![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 31. Go back in thread:
Posted by mistermindmasta on November 6, 2004, at 11:11:46
In reply to vitamin E and depression, posted by Larry Hoover on November 5, 2004, at 22:33:19
> Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct 27 [Epub ahead of print]
>
> Low plasma vitamin E levels in major depression: diet or disease?
>
> Owen AJ, Batterham MJ, Probst YC, Grenyer BF, Tapsell LC.
>
> 1Smart Foods Centre, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia.
>
> OBJECTIVE:: Levels of vitamin E have been reported to be lower in patients suffering major depression, but whether this is due to inadequate dietary intake or the pathophysiology of depression is not known, and was the subject of the present study. SETTING:: Wollongong, Australia. METHODS:: Plasma vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) was measured in 49 adults with major depression, age (mean+/-s.d.): 47+/-12 y. In a subset (n=19) usual dietary intake of vitamin E was determined by diet history. RESULTS:: Subjects had significantly lower plasma alpha-tocopherol (4.71+/-0.13 μmol/mmol cholesterol) than has previously been reported for healthy Australians, and plasma alpha-tocopherol was inversely related to depression score (by Beck Depression Inventory) (r=-0.367, P<0.009). Diet analysis indicated that 89% of subjects met or exceeded the recommended intake for vitamin E, and dietary intake was not related to plasma alpha-tocopherol level in this subset. CONCLUSION:: These findings suggest that plasma levels of alpha-tocopherol are lower in depression, but this is not likely to be the result of inability to meet recommended dietary intake. SPONSORSHIP:: This study was supported in part by the Clover Corporation and the Australian Research Council.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 27 October 2004; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602072.
>Might this be because of the poorer diets of people with major depression?? If there a lot of oxidative damage occuring because these patients eat a lot of fried foods (trans fats) and overly processed foods, i would assume that vitamin E levels would drop as a result of being used as an fat antioxidant. That's the only reason I can think of with regard to why they have low levels even after adequate intake. But I'm sure there's many possibilities that I have yet to come across.
The question is, however, might depressed patients benefit from higher than RDA levels of vitamin E? Might the increased levels of E counteract whatever is causing them to be low in the first place? I could see higher than normal levels vitamin E being helpful in the brain, especially since so much of the brain is fatty or fat-like tissue.
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 11:56:29
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression, posted by mistermindmasta on November 6, 2004, at 11:11:46
> > Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct 27 [Epub ahead of print]
> >
> > Low plasma vitamin E levels in major depression: diet or disease?
> >
> > Owen AJ, Batterham MJ, Probst YC, Grenyer BF, Tapsell LC.
> >
> > 1Smart Foods Centre, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia.
> >
> > OBJECTIVE:: Levels of vitamin E have been reported to be lower in patients suffering major depression, but whether this is due to inadequate dietary intake or the pathophysiology of depression is not known, and was the subject of the present study. SETTING:: Wollongong, Australia. METHODS:: Plasma vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) was measured in 49 adults with major depression, age (mean+/-s.d.): 47+/-12 y. In a subset (n=19) usual dietary intake of vitamin E was determined by diet history. RESULTS:: Subjects had significantly lower plasma alpha-tocopherol (4.71+/-0.13 μmol/mmol cholesterol) than has previously been reported for healthy Australians, and plasma alpha-tocopherol was inversely related to depression score (by Beck Depression Inventory) (r=-0.367, P<0.009). Diet analysis indicated that 89% of subjects met or exceeded the recommended intake for vitamin E, and dietary intake was not related to plasma alpha-tocopherol level in this subset. CONCLUSION:: These findings suggest that plasma levels of alpha-tocopherol are lower in depression, but this is not likely to be the result of inability to meet recommended dietary intake. SPONSORSHIP:: This study was supported in part by the Clover Corporation and the Australian Research Council.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 27 October 2004; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602072.
> >
>
> Might this be because of the poorer diets of people with major depression??No. Specifically excluded: "Diet analysis indicated that 89% of subjects met or exceeded the recommended intake for vitamin E, and dietary intake was not related to plasma alpha-tocopherol level in this subset." Also, read the conclusion. The implication is biochemical reduction (functional deficiency), not dietary deficiency.
> If there a lot of oxidative damage occuring because these patients eat a lot of fried foods (trans fats) and overly processed foods, i would assume that vitamin E levels would drop as a result of being used as an fat antioxidant.
