Re: Vitamin E Public Enemy #1?/Natural or Synthetic?

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Natural vs. synthetic - all the difference in the world - particularly

in Vitamin E. These latest Vit. E studies used synthetic - duh - can

anyone figure out why they might have done this? Also they used higher

than recommended safe dosage. Health food stores that I frequent have

had the 'full-spectrum' E supplements for quite some time. Though you

won't probably find them in Wal-Mart or your local pharmacy. You'll

probably find the cheaper, synthetic form, or at best the d-alpha

tocopherol, which unfortunatly is probably what most who remain

uninformed are taking. Anyway - thought this might shed a bit more light.

Cheers!

Genesa

http://search./search?fr=FP-pull-web-t & p=vitamin+E+studies+synthetic+na\

tural

This explains better and more quickly than I could:

http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?articleid=10957 & zoneid=2

Dear ALL

I am writing this in response to an article published this week in the

ls of Internal Medicine. Researchers at s Hopkins examined 19

different vitamin E studies between 1966 and 2004 to a meta-analysis.

The total number of subjects (age 47 - 84 years old) in these 19

studies was 135,967. The dosages of vitamin E ranged from 16.5 to 2000

IU per day. The meta-analysis suggests that too much of vitamin E

(400IU or more per day) increases the risk of all-cause mortality.

Meta-analyses are often highly speculative because of the different

variables in each of the studies such as source of vitamin E (natural

or synthetic), study duration, health/disease condition of subjects,

etc. Hence, they by no means definitive proof of anything, due to the

lack of uniform protocols and patient groups

Perhaps - on the other hand, it goes to show that a single nutrient

vitamin E (ie : alpha-tocopherol - synthetic or natural) is not

panacea. It is against conventional wisdom to take mega-doses of one

nutrient without considering the potential side effects. As a matter

of fact, we have seen this before - in 1996 with the beta-carotene

debacle (The ATBC and CARET studies). These two studies provide

evidence that taking beta-carotene alone rather than a

multi-carotenoids (beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, gamma-carotene,

lycopene, lutein - as produce in nature), may increase the cancer

risks among smokers. This may be because all these carotenoids work

synergistically as a team - recharging and supporting each other to

confer the health benefits.

Similarly, high dosage of alpha-tocopherol alone has been shown to

deplete the body's gamma-tocopherol. Despite alpha tocopherol's action

as an antioxidant, gamma tocoherol is required to effectively remove

the harmful peroxynitrite-derived nitrating species. Because large

doses of dietary alpha tocopherol displace gamma tocopherol in plasma

and other tissues, the current wisdom of vitamin E supplementation

with primarily alpha tocopherol should be reconsidered. Other forms of

vitamin E - gamma-tocopherol, delta-tocopherol and certainly

tocotrienols have been proven to have unique health properties.

Taking a single form of vitamin E (ie : alpha-tocopherol alone) denies

the very fact that nature put seven (7) different forms on tocopherols

and tocotrienols out there for a reason.

We should be taking the wholesome full spectrum vitamin E : d mixed

tocopherols + d-mixed tocotrienols (E COMPLETE) - as what is produce

and found in nature. Mimicking nature is the best way for

supplementation. Like the carotenoids, all these different forms of

vitamin E work synergistically and depends on each other for optimum

functionality.

Natural phytonutrients just don't work well in isolation from each

other. I sincerely believe (from scientific evidence) that most people

would benefit from taking a full spectrum Vitamin E supplement that

consists of d-mixed tocopherols + d-mixed tocotrienols. And it would

be safer than just the alpha-tocopherol alone.

Thank you

Yours truly,

WH Leong

Vice President

Carotech Inc

TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION

by CAROTECH INC, Edison, NJ

(In Response to the latest Scientific Review on Vitamin E, published

in the Archives of Internal Medicine)

Alpha Tocopherol Does Not Reduce Heart Disease Risk. What is the

alternative?

