SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : John Kerrys Crimes & Lies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Gersh Avery who wrote (1735)7/26/2005 3:58:26 PM
From: Captain Jack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1905
 
Love that one!!! Would really like to know about him -- drugs or just that stupid?



To: Gersh Avery who wrote (1735)8/2/2005 10:57:51 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 1905
 
Better eat your veggies
and throw those supplements down the toilet!

August 2, 2005
Vitamin E Fails to Deliver on Early Promise
By DEBORAH FRANKLIN
In America even a vitamin can become an instant celebrity with its own die-hard fan base and publicity machine. Vitamin E shot to fame in the early 1990's, after two large survey studies noted that male and female health professionals who said they took a supplement of up to 400 international units of the vitamin every day seemed to go on to develop fewer cases of heart disease or cancer than their peers who were not taking the supplement.

The number of Americans, cardiologists included, who gulped daily capsules of vitamin E suddenly surged, from relatively few in 1990 to an estimated 23 million by 2000, according to an analysis published last month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But in a flurry of strong follow-up studies published in the last few years, vitamin E has emerged as a sort of middle-aged, B-list actor not fulfilling its early promise. Increasingly, even many scientists and health advisory groups who say they still have high hopes for the vitamin as it occurs naturally in vegetable oils, nuts and leafy greens have begun to pan the pills, except for use by subgroups of patients with particular medical conditions.

"Based on what we've seen, we don't recommend vitamin E supplements for the prevention of heart disease or cancer," said I-Min Lee, a Harvard Medical School epidemiologist and lead investigator of one of the most recent and weightiest studies to sully the supplement's reputation.

As part of Harvard's double-blind, placebo-controlled Women's Health Study, nearly 20,000 healthy, middle-aged women were given 600 international units of vitamin E every other day for roughly 10 years. Results reported in the July 6 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association found no overall protective benefit against those illnesses.

The argument that E supplements might help protect the brain from Alzheimer's disease also took a hit this year, when a large, placebo-controlled study published in the June 9 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine found that a high daily dose of vitamin E given for three years did not slow mild cognitive impairment, a condition that frequently leads to Alzheimer's.

"Research on other antioxidants may turn out to be promising," said William Thies, vice president of medical and scientific affairs for the Alzheimer's Association. "But I think the conclusion is that if there is a benefit to a vitamin E supplement, it's probably very small."

Alice Lichtenstein, director of the cardiovascular nutrition lab at the Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, is even more dismissive. When asked what she thought the take-home message of recent research should be for people who are consuming vitamin E supplements as a hedge against disease, she said: "Empty the bottle and put it in the recycling bin. There's no good evidence you should be taking it."

The evidence that it is harmful, however, is scant. One study reported that vitamin E supplements of 400 international units or more might be associated with a slightly increased risk of premature death, based on a meta-analysis of 19 clinical trials. But that report has been criticized by many scientists, including Dr. Lichtenstein and Dr. Lee, who said they found the meta-analysis flawed statistically in terms of the studies included, different doses of vitamin E and types of patients it lumped together.

"I think the meta-analysis was premature in its conclusion," Dr. Lichtenstein said. In nearly all the large number of studies completed over the years, she said, "any hints of adverse effects of E have been pretty mild."

One further extensive, placebo-controlled study of vitamin E supplements published March 16 in The Journal of the American Medical Association has given some researchers pause. In what are known as the Hope and Hope-Too trials, several thousand men and women with vascular disease or diabetes who took 400 international units of vitamin E daily for up to seven years seemed to have a somewhat increased risk of heart failure, compared with those who were taking a placebo.

But because those patients were quite ill before they took vitamin E, and the finding has not turned up in the Women's Health Study, that result may not signal a risk for healthier patients, other scientists say.

Some vitamin E fans and supplement makers have found consolation in a finding sifted from the Women's Health Study that a subgroup of women over age 65 who took vitamin E suffered fewer heart attacks and other major cardiovascular events (except for stroke) than those who received a placebo.

But Dr. Lee regards that bit of data as "interesting, and worth following up, but not yet something to base a health recommendation on," she said, adding that "a risk or benefit that hasn't turned up in other large studies is less likely to hold up over time."

"You can't look at any individual finding or study in isolation," Dr. Lee said. "They're like individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. If the pieces fit together coherently, you can see the picture clearly. And if they don't fit together, then maybe they aren't true pieces of the puzzle after all."

Some positive puzzle pieces may yet turn up in further analyses from the Women's Health Study or other clinical trials.

No matter what the ultimate results of those studies, and despite the urging of scientists that people wait for the best evidence to come in before popping a pill, Dr. Lichtenstein fears that the rush by many vitamin E fans to take a supplement "just in case" will likely continue.

"It's so easy, so cheap, so relatively risk-free," she said. "I think it's going to take a long time for all this to settle down."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top



To: Gersh Avery who wrote (1735)8/2/2005 11:05:31 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 1905
 
Throw your supplements in the toilet!

SOUND BODY
The vitamin paradox
Nutrients in food are healthier than those in pills
By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff | August 1, 2005

On the surface, it makes all the sense in the world: Since fruits, vegetables, and fish contain loads of healthy nutrients, why not isolate those vitamins, put them in pills, and gobble them up? And wouldn't more be better?

