Vegetables Take Center Stage in Cancer Study
Being told to eat our vegetables is anything but newsworthy advice, but learning which vegetables give us the most protection from which diseases-and understanding why they give us protection-is news that most of us would welcome.
Researchers at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York have completed some pioneering work in this regard in their study of 1,082 women, averaging 63 years in age and being treated as patients at their Institute. Half of the women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer-the seventh most common cancer among women worldwide-and the other half were determined to be free of this cancer. When the diets of these women were analyzed, only the intake of one type of food was consistently associated with significantly lowered risk of endometrial cancer, and that food type was vegetables. Total fruit intake did not show this protective effect.
Starting at 43 servings per month, and moving up to 94 servings per month or greater, total vegetable intake showed a consistent and increasingly protective effect against the occurrence of endometrial cancer. In comparison to 43 servings per month (a little more than one serving per day), 94 or more servings per month (at least 3 servings per day) was about 25% more protective against the risk of endometrial cancer. The researchers also looked specifically at cruciferous vegetables, which did show a protective effect when the intake level was 25 servings per month or more.
An interesting part of this study was the close connection between cancer-protective vegetables and cancer-protective nutrients provided by those vegetables. Even though cruciferous vegetables like broccoli were found to decrease risk of endometrial cancer under some circumstances, only total vegetable intake-including not only cruciferous vegetables but all types of vegetables-was consistently linked to lower risk. The researchers determined that specific nutrients, including vitamin E and beta-carotene, were consistently associated with the lowest risk of endometrial cancer, and that vegetable intake beyond cruciferous vegetables was required to produce the greatest risk-lowering effect.
This study finding makes sense to us. Even though cruciferous vegetables like broccoli can be important sources of vitamin E and beta-carotene, green leafy vegetables like chard and spinach can often provide 2-3 times as much beta-carotene as cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and 3-4 times as much vitamin E. Vegetables like olives can provide even greater concentrations of vitamin E.
The greater prevention observed in this study from vegetable variety versus a single category of vegetables (cruciferous vegetables), together with the significantly greater prevention associated with 1 serving versus 3 servings of vegetables per day, give us a take-away message that might end up applying not only to prevention of endometrial cancer, but to prevention of other chronic disease problems as well. While any fresh vegetable intake is better than no fresh vegetable whatsoever, building vegetable intake up into a range of multiple servings per day appears important in reducing disease risk. So does expanding your vegetable intake beyond a single type of vegetable, no matter how many nutritional benefits are provided by that single type of vegetable.
References
Yeh M, Moysich KB, Jayaprakash V et al. Higher Intakes of Vegetables and Vegetable-Related Nutrients Are Associated with Lower Endometrial Cancer Risks1. The Journal of Nutrition 2009, 139(2), 317-22. 2009.
When it comes to prevention of a disease like endometrial cancer, there's a real different between 1 versus 3 vegetable servings per day. Therefore, a good strategy is to enjoy vegetables throughout the day, not just a dinnertime! And no matter how many health claims you hear for a single type of vegetable (like broccoli), stay focused on vegetable variety. When it comes to disease prevention, no single type of vegetable can do it all, even though many vegetables are nutritionally outstanding in their own right.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Standing Frame Article -- I Recommend This Highly
A Standing Frame Prescribed for Home Can Improve Long-Term Health
by Jackie Kaufenberg
Many spinal cord injury rehab professionals are aware of the secondary
complications associated with prolonged immobility of people with a spinal
cord injury (SCI). Rehab facilities that incorporate standing/weight
bearing as a part of their SCI client’s standing program see the effects of
secondary complications minimized. To achieve the greatest possible medical
benefits, a person with SCI should start standing as soon as their PT or
doctor determines it is medically safe.