Taking vitamin E supplements is of no use in the battle against heart

disease !! A new review of research on vitamin E (published this week

in the Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1552-1556) in the treatment and

prevention of heart disease shows vitamin E had no significant effect

in reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or heart-related death.

In this study, researchers reviewed seven large clinical trials

involving more than 100,000 people on the effectiveness of vitamin E

therapy in preventing or treating heart disease. Researchers found six

out of seven studies showed no significant effect of vitamin E on

heart disease. Overall, the studies showed that vitamin E had no

effect on reducing the risk of nonfatal heart attack, stroke, or

heart-related death. The vitamin E used in these seven studies was in

the form of alpha-tocopherol - a single form.

Numerous objections were raised against these trials – most notably

the doses used – but the real problem could have been that

alpha-tocopherol does not in itself provide the right vitamin E

activity and protection for the heart. These studies were carried out

with regular commercial vitamin E supplements (ie - alpha-tocopherol

alone) that did not contain the other forms of vitamin E such as

tocotrienols, which could explain some of the inconsistent results in

these controlled studies.

Perhaps, it is time for us to look beyond alpha-tocopherol - the form

of vitamin E that was used in these seven clinical studies. Tocopherol

is not the only form of vitamin E that occurs in nature.

Vitamin E research has progressed to the point where scientists have

identified different forms of vitamin E (ie : tocotrienols) that

confer better protection against the various types of free radical

damage as well as having additional unique properties in reducing the

risk of cardiovascular disease. Now scientists believe that

tocotrienols as a more potent form of Vitamin E should be part of a

long-term nutritional or supplement program.

The term vitamin E is now considered to be the generic name describing

both the tocopherols and tocotrienols. However, tocopherols and

tocotrienols are distinguished by their side chain. While tocopherol

has a saturated phytyl tail, tocotrienol possesses an unsaturated

isoprenoid side chain. Tocopherols are generally present in common

vegetable oils (i.e. soy, canola, wheat germ, sunflower), whereas

tocotrienols, on the other hand, are concentrated in cereal grains

(i.e. oat, barley, and rye, rice bran), with the richest source found

in fruits of palm.

Tocotrienols has been touted as " the new kids on the block " . Numerous

peer-reviewed studies have shown that tocotrienol complex extracted

from palm fruits has unique biological properties that are not

associated with tocopherols. Besides being a more potent antioxidant

(40-60 times more potent than alpha-tocopherol), palm tocotrienol

complex has been proven to reduce total serum cholesterol in human by

inhibiting the production of LDL-cholesterol in the liver. A human

clinical study at the Jordan Heart Foundation, New Jersey and

Elmhurst Medical Center, New York showed that palm tocotrienol complex

has the ability to reverse arterial blockage in Carotid Stenosis

patients within 6 months of supplementation.

> Hi All,

>

> It seems that much excitement has been seemingly created by a Brief

Communication

> that much vitamin E is taken.

>

> See the pdf-available below comments and article in Ann Intern Med.

>

> Ann Intern Med Table of Contents for 19 July 2005; Vol. 143, No. 2

>

> SUMMARIES FOR PATIENTS

> High Vitamin E Intake among U.S. Adults

> 19 July 2005 | Volume 143 Issue 2 | Page I-39

>

[Guest guest]

>>Health food stores that I frequent have had the 'full-spectrum' E

supplements for quite some time. Though you won't probably find them in

Wal-Mart or your local pharmacy.'

Unfortunatley, this isnt a true statement. This is the " myth " of the

supplement industry. Over the last 10 years or so, many independent

research and analysis of supplements from both the health food stores

and the local walgreens or walmarts have found the opposite to be true.

Many longterm supplment companies (Solgar, twinlab, etc) have failed the

tests for purity, accuracy, ingredients, contaminants, etc, while many

generic brands (walgreens, CVS, Costco) in these other stores have

passed.

A recent analysis of 15 Vit E Supplements found 4 of them failed their

tests. One was Pure Encapsulations (a supposed high quality

independent lab verified company) which claimed to use natural vit e but

they used synthetic (duh) , while a walgreens product and 2 CVS products

all passed.

