Showing posts with label prostate health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prostate health. Show all posts

More Fish Oil Folly from Mainstream Medicine

, , , , , , , No comments
Recently I sent out a message about this study, pointing out the use of fractionated omega 3 in the DHA only form, and a low dose, les than therapeutic recommendations.

Now another of many commentaries has been published.

Before you believe the talking heads on your TV station or the internet aggregator sites, do a bit of your own investigation.  We hope this helps.
Several scientific studies have found a reduction in prostate cancer associated with increased omega-3 intake.1-11 A recent report purportedly showed the opposite.12
This report was based on a single blood test of plasma fatty acids in a group of 834 men who were followed up to six years to assess prostate cancer risk (low- and high-grade disease). A smaller group of 75 men was followed up to nine years to assess only high-grade prostate cancer risk.
The results showed that slightly higher omega-3 plasma percentages from this single blood test were associated with a greater risk of low-grade (44%) and high-grade (71%) prostate cancers over the multi-year follow-up.
This report was turned into news stories with headlines blaring “Omega-3 fatty acids may raise prostate cancer risk.”
Omitted from the media frenzy was the fact that this study was not about fish oil supplement users. The authors admitted they did not know how the study participants achieved what turned out to be very low omega-3 plasma percentages in all groups.
In fact, omega-3 plasma levels were only about 40% of what would be expected in health conscious people taking the proper dose of fish oil.12 ,13 The insufficient levels of plasma omega-3s in all the study subjects were overlooked by the media. Had these very low plasma levels of omega-3s been recognized, it would have been apparent that this report had no meaning for those who boost their omega-3 consumption through diet and supplements.
Also absent from the reporting was that more men with slightly higher omega-3 plasma levels had confounding risk factors for greater risk of contracting prostate cancer at baseline, such as having higher PSA scores and a positive family history. Although the authors attempted to statistically control (through a statistical model called multivariate analysis) for some of these risk factors in their analysis, the concern remains that the baseline data was confounded and therefore the statistical analysis invalid, and that the reported results are compromised by higher rates of preexisting disease along with a genetic predisposition, not because of the miniscule variance in the amount of their plasma omega-3.
Prostate cancer sharply increases by 120% to 180% in men who have a first-degree relative who had contracted prostate cancer. Nearly double the men who contracted prostate cancer in this study had a positive family history, and although the researchers attempted to statistically control for this confounding factor, this fact was conveniently overlooked by the mainstream media as omega-3s were instead labeled the culprit.
Associating a one-time plasma omega-3 reading with long term prostate cancer risk is ludicrous. That’s because plasma omega-3 changes rapidly with short-term dietary changes. It does not reflect long-term incorporation of omega-3 into cells and tissues. In this report, differences in baseline omega-3 blood measures were so trivial that if a man had just one salmon meal the night before, he could have wound up in the “higher” omega-3 group even if he never ingested another omega-3 again.14
Numerous flaws in this report render its findings useless for those who supplement with purified fish oils and follow healthy dietary patterns. This article represents Life Extension®’s initial rebuttal to this spurious attack on omega-3s that was blown out of proportion by the media.

Prostate cancer is a slow developing malignancy that can take decades to manifest as clinically-relevant disease. Commonly recognized risk factors for contracting prostate cancer are diet, body mass, race, family history, hormone status, and age.15,16
An under-recognized risk factor associated with developing prostate cancer is coronary artery disease.17 We at Life Extension long ago observed that men with clogged coronary arteries often developed prostate cancer (and vice versa). A renowned prostate oncologist named Stephen Strum, M.D., made a similar observation and established a common factor behind coronary heart disease and prostate cancer, i.e., bone loss.
Coronary artery disease is clearly linked with osteoporosis,18 as lack of vitamin K prevents calcium from binding to bone and instead allows it to infiltrate and harden the arteries. The ensuing bone loss results in the excessive release of bone-derived growth factors that fuel prostate cancer propagation and metastasis.
Long after Dr. Strum published his elaborate correlation, a 2012 study of 6,729 men showed coronary artery disease to be associated with a 35% increased risk of prostate cancer.17
The reason we bring up the connection of heart disease and prostate cancer is that the authors of the controversial study apparently failed to assess overall baseline health status of the study subjects. We initially suspected that men in the higher group of plasma omega-3 (which turned out to be low by our standards) were more likely to have coronary heart disease. That’s because men with heart disease are told by their cardiologists to eat less red meat and more cold-water fish. So it would not be surprising if the plasma percentage of omega-3 was higher in men with prostate cancer as they may have been trying to eat healthier to avoid bypass surgery or a sudden heart attack.
When we asked the authors of the report if they assessed the baseline cardiovascular status of the subjects, their reply was, “No, I don't believe this to be the case.”
Read the rest of the story here
Share:
Read More