Medical professionals have prescribed standing programs for these health
benefits:
1. Increase range of motion and help prevent ankle, knees, and hip
contractures
2. Improve circulation as it relates to orthostatic hypotension
3. Decrease abnormal muscle tone and reduce spasticity
4. Maintain bone density and prevent or stabilize osteoporosis and
resultant hypercalciuria
5. Improve renal function, drainage of the urinary tract, and reduce
urinary calculi
6. Reduce the risk of pressure ulcers and skin breakdown through
changing positions
7. Improve bowel function by increasing gastrointestinal
activity/motility using gravity as an assist, thus reducing the risk
of constipation
8. Facilitate respiration by reducing respiratory infections and
increasing oxygen intake by allowing lungs to completely expand
9. Build cardiovascular endurance and reduce swelling and pooling of the
blood in the lower extremities
10. Provide a positive psychological impact and improve self-esteem
It is very common for rehab clinicians to incorporate standing as an
intricate part of their client’s initial rehab program. However, a full
standing program shouldn’t just be limited to a client’s initial spinal
injury rehab sessions. In order to experience the long-term medical
benefits of standing, a standing frame should also be prescribed for home
use upon discharge. By prescribing a standing frame for home use, the
person with SCI will be able to stand on a daily basis (or as often as
prescribed). For instance, they could stand while checking their email,
before dinner each day, or in the evening while watching a movie with their
family.
Funding for Standing Frames
When a therapist prescribes a stander soon after injury (with their
client’s initial equipment purchase, e.g. wheelchair, commode), their
client may also have a better chance of obtaining funding for the standing
frame through their medical insurance. Often, insurance companies are more
likely to cover the stander or home medical equipment when it is included
with the initial order for a wheelchair and other necessary rehab
equipment. If you need assistance with the funding process for a standing
device, there are resources on www.easystand.com/funding that can help.
Want to dig deeper into the medical benefits of standing?
Over 100 research study abstracts related to the benefits of standing can
be found on www.easystand.com/research. You can search by author, title,
diagnosis (e.g. all studies that pertain to SCI), and the benefit that the
research cites. You can also view a free one hour webinar with Ginny Paleg,
DScPT, MS, PT, called Supported Standing: Integrating Evidence into
Practice on www.easystand.com/ginny
Did your therapist prescribe a stander for you to use at home? Do you think
that standing has improved your health or quality of life?
Jackie Kaufenberg
Marketing Manager
jackie@easystand.com
...................................................................
Altimate Medical Inc. – Makers of EasyStand Standers
PO Box 180
Morton, MN 56270 USA
T 800-342-8968
P 507-697-6393
F 507-697-6900
...................................................................
www.easystand.com
Join us on the EasyStand Blog or Subscribe to our Monthly E-Newsletter.
by Jackie Kaufenberg
Many spinal cord injury rehab professionals are aware of the secondary
complications associated with prolonged immobility of people with a spinal
cord injury (SCI). Rehab facilities that incorporate standing/weight
bearing as a part of their SCI client’s standing program see the effects of
secondary complications minimized. To achieve the greatest possible medical
benefits, a person with SCI should start standing as soon as their PT or
doctor determines it is medically safe.
Medical professionals have prescribed standing programs for these health
benefits:
1. Increase range of motion and help prevent ankle, knees, and hip
contractures
2. Improve circulation as it relates to orthostatic hypotension
3. Decrease abnormal muscle tone and reduce spasticity
4. Maintain bone density and prevent or stabilize osteoporosis and
resultant hypercalciuria
5. Improve renal function, drainage of the urinary tract, and reduce
urinary calculi
6. Reduce the risk of pressure ulcers and skin breakdown through
changing positions
7. Improve bowel function by increasing gastrointestinal
activity/motility using gravity as an assist, thus reducing the risk
of constipation
8. Facilitate respiration by reducing respiratory infections and
increasing oxygen intake by allowing lungs to completely expand
9. Build cardiovascular endurance and reduce swelling and pooling of the
blood in the lower extremities
10. Provide a positive psychological impact and improve self-esteem
It is very common for rehab clinicians to incorporate standing as an
intricate part of their client’s initial rehab program. However, a full
standing program shouldn’t just be limited to a client’s initial spinal
injury rehab sessions. In order to experience the long-term medical
benefits of standing, a standing frame should also be prescribed for home
use upon discharge. By prescribing a standing frame for home use, the
person with SCI will be able to stand on a daily basis (or as often as
prescribed). For instance, they could stand while checking their email,
before dinner each day, or in the evening while watching a movie with their
family.
