35 replies to this topic

[normalizing]

whats up with this article i just found; https://www.scienced...60519120738.htm

 

is this something of a concern?

[sativa]

Summary from that link:

Researchers at Umeå University in Sweden and the Cancer Registry of Norway have studied possible causes behind the development of brain tumours. The results, published in the journal Oncotarget, show differences in expression of certain molecules known as metabolites when comparing healthy individuals with people who would eventually develop brain tumours. The greatest difference were found when looking at vitamin E.

Basically, its fine. Seems they just looked into the difference between how healthy people metabolise different substances as compared to people who would eventually develop brain tumours and one substance happened to be vitamin e.

[Dorian Grey]

I understand how some antioxidants might hamper the cancer killing oxidative/respiratory burst of neutrophils and macrophages, but I shouldn't think Vitamin-E would have the same effect, being primarily a lipid antioxidant.  Can someone help me out with the possible/theoretical mechanism?  

 

As with anything, mega-dosing E is probably unwise, but with the recent study showing an anti-Alzheimer's effect, I'm not going to shun this "essential" nutrient the USDA says is the most common deficiency in the American diet.  With the myelin sheath of every nerve cell comprised of 70-85% lipids, the value of the bodies primary lipid antioxidant should be obvious to anyone concerned with their grey matter. 

 

Vitamin-E, if anything has become more essential with the shift away from saturated fat to vegetable oils, and for our fish oil friends, shunning E would be madness.   PUFA's are very susceptible to oxidation, and E is the only effective way I know of to control this.  Am I wrong?  

[gamesguru]

I know it favorably affects neutrophin levels and neurogenesis.

When taken beyond recommedation, this gives possibility to increased incidence on brain tumor.

∆responding to below post∆
Or just the other tocopherols, particularly gamma. It can also come from walnuts.

Edited by gamesguru, 21 May 2016 - 01:55 AM.

[joelcairo]

The whole thing seems extremely vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Anyway my understanding was that alpha tocopherol is no longer considered to a healthy form of vitamin E, and it should be supplemented in conjunction with tocotrienols if at all.

[normalizing]

vitamin e has too much negative reputation at this point for me to give a shit enough to use it. this study might not showthing concrete about its association with brain cancer but what is so important that CAN vitamin e do and others cannot? it has not one condition or disease it cures or prevents. all i read about is predominantly skin health there is a lot more to that than simply using it as oil

[joelcairo]

My primary interest is cancer research, and I come across virtually nothing positive about alpha tocopherol (which is generally synonymous with "vitamin E"), even in preclinical research. And there have been studies in humans showing that it can promote or accelerate cancer growth under some circumstances. As for gamma tocopherol, which was also mentioned in the study from the OP, I am not familiar with any research and have no opinion.

 

OTOH delta and gamma tocotrienols have an enormous body of research showing their anticancer effects, and seem especially synergistic with various phytonutrients.  Sorry if this comment seems "ill informed" too, but these are the facts.

[pamojja]

My primary interest is cancer research, and I come across virtually nothing positive about alpha tocopherol (which is generally synonymous with "vitamin E"), even in preclinical research. And there have been studies in humans showing that it can promote or accelerate cancer growth under some circumstances. As for gamma tocopherol, which was also mentioned in the study from the OP, I am not familiar with any research and have no opinion.

 
The problem with most medical research (like cancer) is, that a single, mostly synthetic compound is tested against narrowed down outcomes. In this case dl-alpha tocopherol and cancer. While it is known that high doses of even natural l-alpha tocopherol cause a replacement of the important other natural Vitamin E isomers (β-, γ-, and δ-tocopherol). Or might compete with the important Vitamin K. With foreseeable bad outcomes.
 
For more positive outcomes with just single other nutrients added, see for examples in LPI Micronutrient Information Center (which also has a more balanced summary on cancer research, than yours). While in reality most wouldn't do the bad practice of supplementing a single essential nutrient (in an even unknown-to-the body form) in high doses - without balancing with all other essential nutrients too (contrarily to what pharmacological research stupidly tries to do with essential nutrients). Therefore such single nutrient medical research can be very misleading, and I agree, misinforming.