Vitamin E

, , , , , No comments
I am once agin amazed at these studies that keep coming along telling you that if you take vitamins you will get very sick or worse.  I am not too sure this is the scientific method I learned in the years of science classes I took over many years of schooling.

I've been in health care since the early 1960s.  I statrted studying and using natural health in the mid 50s.  Over many years of education and work in this field I have yet to have come into contact with anyone harmed by vitamins.

We know people are harmed and killed every day by pharmaceuticals.  We do not hear this on the news.

My experience with these reports and the studies is that there are problems from the outset; the first being the use of SYNTHETIC vitamins (in this case dl-alpha tocopherol or synthetic vitamin E).

This is the first mistake.

Other negative vitamin E studies I have reviewed use synthetic vitamin E in the process.

Another concern I have is that generally, if you know your natural health inside and out like I do you know that the key elements for protecting the protate happen to be zinc (low dose) and selenium (selenomethionine or sea based).  If this study utilized zinc and selenium in the proper forms the results would be much different.

Zinc (I use a low dose food based form) is the mineral for glandular health.  The prostate is a gland.  Selenium (in the correct form as noted above)  is well established as protectective of the prostate and has anticancer properties.

Please make sure you fail to accept reports on specious studies such as this one.  And make sure John LaPook does more research before he tells Scott Pelley and you that you can get the best health from your diet.
Duffy MacKay of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement makers' trade group, said the study shouldn't be interpreted as questioning the benefits of vitamin E as an essential nutrient, and he said there is evidence that many Americans don't get enough.
Read comments from MedPage Today

Leaflady.org Vitamin E articles here and here

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service released this commentary -


