Reinventing the Fountain of Youth
Diabetes
Supplements: The Real Story Natural or Synthetic? Foods or Tablets?
11 hours
It’s a nutritional “Catch 22″: The public is told, confusingly: “Vitamins are good, but vitamin supplements are not. Only vitamins from food will help you. So just eat a good diet. Do not take supplements! But by the way, there is no difference between natural and synthetic vitamins.”
Wait a minute. What’s the real story here?
A recent health study reported that the risk of heart failure decreased with increasing blood levels of vitamin C [1]. The benefit of vitamin C (ascorbate) was highly significant. Persons with the lowest plasma levels of ascorbate had the highest risk of heart failure, and persons with the highest levels of vitamin C had the lowest risk of heart failure. This finding confirms the knowledge derived over the last 50 years that vitamin C is a major essential factor in cardiovascular health [2,3]. The study raises several important questions about diet and vitamin supplements.
Was it Food or Supplements?
The report discussed vitamin C as if it were simply an indicator of how many fruits and vegetables were consumed by the participants. Yet, ironically, the study’s results show little improvement in the risk for heart failure from consuming fruits and vegetables. This implies that the real factor in reducing the risk was indeed the amount of vitamin C consumed. Moreover, the study appears to utterly ignore the widespread use of vitamin C supplements to improve cardiovascular health. In fact, out of four quartile groups, the quartile with the highest plasma vitamin C had six to ten times the rate of vitamin C supplementation of the lowest quartile, but this fact was not emphasized. This type of selective attention to food sources of vitamin C, while dismissing supplements as an important source, appears to be an attempt to marginalize the importance of vitamin supplements.
Many medical and nutritional reports have maintained that there is little difference between natural and synthetic vitamins. This is known to be true for some essential nutrients. The ascorbate found in widely available vitamin C tablets is identical to the ascorbate found in fruits and vegetables [3]. Linus Pauling emphasized this fact, and explained how ordinary vitamin C, inexpensively manufactured from glucose, could improve health in many important ways [4]. Indeed, the above-mentioned study specifically measured the plasma level of ascorbate, which was shown to be an important factor associated with lower risk of heart failure [1, 2]. The study did not measure blood plasma levels of the components of fruits and vegetables. It measured vitamin C.
A known rationale for this dramatic finding is that vitamin C helps to prevent inflammation in the arteries by several mechanisms. It is a necessary co-factor for the synthesis of collagen, which is a major component of arteries. Vitamin C is also an important antioxidant throughout the body that can help to recycle other antioxidants like vitamin E and glutathione in the artery walls [2,3]. This was underscored by a report that high plasma levels of vitamin C are associated with a 50% reduction in risk for stroke [5].
Yes, Synthetic Vitamin C is Clinically Effective
We can almost hear “Unsubscribe” links being clicked as we state it, but here it is: synthetic vitamin C works, in real people with real illnesses. Ascorbate’s efficacy has little direct relation to food intake. A dramatic case of this was a dairy farmer in New Zealand who was on life support with lung whiteout, kidney failure, leukemia and swine flu [6]. He was given 100,000 mg of vitamin C daily and his life was saved. We have nothing against oranges or other vitamin C-containing foods. Fruits and vegetables are good for you for many, many reasons. However, you’ll need to get out your calculator to help you figure out how many oranges it would take to get that much, and then also figure how to get a sick person to eat them all.
It is established that liver function improves with vitamin C supplementation, and it is equally well known that adequate levels of vitamin C are essential for the proper functioning of the immune system. Vitamin C improves the ability of the white blood cells to fight bacteria and viruses. OMNS has more articles expanding on this topic, available for free access at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml .
Deficiency of vitamin C is very common. According to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, [7] nearly half of Americans do not get even the US RDA of vitamin C, which is a mere 90 mg.
