• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Why would Vitamins Increase Cancer?

cancer vitamins

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Ellipticality

  • Guest
  • 43 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Canada

Posted 23 April 2015 - 06:58 PM


Anyone have an idea for a method of action to explain the increased cancer risk in people who take above recommended doses of Vitamins??

 

These findings are concerning... as the same result is not found from large doses of naturally occurring vitamins from food.

 

Should vitamins be avoided?\

 

http://au.ibtimes.co...uggests-1441517

 

Sorry for not linking the original study. I have to head out for lunch


  • Ill informed x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 April 2015 - 12:10 AM

This isn't actually published work-- it was a conference presentation.  Tim Byers makes the shocking discovery that too much of a good thing is no longer good, and might be bad.  I don't think any vitamins or minerals were found to be dangerous when taken at normal RDA-ish levels.  Megadosing is where the problems come from. 

 

Not enough vitamins will kill you.  Too many vitamins will kill you.  There's a safe point in between too much and not enough that will optimize your health.  The RDA is a good starting point, and at least won't harm you.


  • Needs references x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 April 2015 - 05:55 AM

They've also found that elemental minerals get into your blood stream and put more strain on your kidneys and other organ systems than anything else. If they aren't chelated forms of the minerals, very little can actually make it into the tissues of the body and offers very little in the way of benefits. 

 

Other synthetic vitamins that are actually believed to be good for you aren't as good as natural or specific natural forms and can increase deaths from cancer, heart disease etc. There are preferred forms of natural vitamins that offer better benefit profiles and there are others that inferior benefit profiles and even contribute to aging pathologies. I have yet to see a comprehensive daily vitamin and most stuff sold in grocery stores and big pharmacy chains where most supplements are bought are just crap. I build my own "daily vitamin from measured amounts of specific forms every other day or so and my benefit profile is weighted much more heavily in favor of having a longer life and health span. I've been disagreeing as to how much life extension I'll get from this with others, but it seems everyday we have more information to capitalize on and that gives me a much more optimistic viewpoint.


Edited by YOLF, 24 April 2015 - 05:55 AM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • unsure x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#4 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 28 April 2015 - 02:22 AM

Other synthetic vitamins that are actually believed to be good for you aren't as good as natural or specific natural forms and can increase deaths from cancer, heart disease etc.


Can I get a source for this please?

#5 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 28 April 2015 - 07:19 AM

There is a thread here that discusses tocotrienols and has a long list of just about every paper out there. I'd give it a read. You'd need tons of sources for each one. There are actually several drawbacks to tocopherols. For one, IIRC, they lower klotho levels whereas tocotrienols in the absence of tocopherols raise klotho. Having higher klotho levels can remove arterial plaques (shown with tocotrienols from red palm oil) , improve kidney function, boost IQ by 6% as well as increase lifespan by 19-24%. Basically, someone publishes a great study saying that one or a few of the eight forms of Vit E can confer a benefit and the news article will read that Vit E (inferring all forms) does all of this wonderful stuff prompting people to buy the synthetic stuff which has been shown to correlate with higher rates of cancer (tocotrienols as you will find are actually shown to help prevent handfuls of different cancers). D3 is another supplement that can raise klotho levels when taken at doses of 4000iu+ (10k is the max).


  • Needs references x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#6 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:28 AM

I know about tocopherols and tocotrienols, their benefits, and the problems with just shoving alpha-tocopherol in just about every vitamin. What I am looking for is double-blind evidence that synthetic versions of the otherwise exact same two vitamins somehow work differently.



#7 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 06 May 2015 - 08:02 AM

One problem with vitamin pills is that the substances are stripped of their good friends.

There is some pretty compelling evidence towards the fact that cocktails of substances can have synergistic effects for good or bad.

That is why I expect there will never be a trial that finds that people who eat a varied diet of vegetables, berries and nuts have an increased cancer-risk. But I expect we will hear more bad news regarding people who pop pills with <insert vitamin>.

