A LOT THINGS REQUIRE BALANCE. EXCUSE ME, THE CAP KEY STUCK. There, that is more balanced. Aminos and vitamins are also hard to balance , but necessary.
Protein has to be balanced with fat and carbs.
Induced vitamin deficiency by overdose of some vitamins
Thiamine
Vitamin B1
Men: 0.8 - 1.3 mg
Women: 0.8 mg Sunflower Seeds, Pork, whole and enriched Grains, dried Beans. Necessary for carbohydrate metabolism and muscle coordination. Promotes proper nerve function. Deficiency:
Anxiety; hysteria; depression; muscle cramps; loss of apetite; in extreme cases beriberi (mostly in alcoholics).
Overdose:
Unknown, although excess of one B vitamin may cause deficiency of others.
(source changingshape.com )
Megatvitamin Therapy -- support
(source -->)
holistichealthtopics.com
There are also numerous other uses of megavitamin therapy. I have already considered elsewhere the evidence concerning the use of vitamin B6 for the treatment or prevention of both asthma and heart disease ( see B vitamins ). Megavitamin therapy may also be used for the treatment or prevention of arthritis ( 4, 10, 101,102 ), allergies (10,102 ) and stress ( 4, 10, 61, 108, 109 ). While pantothenic acid may be useful in the treatment of both osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis ( 10,102 ), vitamins B6, C, and E may also be useful in the treatment of the former condition ( 10,101, 102, 103 ). Pantothenic acid has also been found effective in the treatment of allergic conditions ( 10, 102, 104-106 ) and stress ( 4, 10, 108,109 ) while vitamin B6 has been found to reduce sensitivity to MSG ( 107 ). The effect of pantothenic acid on resistance to allergies and stress is hardly surprising in view of the importance of this vitamin for the maintenance of normal adrenal function ( 10,108,110, 111 ) and the fact that certain individuals may have a dramatically increased need for this vitamin (10, 61 ). High doses of vitamin B6 have also been found to be effective as a treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome ( 102, 103, 112-117 ) and may also be beneficial in diabetes ( 10, 118-120 ).
I have so far neglected to mention the use of megadoses of vitamin B3 to lower cholesterol levels, the first report of which by Hoffer ( 11 ) in 1955 has been regarded as the beginning of megavitamin therapy and the first medical use of megavitamins ( 11). This discussion is concerned with the use of vitamins as nutrients, to correct nutritional deficiencies, not their use as drugs for non-nutritional reasons ( 3, 123 ). A very clear distinction is needed in this regard. The use of massive doses of vitamin B3 to reduce cholesterol, or for that matter the use of massive doses of vitamin D for osteoporosis, have no established nutritional basis.
Williams et al.
a) Pioneers of Orthomolecular Nutrition
Today, we owe so much of our knowledge of nutrition in general, and orthomolecular nutrition in particular, to the work of a relatively small number of dedicated scientists. At a time when the scientific world was mesmerised by the use of toxic symptom suppressing drugs, these pioneers of orthomolecular nutrition were clearly motivated by a commitment to truth which separated them from so many of their colleagues. Tragically, history shows that the rigidity, introversion and insecurity of modern science and scientists is such that there is an inability to cope with scientific discoveries which are perceived as departing excessively from the mainstream and threatening the status quo. There is a group mentality here which imparts to modern science a massive inertia the sole purpose of which is to establish limitations in current thinking and prevent significant change. It is only exceptional individuals who, frequently at great personal and professional cost, possess a sufficient commitment to truth to enable them to rise above the restrictive influences of mediocrity and conformity. Sadly, threats to the status quo are regarded with such seriousness in modern society that individuality, far from being encouraged, is usually penalised.
Amongst those who pioneered the concept of orthomolecular nutrition are Roger Williams ( 51, 52 ), Professor of Chemistry, discoverer of pantothenic acid (vitamin B5 ), and founder and director of the Clayton Foundation Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas which, under the directorship of Dr Williams was responsible for more vitamin discoveries than any other laboratory in the world ( 52 ). Roger Williams, during his directorship, was also responsible for naming and concentrating folic acid from 30 tons of spinach to supply laboratories around the world ( 235 ). The Clayton Foundation was also responsible for the discovery of the active forms of vitamin B6 and the isolation and synthesis of lipoic acid ( 235 ). As a result of his view that there is "no place for orthodoxy in science" ( 235 ) Williams' directorship of the Clayton Foundation was characterised by the promotion of "independent thinking on the part of the members of the Institute" ( 235 ). Such was Williams devotion to science that he refused to publicise pantothenic acid until the patents had run out in order to avoid any impression that he was profiting financially from his discovery ( 236 ). According to Williams ( 236 ): "scientists must avoid even the appearance of being biased financially if their opinions are to carry much weight." Williams, unlike many, was true to his word.