Then we could just skip the strawberries, spinach, and salmon, and let fistfuls of vitamin tablets provide a fortified shield of protection against cancer, heart disease, and other ailments, right?

''It's a very plausible hypothesis," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. ''However, when submitted to rigorous testing, it has not held up. . . . It's an oversimplified view."

Three times in recent weeks, scientists writing in medical journals have attacked the notion that heavy-duty helpings of vitamins can thwart life-threatening illnesses. In some cases, they argued, excessive supplementation may even be harmful.

The way to live a long, healthy life, the researchers insisted, is not to pop lots of pills, but to eat a balanced, healthy diet.

For reasons that scientists have yet to figure out, the body processes vitamins differently when they arrive in food than in pill form -- probably because foods interact with each other in a way that may help nutrient absorption. So far, nutrition specialists said, scientists working in labs can't beat what nature does.

''What you can buy in a bottle doesn't come close to providing you with the wealth of benefits that come automatically when those nutrients are present in the form of food," said Linda Van Horn, a research nutritionist at Northwestern University in Chicago.

Nutrition advice, though, is never quite as simple as ''take your vitamins" or, even, ''don't take your vitamins." And, further complicating matters, the answer isn't the same for everybody.

Much of the recent criticism of vitamins has revolved around megadoses, which can be 10, 20, even 30 times stronger than the amount recommended for the daily diet.

But even multivitamins, which typically contain the recommended daily intake of a host of nutrients, are not universally accepted by nutritionists.

Alice H. Lichtenstein, a professor at Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition said there's no evidence that multivitamins are hazardous -- but she said there's also no compelling proof that they do much. Other experts believe multivitamins can help restore nutritional equilibrium to a defective diet.

''If you look at what people eat, and there have been many national surveys to look at levels of nutrients and foods, there is a lot of deficiency," said Dr. Meir J. Stampfer, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. ''We're not talking about people with scurvy or rickets, but there are nutrients that large, substantial portions of the population are not getting," he said, including, vitamins B12 and D. And for some people whose extreme poverty keeps them from eating right, supplements can be life-savers.

Last year, vitamin sales in the United States totaled $6.9 billion, according to estimates from the Nutrition Business Journal, a market research and publishing firm. That's roughly the size of the bottled water industry.

But the promise of high-dose vitamin pills has been increasingly contradicted by gold-standard scientific research, Lichtenstein wrote in The Journal of the American Medical Association late last month, with a Tufts colleague.

For example, consider beta carotene. It was trumpeted as the ultimate cancer fighter. But researchers in one study showed that high doses of the nutrient, which the body converts to vitamin A, actually increased the chance that a smoker would develop lung cancer.

Then there's folate. Physicians still encourage women trying to get pregnant to take supplements that include folate, because of scientific studies showing it prevents birth defects. But recent findings have tempered hopes that folate would also help battle heart disease, and one study suggested that heart patients who took large amounts of folate after an operation to unclog their arteries, were more likely to get clogs again.

Two other medical reports released last month examined vitamins D and E. The vitamin D study, published in The Archives of Internal Medicine, found that it did not slow bone loss in older African-American women, as had been predicted.

And the vitamin E report, appearing in The Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that for most women, large doses of vitamin E do nothing to prevent heart problems.

Still, even the president of the American Heart Association acknowledges just how seductive the healing promise of vitamins can be. Dr. Robert H. Eckel, of the University of Colorado, said he took vitamin E for a couple of years, based on those early reports hailing its disease-fighting properties. But when the more elaborate research results emerged: ''I finally looked at the evidence and said, gee, this isn't worth taking."

Of course, plenty of people remain devoted to their vitamins. ''Many people," Eckel said, ''continue to take supplements despite advice that they may not be helpful to them. There's a lot of strong-headedness among people."

The studies debunking the disease-preventing powers of vitamins have come under steady attack, both from the supplement industry and from vitamins aficionados. The Dietary Supplement Education Alliance, an industry-backed advocacy coalition, regularly assails studies critical of vitamins, arguing that the science is faulty and that it is tantamount to fear-mongering.

For comment, the alliance provided Maret Traber, a professor in the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Sciences at Oregon State University, as a specialist on the usefulness of vitamins. Traber agreed that a healthy diet combined with an active lifestyle is the best path to fitness.

''We know nutrition and exercise are critical for good health, but we're ignoring it," said Traber, who said she does not take research money from the supplement industry, although industry dollars helped pay for one piece of scientific equipment she uses. ''It's always easier to sit in front of the couch and eat Doritos than it is to go for a jog. Everybody is lazy."

Ask Traber if she takes vitamin E, and her answer demonstrates -- again -- the complexity of nutrition and supplements and the futility of trying to find a one-size-fits-all dietary prescription: ''I don't take it because it actually causes me to bleed. I bruise very easily."

Stampfer, the Harvard researcher, said he thought some of the recent scientific commentaries on vitamins went ''a little too far in scaring people." He's dubious that there are that many people taking vitamins at such high doses that their health is imperiled.

''The biggest danger," he said, ''is the psychological one, with people thinking: 'Oh, I'm taking vitamins. I don't have to exercise, and I can eat a crummy diet.' "

Stephen Smith can be reached at stsmith@globe.com.


© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company