Tyr.
>
>
> >In other words would this create a pharmaceutical drug effect in my body rather than a natural food effect?
>
> You're enhancing one particular outcome, but not as a drug would do. The enzyme that makes PEA is not specific to l-phenylalanine, whereas the one to Tyr is.
>
>
> >Are you saying that in the case of phenylalanine that...the dl form is actually the more beneficial supplement to take?
>
> ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS A TENDENCY TO PRODUCE ABOUT AS MUCH PEA AS TYROSINE.
>
LarryWhen I read my above questions and your answers I seem to see some sort of circular reasoning happening.
You say that dl-Phenylalanine is preferable to take to l-tyrosine because the d-isomer is used to produce to PEA. The l-isomer can be used to produce both PEA and l-tyrosine. Then you say in your last statement that dl-phenylalanine has a tendency to produce about as much PEA as l-tyrosine!!!
My interpretation of this is that both dl-phenylalanine and l-tyrosine are used to produce similar amounts of PEA but that with dl-phenylalanine there is an additional step involved in that the l-isomer is converted to l-tyrosine before the body then uses this l-tyrosine to produce PEA.
This brings me back to my original question which is why is it more beneficial to take dl-phenylalanine instead of l-tyrosine? My simplistic understanding of the above process is that l-tyrosine will produce the "similar amount" of PEA you mentioned a lot faster than the dl-phenylalanine because you avoid the additional step of the l-phenylalanine having to be converted to l-tyrosine.
You also say that you'll get more dopamine from l- tyrosine than from phenylalanine. Does the answer to my question lie buried somewhere in this distinction? Is it more beneficial to have a higher ratio of PEA to Dopamine rather than the other way around (ie a higher ratio of Dopamine to PEA? Can you see what I'm getting at?
Here's my New summary and again correct me if I'm wrong!!
1.Both dl-phenylalanine and l-tyrosine will produce a similar amount of PEA.
2.However l-tyrosine will produce a greater amount of dopamine because with the dl-phenylalanine only the l-isomer is available to produce l-tyrosine which will in turn produce dopamine whereas the d-isomer is only able to produce PEA.
3. Therefore l-tyrosine will give you a higher ratio of dopamine to PEA in the brain: and
4. dl-phenylalanine will give you a higher ratio of PEA to dopamine in the brain.OR is this merely a matter of working out comparative dosages?????
Thanks for your patience
bluedog
Posted by bluedog on December 6, 2002, at 3:33:56
In reply to Bluedog(Hemochromatosis), posted by Jaynee on December 5, 2002, at 19:23:26
Jaynee
Thankyou for this information. It's scary stuff. Next time I see my doc I will discuss the possibility of getting tested. I'll keep you posted!!!!
regards
bluedog
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 6, 2002, at 7:13:36
In reply to Re: dl-phenylalanine vs l-tyrosine » Larry Hoover, posted by bluedog on December 6, 2002, at 1:55:09
> > ONLY BECAUSE IT HAS A TENDENCY TO PRODUCE ABOUT AS MUCH PEA AS TYROSINE.
> >
>
>
> Larry
>
> When I read my above questions and your answers I seem to see some sort of circular reasoning happening.
>
> You say that dl-Phenylalanine is preferable to take to l-tyrosine because the d-isomer is used to produce to PEA. The l-isomer can be used to produce both PEA and l-tyrosine. Then you say in your last statement that dl-phenylalanine has a tendency to produce about as much PEA as l-tyrosine!!!I'm sorry. The answer is semantic, nor chemical. I could have stated it more clearly.
What I meant was DLPA will produce roughly equivalent amounts of PEA and tyrosine. Taking tyrosine will do nothing substantial towards producing PEA.
> My interpretation of this is that both dl-phenylalanine and l-tyrosine are used to produce similar amounts of PEA but that with dl-phenylalanine there is an additional step involved in that the l-isomer is converted to l-tyrosine before the body then uses this l-tyrosine to produce PEA.
My bad. Tyrosine does not go to PEA. It is converted to thyroid hormone or L-DOPA.
> This brings me back to my original question which is why is it more beneficial to take dl-phenylalanine instead of l-tyrosine? My simplistic understanding of the above process is that l-tyrosine will produce the "similar amount" of PEA you mentioned a lot faster than the dl-phenylalanine because you avoid the additional step of the l-phenylalanine having to be converted to l-tyrosine.
No. I confused you.
> You also say that you'll get more dopamine from l- tyrosine than from phenylalanine. Does the answer to my question lie buried somewhere in this distinction? Is it more beneficial to have a higher ratio of PEA to Dopamine rather than the other way around (ie a higher ratio of Dopamine to PEA? Can you see what I'm getting at?
>
> Here's my New summary and again correct me if I'm wrong!!
>
> 1.Both dl-phenylalanine and l-tyrosine will produce a similar amount of PEA.This statement is wrong.
> 2.However l-tyrosine will produce a greater amount of dopamine because with the dl-phenylalanine only the l-isomer is available to produce l-tyrosine which will in turn produce dopamine whereas the d-isomer is only able to produce PEA.
For equal gram weights, yes.
> 3. Therefore l-tyrosine will give you a higher ratio of dopamine to PEA in the brain: and
> 4. dl-phenylalanine will give you a higher ratio of PEA to dopamine in the brain.
Yes. If you consider the weights of each you're taking.
> OR is this merely a matter of working out comparative dosages?????
>
> Thanks for your patience
> bluedog2 grams DLPA will have very nearly the same dopamine precursor effect as 1 gram l-tyrosine. Not quite, but close.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 6, 2002, at 7:36:51
In reply to More on phenylalanine/tyrosine PTSD » Larry Hoover, posted by pelorojo on December 5, 2002, at 18:30:21
> I found this and to be honest, I don't understand it, although my intuition tells me it could be important ?
>
> 5: Neuropsychopharmacology 1999 Feb;20(2):188-97
>
> Serotonergic and noradrenergic markers of post-traumatic stress disorder with
> and without major depression.Well, it's the kind of report that's intriguing, without really pointing you anywhere. It's like a photograph of a hectic scene, where you can't tell what's really happening because you don't know what's happened before or what will happen next. Clues, but no answers. I'm glad you brought this forward, but I don't know what to do with it (yet).
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.