Synthetic Vitamin E is Less Effective
For some other nutrients, there is a significant difference in efficacy between synthetic and natural forms. Vitamin E is a crucial anti-oxidant, but also has other functions in the body, not all well understood. It comprises eight different biochemical forms, alpha-, beta-, delta- and gamma tocopherols, and alpha-, beta-, delta-, and gamma-tocotrienols. All of these forms of vitamin E are important for the body. Current knowledge about the function of vitamin E is rapidly expanding, and each of the eight forms of natural vitamin E is thought to have a slightly different function in the body. For example, gamma-tocotrienol actually kills prostate cancer stem cells better than chemotherapy does. ( http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n11.shtml )
Synthetic vitamin E is widely available and inexpensive. It is “DL-alpha-tocopherol.” Yes, it has the same antioxidant properties in test tube experiments as does the natural “D-alpha-tocopherol” form. However, the DL- form has only 50% of the biological efficacy, because the body utilizes only the natural D isomer, which comprises half of the synthetic mix [8]. Therefore, studies utilizing DL-alpha-tocopherol that do not take this fact into account are starting with an already-halved dose that will naturally lead to a reduction in the observed efficacy.
Then there are the esterified forms of vitamin E such as acetate or succinate. These esterified forms, either natural or synthetic, have a greater shelf life because the ester protects the vitamin E from being oxidized and neutralized. When acid in the stomach cleaves the acetate or succinate component from the original natural vitamin E molecule, the gut can then absorb a good fraction and the body receives its antioxidant benefit. But when esterified vitamin E acetate is applied to the skin to prevent inflammation, it is ineffective because there is no acid present to remove the acetate ester.
Based on USDA data [9] an astonishing 90% of Americans do not get the RDA of vitamin E, which is, believe it or not, under 23 IU (15mg) per day.
Magnesium Deficiency is Widespread
Magnesium is another example. Over two-thirds of the population do not get the RDA of magnesium.[10] Deficiency can cause a wide variety of symptoms, including osteoporosis, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, depression, and diabetes. Magnesium can be purchased in many forms. The most widely available form is magnesium oxide, which is not very effective because it is only about 5% absorbed [11]. Magnesium oxide supplements are popular because the pills are smaller — they contain more magnesium, but won’t help most people. Better forms of magnesium are magnesium citrate, magnesium malate, and the best absorbed is magnesium chloride. It’s always good to consult your doctor to determine your ideal intake. Testing may reveal unexpected deficiency. [12]
Well, Which? Natural or Synthetic?
While the natural form of vitamin E (mixed natural tocopherols and tocotrienols) is at least twice as effective as the synthetic form, this is not true of vitamin C. The ascorbate that the body gets from fruits and vegetables is the same as the ascorbate in vitamin C tablets. On first thought, this may sound confusing, because there are many so-called “natural” forms of vitamin C widely available. But virtually every study that demonstrated that supplemental vitamin C fights illness used plain, cheap, synthetic ascorbic acid. Other forms of ascorbate, for instance, the sodium or magnesium salt of ascorbic acid, are digested slightly differently by the gut, but once the ascorbate molecule is absorbed from these forms, it has identical efficacy. The advantage of these ascorbate salts is that they are non-acidic and can be ingested or topically applied to any part of the body without concern about irritation from acidity.
Further, it is known that essential nutrients are symbiotic, that is, they are more effective when taken as a group in proper doses. For example, vitamin E is more effective when taken along with vitamin C and selenium, because each of these essential nutrients can improve the efficacy of the others. Similarly, the B vitamins are more effective when taken together. Readers with dosage questions will want to consult their healthcare provider, and also look at freely available information archived at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml .
Food Factors
Natural food factors are also important. Bioflavonoids and other vitamin C-friendly components in fresh fruits and vegetables (sometimes called “vitamin C complex”) do indeed have health benefits. These natural components are easily obtained from a healthy, unprocessed whole foods diet. However, eating even a very good diet does not supply nearly enough vitamin C to be effective against illness. A really good diet might provide several hundred milligrams of vitamin C daily. An extreme raw food diet might provide two or three thousand milligrams of vitamin C, but this is not practical for most people. Supplementation, with a good diet, is.
The principle that “natural” vitamins are better than synthetic vitamins is a widely quoted justification for actually avoiding vitamin supplements. The argument goes, because vitamins and minerals are available from food in their natural form, that somehow one might suppose that we are best off by ignoring supplements. Apparently this is what the authors of the above-mentioned study had in mind, because the report hardly mentions vitamin supplements.