In regard to the various forms of supplments, while this sounds good in

theory, there is no evidence so far to bear this out, either in regard

to Vit E, or any of the earlier supplements (Like Vit A, Beta Carotene)

where this was thought to be the problem.

However, considering that the available info on vit E or any

vitamin/nutrient, is very limited, in regard to the forms, interactions,

etc etc, and since that means the only one place we can truly count on

getting any nutrient with all its forms, etc, in the right balance, is

whole foods (and not whole foods supplements as some other sham

companies want us to believe), than the only true logical conclusion to

the argument of the various forms is not to supplement or be ripped off

by the health food industry scams, or to be a gunia pig while they try

to figure all this out, but to eat more fruits and veggies.

Maybe Mom was right!

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>Yours truly, WH Leong Vice President Carotech Inc

I don't think this " group " excepts a " letter " from the president of a

supplement company that makes it living selling vit e supplements and

products as a rebutable reliable or fair source of information on the

Vit E discussion. I hope you don't either.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff - actually this statement was based on my own research and

label reading (which I've been doing since the late 70's). I know that

I would never buy Solgar OR especially Twinlab, because I don't trust

their authenticity. Yes it does take a LOT to figure out what's

right/what's not - what's good/what's not, what scientific study is

right or not when you can find another that looks just as good that

contradicts one that was just done that you thought was the be all/end

all, in info you were searching for. I don't take a lot of supplements

(including Vit E) and certainly agree with your last statement about

the fruits & veggies!

The reason I made the remark about buying vites in pharmacies etc., is

because I'd bought a few there myself ramdomly and infrequently that

had very scary ingredients for fillers. For instance some Vitamin C &

another prod. I can't remember, which had 'talc' as a filler. I think

it's great if better products are now available in those places.

Yes there are many others HF companies I would not buy from also, BTW

- I should say there are very few I would buy from. However I don't

believe that the whole HF industry is a scam. There are a FEW good

people out there! c'mon now! <smile>

Cheers!

Genesa

> to figure all this out, but to eat more fruits and veggies.

>

> Maybe Mom was right!

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi - no of course I knew this - but, silly me, I posted it anyway!

> >>Yours truly, WH Leong Vice President Carotech Inc

>

> I don't think this " group " excepts a " letter " from the president of a

> supplement company that makes it living selling vit e supplements and

> products as a rebutable reliable or fair source of information on the

> Vit E discussion. I hope you don't either.

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

>> I should say there are very few I would buy from. However I don't

believe that the whole HF industry is a scam. There are a FEW good

people out there! c'mon now! <smile>

I agree. My point was that the bad and the good exist in both

industries and its not one or the other. Its about being an intelligent

consumer and not buying into the myths of anyone industry.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

My only comment about vit E is that it's been around since I was 20 at least, and all those people I worked with are probably dead. They'd be maybe 85yo.

If there were a significant number alive, they'd be shouting it.

Wonder how much the paleos got?(ha)

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: truthseeker741

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:41 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Vitamin E Public Enemy #1?/Natural or Synthetic?

Hi - no of course I knew this - but, silly me, I posted it anyway! > >>Yours truly, WH Leong Vice President Carotech Inc> > I don't think this "group" excepts a "letter" from the president of a> supplement company that makes it living selling vit e supplements and> products as a rebutable reliable or fair source of information on the> Vit E discussion. I hope you don't either. > > Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

On the positive side wrt vitamin E, there was a fairly extensive

discussion of it here between posts 16663 and 16901. They can be

found by searching here using the word 'sesame'.

Also there are supposed to be 398 references to serious studies

relating to vitamin E here:

http://search.lef.org/src-cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?

grab_id=23 & EXTRA_ARG=GRAB_ID%3D68%00%26EXTRA_ARG%3D%00%26HOST_ID%3D42%

00%26PAGE_ID%3D12323584%00%26HIWORD%3Dsesame%2B & CFGNAME=MssFind%

2Ecfg & host_id=42 & page_id=8066816 & query=sesame+lignans & hiword=lignans+s

esame+

http://snipurl.com/geni

I will likely continue eating my sesame seeds even if I stop taking

the synthetic E.