 

The problem of today is rather wide-spread vitamin deficiencies:

 

 

http://www.ewg.org/r...deficiencies-us

 

Nutrient from food alone, ranked by the occurrence of dietary inadequacy among adults | Percentage of dietary intakes below the estimated average requirement for a specific population* | Naturally occurring sources of nutrient** |

2-to-8-year-old children | 14-to-18-year-old girls | Adults 19 and older

Vitamin D | 81% | 98% | 95% | Fatty fish, mushrooms [vitamin D is naturally formed in the body when skin is exposed to sunlight; vitamin D is added to fortified milk]

Vitamin E | 65% | 99% | 94% | Nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, green leafy vegetables

Magnesium | 2% | 90% | 61% | Whole grains, wheat bran and wheat germ, green leafy vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds

Vitamin A | 6% | 57% | 51% | Preformed vitamin A: liver, fatty fish, milk, eggs; provitamin A carotenoids: carrots, pumpkins, tomatoes, leafy green vegetables

Calcium | 23% | 81% | 49% | Milk, yogurt, cheese, kale, broccoli

Vitamin C | 2% | 45% | 43% | All fruits and vegetables, particularly citrus fruits and tomatoes

Vitamin B6 | 0.1% | 18% | 15% | Many foods; highest levels in fish, beef, poultry, potatoes and other starchy vegetables, and fruit other than citrus

Folate | 0.2% | 19% | 13% | Many foods; highest levels in spinach, liver, asparagus, Brussels sprouts [mandatory, standardized addition to enriched flour and flour products]

Zinc | 0.2% | 24% | 12% | Red meat, poultry, beans, nuts, some seafood, whole grains

Iron | 0.7% | 12% | 8% | Highest amounts in meat and seafood; lower levels in nuts and beans [mandatory, standardized addition to enriched flour and flour products]

Thiamin | 0.1% | 10% | 7% | Whole grain products [mandatory, standardized addition to enriched flour and flour products]

Copper | 0% | 16% | 5% | Shellfish, whole grains, beans, nuts, potatoes, organ meats (kidneys, liver)

Vitamin B12 | 0% | 7% | 4% | Animal products: fish, meat, poultry, eggs, milk

Riboflavin | 0% | 5% | 2% | Milk and dairy products, eggs, meat, green leafy vegetables, legumes [mandatory, standardized addition to enriched flour and flour products]

Niacin | 0.1% | 4% | 2% | Meat, fish, seeds and nuts, whole grains [mandatory, standardized addition to enriched flour and flour products]

Selenium | 0% | 2% | 1% | Found in different plant and animal foods; highest levels in seafood and organ meats (kidneys, liver)

 

My personal experience in supplementing, calculating dietary intake and checking various levels of essential nutrients in my body is: one can't depend on the RDAs (Recommended Dietary Allowance) alone. And to overcome nutrient deficiencies (my worst is Mg) some in multiples of the ULs (Upper Intake Level) might even be needed. Of course, while always balancing with all the other essentials.

 

I don't consider Vitamin E optional. The level of intake is too individual, for some in good health and optimal nutrition dietary intake might be all what's needed.

 

 

Summary from that link:
 

Researchers at Umeå University in Sweden and the Cancer Registry of Norway have studied possible causes behind the development of brain tumours. The results, published in the journal Oncotarget, show differences in expression of certain molecules known as metabolites when comparing healthy individuals with people who would eventually develop brain tumours. The greatest difference were found when looking at vitamin E.

Basically, its fine. Seems they just looked into the difference between how healthy people metabolise different substances as compared to people who would eventually develop brain tumours and one substance happened to be vitamin e.

 

Totally agreed. And it's all too likely these poor swedes with brain tumors probably had similar rates of vitamin E deficiency than those without.

 

Edited by pamojja, 22 May 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[pamojja]

The results, published in the journal Oncotarget, show differences in expression of certain molecules known as metabolites when comparing healthy individuals with people who would eventually develop brain tumours. The greatest difference were found when looking at vitamin E.