Conclusion
In the real world of today’s processed food, most of us don’t get all the nutrients we need in adequate doses. Most people are deficient in several of the essential nutrients. These deficiencies are responsible for much suffering, including heart disease, cancer, premature aging, dementia, diabetes, and other diseases such as eye disease, multiple sclerosis and asthma. The above-mentioned study showing the efficacy of vitamin C in reducing heart failure is but one of the many studies showing the value of vitamins. Others are discussed and available at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml .
For vitamin E, the natural form, taken in adequate doses along with a nutritious diet, is the best medicine. However, for most vitamins, including vitamin C, the manufactured form is identical to the natural one. Both are biologically active and both work clinically. It all comes down to dose. Supplements enable optimum intake; foods alone do not.
Don’t be fooled: nutrient deficiency is the rule, not the exception. That’s why we need supplements. When ill, we need them even more.
References:
1. Pfister R, Sharp SJ, Luben R, Wareham NJ, Khaw KT. (2011) Plasma vitamin C predicts incident heart failure in men and women in European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk prospective study. Am Heart J. 162:246-253. See also: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n14.shtml
2. Levy TE (2006) Stop America’s #1 Killer: Reversible Vitamin Deficiency Found to be Origin of All Coronary Heart Disease. ISBN-13: 9780977952007
3. Hickey S, Saul AW (2008) Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor. Basic Health Publications, ISBN-13: 978-1591202233.
4. Pauling L. (2006) How to Live Longer And Feel Better. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. ISBN-13: 9780870710964.
5. Kurl S, Tuomainen TP, Laukkanen JA, Nyyssönen K, Lakka T, Sivenius J, Salonen JT. (2002) Plasma vitamin C modifies the association between hypertension and risk of stroke. Stroke. 33:1568-1573.
6. Watch the Channel 3 New Zealand news report at http://www.3news.co.nz/Living-Proof-Vitamin-C—Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx or http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh70sx_60-minutes-scoop-on-new-zealand-farmer-vit-c-miracle_tech [ Note that each video is proceeded by a commercial, over which we have no control, and with which we have no financial connection whatsoever. ]
7. Free, full text paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405127/pdf/amjph00225-0021.pdf
8. Papas A. (1999) The Vitamin E Factor: The miraculous antioxidant for the prevention and treatment of heart disease, cancer, and aging. HarperCollins, NY. ISBN-13: 9780060984434
9. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminE/ ; scroll down to “Deficiency.”
10. Free, full text paper at http://www.jacn.org/content/24/3/166.full.pdf+html (or http://www.jacn.org/content/24/3/166.long )
11. Dean, C. (2007) The Magnesium Miracle. Ballantine Books, ISBN-13: 9780345494580
12. http://www.doctoryourself.com/epilepsy.html
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org
Share and Enjoy
Why Too Much Bright Light Before Bed Harms Sleep
0369 days
Having the lights on before bedtime could result in a worse night’s sleep, according to a study to be published in the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism.
The research shows that the body produces less of the sleep hormone melatonin when exposed to light.
Sleep patterns have been linked to some types of cancer, blood pressure and diabetes.
The US researchers also found lower melatonin levels in shift workers.
Lifestyles may have moved on from a day/night rhythm, but it seems the human body has not.
The pineal gland produces melatonin through the night and starts when darkness falls.
Researchers have shown that switching on lights in the home switches off the hormone’s production.
Less melatonin
In the study, 116 people spent five days in room where the amount of light and sleep was controlled. They were awake for 16 hours and asleep for eight hours each day.
Initially the patients were exposed to 16 hours of room light during their waking hours. They were then moved onto eight hours of room light in the morning and eight hours of dim light in the evening.
The researchers found that electrical light between dusk and bedtime strongly suppressed melatonin levels. With dim light, melatonin was produced for 90 minutes more a day.
Dr Joshua Gooley, lead author from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said:
“Our study shows that this exposure to indoor light has a strong suppressive effect on the hormone melatonin.”
“This could, in turn, have effects on sleep quality and the body’s ability to regulate body temperature, blood pressure and glucose levels.”
Keeping the lights on through the night also reduced the amount of melatonin produced.
Dr Gooley said: “Given that chronic light suppression of melatonin has been hypothesized to increase relative risk for some types of cancer and that melatonin receptor genes have been linked to type 2 diabetes, our findings could have important health implications for shift workers.”
