![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
From the this date NY Times:
But are vitamins worth it? In the past few years, several high-quality studies have failed to show that extra vitamins, at least in pill form, help prevent chronic disease or prolong life.
The latest news came last week after researchers in the Womens Health Initiative study tracked eight years of multivitamin use among more than 161,000 older women. Despite earlier findings suggesting that multivitamins might lower the risk for heart disease and certain cancers, the study, published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, found no such benefit.
Last year, a study that tracked almost 15,000 male physicians for a decade reported no differences in cancer or heart disease rates among those using vitamins E and C compared with those taking a placebo. And in October, a study of 35,000 men dashed hopes that high doses of vitamin E and selenium could lower the risk of prostate cancer.
Of course, consumers are regularly subjected to conflicting reports and claims about the benefits of vitamins, and they seem undeterred by the news to the dismay of some experts.
Posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2009, at 0:21:14
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
Neal I'm also questioning a lot of them. I think read a similar article. Phillipa
Posted by desolationrower on February 17, 2009, at 2:50:51
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
yeah, doctors are wankers. anyone whos been paying attention has known that more than a g of C is more harmful than helpful outside of accute colds, and that alpha-tocopherol messes with the the other seven vitEs. but hey i'm glad we have these dubunkers. maybe they could test how effective trepenation is, i mean we should question allopathy too u no?
ps:(wankers.)
-d/r
Posted by bleauberry on February 17, 2009, at 17:43:18
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
Nothing beats well chosen foods every time one eats. I think civilized society has become so lazy in their pizzas, burgers, and sodas, they forgot how incredibly important it is to have every day and practically every meal, things such as greens (romaine, green leaf, parsley, peppers), oranges (peppers, carrots), reds (peppers, red leafs, tomatoes), yellows (peppers, squashes, fruits especially blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, cranberries, apples, oranges, grapes, and lean meats of chicken and beef, and for grains choose only whole unrefined grains. And nuts, either walnuts, brazil nuts, or almonds, or all 3. Seeds such as roasted pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds. Omega3 fatty acids from either ground-up flax on meals or flax oil. And chocolate, yes, chocolate. Dark chocolate that is, only dark chocolate.
At the very least, people should be adding a little pizza or burger or fries to the above stuff, rather than the other way around. If the above stuff was 80% of what someone ate, they would have more than enough of vitamins and minerals. Better yet, they are not chemically refined vitamins. Studies are showing that natural vitamin C from food works a lot better and a lot different than manufactured vitamin C in a pill. I don't think we have the wisdom at this time to figure out all the intricate things within foods. I don't think it is wise to isolate one single molecule and ignore all the others it originally came with.
I take zero vitamins or minerals. My doctor recently tested me for all that stuff, and a bunch of other stuff. Basically my diet is close to what is described above. Results, excellent levels of everything across the board except for two...B12 is on the low side, D is on the low side. So I gotta work on those.
I did take high dose vitamins for years. Honestly, I never got any benefit I could feel. I actually felt a little better when I stopped them. So did my wallet. Foods have so much more good stuff in them than pills.
Posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2009, at 19:48:31
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by desolationrower on February 17, 2009, at 2:50:51
d/r wow I take 2grams of extended release C with rose hips what's the consequences should I cut down? Thanks Phillipa
Posted by raisinb on February 17, 2009, at 21:04:47
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
I notice a difference in my emotional health when I take vitamins regularly. But I think that's more the calcium, magnesium, and iron than the much-hyped antioxidants.
I do wonder about our ancestors. They ate what they could hunt and pick on trees--surviving just fine without the RDA of anything. Humans are phenomenally adaptable, and my guess is that we evolve based on what our environments can support.
Posted by yxibow on February 18, 2009, at 0:33:26
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
I think there are a lot of "nutritional supplements" that some people may take that are superfluous, like chromium (just biting a fork or using stainless steel pans will get you enough chromium and vanadium) -- but an ordinary average multivitamin is not going to hurt most people and may help in a few deficiencies if they otherwise neglect them in part of their diets by choice or just mere circumstance.
Except for vitamin C and a few B vitamins, they rarely have the daily RDA unless they are "supercharged" or something.
And they probably save and improve lives in the less developed world.