Funding for Standing Frames
When a therapist prescribes a stander soon after injury (with their
client’s initial equipment purchase, e.g. wheelchair, commode), their
client may also have a better chance of obtaining funding for the standing
frame through their medical insurance. Often, insurance companies are more
likely to cover the stander or home medical equipment when it is included
with the initial order for a wheelchair and other necessary rehab
equipment. If you need assistance with the funding process for a standing
device, there are resources on www.easystand.com/funding that can help.
Want to dig deeper into the medical benefits of standing?
Over 100 research study abstracts related to the benefits of standing can
be found on www.easystand.com/research. You can search by author, title,
diagnosis (e.g. all studies that pertain to SCI), and the benefit that the
research cites. You can also view a free one hour webinar with Ginny Paleg,
DScPT, MS, PT, called Supported Standing: Integrating Evidence into
Practice on www.easystand.com/ginny
Did your therapist prescribe a stander for you to use at home? Do you think
that standing has improved your health or quality of life?
Jackie Kaufenberg
Marketing Manager
jackie@easystand.com
...................................................................
Altimate Medical Inc. – Makers of EasyStand Standers
PO Box 180
Morton, MN 56270 USA
T 800-342-8968
P 507-697-6393
F 507-697-6900
...................................................................
www.easystand.com
Join us on the EasyStand Blog or Subscribe to our Monthly E-Newsletter.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Economics of Eating
I was laid off from my job back in November, 2008. I received the article below earlier today and thought everyone might need to hear this.
The Economics of Eating
Living off a dollar menu may save you money now, but you'll pay for it in the long run.
By Nick Summers | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 24, 2009
As the U.S. recession nears its 18th month, government officials are parsing economic data and trying to guess whether the repercussions will begin to decline in a matter of months, or sometime further down the line. Dr. Mitchell Roslin, chief of obesity surgery at New York's Lenox Hill Hospital, is watching another recession metric—people's waistlines—and seeing a very far off impact indeed.
Lean times lead to bad diets. Bad diets lead to obesity. And obesity leads to diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses—not now, but sometime later in life, when today's recession is a memory but Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers are still groaning under its weight. "People are eating cheaper, more fattening foods; care is more difficult to find; and as a result we're going to have more and more people presenting at a later stage of the disease process," says Roslin. "If you're concerned about paying your rent and making ends meet, it's very hard to think about the future implications of diabetes and other illnesses."
Bad economic times affect Americans' health in a number of ways. Most obviously, people who lose their jobs can lose their health insurance, if they are unable to find coverage under a spouse's plan, if COBRA extensions expire before another job can be found or if Medicaid benefits are unavailable. Even Americans who do have health insurance avoid or delay getting care during a recession, especially if co-pays become unaffordable or receiving time off of work to visit a doctor is an impossibility.
But one of the most insidious health effects of a downturn is in the area of diet. Eating healthily can be expensive and time-consuming—two qualities Americans currently have little appetite for. Hitting up the drive-through is cheap, no-hassle and easy to rationalize; those off-the-charts levels of fat, sodium and sugar feel like they can be dealt with in better days. Owing in part to psychology like this (lower fuel costs helped too), McDonald's Corp. this week announced that it has defied the worldwide economic downturn, posting a first-quarter profit of $980 million, up 4 percent from last year. Burger King's most recent U.S. sales figures were also up 1.6 percent, according to the chain.
"There's a certain ratio," says Roslin. "If you and I went to Hale and Hearty [a New York chain] to have soup and salad, it would take us $30 to be filled. If you go to McDonald's, we're going to be full for $6 each. The bottom line is that cheaper food sources are making people more full, and until we change that ratio we're not going to do anything about this problem."
Already at 35 percent (according to the Centers for Disease Control), obesity rates in the United States are likely to climb even higher. It's enough to make health researchers retch. The effects of poor eating and exercise habits, if left unchecked, are likely to outlast the current recession by years and even decades. "So often, making the healthy choice is the difficult choice. It's imperative that we make it the easy choice," says Harold Goldstein, the executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which studies the state's obesity epidemic and advocates for measures like mandatory menu labeling to better inform consumers about what they're ordering.