There is no suggestion of that in this article.
> That's the only reason I can think of with regard to why they have low levels even after adequate intake. But I'm sure there's many possibilities that I have yet to come across.
Oxidative stress related to etiological factors that lead to depression.
> The question is, however, might depressed patients benefit from higher than RDA levels of vitamin E?
Without doubt. The RDA is defined as that level that leads to overt deficiency symptoms in 1 out of 40 normal healthy people. This article shows that amount (the RDA) is quite insufficient in depressives.
> Might the increased levels of E counteract whatever is causing them to be low in the first place?
Without doubt.
> I could see higher than normal levels vitamin E being helpful in the brain, especially since so much of the brain is fatty or fat-like tissue.
But they're not addressing higher than normal levels. This research only addresses lower than normal circulating levels being correlated with depressive affective states. That correlation coefficient is highly significant. Also, it suggests that vitamin E status is a substantial contributor to depressed mood (r² = .135).
Your hypothesis (that higher vitamin E levels might be neuroprotective) is fine, but it cannot be addressed in any way by this study. You cannot extrapolate from functional deficiency syndromes to optimal health.
Lar
Posted by mistermindmasta on November 6, 2004, at 12:54:13
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » mistermindmasta, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 11:56:29
> > > Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct 27 [Epub ahead of print]
> > >
> > > Low plasma vitamin E levels in major depression: diet or disease?
> > >
> > > Owen AJ, Batterham MJ, Probst YC, Grenyer BF, Tapsell LC.
> > >
> > > 1Smart Foods Centre, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia.
> > >
> > > OBJECTIVE:: Levels of vitamin E have been reported to be lower in patients suffering major depression, but whether this is due to inadequate dietary intake or the pathophysiology of depression is not known, and was the subject of the present study. SETTING:: Wollongong, Australia. METHODS:: Plasma vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) was measured in 49 adults with major depression, age (mean+/-s.d.): 47+/-12 y. In a subset (n=19) usual dietary intake of vitamin E was determined by diet history. RESULTS:: Subjects had significantly lower plasma alpha-tocopherol (4.71+/-0.13 μmol/mmol cholesterol) than has previously been reported for healthy Australians, and plasma alpha-tocopherol was inversely related to depression score (by Beck Depression Inventory) (r=-0.367, P<0.009). Diet analysis indicated that 89% of subjects met or exceeded the recommended intake for vitamin E, and dietary intake was not related to plasma alpha-tocopherol level in this subset. CONCLUSION:: These findings suggest that plasma levels of alpha-tocopherol are lower in depression, but this is not likely to be the result of inability to meet recommended dietary intake. SPONSORSHIP:: This study was supported in part by the Clover Corporation and the Australian Research Council.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 27 October 2004; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602072.
> > >
> >
> > Might this be because of the poorer diets of people with major depression??
>
> No. Specifically excluded: "Diet analysis indicated that 89% of subjects met or exceeded the recommended intake for vitamin E, and dietary intake was not related to plasma alpha-tocopherol level in this subset." Also, read the conclusion. The implication is biochemical reduction (functional deficiency), not dietary deficiency.
>
> > If there a lot of oxidative damage occuring because these patients eat a lot of fried foods (trans fats) and overly processed foods, i would assume that vitamin E levels would drop as a result of being used as an fat antioxidant.
>
> There is no suggestion of that in this article.
>
> > That's the only reason I can think of with regard to why they have low levels even after adequate intake. But I'm sure there's many possibilities that I have yet to come across.
>
> Oxidative stress related to etiological factors that lead to depression.
>
> > The question is, however, might depressed patients benefit from higher than RDA levels of vitamin E?
>
> Without doubt. The RDA is defined as that level that leads to overt deficiency symptoms in 1 out of 40 normal healthy people. This article shows that amount (the RDA) is quite insufficient in depressives.
>
> > Might the increased levels of E counteract whatever is causing them to be low in the first place?
>
> Without doubt.
>
> > I could see higher than normal levels vitamin E being helpful in the brain, especially since so much of the brain is fatty or fat-like tissue.
>
> But they're not addressing higher than normal levels. This research only addresses lower than normal circulating levels being correlated with depressive affective states. That correlation coefficient is highly significant. Also, it suggests that vitamin E status is a substantial contributor to depressed mood (r² = .135).