Other pioneers of orthomolecular nutrition include Linus Pauling ( 53, 54, 73 ), Professor of Chemistry, dual Nobel Prize winner and originator of the term "orthomolecular"; Abram Hoffer ( 65, 66, 67, 68, 73 ), Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Professor of Biochemistry and Agricultural Chemistry, and co-discoverer of the megavitamin treatment of schizophrenia; Bernard Rimland ( 69, 73 ), founder of the American Autism Society and director of the Autism Research Institute; and Allan Cott ( 3, 73 ), orthomolecular psychiatrist and Founding Fellow of the Academy of Orthomolecular Psychiatry. In fact, Roger Williams, Abram Hoffer, Linus Pauling and Hans Selye are four of the "fabulous five" scientists of the 20th century ( 142 ).
In spite of the impeccable credentials of these pioneers and the voluminous evidence in support of orthomolecular nutrition (see History and Development, Nutrition is for the Birds, B vitamins) which has led to the establishment of various research organisations ( 69, 70, 71, 72) and a devoted medical journal ( 73 ), it is disappointing, although not surprising, to observe the negative campaign of opposition which still continues ( 74, 75, 295, 296, 299, 309, 310 ).
While the opposition of medicine to new ideas and its anti-nutrition bias are well known (see Nutrition is for the Birds, Medical Bias ), the lengths to which establishment medicine has gone in an attempt to suppress orthomolecular medicine are cause for major concern. Following the establishment of the Canadian Schizophrenic Foundation and the American Schizophrenic Association in 1967 for instance, Hoffer notes that it suddenly became impossible to publish nutritional research in establishment medical journals ( 11, 65, 73 ). This occurred in spite of the fact that prior to this Hoffer had succeeded in having around 150 articles published ( 73 ). Dr Hoffer and Dr Osmond were subsequently called before the Ethics committee of the American Psychiatric Association ( APA ) and asked why they were "publicising a treatment not acceptable to standard psychiatry" ( 73 ). One of the assistant editors of the APA journal even went so far as to announce that "he would never allow any article from our group to appear in his journal" ( 73 ). The peer review process, according to Hoffer ( 73 ), was used to prevent nutritional research from appearing in mainstream psychiatric journals. Hoffer points out that ( 73 ) "even today the Medical Index will not abstract our journals" and "not a single attempt was made to repeat our double blind controlled studies" ( 65 ).
Publication in medical journals and acceptance by mainstream medicine clearly has little to do with either evidence or efficacy. This however has always been the case since mainstream medicine found need to resort to legal and political methods to outlaw the much safer and more natural holistic therapies, a task greatly facilitated by university trained reductionists.
Hoffer, Pauling, Williams and colleagues are however in excellent company since history shows that scientists who comprise the more rigid thinking conservative majority usually reserve their most vehement condemnation for scientists who make the most important scientific discoveries. According to Hoffer for instance ( 67 ), when Sir Thomas Sydenham developed a dramatically more effective treatment for smallpox in the 17th century he was rewarded by being challenged to a "duel". Hoffer cites the comments of Sydenham ( 67 ): "a new idea is like a sapling in the middle of the road, and if it's not fenced in, it will be galloped over by the trampling hordes." Of course the degree to which new ideas are undeservedly condemned and rejected is directly proportional to the collective mental rigidity, bias, and insecurity of the critics themselves.
As has been pointed out by Hans Selye ( 76 ), who although himself once the victim of condemnation from his medical colleagues is now regarded as one of the greatest medical scientists of the 20th century, "great progress can be made only by ideas which are very different from those generally accepted at the time" but "the more someone sticks out his neck above the masses, the more likely he is to attract the eyes of snipers." According to Barzun ( 77 ), who is cited by Selye ( 76 ), "the new truth invariably sounds crazy, and crazier in proportion to its greatness." The theories of Sigmund Freud were considered so controversial in 1910 that Professor Wilhelm Weyandt, Chairman of a medical congress in Hamburg, exclaimed ( 78 ) "this is not a topic for discussion at a scientific meeting; it is a matter for the police." Other famous scientists who have been viciously criticised by their colleagues include W.B. Cannon, Louis Pasteur, Copernicus and Galileo ( 4, 76, 76a ) to name but a few. Clearly, it is the purpose of the conforming majority to ensure that any scientific changes which do occur remain insignificant.
Mob mentality, insecurity and inertia should determine neither the pace nor the direction of scientific change. In spite of overwhelming scientific and historical evidence however, scientific change continues to be determined predominantly by popularity and profits, not evidence. To those psychiatrists who oppose the nutritional treatment of mental disorders, the simple retort of Hoffer is apt ( 79 ): "how many of their patients are well?"
************************************** |