"The restaurant industry wants that information hidden in complicated brochures," Goldstein says. "What we know is that if you put that information up there on the menu board, consumers have calorie sticker shock." A spokesman for the National Restaurant Association says the group supports federal legislation known as the LEAN Act, under which "our customers will have access to that information prior to purchase in an easy and convenient manner." Critics of the bill, like the New York Times editorial board, say it would allow restaurants to continue to bury calorie information in brochures. Goldstein's organization also calls for transportation stimulus money to be spent on making urban communities more walkable, with better-lit sidewalks and safer parks, so that more people are able to get simple exercise.
"This is a pretty bad recession, worse than the more minor ones we've had recently. All these effects you might think about existing between health and employment will be stronger this time around," says Brad Herring, a professor of health policy and management at The Johns Hopkins University. Men and women are affected differently. A 2003 study by two Cornell researchers, John Cawley and Kosali I. Simon, found a stronger correlation between unemployment and lack of insurance for men than for women and children, who are more likely to be caught by the safety net of Medicaid. Without health insurance, men are likely to avoid well checkups that might detect early indicators of diabetes, or symptoms that can exacerbate the disease, like high blood pressure.
Nutrition experts say there are no easy solutions. Some ideas are creative, but controversial. Earlier this month, New York CityMayor Michael Bloomberg—who successfully banned smoking from bars and trans fats from restaurants—reiterated his support for a tax on nondiet sodas, to theoretically reduce demand by 10 percent.
Don't expect menus to change soon: Manhattan has a lot more soda guzzlers than cigarette smokers. "That's the whip," says Roslin. "I don't think a whip strategy will ever, ever, ever work. You have to subsidize the salad bar, not make the french fries more expensive."
© 2009
The healthy dollar meal: Juice Plus+, 17 fruits and vegetables in a capsule for less than $1.50 per day.
For more information contact Rick Ercolano at (800) 331-2440 www.fohc.net
The Economics of Eating
Living off a dollar menu may save you money now, but you'll pay for it in the long run.
By Nick Summers | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 24, 2009
As the U.S. recession nears its 18th month, government officials are parsing economic data and trying to guess whether the repercussions will begin to decline in a matter of months, or sometime further down the line. Dr. Mitchell Roslin, chief of obesity surgery at New York's Lenox Hill Hospital, is watching another recession metric—people's waistlines—and seeing a very far off impact indeed.
Lean times lead to bad diets. Bad diets lead to obesity. And obesity leads to diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses—not now, but sometime later in life, when today's recession is a memory but Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers are still groaning under its weight. "People are eating cheaper, more fattening foods; care is more difficult to find; and as a result we're going to have more and more people presenting at a later stage of the disease process," says Roslin. "If you're concerned about paying your rent and making ends meet, it's very hard to think about the future implications of diabetes and other illnesses."
Bad economic times affect Americans' health in a number of ways. Most obviously, people who lose their jobs can lose their health insurance, if they are unable to find coverage under a spouse's plan, if COBRA extensions expire before another job can be found or if Medicaid benefits are unavailable. Even Americans who do have health insurance avoid or delay getting care during a recession, especially if co-pays become unaffordable or receiving time off of work to visit a doctor is an impossibility.
But one of the most insidious health effects of a downturn is in the area of diet. Eating healthily can be expensive and time-consuming—two qualities Americans currently have little appetite for. Hitting up the drive-through is cheap, no-hassle and easy to rationalize; those off-the-charts levels of fat, sodium and sugar feel like they can be dealt with in better days. Owing in part to psychology like this (lower fuel costs helped too), McDonald's Corp. this week announced that it has defied the worldwide economic downturn, posting a first-quarter profit of $980 million, up 4 percent from last year. Burger King's most recent U.S. sales figures were also up 1.6 percent, according to the chain.
"There's a certain ratio," says Roslin. "If you and I went to Hale and Hearty [a New York chain] to have soup and salad, it would take us $30 to be filled. If you go to McDonald's, we're going to be full for $6 each. The bottom line is that cheaper food sources are making people more full, and until we change that ratio we're not going to do anything about this problem."