>
> Your hypothesis (that higher vitamin E levels might be neuroprotective) is fine, but it cannot be addressed in any way by this study. You cannot extrapolate from functional deficiency syndromes to optimal health.
>
> Lar
Ok, I guess I phrased my original statements a little off from what I actually meant. What we see in this study is that people are getting enough vitamin E in their diets, but that this dietary intake is not related to plasma alpha tocopheral. What I wondered when I read this article was, what is causing this metabolic loss of vitamin E? I suggested that although these people are getting enough vitamin E, they might have a higher metabolic requirement for vitamin E due to a "poor diet"... in other words, a diet that leads to a high requirement of antioxidants. A diet that is 100% raw foods would put less demand on the body's antioxidant reserves than a diet that is high in fried foods, would you agree? So in people who eat a diet high in fried foods, their plasma vitamin E might be lower due to increased metabolic demand even though they are getting the RDA. There is no way I can make this conclusion from this study, since it wasn't addressed directly, I am only throwing some personal thoughts out there as to why they have low plasma alpha tocopheral despite adequate oral intake. I don't know if there's been any study done on this, but I think that depressed people often eat diets that lead to a larger metabolic requirement of nutrients than other populations. Eating a refined, highly processed diet theoretically would lead to a higher requirement of nutrients such as magnesium, chromium, B vitamins, etc... I would assume that vitamine E should be included in that list.Or... as you suggest, maybe there are other factors leading to increased oxidative stress rather than a "poor diet". People with depression often have a dysfunction of the cortical frontal lobes, and researchers think this might be because of excess glutamatergic activity causing neurotoxicity. I can't think of exactly how vitamin E might be neuroprotective in this case, so that neurotoxicity decreases, but maybe it is possible... what do you think? Might eating a diet higher than the RDA lead to a lower quantity of neurotoxic events?
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 13:45:28
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression, posted by mistermindmasta on November 6, 2004, at 12:54:13
> Ok, I guess I phrased my original statements a little off from what I actually meant.
You've got a tough audience here, dude. ;-)
> What we see in this study is that people are getting enough vitamin E in their diets, but that this dietary intake is not related to plasma alpha tocopheral. What I wondered when I read this article was, what is causing this metabolic loss of vitamin E? I suggested that although these people are getting enough vitamin E, they might have a higher metabolic requirement for vitamin E due to a "poor diet"... in other words, a diet that leads to a high requirement of antioxidants. A diet that is 100% raw foods would put less demand on the body's antioxidant reserves than a diet that is high in fried foods, would you agree?
I guess I don't see it in quite so dramatic a contrast. Depressives might go for processed or convenience foods more, sure. But e.g. hydrogenation of unsaturated fats reduces oxidative load.
> So in people who eat a diet high in fried foods, their plasma vitamin E might be lower due to increased metabolic demand even though they are getting the RDA. There is no way I can make this conclusion from this study, since it wasn't addressed directly, I am only throwing some personal thoughts out there as to why they have low plasma alpha tocopheral despite adequate oral intake.
Occam's razor would still be useful. I would assume similar diet, rather than an uncontrolled variable, as an a priori analytical perspective.
> I don't know if there's been any study done on this, but I think that depressed people often eat diets that lead to a larger metabolic requirement of nutrients than other populations. Eating a refined, highly processed diet theoretically would lead to a higher requirement of nutrients such as magnesium, chromium, B vitamins, etc... I would assume that vitamine E should be included in that list.
As the antioxidants work in interactive ways, I do agree. Vitamin E might well be a marker compound for a more generalized oxidative burden.
> Or... as you suggest, maybe there are other factors leading to increased oxidative stress rather than a "poor diet". People with depression often have a dysfunction of the cortical frontal lobes, and researchers think this might be because of excess glutamatergic activity causing neurotoxicity.
Right, and that neurotoxicity often expresses itself as degradation of mitochondrial membranes, which then exposes the cytoplasm to free radical stress, which can go on to apoptosis. I think that all neuronal stress is ultimately oxidative stress.
> I can't think of exactly how vitamin E might be neuroprotective in this case, so that neurotoxicity decreases, but maybe it is possible... what do you think?