That being said, very young children should not be exposed to iron-containing multivitamins even if they need a small amount because that small amount can be close to a dose that can kill them.
If one has some rare intolerance to a mineral, perhaps because of kidney function, I would assume a competent doctor would know what a good choice of supplement if anything to take.
-- Jay
Posted by Neal on February 18, 2009, at 4:19:24
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » Neal, posted by yxibow on February 18, 2009, at 0:33:26
BTW; my original post was a quote; none of it was my comments.
I did not post the whole article. The article went on to say that calcium was the only thing that has panned out for something, but I right now can't remember what it was! (helpful, huh)
I still take a small bit of multivitamin, probably for the same reason we all do; the fear that we don't get a balanced diet, an idea drilled into our heads by the food police.
But I read somewhere about a study claiming that vitamin B actually caused depression in some people, after having used it on and off for years. Well maybe I can now throw-out all the ADs ;-]
Anyway I don't think anything's been proved one way or another yet for sure. To the person who mentioned about the ancient ancestors, yeh, but they also suffered from pelegra and other things from vitamin deficiencies when eating one kind of food too long.
The modern balanced diet is just that - modern. But that's precisely why we might not need vitamins; we by and large eat a balanced diet these days.
But I think vitamins and health foods have been vastly oversold. If any of you are spending a lot of hard-earned money on vitamins, supplements, and (possibly) organically grown foods, you might be able to save some money, that's all.
Posted by desolationrower on February 20, 2009, at 2:06:31
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » desolationrower, posted by Phillipa on February 17, 2009, at 19:48:31
> d/r wow I take 2grams of extended release C with rose hips what's the consequences should I cut down? Thanks Phillipa
oh, 2g is ok. i get about a gram supp and food... it can affect insulin activity, kidney stones, affects histamine, dopamine, probably some other stuff i'm forgetting...could interfere with excercise benefits...its just an unpredictable chemical, easily switches antioxidant/proxidant, involved in many things, taking excess is a bad idea
-d/r
Posted by Phillipa on February 20, 2009, at 20:33:02
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by desolationrower on February 20, 2009, at 2:06:31
d/r thanks so I'm okay. Love Phillipa
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 21, 2009, at 15:13:28
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by desolationrower on February 20, 2009, at 2:06:31
> > d/r wow I take 2grams of extended release C with rose hips what's the consequences should I cut down? Thanks Phillipa
>
> oh, 2g is ok. i get about a gram supp and food... it can affect insulin activity, kidney stones, affects histamine, dopamine, probably some other stuff i'm forgetting...could interfere with excercise benefits...its just an unpredictable chemical, easily switches antioxidant/proxidant, involved in many things, taking excess is a bad idea
>
> -d/rI have a very different opinion about vitamin C than have you.
I've been following the "vitamin C becoming a pro-oxidant" argument quite closely, and I don't know of a case where it has been scientifically shown to occur in vivo, i.e. in a living human. There are numerous studies showing that it can happen in vitro, in a lab dish, but if and only if non-physiological conditions are present. Most commonly, that would be free metal cations, such as iron++, copper++, or zinc++. The second condition, generally, is a complete absence of other free radical quenchers (anti-oxidants). Only under these artificial circumstances can we find meta-stable ascorbate radicals. Metal ions are virtually never freely dissolved in blood. Instead, they are transported by specialized globular proteins called metalothionines. When they get where they're going, they are incorporated into the protein structure of enzymes. They cannot produce this kind of havoc, in vivo.
One thing is true of all antioxidants....when they quench a reactive oxygen species (ROS), they themselves become oxidants. That's true of curcumin, glutathione, vitamin E.....they all become oxidants, but very much weaker than the ROS that they quenched.
Many common antioxidants in human physiology have significant interactions. For example, one of the primary functions of vitamin C is to reduce spent tocopherol (vitamin E) after it has been oxidized. That restores it to its active form again. In turn, glutathione can restore oxidized vitamin C back to its antioxidant form. And cysteine reduces glutathione back to its antioxidant form. However, none of them is dangerous when in the oxidized state, despite being technically pro-oxidant in structure.