Already at 35 percent (according to the Centers for Disease Control), obesity rates in the United States are likely to climb even higher. It's enough to make health researchers retch. The effects of poor eating and exercise habits, if left unchecked, are likely to outlast the current recession by years and even decades. "So often, making the healthy choice is the difficult choice. It's imperative that we make it the easy choice," says Harold Goldstein, the executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which studies the state's obesity epidemic and advocates for measures like mandatory menu labeling to better inform consumers about what they're ordering.
"The restaurant industry wants that information hidden in complicated brochures," Goldstein says. "What we know is that if you put that information up there on the menu board, consumers have calorie sticker shock." A spokesman for the National Restaurant Association says the group supports federal legislation known as the LEAN Act, under which "our customers will have access to that information prior to purchase in an easy and convenient manner." Critics of the bill, like the New York Times editorial board, say it would allow restaurants to continue to bury calorie information in brochures. Goldstein's organization also calls for transportation stimulus money to be spent on making urban communities more walkable, with better-lit sidewalks and safer parks, so that more people are able to get simple exercise.
"This is a pretty bad recession, worse than the more minor ones we've had recently. All these effects you might think about existing between health and employment will be stronger this time around," says Brad Herring, a professor of health policy and management at The Johns Hopkins University. Men and women are affected differently. A 2003 study by two Cornell researchers, John Cawley and Kosali I. Simon, found a stronger correlation between unemployment and lack of insurance for men than for women and children, who are more likely to be caught by the safety net of Medicaid. Without health insurance, men are likely to avoid well checkups that might detect early indicators of diabetes, or symptoms that can exacerbate the disease, like high blood pressure.
Nutrition experts say there are no easy solutions. Some ideas are creative, but controversial. Earlier this month, New York CityMayor Michael Bloomberg—who successfully banned smoking from bars and trans fats from restaurants—reiterated his support for a tax on nondiet sodas, to theoretically reduce demand by 10 percent.
Don't expect menus to change soon: Manhattan has a lot more soda guzzlers than cigarette smokers. "That's the whip," says Roslin. "I don't think a whip strategy will ever, ever, ever work. You have to subsidize the salad bar, not make the french fries more expensive."
© 2009
The healthy dollar meal: Juice Plus+, 17 fruits and vegetables in a capsule for less than $1.50 per day.
For more information contact Rick Ercolano at (800) 331-2440 www.fohc.net
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Nutritional Cleansing
NUTRITIONAL CLEANSING
A WAY TO TO REMOVE HARMFUL IMPURITIES FROM YOUR BODY
Even with our best efforts we cannot avoid all the harmful chemicals our body are exposed to on a daily basis. We absorb into our body from water, food, air and cosmetics many of the over 82,000 chemicals identified as being in them. We truly live in a very toxic world - sometimes referred to as a toxic dump. The liver, the main organ that filters
toxins from the body, cannot cleanse all these products and impurities out of the body. Highly reactive chemicals called free radicals thus enter the blood stream and destroy cellular activity. The body surrounds free radicals with fat and water to help handle the problems related to the pollution of our bodies.
That is why periodic cleansing makes perfect sense. We have filters to clean our air. We have filters to clean our spas and pools. We have filters to clean our furnace. The question is: what are you doing about your internal filters? That is what cleansing will address - releasing stored waste from the liver, the lymphatic system, the intestinal tract, and the body's cells. If one removes these impurities, one becomes healthier while losing fat and excess weight.
Here are some of the benefits of cleansing:
Strengthen the Immune System
Healthier Liver Supports Metabolism and Burns Fat
Support Healthier Brain Chemistry
Restore Antioxidants in the body
Reduce Stress
Improve Absorption of Essential Nutrients
Aid Digestion
Have Healthier Cells With Ionic Minerals
Have Better Support of Organs
Feel Better and Lose Weight
Eliminate Unhealthy Cravings
Enhance Cellular Communication
Build Muscle
Restore Normal Sugar Levels
Have More Beautiful Skin
Have More Energy
Slow Down Aging Effects
Have More Balanced Hormones
Have Increased Desire to Exercise
Enhance Elimination
A WAY TO TO REMOVE HARMFUL IMPURITIES FROM YOUR BODY
Even with our best efforts we cannot avoid all the harmful chemicals our body are exposed to on a daily basis. We absorb into our body from water, food, air and cosmetics many of the over 82,000 chemicals identified as being in them. We truly live in a very toxic world - sometimes referred to as a toxic dump. The liver, the main organ that filters
toxins from the body, cannot cleanse all these products and impurities out of the body. Highly reactive chemicals called free radicals thus enter the blood stream and destroy cellular activity. The body surrounds free radicals with fat and water to help handle the problems related to the pollution of our bodies.