There is an oxidative/reductive couple between alphalipoic (thioctic) acid and vitamin E. Both serve to stabilize the mitochondrial membrane, which is itself substantially responsible for protecting the cell from the wicked chemistry taking place inside the mitochondrion. You want the ATP to emerge from the mitochondrion, but not e.g. the superoxide.
> Might eating a diet higher than the RDA lead to a lower quantity of neurotoxic events?
I can't see it in any other light.
The RDA is defined in terms of deficiency states in normal healthy people. (Whoever they are, I haven't a clue.) There is no consideration for illness or acute or chronic stressors/perturbations. Nor is there any thought given to optimal intake.
For a visual, see:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071836/html/24.html#pagetop
Again, even in the context of that graph, it pertains to normal healthy people. Note that Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) is the 50th percentile of overt deficiency, and although not shown, Adequate Intake (AI) is 77% of the RDA. RDA is two standard deviations above EAR. AI is one standard deviation above.
Methinks optimal may lie further towards the Upper Limit of intake.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 13:59:51
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » mistermindmasta, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 13:45:28
> Again, even in the context of that graph, it pertains to normal healthy people. Note that Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) is the 50th percentile of overt deficiency, and although not shown, Adequate Intake (AI) is 77% of the RDA. RDA is two standard deviations above EAR. AI is one standard deviation above.
Hmmm. This reference says AI is independent of EAR and RDA. Okay-dokay, throw it out. It's a meaningless term.
Lar
Posted by tealady on November 6, 2004, at 18:48:38
In reply to vitamin E and depression, posted by Larry Hoover on November 5, 2004, at 22:33:19
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/411145.html
Posted by TeeJay on November 6, 2004, at 19:17:37
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » Larry Hoover, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 13:59:51
Lar,
No expert here, but my laymans hypothesis would be that depression causes much higher levels of oxidative stress in the body and hence the Vitamin E levels are used up in the body leaving the plasma levels low.
A symptom rather than cause perhaps?
TJ
Posted by JLx on November 6, 2004, at 19:18:41
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » Larry Hoover, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 13:59:51
What might be a good amount to take then? Seems to me I've heard not to take too much, but I forget why and how much "too much" is supposed to be. I generally take between 400 and 800 IU.
JL
> > Again, even in the context of that graph, it pertains to normal healthy people. Note that Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) is the 50th percentile of overt deficiency, and although not shown, Adequate Intake (AI) is 77% of the RDA. RDA is two standard deviations above EAR. AI is one standard deviation above.
>
> Hmmm. This reference says AI is independent of EAR and RDA. Okay-dokay, throw it out. It's a meaningless term.
>
> Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 20:06:02
In reply to same ? » Larry Hoover, posted by tealady on November 6, 2004, at 18:48:38
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/411145.html
Ya, same study. I must have missed your posting of it.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 20:08:43
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » Larry Hoover, posted by TeeJay on November 6, 2004, at 19:17:37
> Lar,
>
> No expert here, but my laymans hypothesis would be that depression causes much higher levels of oxidative stress in the body and hence the Vitamin E levels are used up in the body leaving the plasma levels low.
>
> A symptom rather than cause perhaps?
>
> TJYes, I agree with your assessment. It could be both symptom and cause, if the effect is the classic vicious circle.
It doesn't really matter what leads to what, though. The solution is to enhance vitamin E intake substantially.
Lar
Posted by tealady on November 6, 2004, at 20:10:23
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » Larry Hoover, posted by TeeJay on November 6, 2004, at 19:17:37
> Lar,
>
> No expert here, but my laymans hypothesis would be that depression causes much higher levels of oxidative stress in the body and hence the Vitamin E levels are used up in the body leaving the plasma levels low.
>
> A symptom rather than cause perhaps?
>
> TJYep, I agree
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 20:21:39
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on November 6, 2004, at 19:18:41
> What might be a good amount to take then? Seems to me I've heard not to take too much, but I forget why and how much "too much" is supposed to be. I generally take between 400 and 800 IU.
>
> JLBased on the National Institutes of Health review, the UL is set at 1,000 mg/day (defined as 1,000 IU). However, and this is a large issue, the uncertainty factor for the UL was set at 36. Thus, the lowest observable adverse effects level is 36,000 IU/day, *and* the adverse effects (clotting disturbances) were primarily attributed to deficiency in vitamin K, such that the effect of the vitamin E was not properly balanced.
