The ads for cholesterol-lowering statin drugs – Lipitor, Crestor, Vytorin, and others – feel like a feeding frenzy. Their makers have turned a symptom -- elevated cholesterol -- into a disease that must be treated with urgency. It has paid off royally – Lipitor sales alone are now over $12 billion a year. The problem is that the "cure" is often worse than the "disease."
An article in the journal BioFactors (2005;25:147-152) described 50 cardiology patients who were plagued with a variety of symptoms, including statin-induced cardiomyopathy, a disease of the heart muscle that has nothing to do with cholesterol. Other common symptoms included fatigue, muscle pain, breathing difficulties, memory problems, and nerve disorders.
Statin drugs inhibit an enzyme involved in synthesizing cholesterol, but the same enzyme is also needed to make coenzyme Q10, a vitamin-like substance that was the basis of the 1978 Nobel prize in chemistry. CoQ10 is essential for life,r normal muscle function, and energy production in the body.
The 50 patients were treated with CoQ10, the dose averaging 240 mg daily, for almost two years. The prevalence of muscle pain among these patients decreased from 64 to 6 percent between their first and latest medical exam. Fatigue decreased from 84 to 16 percent, breathing difficulties from 58 to 12 percent, memory problems from 8 to 4 percent, and nerve problems from 10 to 2 percent. CoQ10 also improved heart function and reduced “statin cardiomyopathy” in half of the patients.
The pharmaceutical industry is well aware of the dangers posed by statins -- and the health benefits of CoQ10. Merck, the maker of the statin drug Zocor, owns two use patents (#4,933,165 and 4,929,437) that combine CoQ10 with statins to prevent and reverse statin-induced cardiomyopthy. To knowingly hurt patients and withhold treatment is nothing less than unethical.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Why Nutrition Should Come Before Any Other Therapy
We all have our biases, and mine tilt me toward the use of nutritional therapies above all others.
I don't discount the others – I just don't see herbs, homeopathy, acupuncture, drugs, or other therapies having the same fundamental importance as nutrition.
Why do I feel so strongly about nutrition? It's simple, really. Nutrients provide the building blocks of our biochemistry. Even our genes require nutrients for synthesis, repair, and regulation. All of the proteins, enzymes, tissues, and other substances that make up our body originate with nutrients.
I believe that most of what goes wrong in our bodies is related to inadequate or unbalanced nutrients interacting with our genes and stresses.
How can you determine your nutritional status? The most accurate way is through blood testing of nutrient levels. When it comes to dealing with chronic diseases, it only makes sense to identify nutritional deficiencies and imbalances before proceeding with any kind of therapy. Changes in diet and supplements usually can lead to quick improvements.
Unfortunately, as you well know, modern medicine and health care may little attention to nutrition.
While herbs are far better and safer than drugs, I think it is prudent to first identify and correct dietary problems, especially in chronic diseases. Herbs are rich in antioxidants, but they also contain substances that seem to work through pharmacological means. In other words, their constituents may not always be a normal part of our biochemistry.
I feel the same way about homeopathy. The theory behind homeopathy – that smaller and often undetectable amounts of substances have stronger therapeutic effects – often dumbfounds people. However, molecular biology has taught us that extremely small amounts of substances can have profound effects. Just consider that all the growth hormone in your body would fill no more than 1/40,000th of a teaspoon. Again, I believe that nutrition should come first. While homeopathy might sometimes cure, it does not nourish the body.
After nutrition, I believe that stress reduction and physical activity are paramount. Stress triggers changes that increase our nutritional and biochemical requirements to restore homeostasis. Physical activity increases biochemical activities, so nutrients are put to better use. Again, there's no way to escape the fundamental importance of nutrition.
Read more about nutrition at www.nutritionreporter.com.
I don't discount the others – I just don't see herbs, homeopathy, acupuncture, drugs, or other therapies having the same fundamental importance as nutrition.
Why do I feel so strongly about nutrition? It's simple, really. Nutrients provide the building blocks of our biochemistry. Even our genes require nutrients for synthesis, repair, and regulation. All of the proteins, enzymes, tissues, and other substances that make up our body originate with nutrients.
I believe that most of what goes wrong in our bodies is related to inadequate or unbalanced nutrients interacting with our genes and stresses.
How can you determine your nutritional status? The most accurate way is through blood testing of nutrient levels. When it comes to dealing with chronic diseases, it only makes sense to identify nutritional deficiencies and imbalances before proceeding with any kind of therapy. Changes in diet and supplements usually can lead to quick improvements.
Unfortunately, as you well know, modern medicine and health care may little attention to nutrition.
While herbs are far better and safer than drugs, I think it is prudent to first identify and correct dietary problems, especially in chronic diseases. Herbs are rich in antioxidants, but they also contain substances that seem to work through pharmacological means. In other words, their constituents may not always be a normal part of our biochemistry.