Rodney.

--- In , " truthseeker741 " <genesa@n...>

wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> Natural vs. synthetic - all the difference in the world -

particularly

> in Vitamin E. These latest Vit. E studies used synthetic - duh - can

> anyone figure out why they might have done this? Also they used

higher

> than recommended safe dosage. Health food stores that I frequent

have

> had the 'full-spectrum' E supplements for quite some time. Though

you

> won't probably find them in Wal-Mart or your local pharmacy. You'll

> probably find the cheaper, synthetic form, or at best the d-alpha

> tocopherol, which unfortunatly is probably what most who remain

> uninformed are taking. Anyway - thought this might shed a bit more

light.

> Cheers!

> Genesa

>

>

> http://search./search?fr=FP-pull-web-

t & p=vitamin+E+studies+synthetic+natural

>

> This explains better and more quickly than I could:

> http://www.npicenter.com/anm/templates/newsATemp.aspx?

articleid=10957 & zoneid=2

>

> Dear ALL

>

> I am writing this in response to an article published this week in

the

> ls of Internal Medicine. Researchers at s Hopkins examined

19

> different vitamin E studies between 1966 and 2004 to a meta-

analysis.

> The total number of subjects (age 47 - 84 years old) in these 19

> studies was 135,967. The dosages of vitamin E ranged from 16.5 to

2000

> IU per day. The meta-analysis suggests that too much of vitamin E

> (400IU or more per day) increases the risk of all-cause mortality.

>

> Meta-analyses are often highly speculative because of the different

> variables in each of the studies such as source of vitamin E

(natural

> or synthetic), study duration, health/disease condition of subjects,

> etc. Hence, they by no means definitive proof of anything, due to

the

> lack of uniform protocols and patient groups

>

> Perhaps - on the other hand, it goes to show that a single nutrient

> vitamin E (ie : alpha-tocopherol - synthetic or natural) is not

> panacea. It is against conventional wisdom to take mega-doses of one

> nutrient without considering the potential side effects. As a matter

> of fact, we have seen this before - in 1996 with the beta-carotene

> debacle (The ATBC and CARET studies). These two studies provide

> evidence that taking beta-carotene alone rather than a

> multi-carotenoids (beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, gamma-carotene,

> lycopene, lutein - as produce in nature), may increase the cancer

> risks among smokers. This may be because all these carotenoids work

> synergistically as a team - recharging and supporting each other to

> confer the health benefits.

>

> Similarly, high dosage of alpha-tocopherol alone has been shown to

> deplete the body's gamma-tocopherol. Despite alpha tocopherol's

action

> as an antioxidant, gamma tocoherol is required to effectively remove

> the harmful peroxynitrite-derived nitrating species. Because large

> doses of dietary alpha tocopherol displace gamma tocopherol in

plasma

> and other tissues, the current wisdom of vitamin E supplementation

> with primarily alpha tocopherol should be reconsidered. Other forms

of

> vitamin E - gamma-tocopherol, delta-tocopherol and certainly

> tocotrienols have been proven to have unique health properties.

>

> Taking a single form of vitamin E (ie : alpha-tocopherol alone)

denies

> the very fact that nature put seven (7) different forms on

tocopherols

> and tocotrienols out there for a reason.

>

> We should be taking the wholesome full spectrum vitamin E : d mixed

> tocopherols + d-mixed tocotrienols (E COMPLETE) - as what is produce

> and found in nature. Mimicking nature is the best way for

> supplementation. Like the carotenoids, all these different forms of

> vitamin E work synergistically and depends on each other for optimum

> functionality.

>

> Natural phytonutrients just don't work well in isolation from each

> other. I sincerely believe (from scientific evidence) that most

people

> would benefit from taking a full spectrum Vitamin E supplement that

> consists of d-mixed tocopherols + d-mixed tocotrienols. And it would

> be safer than just the alpha-tocopherol alone.