 
Metabolites are usually breakdown products, in this case of vitamin E. The more likely scenario for more in vivo metabolites in these individuals would be more rapid breakdown, and therefore a deficiency in active Vitamin E. Unless these differences in expression of metabolites would be a result of the long serum storage time.
 

 

"Other studies have also showed signs of disadvantageous health effects from vitamin E, so our results are in line with current research findings concerning other types of tumours," says Henrik Antti, researcher at the Department of Chemistry and co-author. "We are of course interpreting our results carefully and will now proceed with this research to investigate if genetics play a role in the observed biomarker patterns."

 

Why not simply first compare these metabolites and alpha-tocopherol in vivo patients for bias control? It's probably because Genetics must get more research money..

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 22 May 2016 - 12:18 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

 

The results, published in the journal Oncotarget, show differences in expression of certain molecules known as metabolites when comparing healthy individuals with people who would eventually develop brain tumours. The greatest difference were found when looking at vitamin E.

 
Metabolites are usually breakdown products, in this case of vitamin E. The more likely scenario for more in vivo metabolites in these individuals would be more rapid breakdown, and therefore a deficiency in active Vitamin E. Unless these differences in expression of metabolites would be a result of the long serum storage time.
 

 

"Other studies have also showed signs of disadvantageous health effects from vitamin E, so our results are in line with current research findings concerning other types of tumours," says Henrik Antti, researcher at the Department of Chemistry and co-author. "We are of course interpreting our results carefully and will now proceed with this research to investigate if genetics play a role in the observed biomarker patterns."

 

Why not simply first compare these metabolites and alpha-tocopherol in vivo patients for bias control? It's probably because Genetics must get more research money..

 

 

Interesting theory about the metabolites...  Iron is the primary catalyst for lipid oxidation and E the primary lipid antioxidant, so those with elevated iron burn through Vitamin-E at a higher rate than those with optimal iron homeostasis.  Iron elevation is also known to be conducive to cancer formation.  These tumors may have been due to ferrotoxic disease, and the elevated metabolites of E the smoking gun.  

 

http://www.healtheiron.com/iron-cancer

Edited by synesthesia, 22 May 2016 - 03:40 PM.

[joelcairo]

Pamojja, I really can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, but I generally go along with what you're saying.

 

...Except for this line: "While in reality most wouldn't do the bad practice of supplementing a single essential nutrient... in high doses, without balancing with all other essential nutrients too." In practice this is exactly what is being done, because virtually every clinical study of "vitamin E" is done with alpha tocopherol alone, and virtually every person supplementing it is also taking alpha tocopherol alone. As you say, this has negative consequences. I am aware that alternative vitamin E supplements exist, and I do take one of these regularly, but they are far out of the mainstream.

 

[joelcairo]

BTW, here's a link to the original study, which has some actual numbers and not just vague conclusions.

http://www.impactjou...42&path[]=28426

 

Higher alpha tocopherol levels were associated with a 1.7X increase in risk of glioblastoma (P=0.059). Not a very large increase for this kind of population screen, and not a very impressive degree of statistical significance.

 

Combine that with the idea that (at first glance) this study appears to be based on a one-time serum collection possibly decades before the glioblastoma ever appeared, and it seems to me that the value of the study is nil.

[normalizing]

synesthesia wouldnt vitamin e do the opposite, create more metabolites from iron since its antioxidant mechanism works against lipid perodixation caused by iron?

[pamojja]

BTW, here's a link to the original study, which has some actual numbers and not just vague conclusions.

 
Thanks a lot for the original study! Very interesting.
 
Obviously I was totally wrong with my assumptions on account of the initial article. It wasn't only metabolites, but the actual vitamins measured:
 

Metabolomic screening of pre-diagnostic serum samples identifies association between α- and γ-tocopherols and glioblastoma risk

 

Our finding that high serum levels of vitamin E correlates with future glioblastoma development does not completely agree with findings from earlier dietary questionnaire studies [12-14]. However, dietary intake of vitamin E does not reflect the actual level of various tocopherol isoforms in serum

 
Still, it appears supplements haven't been the cause of higher serum levels in this study.
 