I feel the same way about homeopathy. The theory behind homeopathy – that smaller and often undetectable amounts of substances have stronger therapeutic effects – often dumbfounds people. However, molecular biology has taught us that extremely small amounts of substances can have profound effects. Just consider that all the growth hormone in your body would fill no more than 1/40,000th of a teaspoon. Again, I believe that nutrition should come first. While homeopathy might sometimes cure, it does not nourish the body.
After nutrition, I believe that stress reduction and physical activity are paramount. Stress triggers changes that increase our nutritional and biochemical requirements to restore homeostasis. Physical activity increases biochemical activities, so nutrients are put to better use. Again, there's no way to escape the fundamental importance of nutrition.
Read more about nutrition at www.nutritionreporter.com.
Herb-Drug Combo Dangers...Or Medical Scare Tactics
I’ve just read, for the umpteenth time, another article on the supposed “dangers” of herb-drug interactions. This one, published in one of the largest-circulation health newsletters in the United States, was titled “How to Avoid Dangerous Herb-Drug Interactions,” with the subtitle of “Harmful Effects Can Occur When Taking Popular Supplements with Commonly Used Medications.”
You'd think that people are dropping like flies. That's just not the case.
Let’s put all this in perspective. Are there potential risks from mixing herbs with prescription drugs? Yes, there are. But there are far greater risks from prescription drugs alone and from taking two or more drugs, a very common situation.
An estimated 106,000 people die each year from medications prescribed in hospitals—where you would think the most rigorous controls would be in place. More than 2 million other hospitalized Americans experience serious reactions to prescription medications. God only knows how many people outside of hospitals have serious side effects or die from their medications.
How many people died last year from taking herb or vitamin supplements? Hmmm...let me see now...wow...not a single person.
Articles on the dangers of herb-drug interactions overplay relatively rare problems. This particular article emphasized problems combining chile pepper extract, ginger, and green tea with drugs. Unknowingly, the author was attacking foods that are major components of many ethnic diets.
Many doctors would like to control all of the variables in a person’s life to reduce the risk of negative interactions. But it’s an impossible task. Go into almost any Mexican restaurant and you'll find meals with chile. Ditto for Asian restaurants and ginger and green tea.
Then there are the variables related to genetics, stress, nutritional deficiencies, and a host of other factors affecting what herbs or drugs do in our bodies.
Trying to control all these variables is an impossible task. Frightening people about rare problems with useful herbs (as condiments or traditional remedies) doesn’t do a lot of good. The real solution, if physicians are willing, is two-fold: one, recognize the dangers that drugs pose by themselves and prescribe them only as a last resort; and, two, to evaluate patients as individuals in the overall context of their diets, meds, and lifestyles.
As always, you can read more about nutrition and health at my main web site, www.nutritionreporter.com.
You'd think that people are dropping like flies. That's just not the case.
Let’s put all this in perspective. Are there potential risks from mixing herbs with prescription drugs? Yes, there are. But there are far greater risks from prescription drugs alone and from taking two or more drugs, a very common situation.
An estimated 106,000 people die each year from medications prescribed in hospitals—where you would think the most rigorous controls would be in place. More than 2 million other hospitalized Americans experience serious reactions to prescription medications. God only knows how many people outside of hospitals have serious side effects or die from their medications.
How many people died last year from taking herb or vitamin supplements? Hmmm...let me see now...wow...not a single person.
Articles on the dangers of herb-drug interactions overplay relatively rare problems. This particular article emphasized problems combining chile pepper extract, ginger, and green tea with drugs. Unknowingly, the author was attacking foods that are major components of many ethnic diets.
Many doctors would like to control all of the variables in a person’s life to reduce the risk of negative interactions. But it’s an impossible task. Go into almost any Mexican restaurant and you'll find meals with chile. Ditto for Asian restaurants and ginger and green tea.
Then there are the variables related to genetics, stress, nutritional deficiencies, and a host of other factors affecting what herbs or drugs do in our bodies.
Trying to control all these variables is an impossible task. Frightening people about rare problems with useful herbs (as condiments or traditional remedies) doesn’t do a lot of good. The real solution, if physicians are willing, is two-fold: one, recognize the dangers that drugs pose by themselves and prescribe them only as a last resort; and, two, to evaluate patients as individuals in the overall context of their diets, meds, and lifestyles.
As always, you can read more about nutrition and health at my main web site, www.nutritionreporter.com.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Vitamin D - More Better than Less
Until the past several years, doctors and dietitians were usually scared off by the thought of vitamin D supplementation. Evidence that’s now recognized as terribly archaic suggested that supplemental vitamin D could be toxic in amounts modestly above official “recommended” levels.