Vitamin C uptake into some tissues even requires that it be in the oxidized form, the pro-oxidant form, for it to even get across the cell membrane. That's because the oxidized form, called dehydroascorbic acid (DHAA) utilizes the glucose transporter to enter tissues that do not have dedicated sodium-dependent ascorbic acid transporters. Now, the glucose transporter is insulin dependent, so your mention of insulin responsivity is well-founded. However, vitamin C improves insulin sensitivity, and moderates blood glucose levels, in both Type 1 and 2 diabetics. There is a complex interaction which is hard to simplify to a sound-bite statement. Diabetics develop tissue-specific scurvy because their glucose transporters don't work efficiently. This leads to complications of diabetes such as cataracts, and retinal deterioration.....due to local vitamin C deficiency. Diabetics typically have very low vitamin C levels, and supplementation is usually recommended.
The kidney stone thing was a hypothesis that was never demonstrated. It just took on a life of its own. I've seen one study that linked actual calcium oxalate stones to higher vitamin C intake, but I've seen many other and larger studies that found no such correlation. Far more important in CO stones is low calcium intake, which is totally counter-intuitive. Normal healthy people do not have any reason to fear kidney stones from vitamin C. On a risk/benefit basis, the benefits truly outweigh this unproven risk.
And yes, histamine is affected. Vitamin C is an anti-histamine. And by suppressing circulating histamine levels, the immune system activity is enhanced.
Now, as to dopamine.....There are a number of dopamine receptors whose activity is dependent on not only dopamine concentration, but also local vitamin C concentration. The mechanism has not been explained, but e.g. the pituitary dopamine receptor that induces release of prolactin is inhibited by vitamin C. I'm sure vitamin C has many other effects that a closer look at biochemistry might reveal. One neurotransmitter related synthesis is entirely dependent on vitamin C: It takes one molecule of vitamin C to produce one molecule of norepinephrine from dopamine.
Vitamin C is the dominant anti-oxidant in mitochondria, the energy factories for the body. Vitamin C is essential for collagen synthesis. Vitamin C is essential for the synthesis of carnitine.
The evidence for how much is an optimal intake is not yet sufficient for the "experts" to reach a consensus. However, here are pieces of evidence that I consider useful to consider.
In primates which like ourselves have lost the ability to produce ascorbic acid from glucose, circulating blood concentrations would suggest that humans would require daily intake of about 2500 mg to maintain similar concentrations. Unless we're unique among primates, that's one predictor.
In mammals which possess the genes to synthesize their own vitamin C, adjusted for body mass, we'd be looking at perhaps 18-30 grams (18,000 to 30,000 mg) per day. And those levels have been shown to increase 10-fold or more when the animal is stressed, as by a flesh wound or psychological factors.
It's quite likely that we've evolved some ways of minimizing our dependency on vitamin C, but I doubt that we can forego the enhanced demand that occurs during stress. However, we're limited on the uptake side. But even that might be conditional.
When they've done vitamin C uptake studies, blood concentrations tend to plateau despite increasing doses into the multiple gram range of intake. That indicates that the gut transporters are saturable, i.e. they can't transport more than some maximum level. What I have not seen done is any test to see if that transporter system upregulates in reponse to increased intake. It doesn't make sense from an energy efficiency perspective for the gut to have a greater number of transporters at the ready than would likely be required to transport amounts of vitamin C above what it typically sees. So, this maximum uptake level might well increase with supplementation. That's my conjecture.
Recent work has begun to revisit vitamin C as a cancer therapy. The problem that took many years to overcome was that fifty years ago, vitamin C debunkers used oral vitamin C in cancer treatment, whereas proponents had shown some success using IV treatment. Because of the uptake-limiting pump capacity issue, oral loading could only produce maximum blood concentrations far below those being produced via IV infusions. Vitamin C was said to have failed clinical trials, when it was instead a method failure, by the Mayo Clinic. Some have claimed they did it on purpose. Anyway, they're now giving IV vitamin C to terminal cancer patients at doses up to 1.5g/kg body weight, thrice weekly. That's 105 grams (105,000 mg) in one dose, based on a typical 70 kg person. No adverse effects have been noted, but these people are quite ill to begin with. Quality of life measures have been significantly increased, though.
On a risk/benefit analysis basis, I think there are a lot of potential benefits, and no clearly identified risks from vitamin C supplements.