>

> Thank you

>

> Yours truly,

> WH Leong

> Vice President

> Carotech Inc

>

>

> TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION

>

> by CAROTECH INC, Edison, NJ

>

> (In Response to the latest Scientific Review on Vitamin E, published

> in the Archives of Internal Medicine)

>

>

>

> Alpha Tocopherol Does Not Reduce Heart Disease Risk. What is the

> alternative?

>

> Taking vitamin E supplements is of no use in the battle against

heart

> disease !! A new review of research on vitamin E (published this

week

> in the Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1552-1556) in the treatment and

> prevention of heart disease shows vitamin E had no significant

effect

> in reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or heart-related

death.

>

> In this study, researchers reviewed seven large clinical trials

> involving more than 100,000 people on the effectiveness of vitamin E

> therapy in preventing or treating heart disease. Researchers found

six

> out of seven studies showed no significant effect of vitamin E on

> heart disease. Overall, the studies showed that vitamin E had no

> effect on reducing the risk of nonfatal heart attack, stroke, or

> heart-related death. The vitamin E used in these seven studies was

in

> the form of alpha-tocopherol - a single form.

>

> Numerous objections were raised against these trials – most notably

> the doses used – but the real problem could have been that

> alpha-tocopherol does not in itself provide the right vitamin E

> activity and protection for the heart. These studies were carried

out

> with regular commercial vitamin E supplements (ie - alpha-tocopherol

> alone) that did not contain the other forms of vitamin E such as

> tocotrienols, which could explain some of the inconsistent results

in

> these controlled studies.

>

> Perhaps, it is time for us to look beyond alpha-tocopherol - the

form

> of vitamin E that was used in these seven clinical studies.

Tocopherol

> is not the only form of vitamin E that occurs in nature.

>

> Vitamin E research has progressed to the point where scientists have

> identified different forms of vitamin E (ie : tocotrienols) that

> confer better protection against the various types of free radical

> damage as well as having additional unique properties in reducing

the

> risk of cardiovascular disease. Now scientists believe that

> tocotrienols as a more potent form of Vitamin E should be part of a

> long-term nutritional or supplement program.

>

> The term vitamin E is now considered to be the generic name

describing

> both the tocopherols and tocotrienols. However, tocopherols and

> tocotrienols are distinguished by their side chain. While tocopherol

> has a saturated phytyl tail, tocotrienol possesses an unsaturated

> isoprenoid side chain. Tocopherols are generally present in common

> vegetable oils (i.e. soy, canola, wheat germ, sunflower), whereas

> tocotrienols, on the other hand, are concentrated in cereal grains

> (i.e. oat, barley, and rye, rice bran), with the richest source

found

> in fruits of palm.

>

> Tocotrienols has been touted as " the new kids on the block " .

Numerous

> peer-reviewed studies have shown that tocotrienol complex extracted

> from palm fruits has unique biological properties that are not

> associated with tocopherols. Besides being a more potent antioxidant

> (40-60 times more potent than alpha-tocopherol), palm tocotrienol

> complex has been proven to reduce total serum cholesterol in human

by

> inhibiting the production of LDL-cholesterol in the liver. A human

> clinical study at the Jordan Heart Foundation, New Jersey

and

> Elmhurst Medical Center, New York showed that palm tocotrienol

complex

> has the ability to reverse arterial blockage in Carotid Stenosis

> patients within 6 months of supplementation.

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In , Al Pater <old542000@y...>

wrote:

> > Hi All,

> >

> > It seems that much excitement has been seemingly created by a

Brief

> Communication

> > that much vitamin E is taken.

> >

> > See the pdf-available below comments and article in Ann Intern

Med.

> >

> > Ann Intern Med Table of Contents for 19 July 2005; Vol. 143, No.

2

> >

> > SUMMARIES FOR PATIENTS

> > High Vitamin E Intake among U.S. Adults

> > 19 July 2005 | Volume 143 Issue 2 | Page I-39

> >