What has changed? Vitamin D is needed for both strong bones and strong skeletal muscles, which hold up those bones. A huge body of research has found that a minimum of 800 IU of vitamin D daily is required to reduce the risk of falls and fractures among the elderly. The latest research indicates that adequate vitamin D levels can reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other diseases.
Some dosage recommendations go far higher, and even the ever-cautious researchers at Harvard University are now suggesting higher dosages. In a interview, Harvard‘s Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH, told me that many people could benefit from supplements containing 2,000 to 5,000 IU of vitamin D daily.
Still other researchers, such as Reinhold Vieth, PhD, of the University of Toronto, recommend upwards of 10,000 IU daily. Simply spending 15 minutes in the summer sun, in walking shorts and a tee shirt, enables your body to make 10,000 IU. Contrast these numbers with the meager Reference Daily Intake (RDI) of 200 to 500 IU. Food sources of vitamin D are limited, and it‘s common for people to develop marginal vitamin D levels or outright deficiencies during the winter months when they are exposed to little sunlight.
Get out a map, and if you live north of Phoenix, Arizona – 35° north – you probably don't get enough winter sun exposure even if you spend lots of time outdoors. That means you should most likely supplement with vitamin D. If you spend most of the year indoors, regardless of your latitude, you may never adequately build up your vitamin D levels, meaning that you will probably benefit from year-round supplementation.
What has changed? Vitamin D is needed for both strong bones and strong skeletal muscles, which hold up those bones. A huge body of research has found that a minimum of 800 IU of vitamin D daily is required to reduce the risk of falls and fractures among the elderly. The latest research indicates that adequate vitamin D levels can reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other diseases.
Some dosage recommendations go far higher, and even the ever-cautious researchers at Harvard University are now suggesting higher dosages. In a interview, Harvard‘s Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH, told me that many people could benefit from supplements containing 2,000 to 5,000 IU of vitamin D daily.
Still other researchers, such as Reinhold Vieth, PhD, of the University of Toronto, recommend upwards of 10,000 IU daily. Simply spending 15 minutes in the summer sun, in walking shorts and a tee shirt, enables your body to make 10,000 IU. Contrast these numbers with the meager Reference Daily Intake (RDI) of 200 to 500 IU. Food sources of vitamin D are limited, and it‘s common for people to develop marginal vitamin D levels or outright deficiencies during the winter months when they are exposed to little sunlight.
Get out a map, and if you live north of Phoenix, Arizona – 35° north – you probably don't get enough winter sun exposure even if you spend lots of time outdoors. That means you should most likely supplement with vitamin D. If you spend most of the year indoors, regardless of your latitude, you may never adequately build up your vitamin D levels, meaning that you will probably benefit from year-round supplementation.
The Risk of Genetically Modified Foods
In a study recently published in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,
researchers re-analyzed data from Monsanto-sponsored experiments in which a type of genetically modified corn (MON863) was fed to laboratory rats for three months. The data had been company confidential until a German court ruled that thepublic could have access to the data for 90 days.
Using this data, French researchers found that consumption of the genetically modified corn led to disturbing changes in the laboratory rats. Male rats lost an average of 3.3 percent of body weight, while female rats gained 3.7 percent weight compared with controls. The animals showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. Blood sugar levels rose, and the animals had a 24 to 40 percent increase in triglyceride levels, which would point to a greater risk of diabetes and heart disease.
The MON863 produces an insecticide that kills the corn roundworm, but like other synthetic pesticides, it appears to have broader deleterious effects. The genetic modification of food tampers with the normal biological evolution of plants in ways that would not likely occur in nature. By consequence, these changes can affect the genetic programming of species that consume them. The specific mechanisms may be subtle and as yet undetermined, but it's clear
that genetically modified foods can have unwanted health consequences.
Our genes are particularly sensitive to toxins and to low levels of nutrients and toxins, with the
consequence being an increased risk of cancer and other diseases, and risk may be passed to offspring.
A single toxin might not have much of an effect on our health. But when you add it to the thousands of other toxic chemicals in our food and environment, we move closer to our individual tipping points – the threshold at which our innate ability to defend ourselves and repair genetic damage falters. We may not be able to control all of the hazards in our foods
and environment, but it is irrational to unnecessarily expose ourselves to any more than we must.
Monsanto has promoted genetically modified foods as a way of increasing crop yields and reducing worldwide hunger. Such statements are more selfserving media spin than altruism. No decrease in world hunger can be attributed to the use of genetically modified foods. Rather, Monsanto and other companies have created a “need” and new agricultural markets for unnecessary and harmful products. We may actually be better off with less than more
corn, one of the most common food allergens.
researchers re-analyzed data from Monsanto-sponsored experiments in which a type of genetically modified corn (MON863) was fed to laboratory rats for three months. The data had been company confidential until a German court ruled that thepublic could have access to the data for 90 days.