I take 1600 per day, and I think I might increase it. I'm nowhere near 36,000, and if anything, my blood is too thick.
Lar
Posted by JLx on November 10, 2004, at 10:26:32
In reply to Re: vitamin E and depression » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on November 6, 2004, at 20:21:39
> > What might be a good amount to take then? Seems to me I've heard not to take too much, but I forget why and how much "too much" is supposed to be. I generally take between 400 and 800 IU.
> >
> > JL
>
> Based on the National Institutes of Health review, the UL is set at 1,000 mg/day (defined as 1,000 IU). However, and this is a large issue, the uncertainty factor for the UL was set at 36. Thus, the lowest observable adverse effects level is 36,000 IU/day, *and* the adverse effects (clotting disturbances) were primarily attributed to deficiency in vitamin K, such that the effect of the vitamin E was not properly balanced.
>
> I take 1600 per day, and I think I might increase it. I'm nowhere near 36,000, and if anything, my blood is too thick.
>
> LarWhat do you make of this?
Vitamin E May Increase Death Risk, Researchers Say http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39261-2004Nov10.html
JL
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 11:41:01
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk? » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on November 10, 2004, at 10:26:32
> > > What might be a good amount to take then? Seems to me I've heard not to take too much, but I forget why and how much "too much" is supposed to be. I generally take between 400 and 800 IU.
> > >
> > > JL
> >
> > Based on the National Institutes of Health review, the UL is set at 1,000 mg/day (defined as 1,000 IU). However, and this is a large issue, the uncertainty factor for the UL was set at 36. Thus, the lowest observable adverse effects level is 36,000 IU/day, *and* the adverse effects (clotting disturbances) were primarily attributed to deficiency in vitamin K, such that the effect of the vitamin E was not properly balanced.
> >
> > I take 1600 per day, and I think I might increase it. I'm nowhere near 36,000, and if anything, my blood is too thick.
> >
> > Lar
>
> What do you make of this?
>
> Vitamin E May Increase Death Risk, Researchers Say http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39261-2004Nov10.html
>
> JLI want to read the full-text of the paper, before I come to any conclusions of any sort. As mentioned in this article, there was a study that found that beta-carotene supplements had adverse effects, but the whole experimental model used was devoid of real-life applicability. Beta-carotene is never consumed in isolation, and it may well be that other nutrients were poorly supplied that were necessary for everything to work well. Until I see this complete article, I'm not convinced of anything. Vitamin E intake should be balanced by other antioxidants. I have no idea what the underlying study protocols were.
Lar
Posted by JLx on November 10, 2004, at 12:19:04
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk? » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 11:41:01
> > > > What might be a good amount to take then? Seems to me I've heard not to take too much, but I forget why and how much "too much" is supposed to be. I generally take between 400 and 800 IU.
> > > >
> > > > JL
> > >
> > > Based on the National Institutes of Health review, the UL is set at 1,000 mg/day (defined as 1,000 IU). However, and this is a large issue, the uncertainty factor for the UL was set at 36. Thus, the lowest observable adverse effects level is 36,000 IU/day, *and* the adverse effects (clotting disturbances) were primarily attributed to deficiency in vitamin K, such that the effect of the vitamin E was not properly balanced.
> > >
> > > I take 1600 per day, and I think I might increase it. I'm nowhere near 36,000, and if anything, my blood is too thick.
> > >
> > > Lar
> >
> > What do you make of this?
> >
> > Vitamin E May Increase Death Risk, Researchers Say http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39261-2004Nov10.html
> >
> > JL
>
> I want to read the full-text of the paper, before I come to any conclusions of any sort. As mentioned in this article, there was a study that found that beta-carotene supplements had adverse effects, but the whole experimental model used was devoid of real-life applicability. Beta-carotene is never consumed in isolation, and it may well be that other nutrients were poorly supplied that were necessary for everything to work well. Until I see this complete article, I'm not convinced of anything. Vitamin E intake should be balanced by other antioxidants. I have no idea what the underlying study protocols were.
>
> LarSorry, I didn't realize that it was available online: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200501040-00110v1
Some reaction: http://www.crnusa.org/PR04_1110CRNAIM.html
JL
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 12:44:40
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk? » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on November 10, 2004, at 12:19:04
> Sorry, I didn't realize that it was available online: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200501040-00110v1
Excellent! I hadn't even looked for it, yet.