Share and Enjoy
Why Coffee Protects Against Diabetes
0369 days
Coffee, that morning elixir, may give us an early jump-start to the day, but numerous studies have shown that it also may be protective against type 2 diabetes. Yet no one has really understood why.
Now, researchers at UCLA have discovered a possible molecular mechanism behind coffee’s protective effect. A protein called sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) regulates the biological activity of the body’s sex hormones, testosterone and estrogen, which have long been thought to play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes. And coffee consumption, it turns out, increases plasma levels of SHBG.
Reporting with colleagues in the current edition of the journal Diabetes, first author Atsushi Goto, a UCLA doctoral student in epidemiology, and Dr. Simin Liu, a professor of epidemiology and medicine with joint appointments at the UCLA School of Public Health and the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, show that women who drink at least four cups of coffee a day are less than half as likely to develop diabetes as non-coffee drinkers.
When the findings were adjusted for levels of SHBG, the researchers said, that protective effect disappeared.
The American Diabetes Association estimates that nearly 24 million children and adults in the U.S. — nearly 8 percent of the population — have diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of the disease and accounts for about 90 to 95 percent of these cases.
Early studies have consistently shown that an “inverse association” exists between coffee consumption and risk for type 2 diabetes, Liu said. That is, the greater the consumption of coffee, the lesser the risk of diabetes. It was thought that coffee may improve the body’s tolerance to glucose by increasing metabolism or improving its tolerance to insulin.
“But exactly how is elusive,” said Liu, “although we now know that this protein, SHBG, is critical as an early target for assessing the risk and prevention of the onset of diabetes.”
Earlier work by Liu and his colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine had identified two mutations in the gene coding for SHBG and their effect on the risk of developing type 2 diabetes; one increases risk while the other decreases it, depending on the levels of SHBG in the blood.
A large body of clinical studies has implicated the important role of sex hormones in the development of type 2 diabetes, and it’s known that SHBG not only regulates the sex hormones that are biologically active but may also bind to receptors in a variety of cells, directly mediating the signaling of sex hormones.
“That genetic evidence significantly advanced the field,” said Goto, “because it indicated that SHBG may indeed play a causal role in affecting risk for type 2 diabetes.”
“It seems that SHBG in the blood does reflect a genetic susceptibility to developing type 2 diabetes,” Liu said. “But we now further show that this protein can be influenced by dietary factors such as coffee intake in affecting diabetes risk — the lower the levels of SHBG, the greater the risk beyond any known diabetes risk factors.”
For the study, the researchers identified 359 new diabetes cases matched by age and race with 359 apparently healthy controls selected from among nearly 40,000 women enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, a large-scale cardiovascular trial originally designed to evaluate the benefits and risks of low-dose aspirin and vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
They found that women who drank four cups of caffeinated coffee each day had significantly higher levels of SHBG than did non-drinkers and were 56 percent less likely to develop diabetes than were non-drinkers. And those who also carried the protective copy of the SHBG gene appeared to benefit the most from coffee consumption.
When the investigators controlled for blood SHBG levels, the decrease in risk associated with coffee consumption was not significant. This suggests that it is SHBG that mediates the decrease in risk of developing type 2 diabetes, Liu said.
And there’s bad news for decaf lovers. “Consumption of decaffeinated coffee was not significantly associated with SHBG levels, nor diabetes risk,” Goto said. “So you probably have to go for the octane!”
Other authors of the study included Brian Chen, of UCLA, and Julie Buring, JoAnn Manson and Yiqing Song, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Funding was provided by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.
Share and Enjoy
Towards age-suppression
1387 days
The amino acid L-cysteine is one of the standard building blocks used by the body to produce the countless proteins it needs: enzymes, structural proteins, signalling molecules and their receptors, and small polypeptide molecules with specialized functions. One such polypeptide, ‘glutathione’, is an essential antioxidant that protects cells from being damaged or killed by stray free radicals.
Since glutathione is crucially important for preventing cellular damage and the diseases that result from such damage, there is good reason to increase the amount of L-cysteine available to the body for making it. The trouble is, if cysteine is used as a supplement, it can be neurotoxic. This toxicity can be avoided by using N-acetylcysteine (NAC) instead of cysteine itself.