Using this data, French researchers found that consumption of the genetically modified corn led to disturbing changes in the laboratory rats. Male rats lost an average of 3.3 percent of body weight, while female rats gained 3.7 percent weight compared with controls. The animals showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity. Blood sugar levels rose, and the animals had a 24 to 40 percent increase in triglyceride levels, which would point to a greater risk of diabetes and heart disease.
The MON863 produces an insecticide that kills the corn roundworm, but like other synthetic pesticides, it appears to have broader deleterious effects. The genetic modification of food tampers with the normal biological evolution of plants in ways that would not likely occur in nature. By consequence, these changes can affect the genetic programming of species that consume them. The specific mechanisms may be subtle and as yet undetermined, but it's clear
that genetically modified foods can have unwanted health consequences.
Our genes are particularly sensitive to toxins and to low levels of nutrients and toxins, with the
consequence being an increased risk of cancer and other diseases, and risk may be passed to offspring.
A single toxin might not have much of an effect on our health. But when you add it to the thousands of other toxic chemicals in our food and environment, we move closer to our individual tipping points – the threshold at which our innate ability to defend ourselves and repair genetic damage falters. We may not be able to control all of the hazards in our foods
and environment, but it is irrational to unnecessarily expose ourselves to any more than we must.
Monsanto has promoted genetically modified foods as a way of increasing crop yields and reducing worldwide hunger. Such statements are more selfserving media spin than altruism. No decrease in world hunger can be attributed to the use of genetically modified foods. Rather, Monsanto and other companies have created a “need” and new agricultural markets for unnecessary and harmful products. We may actually be better off with less than more
corn, one of the most common food allergens.
What Should You Eat?
“Black raspberries may prevent cancer of esophagus.”
“Blueberries may help old folks keep their smarts.”
“Green tea may reduce prostate cancer risk.”
These are a few of the many news headlines I’ve recently read while tracking the latest nutrition research. Any number of foods or their nutritional ingredients are regularly touted as superfoods, functional foods, or nutraceuticals. Unfortunately, such headlines are often misleading.
You’re not going to significantly reduce your risk of disease or achieve optimal health by eating a bowl of black raspberries every day. They’ll certainly taste great and will provide some health benefits, of course. But good health doesn’t result from eating a single food – it comes from healthy eating habits.
In other words, think in terms of the forest, not trees, nutritionally speaking.
Eating a healthy diet isn’t all that mysterious. If you follow two simple rules, you’ll be on the right track most of the time.
First, eat mostly fresh foods instead of processed and packaged foods. Fresh foods look something like they do in nature. For example, a salmon filet looks like part of a fish, which a fish stick does not. As a general rule, fresh foods received less tampering compared with processed foods. Most processed foods have added sugars, refined carbs, sodium, or unhealthy fats – or all of them – adding up to high-calorie nonnutrients.
Second, eat a diverse selection of foods, including quality protein, healthy fats, and a lot of vegetables. A diversity of foods translates into a bounty of nutrients, many of which have not been extensively studied and as a result don’t garner a lot of headlines. For example, a recent study reported that curcumin, the active compound in the spice turmeric, blocked inflammation through 97 distinct mechanisms. That’s just one spice, out of hundreds of options to choose from at your local market.
“Blueberries may help old folks keep their smarts.”
“Green tea may reduce prostate cancer risk.”
These are a few of the many news headlines I’ve recently read while tracking the latest nutrition research. Any number of foods or their nutritional ingredients are regularly touted as superfoods, functional foods, or nutraceuticals. Unfortunately, such headlines are often misleading.
You’re not going to significantly reduce your risk of disease or achieve optimal health by eating a bowl of black raspberries every day. They’ll certainly taste great and will provide some health benefits, of course. But good health doesn’t result from eating a single food – it comes from healthy eating habits.
In other words, think in terms of the forest, not trees, nutritionally speaking.
Eating a healthy diet isn’t all that mysterious. If you follow two simple rules, you’ll be on the right track most of the time.
First, eat mostly fresh foods instead of processed and packaged foods. Fresh foods look something like they do in nature. For example, a salmon filet looks like part of a fish, which a fish stick does not. As a general rule, fresh foods received less tampering compared with processed foods. Most processed foods have added sugars, refined carbs, sodium, or unhealthy fats – or all of them – adding up to high-calorie nonnutrients.
Second, eat a diverse selection of foods, including quality protein, healthy fats, and a lot of vegetables. A diversity of foods translates into a bounty of nutrients, many of which have not been extensively studied and as a result don’t garner a lot of headlines. For example, a recent study reported that curcumin, the active compound in the spice turmeric, blocked inflammation through 97 distinct mechanisms. That’s just one spice, out of hundreds of options to choose from at your local market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