Just reading the abstract, it immediately leaps out at me, though, that the sickest people may have been advised to take the higher doses. That is the reverse relationship to the one suggested in the lay-press article; i.e. sickness led to increased vitamin E intake, and sickness was correlated with higher mortality.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 13:05:29
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk? » Larry Hoover, posted by JLx on November 10, 2004, at 12:19:04
> Sorry, I didn't realize that it was available online: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200501040-00110v1
>
> Some reaction: http://www.crnusa.org/PR04_1110CRNAIM.html
>
> JLI agree fully with the criticisms raised. Moreover, those studies with the greatest disparities in mortality were all very small studies (very low N). The larger studies showed little difference. Including the smaller studies skews the statistics.
Also, deeply embedded in the article was a comment that struck me.....one possible confound is the type of vitamin E supplied. There are eight isomers of vitamin E, but most vitamin E supps (the synthetic, cheaper varieties) are all of one single isomer. Perhaps the adverse health effects (if any) from high-dose vitamin E are due to displacement of the other isomers from their normal protective role?
Really, though, an all-cause mortality increase of 3 or 4% is not much to worry about.
I'll read it all again, and see what pops up.
Lar
Posted by tealady on November 10, 2004, at 16:09:00
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk? » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 13:05:29
Hi,
Just wondering what type of VitE is best to take?I used to buy d-alpha Tocopherol (500IU), but have noticed a cheaper type in the shops lately dl-alpha Tocopherol?
Would both types be natural in our body?
...and then you said there was 8 isomers :)
are they all natural in our body?
Posted by KaraS on November 10, 2004, at 16:45:04
In reply to different forms of VitE? d dl » Larry Hoover, posted by tealady on November 10, 2004, at 16:09:00
> Hi,
> Just wondering what type of VitE is best to take?
>
> I used to buy d-alpha Tocopherol (500IU), but have noticed a cheaper type in the shops lately dl-alpha Tocopherol?
> Would both types be natural in our body?
> ...and then you said there was 8 isomers :)
> are they all natural in our body?
>Hi tealady,
I've read that the mixed tocopherols that include the natural d-alpha version as well as d-beta and d-gamma are the best way to go. (The dl-alpha is synthetic and inferior.)
That's what I've been taking. Hope Larry agrees.
K
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 17:23:02
In reply to different forms of VitE? d dl » Larry Hoover, posted by tealady on November 10, 2004, at 16:09:00
> Hi,
> Just wondering what type of VitE is best to take?
>
> I used to buy d-alpha Tocopherol (500IU), but have noticed a cheaper type in the shops lately dl-alpha Tocopherol?
> Would both types be natural in our body?
> ...and then you said there was 8 isomers :)
> are they all natural in our body?I'm glad for the questions, as you have caught me being sloppy with the science.
There are four tocopherols, alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-. Their names are arbitrary (not related to structure). The alpha is 5,7,8-trimethyltocopherol (also tocol, rather than tocopherol). The other ones have fewer methyl groups. I don't know just how significant those differences are, but there seems to be some fairly substantial evidence that the beta,gamma,delta forms do different things than the alpha does. The strongest evidence is for the gamma, 7-,8-dimethyl form, as an essential antioxidant in its own right.
All these molecules are d-isomers, in the natural form. I think that I got the idea that each of these form also came in l-isomers, but strictly speaking, that's not correct.
The very same naming rules apply to a closely related form of vitamin E called a tocotrienol. There is alpha-, beta- etc. too. So, there are four tocopherols and four tocotrienols.
But it gets real messy when you start talking about the d-,l-alpha tocopherol supplements. There are three chiral centres in the molecule, and there are thus 3² = 8 diasteriomers in synthetic alpha-tocopherol. There are two enantiomers in natural d-,l-alpha tocopherol.
Confused? Try making sense of this: http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/misc/toc.html
Steer clear of synthetic vitamin E. Go for "mixed tocopherols", or check for some gamma-tocopherol on the label, along with the alpha-. I've also seen "mixed tocopherols with tocotrienols", which I suppose would be best.
Phew.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 17:31:54
In reply to Re: different forms of VitE? d dl » tealady, posted by KaraS on November 10, 2004, at 16:45:04
> > Hi,
> > Just wondering what type of VitE is best to take?