Pamojja, I really can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, but I generally go along with what you're saying.

 
If you wanted to say that vitamin E should always be avoided on account of cancer research, I would disagree and differentiate.
 

...Except for this line:
 
"While in reality most wouldn't do the bad practice of supplementing a single essential nutrient... in high doses, without balancing with all other essential nutrients too."
 
In practice this is exactly what is being done, because virtually every clinical study of "vitamin E" is done with alpha tocopherol alone, and virtually every person supplementing it is also taking alpha tocopherol alone. As you say, this has negative consequences. I am aware that alternative vitamin E supplements exist, and I do take one of these regularly, but they are far out of the mainstream.

 
I might be wrong here too. But without any scientific background and living in a supplemental wasteland, it didn't took me much investigation and time to find out about sensible supplementation. Therefore I assumed everyone allotting part of his income to ongoing supplementation would do that kind of homework..

[sativa]

The problem of today is rather wide-spread vitamin deficiencies

A significant contributing factor to this is anti nutrients such as phytic acid which bind (usually irreversibly) to minerals as well as lectins which can cause intestinal permeability and reduce nutrient absorption.

[Dorian Grey]

synesthesia wouldnt vitamin e do the opposite, create more metabolites from iron since its antioxidant mechanism works against lipid perodixation caused by iron?

 

Iron is indestructible and un-excretable, so elevated iron simply burns through dietary or supplemental E creating metabolite byproducts of the E.  

 

I thought this was what they said they were detecting (high level metabolites of E) in the patients who developed cancer.  

[gamesguru]

my dad has hemochromotosis and ive recommended him a diet high in delta and gamma tocopherols and tocietrols

any other suggestions?

[gamesguru]

d.p.

Edited by gamesguru, 23 May 2016 - 01:13 AM.

[sativa]

synesthesia wouldnt vitamin e do the opposite, create more metabolites from iron since its antioxidant mechanism works against lipid perodixation caused by iron?

Iron is indestructible and un-excretable, so elevated iron simply burns through dietary or supplemental E creating metabolite byproducts of the E.

I thought this was what they said they were detecting (high level metabolites of E) in the patients who developed cancer.

Wowwow, hold the phone - I thought iron WAS excretable (aside from via bleeding).

As a male I am aware to ensure low iron intake as high iron levels are one of the significant factors in physical degradation.

I eat nutritional ueaat which has fairly high iron kevels so I ensure I combine it with high levels of polyphenols (quality genuine olive oil, LOTs) which, from what i gather, bund irreversibly to iron.

[Dorian Grey]

 

 

synesthesia wouldnt vitamin e do the opposite, create more metabolites from iron since its antioxidant mechanism works against lipid perodixation caused by iron?

Iron is indestructible and un-excretable, so elevated iron simply burns through dietary or supplemental E creating metabolite byproducts of the E.

I thought this was what they said they were detecting (high level metabolites of E) in the patients who developed cancer.

Wowwow, hold the phone - I thought iron WAS excretable (aside from via bleeding).

As a male I am aware to ensure low iron intake as high iron levels are one of the significant factors in physical degradation.

I eat nutritional ueaat which has fairly high iron kevels so I ensure I combine it with high levels of polyphenols (quality genuine olive oil, LOTs) which, from what i gather, bund irreversibly to iron.

 

 

Sorry about the mis-cue.  Yes, dietary iron can be bound, prevented from being absorbed and excreted having never left the GI tract.  Once it is absorbed however, the body has no way to cast off unwanted iron accumulation in the liver, heart and other organs other than menstruation, bloodletting or GI bleeding.  