 

Another thing to keep in minds is that you don't know whats in your pills. That fish oil might be rancid, that vitamin c might be full of lead from the cheap chinese manufacturer who created it. That multivitamin might actually contain pure sugar and no vitamins at all. This problem is far less pronounced when you buy fruits and vegetables.



#8 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 16 May 2015 - 10:26 PM

I am not arguing any of this. I just want evidence, that given a good diet, fresh product, and controlling for everything else, there is somehow a difference between the "synthetic" and "natural" version of a vitamin.



#9 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 17 May 2015 - 12:03 AM

I don't there is as much of a problems as is often assumed with supplements. There may be some intermediaries that buy this or that and sell it as something else, but any large manufacturer isn't going to have that problem, everything is tested from end to end to meet standards. 

 

Another good example is people who are homozygous for MTHFR and related mutations. Synthetic folic acid isn't going to do them much good. It may work before they are born if their mother is hetero, they may be able to scrape by on dietary sources, but you aren't going to see reductions in homocysteine or elongation/reduced shortening of telos with 800mcg of synthetic folic acid in someone who can't turn it into methylfolate. It may just give them headaches (subjective, might not be a study showing this or could be from accompanying gluten if I'm a celiac in foods often enriched with synthetic folic acid, but folic acid appears to give me headaches at 400mcg+ in food or supplemental form) every time they eat it in significant quantities as it may limit the receptor uptake of methylfolate via competition (shown in a pernicious anemia study somewhere, where folic acid levels had to drop before B12 deficiency symptoms could be resolved by supplementation?).

 

Lots of interesting bits here:

http://www.snpedia.c...x.php/Rs1801133

 

 At the very least, the MTHFR studies can show that a synthetic vitamin is not the same or doesn't carry the same benefits as a synthetic. Different molecule, different effects. Even in people who can convert lesser folates into methylfolate, I'm not sure every lesser folate gets converted, so where is the rest of the synthetic stuff going?


  • like x 1

#10 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 17 May 2015 - 01:10 AM

Umm, why would you use folic acid to solve a 5MTHFR problem? It's not going to do anything, because, like with any form of folate, people with the gene that operates at either 70% of the norm or 40% of norm will much more slowly methylate that folate just like any other. The treatment is to take methylfolate, which is completely synthetic (I don't think there's any folate in nature that comes with that methyl group naturally). This folate is premethylated and skips the genetic step that is broken.


Edited by OneScrewLoose, 17 May 2015 - 01:11 AM.


#11 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 17 May 2015 - 01:32 AM

AFAIK MF is the natural form. Even if we get it from meat... But IIRC I had some MF that came from lemon peel or something like that. 


  • Needs references x 1

#12 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 17 May 2015 - 01:47 AM

Dihyrdofolate is the natural form. Folic acid is another synthetic form.

 

Methylfolate occurs in many living systems, but just briefly. It must be synthesized to make into a supplement.

 

You're missing what I am talking about though. Those are different molcules. What I am sayin, giving the exact same molecule, like natural vs. synthetic Vitamin C, there is no difference.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#13 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 17 May 2015 - 03:03 AM

Dihyrdofolate is the natural form. Folic acid is another synthetic form.

 

Methylfolate occurs in many living systems, but just briefly. It must be synthesized to make into a supplement.

 

You're missing what I am talking about though. Those are different molcules. What I am sayin, giving the exact same molecule, like natural vs. synthetic Vitamin C, there is no difference.

Ok, yeah I can agree that there is no difference between synthetic C and C from an orange if it has the same chemical formula.

 

On the other hand, perhaps similar to diamonds, the density of the molecular arrangement has something to do with the efficacy of natural over synthetic. No studies to support it, but I can see how the molecular physics (not well studied at this at all FYI... there are some biomolecular physicists on the forum though...) of complex arrangements might lead to a difference.  Synthetic Vit C could be made at higher temperatures and in higher pressure bioreactors or something. Smaller versions of molecules made under high pressure might travel more easily in cytoplasm or might pass less permeable barriers more readily?

 

Do you think that's important?


  • unsure x 1
  • Ill informed x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: cancer, vitamins

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users