Guest guest Posted August 8, 2005 Report Share Posted August 8, 2005 " HSI - Jenny Thompson " <HSIResearch HSI e-Alert - E On Alert Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:15:00 -0400 HSI e-Alert - E On Alert Health Sciences Institute e-Alert **************************************************** August 08, 2005 Dear Reader, Would you be surprised to hear that vitamin E has come under attack again? No, I wasn't either. It seems like some scientists take a perverse delight in even the most feeble and unsubstantiated association between vitamin E intake and adverse effects. What's really annoying about this recent attack is that it comes from researchers at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As its name implies, one of the missions of the CDC is to help PREVENT disease - something vitamin E has been shown to do for many people. So this has to be asked about CDC researchers: What the heck are they thinking? ----------- Nuts & Bolts ----------- The irony here is that when this new research is examined and compared to other recent trials, more is revealed about the clear benefits of vitamin E than any potential harm. The objective of the CDC study was to simply estimate the " percentage of U.S. adults...who consume at least 400 IU of vitamin E daily. " This level of E intake is only possible with the use of supplements. Using data collected from questionnaires submitted by more than 4,600 subjects, researchers determined that just over 11 percent consumed at least 400 IU of vitamin E each day. The average intake for the group was less than 9 IU daily. The recommended daily allowance for vitamin E is 15 IU. Given all the proven benefits associated with E intake, it would seem that the real news here is that most people are not getting nearly ENOUGH vitamin E. But in their commentary (the study was published last month in the Annals of Internal Medicine) the CDC researchers decided to go another way. They instead highlighted the perceived problems with vitamin E. Is this the best way to serve taxpayers who foot the bill to pay CDC salaries and fund research? ----------- I'll get the dictionary ----------- Quickly, let's take this thing apart. The CDC research cites a recent study that found an association between a daily intake of 400 IU of E and a " small increase " in premature mortality from all causes. I've already told you about that study, and the title of the e-Alert says it all: " The Purest Bunk " (11/16/04). Johns Hopkins researchers analyzed the results of 19 studies in which vitamin E supplements played a role. But in some of the studies the vitamin E was contained in multivitamins, and many of the subjects in these studies already had chronic health problems, such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and kidney failure. The editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine (where the study was published) noted that, " these findings may not be generalizable to healthy adults. " Which is a polite way of saying, " This study doesn't hold water " . And yet the CDC researchers cite the study as gospel. They also claim that a more recent study in which subjects consumed 600 IU of E every other day produced similar results. Well, that all depends on what your definition of " similar " is. The authors of that recent study (from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) of Harvard Medical School) found that healthy subjects who took the high dose of vitamin E over a decade had a 24 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease. Also, risk of cardiovascular death was cut in HALF in women over the age of 65 who took the high dose. In this group, heart attack risk was reduced by nearly 35 percent. Similar? On what planet would those two results be similar? ----------- Do us a favor ----------- In the BWH study, the authors write: " High intakes of vitamin E though diet or supplements have decreased risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer. " If only the CDC team had used a similar point of reference. Then they could have done everyone a favor by AT LEAST underlining the importance of getting the recommended daily allowance, for Pete's sake! In addition, they could have gone on to do a public service by pointing out that everyone who takes a vitamin E supplement should avoid taking a synthetic form (known as " dl-alpha tocopherol " ). And then of course they could have steered consumers to the " d-alpha tocopherol " form of the vitamin - or, even better, they could have pointed out the advantages of taking a supplement with mixed tocopherols. And then, to be really helpful, they could have mentioned that a selenium supplement enhances the effectiveness of all these forms of vitamin E. So...to return to my earlier question about CDC researchers: What the heck are they thinking? Is there a government conspiracy against vitamin E or supplements in general? Or are CDC researchers just not up to speed on the specifics of the vitamin? We can speculate all day about these questions, but one thing is obvious: This latest attack on vitamin E is way off the mark, especially coming from a government agency that's supposed to promote disease prevention. **************************************************** ....and another thing Want to lose weight? Just take it easy. As I've noted in many e-Alerts, you don't need a strenuous workout to get the most out of exercise. This " easy-does-it " approach is confirmed in a new study presented at a recent meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine. A team of researchers from the University of Colorado recruited 40 subjects; half were obese and half were normal weight. Subjects were evenly divided by gender as well. Fat mass and bone mineral content were measured before and after the test. Carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption were also measured during treadmill tests that compared the amounts of calories burned while walking at different paces. The results: While walking a mile at a leisurely pace subjects actually burned more calories than walking at a faster but normal pace. And this was uniform among all subjects. A specially designed treadmill that measures biomechanical forces also showed that the slower walking speed reduced knee joint load by as much as 25 percent. Exercise is a problem for obese people who are at greater risk of joint injuries when strenuous workouts put too great a load on hips, knees and ankles. To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson **************************************************** Sources: " Brief Communication: The Prevalence of High Intake of Vitamin E from the Use of Supplements among U.S. Adults " Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 143, No. 2, 7/19/05, annals.org " Many Americans Take Too Much Vitamin E, Says CDC " Jess Halliday, NutraIngredients, 7/19/05, nutraingredients.com " Meta-Analysis: High-Dosage Vitamin E Supplementation May Increase All-Cause Mortality " Annals of Internal Medicine, Vo. 142, No. 1, 1/4/05, annals.org " Vitamin E in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer " Journal of the American Medical Association " Vol. 294, No. 1, 7/6/05, jama.ama-assn.org " Walk Slowly for Weight Loss, According to University of Colorado Study " University of Colorado press release, 6/15/05, eurekalert.org ******************************* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.