Uptake is optimized if smaller doses are taken more frequently, or a timed-release formula is used. Honestly, I think we're going to see the recommended daily intake for this vitamin increase substantially, just as we saw with vitamin D. That's what I think, anyway.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on February 21, 2009, at 20:23:47
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » desolationrower, posted by Larry Hoover on February 21, 2009, at 15:13:28
Lar so I'm fine and the excess is excreted in urine? Phillipa
Posted by garnet71 on February 23, 2009, at 1:56:53
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
Neal, I have to chime in. I read that 'article' too--I don't trust anything Tara Parker Pope 'reports' on that NY Times blog. After browsing through it for the past couple of years, I concluded that she is all for maintaining the status quo (or her editors are). I would even guess, after reading her comments, that she only has a degree in communications or something similar, and knows very little about health and/or research standards.
I agree though, with Blueaberry's stance. I don't think one can substitute the magic of natural biology by isolating chemicals into a hardened dead pill. Nutrients are created by the divine to be consumed as they are integrated with the other fibers, nutrients, and chlorafill. I've recently come to this conclusion and have been drinking 'green smoothies'.
But yeah, I can't trust the NY Times at all, or any other media outlet. They all have their political agenda behind what they report. That's why when I read news, I look at all orgs. to enable myself to assess all angles of a topic (Fox News too-gasp!!)
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2009, at 18:52:07
In reply to Start Questioning Vitamins?, posted by Neal on February 16, 2009, at 23:13:18
Interesting how much press an article that fails to show a reduction in cancer or heart disease from multivitamin use receives, when an article such as this one gets so little: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/jaaj-vba021909.php
Age-related macular degeneration is significantly reduced by B-vitamin supplements, the first identified method of reducing that risk, apart from not smoking tobacco.
I take vitamins because I feel better when I do so. Any reductions in morbidity are simply bonus, for me.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2009, at 19:45:30
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » Larry Hoover, posted by Phillipa on February 21, 2009, at 20:23:47
> Lar so I'm fine and the excess is excreted in urine? Phillipa
You're safe. No worries.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on February 26, 2009, at 19:18:55
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » Phillipa, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2009, at 19:45:30
Lar thanks!!!! Phillipa
Posted by Neal on February 27, 2009, at 22:24:30
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » Neal, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2009, at 18:52:07
Yes, that's important to emphasize, that the article I originally posted was merely about years of life lived, which studies have shown vitamins not to help, so far.
But the article was not about specific diseases like macular degeneration, which I have by the way.
The first anti-anxiety agent that ever worked for me was brewers yeast, which is a combo of amino acids and vitamin B components.
Posted by garnet71 on February 27, 2009, at 22:30:45
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » Neal, posted by Larry Hoover on February 25, 2009, at 18:52:07
That study was dependent upon the self-reporting of the subjects' vitamin intake and was accorded to whatever brands those people took--no standard there. The findings are not significant, imo.
Posted by Neal on March 5, 2009, at 20:07:59
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » Larry Hoover, posted by Neal on February 27, 2009, at 22:24:30
The article I originally posted was merely about years of life lived, which a few preliminary studies have shown vitamins not to help, so far.
>
> But the article was not about specific diseases.Which I realize I should have emphasized. The study was only about years lived.
I recently was reading about the Scottish ship's doctor who in 1745 discovered that mariners were getting scurvy from not getting vitamin C. He started giving the sailors lime juice.(Brits have from then on been nicknamed limeys). The lime juice worked; and scurvy was banished from the British Navy from then on.
Posted by desolationrower on March 29, 2009, at 2:32:10
In reply to Re: Start Questioning Vitamins? » desolationrower, posted by Larry Hoover on February 21, 2009, at 15:13:28
hm, thanks for the response, sorry i didn't get back right away. i think there been a few studies on teh kidney stone thing, and it is from oxalate formation i think. thought i agree more calcium is helpful.
prooxidant-> right, conflicting data, but oxidation is how it is thought to have anticancer effect.
other primates->yes i think this is important to look at. and why going above level is not a good idea. espcially, since humans have had a long time with evolutionary pressure with low ascorbate intake.
still i don't see benefits for healthy for megadoses, only risks.
-d/r
This is the end of the 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.