That is why periodic cleansing makes perfect sense. We have filters to clean our air. We have filters to clean our spas and pools. We have filters to clean our furnace. The question is: what are you doing about your internal filters? That is what cleansing will address - releasing stored waste from the liver, the lymphatic system, the intestinal tract, and the body's cells. If one removes these impurities, one becomes healthier while losing fat and excess weight.
Here are some of the benefits of cleansing:
Strengthen the Immune System
Healthier Liver Supports Metabolism and Burns Fat
Support Healthier Brain Chemistry
Restore Antioxidants in the body
Reduce Stress
Improve Absorption of Essential Nutrients
Aid Digestion
Have Healthier Cells With Ionic Minerals
Have Better Support of Organs
Feel Better and Lose Weight
Eliminate Unhealthy Cravings
Enhance Cellular Communication
Build Muscle
Restore Normal Sugar Levels
Have More Beautiful Skin
Have More Energy
Slow Down Aging Effects
Have More Balanced Hormones
Have Increased Desire to Exercise
Enhance Elimination
Sunday, April 19, 2009
More on Multivitamins -- How They Do Not Work
February 9, 2009, 4:42 pm
Study Finds No Benefit From Daily Multivitamin
Multivitamins are the most commonly used diet supplement, but new research shows that daily multivitamin use doesn’t ward off cancer or heart disease.
In a study of 161,808 women who were part of the government-funded Women’s Health Initiative research effort, doctors from 40 centers around the country collected data on multivitamin use. While research shows that people who eat nutrient-rich diets filled with fruits and vegetables have lower rates of heart disease and cancer, it hasn’t been clear whether taking a daily supplement results in a similar benefit.
After following the women for about eight years, they looked at rates of various cancers and heart problems among the 42 percent of women who were regular multivitamin users, and compared them to those who didn’t take vitamins. The researchers found no evidence of any benefit from multivitamin use in any of 10 categories studied, including no differences in the rate of breast or colon cancer, heart attack, stroke, blood clots or mortality. The findings were published in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The finding that multivitamins produced no benefit in such a large, well-regarded study is disappointing, given that some earlier research has produced mixed results. While some earlier studies failed to show a benefit of daily multivitamin use, other research has suggested a possible benefit for colon and breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, those data were collected from less rigorous studies, and researchers say the lack of a benefit measured in the Women’s Health Initiative is a “robust finding.” In the tightly controlled W.H.I. trials, data from women were copiously collected, and participants actually brought vitamin bottles to W.H.I. centers so supplement use could be confirmed by researchers.
“We have very detailed information on what people were taking measured over a period of many years,” said Marian Neuhouser, the lead author and associate member in cancer prevention at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “We thought there could be a modestly reduced risk, but there is nothing. There is no helpful benefit, but they’re not hurting either.”
About half of all Americans use some form of vitamin or dietary supplement, spending $20 billion annually on the products. In a statement, the vitamin industry trade group, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, said the study shouldn’t dissuade consumers from using multivitamins, since many of them aren’t getting essential nutrients in their diets.
“From a practical standpoint, this study does not change the fact that the majority of consumers could benefit from taking an affordable multivitamin,” said Andrew Shao, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs with the council. “It is better to meet these recommendations than not, and consistently taking a multivitamin over the long term could help fill these nutrient gaps and may help consumers lead healthier lives.”
Dr. Neuhouser said she realizes that many people who are devoted vitamin users will be skeptical of the finding that they are receiving no benefit from a daily multivitamin.