October 14, 2011
Vitamin E Attacked Again
Of Course. Because It Works.
by Andrew W. Saul
Editor, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service
(OMNS, Oct 14, 2011) The very first Orthomolecular Medicine News Service release was on the clinical benefits of vitamin E. That was seven years ago. (1) In fact, the battle over vitamin E has been going full-tilt for over 60 years. (2)
Well, you can say one thing for vitamin critics: at least they are consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.
A recent accusation against vitamin E is that somehow it increases risk of prostate cancer. (3) That is nonsense. If you take close look at the numbers, you will see that "Compared with placebo, the absolute increase in risk of prostate cancer per 1000 person-years was 1.6 for vitamin E, 0.8 for selenium, and 0.4 for the combination." That works out to be a claimed 0.63% increase risk with vitamin E alone, 0.24% increase in risk with vitamin E and selenium, and 0.15% increase in risk for selenium alone.
Note the decimal points: these are very small figures. But more importantly, note that the combination of selenium with vitamin E resulted in a much smaller number of deaths. If vitamin E were really the problem, vitamin E with selenium would have been a worse problem. Selenium recharges vitamin E, recycling it and effectively rendering it more potent. Something is wrong here, and it isn't the vitamin E. Indeed, a higher dose of vitamin E might work as well as E with selenium, and be more protective.
And, in fact, this study did show that supplementation was beneficial. Vitamin E and selenium reduced risk of all-cause mortality by about 0.2%., and also reduced the risk of serious cardiovascular events by 0.3%. Vitamin E reduced risk of serious cardiovascular events by 0.7%. But what you were told, and just about all you were told, was "Vitamin E causes cancer!"
The oldest political trick in the book is to create doubt, then fear, and then conformity of action. The pharmaceutical industry knows this full well. One does not waste time and money attacking something that does not work. Vitamin E works, and the evidence is abundant.
Specifically in regards to prostate cancer, new research published in the International Journal of Cancer has shown that gamma-tocotrienol, a cofactor found in natural vitamin E preparations, actually kills prostate cancer stem cells. (4) As you would expect, these are the very cells from which prostate cancer develops. They are or quickly become chemotherapy-resistant. And yet natural vitamin E complex contains the very thing to kill them. Mice given gamma-tocotrienol orally had an astonishing 75% decrease in tumor formation. Gamma-tocotrienol also is effective against existing prostate tumors. (5,6)
Additionally:
  • Vitamin E reduces mortality by 24% in persons 71 or older. Even persons who smoke live longer if they take vitamin E. Hemila H, Kaprio J. Age Ageing, 2011. 40(2): 215-220. January 17. http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/2/215.short
  • Taking 300 IU vitamin E per day reduces lung cancer by 61%. (Mahabir S, Schendel K, Dong YQ et al. Dietary alpha-, beta-, gamma- and delta-tocopherols in lung cancer risk. Int J Cancer. 2008 Sep 1;123(5):1173-80.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18546288 For further information: Vitamin E prevents lung cancer. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Oct 29, 2008. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n18.shtml
  • Vitamin E is an effective treatment for atherosclerosis. Drs. Wilfrid and Evan Shute knew this half a century ago. (1) In 1995, JAMA published research that confirmed it, saying: "Subjects with supplementary vitamin E intake of 100 IU per day or greater demonstrated less coronary artery lesion progression than did subjects with supplementary vitamin E intake less than 100 IU per day." (Hodis HN, Mack WJ, LaBree L et al. Serial coronary angiographic evidence that antioxidant vitamin intake reduces progression of coronary artery atherosclerosis. JAMA, 1995. 273:1849-1854.) http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/273/23/1849.short
  • 400 to 800 IU of vitamin E daily reduces risk of heart attack by 77%. (Stephens NG et al. Randomized controlled trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary artery disease: Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). Lancet, March 23, 1996; 347:781-786.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8622332
  • Increasing vitamin E with supplements prevents COPD [Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis] (Agler AH et al. Randomized vitamin E supplementation and risk of chronic lung disease (CLD) in the Women's Health Study. American Thoracic Society 2010 International Conference, May 18, 2010.) Summary at http://www.thoracic.org/newsroom/press-releases/conference/articles/2010/vitamine-e.pdf
  • 800 IU vitamin E per day is a successful treatment for fatty liver disease. (Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 6;362(18):1675-85.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427778
  • Alzheimer's patients who take 2,000 IU of vitamin E per day live longer. (Pavlik VN, Doody RS, Rountree SD, Darby EJ. Vitamin E use is associated with improved survival in an Alzheimer's disease cohort. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2009;28(6):536-40.) Summary at http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/719537/alzheimers_patients_who_take_vitamin.html?cat=5
    See also: Grundman M. Vitamin E and Alzheimer disease: the basis for additional clinical trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Feb;71(2):630S-636S. Free access to full text at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/2/630s )
  • 400 IU of Vitamin E per day reduces epileptic seizures in children by more than 60%. (Ogunmekan AO, Hwang PA. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of D-alpha-tocopheryl acetate [vitamin E], as add-on therapy, for epilepsy in children. Epilepsia. 1989 Jan-Feb; 30(1):84-9.) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2643513
  • Vitamin E supplements help prevent amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This important finding is the result of a 10-year-plus Harvard study of over a million persons. (Wang H, O'Reilly EJ, Weisskopf MG, et al. Vitamin E intake and risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a pooled analysis of data from 5 prospective cohort studies. Am. J. Epidemiol, 2011. 173 (6): 595-602. March 15) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/173/6/595.short
  • Vitamin E is more effective than a prescription drug in treating chronic liver disease (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis). Said the authors: "The good news is that this study showed that cheap and readily available vitamin E can help many of those with this condition." Sanyal AJ, Chalasani N, Kowdley KV et al. Pioglitazone, vitamin E, or placebo for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 6;362(18):1675-85. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0907929

What Kind of Vitamin E?

