Re: Supplementation and CRON

[Guest guest]

I now take very few supplements. But I do take D3 and fish oil. Some have been found to actually be harmful rather than helpful or benign.

If you go our home page and search “supplements” you’ll get all past discussions on this subject including the most recent ones first. If you go to the “links” (in the left hand column of the home page, you’ll find resources for supplements.

From: michaeltatzber <michaeltatzber@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:50:16 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Supplementation and CRON

I just finished Walfords book (120 ...) and wanted to know if you guys

are still following the recommendations regarding supplements in terms

of amounts and what kind or did something change over the last 10

years. Does anyone have a list of supplements to take or even products

which you know are of high quality.

Thanks

[Guest guest]

Hi :

'Supplements' is a very thorny, and very unsettled, issue.

As Francesca said, many nutrient supplements, once thought to be

beneficial, have now been shown in large studies to, at best, make no

difference or, at worst, increase cancer incidence.

We all have to make our own decisions about this. FWIW the following

is my current approach (but I am quite sure that ten years from now I

will not be doing the same! As more studies are published I will adapt

accordingly):

1. I have checked, given what I normally eat, what my nutrient

deficiencies are. (IMO CRON-o-meter is an excellent free way to do

this). Then I supplement the deficient nutrients up to the RDAs. FOR

ME this means supplementing calcium and zinc and vitamins D and E. All

I need for vitamin E and zinc is one capsule/tablet a week. For

calcium and vitamin D I supplement daily.

I also take a few other things once a week: an aspirin (for colon

cancer prevention), folic acid, chromium and fish oil.

I take SMALL quantities of all these things, except vitamin D which I

supplement 2000 to 3000 IU per day.

As noted earlier, ten years from now I will not be doing the same as we

will all know a lot more about this than we do now.

Hope this helps provide one perspective of this issue. I would be

interested in hearing the perspectives of others, especially if they

are different from mine.

Rodney.

, " michaeltatzber " <michaeltatzber@...>

wrote:

>

> I just finished Walfords book (120 ...) and wanted to know if you guys

> are still following the recommendations regarding supplements in terms

> of amounts and what kind or did something change over the last 10

> years. Does anyone have a list of supplements to take or even products

> which you know are of high quality.

>

> Thanks

>

[Guest guest]

>'Supplements' is a very thorny, and very unsettled, issue.

>

>As Francesca said, many nutrient supplements, once thought to be

>beneficial, have now been shown in large studies to, at best, make no

>difference or, at worst, increase cancer incidence.

And every now and then there is a study which contradicts everything

we thought we knew, like

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4365/is_/ai_n30955241

which seems to indicate that supplemental Vitamin C reduced hip

fracture risk, but dietary (non-supplemental) Vitamin C did not.

WTF?

Bruce

[Guest guest]

Some comments on the recent posts on Supplements

Tony is correct, as it is looking like Vit D may be an exception.

However, Vit D is not a vitamin but a hormone that we make. Part of the

problems we are seeing is due to the rebound effect of everyones 2-3

decade fear of the sun and the public health recommendations and

admonitions to stay out of the sun and/or cover up and use sunscreen all

the time, and also influence of the obesity epidemic. As weight goes

up, Vitamin D levels in the blood go down. Time will tell with this one

and i will hold judgement for now.

Another rare exception is Folic acid for women of childbearing age to

help prevent neural tube defects in infants. However, again, this is

because many mothers consume folate deficient diets which could easily

be rectified through proper food selection.

Outside of folic acid and the possibility of Vit D, what else is there

that has really proved itself out over time?

In regard to my posts on the Okinawan diet, I found the data that they

were deficient in some nutrients and even showing some signs of

deficiency interesting especially in light of my next comments. It

surely makes you wonder about possible being over concerned about

hitting (or averaging) the RDAs everyday for every nutrient. However, I

would not want to discourage anyone from still trying to optimize the ON

part of CRON but to study and consider the evidence of where these

numbers come from.

In regards to Rodneys comments about the nutrients he found the most

difficult to obtain, many of these could easily be understood when we

read the documents by the FAO/WHO/CDC on how they came up with their

recommendations. As we see, for calcium, our need may be much lower

depending on our intake of salt, Vit D and animal protein along with

some other lifestyle choices that effect calcium metabolism.

In regard to Vit E, the recommendations in USA are set higher because of

our co-recommendations to consume a higher fat diet. One of the main

purposes of Vit E is to stop the oxidation of fats, specifically PUFAs

which make up about 10% of the American diet. So, the recommendation

is set based on a formula based on fat (and PUFA) content. Therefore,

those choosing to follow a lower fat (Lower PUFA) diet may have lower

needs of Vit E. A 10-15% diet may need only half (or less) of the

recommended RDA

In regard to Zinc, their is actually a range of recommendations that is

fairly wide. The recommendation for Zinc for the USA is one of the

highest as one of the criteria is the phytate content of the diet and

the USA diet is very high in phytates. So, if you are consuming a diet

that is lower in phytates then the need for Zinc may be lower.

We see some similar situation with Selenium where the actual need may be

lower then the current recommendation and upon last review, the

recommendation for selenium was lowered from around 70 to the 55 which

it is now. So, everyone was overdoing it all the years they were

shooting for the 70 by . Maybe we will see the 55 lowered also.

When we make our decisions, we have to consider these issues that there

really is no real single " number " that applies for everyone, and when we

see the results in the Okinawan centenarians.

BTW< for anyone who wants to read the current documents of how they come

up with the levels for each vitamin and mineral, you can find it here..

Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements

Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation

Bangkok, Thailand

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

FOOD SND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2002

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2809E/y2809e00.HTM

The NAS papers are also excellent

http://www.nap.edu/topics.php?topic=380

http://www.nap.edu/topics.php?topic=381

Regards

Jeff

Bruce Long wrote:

>

> >'Supplements' is a very thorny, and very unsettled, issue.

> >

> >As Francesca said, many nutrient supplements, once thought to be

> >beneficial, have now been shown in large studies to, at best, make no

> >difference or, at worst, increase cancer incidence.

>

> And every now and then there is a study which contradicts everything

> we thought we knew, like

> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4365/is_/ai_n30955241

> <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4365/is_/ai_n30955241>

> which seems to indicate that supplemental Vitamin C reduced hip

> fracture risk, but dietary (non-supplemental) Vitamin C did not.

>

> WTF?

>

> Bruce

>

>