“I don’t want to disparage people who take multivitamins — it’s their choice as a consumer,” Dr. Neuhouser said. “What we’re presenting is the science showing it’s neither beneficial nor harmful. If they want to choose to spend their dollars elsewhere this might be a good place to do so. Perhaps they can buy more fruits and vegetables.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Study Finds No Benefit From Daily Multivitamin
Multivitamins are the most commonly used diet supplement, but new research shows that daily multivitamin use doesn’t ward off cancer or heart disease.
In a study of 161,808 women who were part of the government-funded Women’s Health Initiative research effort, doctors from 40 centers around the country collected data on multivitamin use. While research shows that people who eat nutrient-rich diets filled with fruits and vegetables have lower rates of heart disease and cancer, it hasn’t been clear whether taking a daily supplement results in a similar benefit.
After following the women for about eight years, they looked at rates of various cancers and heart problems among the 42 percent of women who were regular multivitamin users, and compared them to those who didn’t take vitamins. The researchers found no evidence of any benefit from multivitamin use in any of 10 categories studied, including no differences in the rate of breast or colon cancer, heart attack, stroke, blood clots or mortality. The findings were published in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The finding that multivitamins produced no benefit in such a large, well-regarded study is disappointing, given that some earlier research has produced mixed results. While some earlier studies failed to show a benefit of daily multivitamin use, other research has suggested a possible benefit for colon and breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, those data were collected from less rigorous studies, and researchers say the lack of a benefit measured in the Women’s Health Initiative is a “robust finding.” In the tightly controlled W.H.I. trials, data from women were copiously collected, and participants actually brought vitamin bottles to W.H.I. centers so supplement use could be confirmed by researchers.
“We have very detailed information on what people were taking measured over a period of many years,” said Marian Neuhouser, the lead author and associate member in cancer prevention at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “We thought there could be a modestly reduced risk, but there is nothing. There is no helpful benefit, but they’re not hurting either.”
About half of all Americans use some form of vitamin or dietary supplement, spending $20 billion annually on the products. In a statement, the vitamin industry trade group, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, said the study shouldn’t dissuade consumers from using multivitamins, since many of them aren’t getting essential nutrients in their diets.
“From a practical standpoint, this study does not change the fact that the majority of consumers could benefit from taking an affordable multivitamin,” said Andrew Shao, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs with the council. “It is better to meet these recommendations than not, and consistently taking a multivitamin over the long term could help fill these nutrient gaps and may help consumers lead healthier lives.”
Dr. Neuhouser said she realizes that many people who are devoted vitamin users will be skeptical of the finding that they are receiving no benefit from a daily multivitamin.
“I don’t want to disparage people who take multivitamins — it’s their choice as a consumer,” Dr. Neuhouser said. “What we’re presenting is the science showing it’s neither beneficial nor harmful. If they want to choose to spend their dollars elsewhere this might be a good place to do so. Perhaps they can buy more fruits and vegetables.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thank You
I would like to say thank you to everyone that has visited my blog. Because you have visited one or more times, I would like to give you a FREE gift. I have a website, you can see it on the right-hand column of this blog. There is a link to the website. If you cannot see it, the URL is below.
www.BestHowToBooks.com
In the lower left hand column of the website, you will see -- e-book categories.
All the e-books under that heading have a list price of $1.99 each.
I would like to provide one to each of you at no charge. Just send me an e-mail message with the subject heading "Free E-Book". Include the title of the book you have chosen. I hope that you will take a look at my website, tell a friend and maybe visit more often.
E-Mail address: LittleBear65@gmail.com
Thank you very much.
www.BestHowToBooks.com
In the lower left hand column of the website, you will see -- e-book categories.
All the e-books under that heading have a list price of $1.99 each.
I would like to provide one to each of you at no charge. Just send me an e-mail message with the subject heading "Free E-Book". Include the title of the book you have chosen. I hope that you will take a look at my website, tell a friend and maybe visit more often.
E-Mail address: LittleBear65@gmail.com
Thank you very much.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Vitamins C and E Pills -- Read on
Vitamins C and E don't prevent heart disease
Popular pills not only didn't help, they raised question of harm, study says
updated 1:49 p.m. ET, Sun., Nov. 9, 2008
NEW ORLEANS - Vitamins C and E — pills taken by millions of Americans — do nothing to prevent heart disease in men, one of the largest and longest studies of these supplements has found.