> >
> > I used to buy d-alpha Tocopherol (500IU), but have noticed a cheaper type in the shops lately dl-alpha Tocopherol?
> > Would both types be natural in our body?
> > ...and then you said there was 8 isomers :)
> > are they all natural in our body?
> >
>
> Hi tealady,
>
> I've read that the mixed tocopherols that include the natural d-alpha version as well as d-beta and d-gamma are the best way to go. (The dl-alpha is synthetic and inferior.)
>
> That's what I've been taking. Hope Larry agrees.
>
> KYou are just too quick for me today, missy. Obviously you are not mentally ill, and I wonder why you are hanging around here at all. <evil grin>
Yes, you are absolutely correct, Kara.
L
Posted by KaraS on November 10, 2004, at 18:41:41
In reply to Re: different forms of VitE? d dl » KaraS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 17:31:54
> > > Hi,
> > > Just wondering what type of VitE is best to take?
> > >
> > > I used to buy d-alpha Tocopherol (500IU), but have noticed a cheaper type in the shops lately dl-alpha Tocopherol?
> > > Would both types be natural in our body?
> > > ...and then you said there was 8 isomers :)
> > > are they all natural in our body?
> > >
> >
> > Hi tealady,
> >
> > I've read that the mixed tocopherols that include the natural d-alpha version as well as d-beta and d-gamma are the best way to go. (The dl-alpha is synthetic and inferior.)
> >
> > That's what I've been taking. Hope Larry agrees.
> >
> > K
>
> You are just too quick for me today, missy. Obviously you are not mentally ill, and I wonder why you are hanging around here at all. <evil grin>
>
> Yes, you are absolutely correct, Kara.
>
> LWish I didn't belong here <sigh>
K
Posted by tealady on November 10, 2004, at 19:03:27
In reply to Re: different forms of VitE? d dl » KaraS, posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 17:31:54
Clear as mud Lar or maybe just fog:) Thanks
Thanks Kara too.looks like can only get 2 brands of mixed here..both mixed up with selenimethionine (or however its spelt), sigh..these formula guys (naturopaths mostly) always outsmart themselves in Oz.
Suspected the cheap dl form might be no good.
The plain d alpha form seems to help me though, been taking it on and off for many years.
Jan
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 11, 2004, at 8:35:02
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk? » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on November 10, 2004, at 11:41:01
> > Vitamin E May Increase Death Risk, Researchers Say http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39261-2004Nov10.html
> >
> > JL
>
> I want to read the full-text of the paper, before I come to any conclusions of any sort. As mentioned in this article, there was a study that found that beta-carotene supplements had adverse effects, but the whole experimental model used was devoid of real-life applicability. Beta-carotene is never consumed in isolation, and it may well be that other nutrients were poorly supplied that were necessary for everything to work well. Until I see this complete article, I'm not convinced of anything. Vitamin E intake should be balanced by other antioxidants. I have no idea what the underlying study protocols were.
>
> Lar
>The following was posted to sci.med.nutrition by a respected member. It's nice to see that I'm not alone in my thinking.
"He says there are several theories about why vitamin E increases risk. One theory is that it increases bleeding risk, which would increase the risk of a type of stroke, while another theory suggests that at high doses vitamin E stops working like an antioxidant, removing harmful molecules in the body, and instead becomes a pro-oxidant, actually promoting the production of harmful molecules.
Still another scenario suggests that high doses of vitamin E tend to wipe out other antioxidants, which disrupts the body's natural antioxidant protection system."
This gets more to the issue, I think. These data are not dissimilar from the findings of the dangers of beta carotene.
Well, I think that makes sense. Anyone who knows even the most general science of oxidative stress will realize that these individual agents work as antioxidants for a specific oxdiant. They then must be reduced by another antioxidant. So they work in tight knit cycles.
Thinking in the framework of "one drug for one condition" (let alone a bug/infectious disease) in this context is really moronically stupid. And it is little wonder that people who take high dose Vitamin E or beta carotene fare poorly. Indeed, it's rather suprising to me that the increased mortality risk is so low!
By contrast, using an array of antioxidants makes MUCH more sense. A case in point is the studies of beta carotene in HIV disease, some studies for preventing mother-to-child transmission. In those studies, no benefit was found. No surprise. However, recent studies of the use of a MULTIVITAMIN showed much better effect. Indeed, HIV disease progression was slowed by 30%.