Which work best: natural or synthetic vitamins? The general debate might not end anytime soon. However, with vitamin E, we already know. The best E is the most natural form, generally called "mixed natural tocopherols and tocotrienols." This is very different from the synthetic form, DL-alpha tocopherol. In choosing a vitamin E supplement, you should carefully read the label... the entire label. It is remarkable how many natural-looking brown bottles with natural-sounding brand names contain a synthetic vitamin. And no, we do not make brand recommendations. Furthermore, OMNS has no commercial affiliations or funding.
Unfortunately, that's not the case with some authors of the negative vitamin E paper. (3) You will not see this in the abstract at the JAMA website, of course, but if you read the entire paper, and get to the very last page (1556), you'll find the "Conflict of Interest" section. Here you will discover that a number of the study authors have received money from pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Amgen, Firmagon, and Novartis. In terms of cash, these are some of the largest corporations on the planet.
Well how about that: a "vitamins are dangerous" article, in one of the most popular medical journals, with lots of media hype . . . and the pharmaceutical industry's fingerprints all over it.

So How Much Vitamin E?

More than the RDA, and that's for certain. A common dosage range for vitamin E is between 200 and 800 IU/day. Some orthomolecular physicians advocate substantially more than that. The studies cited above will give you a ballpark idea. However, this is an individual matter for you and your practitioner to work out. Your own reading and research, before you go to your doctor, will help you determine optimal intake. If your doctor quotes a negative vitamin study, then haul out the positive ones. You may start with this article. There are more links to more information at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml and http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n25.shtml

Safety

And as for the old saw argument that supplement-users are supposedly dying like flies, consider this: Over 200 million Americans take vitamin supplements. So where are the bodies? Well, there aren't any. There has not been a single death from vitamins in 27 years. http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n05.shtml . Share that with your doctor as well. And with the news media.



Selections from Natural Health News about vit E

Natural Health News: VITAMINS HAVE NEVER KILLED ANYONE
Oct 11, 2011
16 hours ago
The most commonly used supplements were calcium, multivitamins, vitamin C, and vitamin E. Through 2008, 40.2% of the women died. After adjustment for demographics, dietary and lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and use of ...

Natural Health News: Better to Use Vitamin E My Dear
Aug 16, 2010
I think it would be a great service to patients with pain, FMS, and neuropathy if SIM started a study to show you just how effective natural vitamin E can be to prevent and reverse neuropathy. ...
Natural Health News: Vitamin E Critical for Your Health
Jan 23, 2008
Over the past several years there have been numerous reports trying to convince you that vitamin E is bad for health. One public television station even aired a program with panelist from a local Spokane WA area hospital ...
Natural Health News: Chemo Recipients Benefit from Vitamin E
Jun 08, 2010
Participants were randomly assigned to receive vitamin E supplementation (alpha-tocopherol 400 mg/day) or placebo. Treatment was started orally before chemotherapy and continued for 3 months after the suspension of ...


Selenium -

Natural Health News: The Mistake in Maligning Minerals
May 11, 2011
Most of the selenium in the body comes from the diet. The amount of selenium in food depends on where it is grown or raised. Crab, liver, fish, poultry, and wheat are generally good selenium sources. ...
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Natural Health News: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
Dec 05, 2008
All they would have to do is to read the reports on E, C, Selenium and the Jupiter Study on Natural Health News. It's a simple thing to use our search function, and real data. You can even link to our reading site with ...
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/
A Different Approach Needed for AIDS
Dec 01, 2008
KHA reported some years ago about manganese and selenium, thymus support to raise cell counts and other more natural things that have helped many people. They also encourage a whole food and organic food plan. ...
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/
Purposeful Confusion?
Jun 19, 2009
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lost its bid to overturn a health claim for selenium-containing dietary supplements last Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. District Court Judge Ellen ...
Share:
Read More