Vitamin E even appeared to raise the risk of bleeding strokes, a danger seen in at least one earlier study.
Besides questioning whether vitamins help, "we have to worry about potential harm," said Barbara Howard, a nutrition scientist at MedStar Research Institute of Hyattsville, Md.
She has no role in the research but reviewed and discussed it Sunday at an American Heart Association conference. Results also were published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
About 12 percent of Americans take supplements of C and E despite growing evidence that these antioxidants do not prevent heart disease and may even be harmful.
Male smokers taking vitamin E had a higher rate of bleeding strokes in a previous study, and several others found no benefit for heart health.
As for vitamin C, some research suggests it may aid cancer, not fight it. A previous study in women at high risk of heart problems found it did not prevent heart attacks.
Few long-term studies have been done. The new one is the Physicians Health Study, led by Drs. Howard Sesso and J. Michael Gaziano of Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
It involved 14,641 male doctors, 50 or older, including 5 percent who had heart disease at the time the study started in 1997. They were put into four groups and given either vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or dummy pills. The dose of E was 400 international units every other day; C was 500 milligrams daily.
No difference in rates of heart attack, stroke or death
After an average of eight years, no difference was seen in the rates of heart attack, stroke or heart-related deaths among the groups.
However, 39 men taking E suffered bleeding strokes versus only 23 of the others, which works out to a 74 percent greater risk for vitamin-takers.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and several vitamin makers. Results were so clear that they would be unlikely to change if the study were done in women, minorities, or with different formulations of the vitamins, Howard said.
"In these hard economic times, maybe we can save some money by not buying these supplements," she said.
A second study found that vitamins B-12 and B-9 (folic acid) did not prevent heart disease either, supporting the results of previous trials. That study involved more than 12,000 heart attack survivors and was led by Dr. Jane Armitage of the University of Oxford in England.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Popular pills not only didn't help, they raised question of harm, study says
updated 1:49 p.m. ET, Sun., Nov. 9, 2008
NEW ORLEANS - Vitamins C and E — pills taken by millions of Americans — do nothing to prevent heart disease in men, one of the largest and longest studies of these supplements has found.
Vitamin E even appeared to raise the risk of bleeding strokes, a danger seen in at least one earlier study.
Besides questioning whether vitamins help, "we have to worry about potential harm," said Barbara Howard, a nutrition scientist at MedStar Research Institute of Hyattsville, Md.
She has no role in the research but reviewed and discussed it Sunday at an American Heart Association conference. Results also were published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
About 12 percent of Americans take supplements of C and E despite growing evidence that these antioxidants do not prevent heart disease and may even be harmful.
Male smokers taking vitamin E had a higher rate of bleeding strokes in a previous study, and several others found no benefit for heart health.
As for vitamin C, some research suggests it may aid cancer, not fight it. A previous study in women at high risk of heart problems found it did not prevent heart attacks.
Few long-term studies have been done. The new one is the Physicians Health Study, led by Drs. Howard Sesso and J. Michael Gaziano of Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
It involved 14,641 male doctors, 50 or older, including 5 percent who had heart disease at the time the study started in 1997. They were put into four groups and given either vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or dummy pills. The dose of E was 400 international units every other day; C was 500 milligrams daily.
No difference in rates of heart attack, stroke or death
After an average of eight years, no difference was seen in the rates of heart attack, stroke or heart-related deaths among the groups.
However, 39 men taking E suffered bleeding strokes versus only 23 of the others, which works out to a 74 percent greater risk for vitamin-takers.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and several vitamin makers. Results were so clear that they would be unlikely to change if the study were done in women, minorities, or with different formulations of the vitamins, Howard said.
"In these hard economic times, maybe we can save some money by not buying these supplements," she said.
A second study found that vitamins B-12 and B-9 (folic acid) did not prevent heart disease either, supporting the results of previous trials. That study involved more than 12,000 heart attack survivors and was led by Dr. Jane Armitage of the University of Oxford in England.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