That's because you get a full array of the elements of the oxidative stress cycles that provide a balance: vitamins A, C, E, the B vitamins, selenium, zinc. A good potent multi I think is an important cornerstone of therapy. One might add to that agents like NAC, alpha lipoic acid and other enhancers of glutathione, catalase and the SODs."
Posted by Larry Hoover on November 11, 2004, at 15:43:19
In reply to Re: Vit E and increased death risk?, posted by Larry Hoover on November 11, 2004, at 8:35:02
I suppose I oughta copy some of my own post to sci.med.nutrition here, as well.
There's a totally uncontrolled aspect of supplementation with vitamin E, here, in that most supplements reported in these studies are d-alpha, or d-,l-alpha tocopherol. As alpha tocopherol has substantially higher binding affinity to transport proteins than do delta- or gamma-, there is a marked substitution of the former for the latter two in tissues, even if diet is otherwise adequate. In the discussion in this paper, it seems this suppression of especially gamma-tocopherol concentrations persists for two years, and delta-tocopherol concentrations became undetectable. As gamma-tocopherol in particular is thought to be selective for NOx pro-oxidants, this may permit an increase in the formation of peroxynitrite from NO and superoxide anion. That's bad news for health.Full-text (link), abstract below:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/10/3137
J Nutr. 2003 Oct;133(10):3137-40.
Supplementation of diets with alpha-tocopherol reduces serum concentrations of gamma- and delta-tocopherol in humans.
Huang HY, Appel LJ.
Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. hyhuang@jhsph.edu
Despite promising evidence from in vitro experiments and observational studies, supplementation of diets with alpha-tocopherol has not reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer in most large-scale clinical trials. One plausible explanation is that the potential health benefits of alpha-tocopherol supplements are offset by deleterious changes in the bioavailability and/or bioactivity of other nutrients. We studied the effects of supplementing diets with RRR-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (400 IU/d) on serum concentrations of gamma- and delta-tocopherol in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 184 adult nonsmokers. Outcomes were changes in serum concentrations of gamma- and delta-tocopherol from baseline to the end of the 2-mo experimental period. Compared with placebo, supplementation with alpha-tocopherol reduced serum gamma-tocopherol concentrations by a median change of 58% [95% CI = (51%, 66%), P < 0.0001], and reduced the number of individuals with detectable delta-tocopherol concentrations (P < 0.0001). Consistent with trial
results were the results from baseline cross-sectional analyses, in which prior vitamin E supplement users had significantly lower serum gamma-tocopherol than nonusers. In view of the potential benefits of gamma- and delta-tocopherol, the efficacy of alpha-tocopherol supplementation may be reduced due to decreases in serum gamma- and delta-tocopherol levels. Additional research is clearly warranted.************************
> And it is little wonder that people who take high dose Vitamin E or
> beta carotene fare poorly. Indeed, it's rather suprising to me that
> the increased mortality risk is so low!George, I think you are right on the money. There is quite an array of tocopheryl radical quenchers, including vitamin C, alphalipoic acid, glutathione, carotenoids, Co Q10, xanthines, lutein, on and on. What is the key criterion is the localized half-life of the tocopheryl radical. It is pro-oxidant, but only if the formation of this radical exceeds the net quenching capacity of the other inter-related anti-oxidants.
It's a trade-off, the destruction of more reactive (and thus more destructive) radicals for less reactive ones of longer half-life. The chain must be unbroken, up to the point where two less reactive, longer half-life radicals, react to form a stable molecule. Stalling the chain at e.g. tocopheryl radical (or ascorbyl radical, or whatever) will sustain oxidative capacity. The damage done by those "antioxidants turned oxidants" will differ based on the chemistry of the particular radical itself. The tocopheryl radical will damage lipids preferentially, for example, due to its hydrophobic physical characteristics.
Reductionist science will never discover this relationship. It is not part of the mindset. Methodologies with one independent variable do not provide you with generalizable information, the way some scientists think they do. The statistics hold there value in other populations if and only if all other variables are similarly constrained. The reasonable conclusion from this study might be that taking vitamin E as sole antioxidant supplement may be injurious if you exceed the antioxidant capacity for tocopheryl quenching.
Lar
P.S. I'm getting rid of my cheapo synthetic vitamin E supps, and buying some proper mixed tocopherols.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.