NAC’s remarkable biological benefits
NAC is one of the most studied of all supplements. In the 1960s it was found to be useful for people with cystic fibrosis and other pulmonary ailments. It later garnered the attention of HIV researchers, and has now been investigated for many other medical conditions.
The list of medical applications of NAC is a very long one, and includes the following categories:
- Pulmonary and respiratory ailments
- Aging
- Muscle fatigue
- Neurological conditions
- Cancer
- Infections
- Neurodegenerative diseases
- Addictions
- Sickle cell disease
- Muscle-degenerative conditions
- Toxicity
- Cardiovascular ailments
- Immune system problems
- Diabetes
- Fatty liver disease
Let us look at one of the many intriguing applications of this supplement:
NAC interferes with cardiovascular damage.
Whenever food is cooked, some of the sugars in the food are converted into substances called ‘AGEs’ (Advanced Glycation Endproducts). These are inflammatory chemicals that, when consumed, cause damage to the walls of arteries and veins, as well as accelerated aging in other tissues in the body. The body actually produces its own AGEs from sugars, but usually in smaller amounts than are found in cooked food. Diabetics, however, have a much higher AGE burden than non-diabetics do, because diabetes causes spikes in blood sugar levels.
In an important 2004 paper, researchers reported that diabetics experience substantially less damage to arteries when their consumption of AGEs is reduced. Furthermore, NAC interferes with a key process through which AGEs produce inflammation and tissue damage, and actually prevents AGEs from damaging vascular cells.
NAC suppresses many other harmful processes taking place in the body. It is an inexpensive supplement that is safe and easy to obtain — so it would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
Share and Enjoy
End the ravages of diabetes, aging and complications of gastric bypass.
0393 days
Benfotiamine is a pro-vitamin: taken orally, it is converted into thiamine (Vitamin B1). Benfotiamine is found naturally in plants of the onion family, but the amounts present are miniscule.
Thiamine itself has been used for many years to treat neurological disorders. But this vitamin is poorly absorbed and rapidly metabolized, making it difficult to achieve therapeutic levels in the body. This problem is excalibrated in those individuals who have undergone gastric bypass. Benfotiamine, being fat-soluble, solves this bioavailability problem. It is well absorbed and remains in the body for days. Consequently, benfotiamine can raise thiamine concentrations in the blood and tissues about 5 times higher than oral thiamine consumption can.
Applications.
Benfotiamine is typically used to prevent:
- diabetes-induced vascular damage
- neuropathy due to diabetes or alcohol consumption
- diabetic damage to eyes and kidneys
- tissue damage and aging due to protein cross-linking
- genetic damage in late-stage kidney disease
- complications of gastric bypass
How does it work?
Benfotiamine supplements serve as a source of thiamine, which in turn plays two biological roles:
- increasing the rate at which glucose is converted to other sugars
- maintaining the ability of nerve fibers to carry information.
Protection of cells against damage by glucose. Glucose is damaging to the body despite being one of the body’s main sources of energy. It has two destructive effects:
- when cells break down glucose to extract its energy, free radicals are produced that damage the surrounding tissues;
- some glucose molecules, instead of being metabolized, react chemically with proteins in the tissues, producing crosslinks (‘AGEs’) that impede or inactivate the proteins. The result is a loss of flexibility and function in skin, muscle, and all other living tissues.
Both of these side effects of glucose consumption are destructive to the body. They are considered major contributors to the aging process as well as to the failure of organs and tissues in diabetes.
But this damage can be limited if glucose levels in the body’s cells can be kept low. And they can be kept low if excess glucose can be rapidly converted to less harmful substances. Thiamine is a biological cofactor that does exactly this — it promotes the conversion of glucose into other, less harmful sugars, as well as promoting the breakdown of glucose into carbon dioxide, water, and energy. Since benfotiamine is converted into thiamine in the body, benfotiamine supplementation is equivalent to dramatically increasing the bioavailability of thiamine.
Nerve conduction and bodybuilding.
In addition to protecting cells from glucose damage, benfotiamine improves nerve function. Bodybuilders, who know from experience that muscles perform better when the nerves controlling them work better, are enthusiastic users of benfotiamine.