 

The body had multiple systems to keep iron safely sequestered within specialized proteins (transferrin, ferritin and hemosiderin), but like stored toxic waste, these systems can leak.  Xanthine Oxidase (for instance) liberates iron from ferritin, and even estrogen raises serum iron.  Any free/liberated iron becomes quite toxic and inflammatory, and from what I've read can overwhelm antioxidant reserves like Vitamin-E.

 

Iron fortification of foods means the vast majority of us are consuming supplemental iron every day.  Great for growing children and menstruating females...  Not so good for grown men and seniors!  

Edited by synesthesia, 23 May 2016 - 03:10 AM.

[sativa]

Hmmm ok. Thanks for the clarification.
I meant to say nutritional yeast btw. It contains 5mg iron/100g, and
0.3mg/5g. I sometimes have ~20g/day mainly for protein - it contains 50g/100g protein.

In your opinion is combining it with a surplus of olive oil (and dietary polyphenols) good enough to continue consuming such high amounts? I could just buy more pea protein as this is what I was using as my main protein source before the yeast...

[gamesguru]

You want a chelator and antioxidant, like tea.

"The capacity of free iron to enhance and promote the generation of toxic reactive oxygen radicals has been discussed numerous times. The observations that iron induces aggregation of inert alpha-synuclein and beta-amyloid peptides to toxic aggregates have reinforced the critical role of iron in OS-induced pathogenesis of neurodegeneration, supporting the notion that a combination of iron chelation and antioxidant therapy may be one significant approach for neuroprotection. Tea flavonoids (catechins) have been reported to possess divalent metal chelating, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities, to penetrate the brain barrier and to protect neuronal death in a wide array of cellular and animal models of neurological diseases. This review aims to shed light on the multipharmacological neuroprotective activities of green tea catechins with special emphasis on their brain-permeable, nontoxic, transitional metal (iron and copper)-chelatable/radical scavenger properties.
"
"In conclusion, green tea inhibits or delays the deposition of hepatic iron in regularly iron-loaded thalassemic mice effectively. This will prevent the iron-induced generation of free radicals via Haber-Weiss and Fenton reactions, and consequently liver damage and fibrosis. Combined chelation with green tea would be investigated in beta-thalassemia patients with iron overload."

[sativa]

Cool. Only thing is that green tea tends to bio accumulate fluoride :(

[gamesguru]

Thats not true of all suppliers, generally the Japanese cultivers are more mindful of air quality (the tea actually absorbs the fluoride out of the air!)

Also the first flush, i heard, is cleaner. As well brick pu-erh and black reportefly have more thsn green or whitr, but this might just be due to air quality and have no bearing on the type of tea.

[normalizing]

green tea tends to bioacumilate lots of heavy metals if you read studies done on tea exported from india and/or china so fluoride is your last worry

[gamesguru]

Besides aluminum, which metals are you aware of that it accumulates. Bacopa roots have a similar addinity, but their purity can be assured with proper horticultural practices.

Thankfully I get it from japan. Also, it's the 21st century... pretty much everything that we touch or eat has some trace residues of nonessential metals.

To say the harms of green tea outweigh the benefits is the most unreasonable fancy.
Have fun living in a bubble.

Edited by gamesguru, 27 May 2016 - 06:33 AM.

[normalizing]

^ how does drinking shitload of green tea daily outweight the disastrous results of accumulating all kinds of toxins, heavy metals, radioactive particles that last a lifetime?

 

all the positive results seen from green tea are done on petri dishes that suggest IT MIGHT prevent cancer and its always with very purified high chemically specificed doses. there is not a single study on a human being drinking green tea from age 1 to age 90 with benefits of having EVERYTHING going well for them healthwise. now, go google how much stuff can concentrate in tea, and there is also a thread on here about it if you check it out http://www.longecity...ve-health-risk/

[pamojja]

all the positive results seen from green tea are done on petri dishes ...

 

there is not a single study on a human being drinking green tea from age 1 to age 90 with benefits of having EVERYTHING going well for them healthwise.

 

Indeed, the last time checked there was still a 100% mortality rate.
 

For a comprehensive summary of possible health benefits/side effects also outside petri dishes see for example at LPI.

[joelcairo]

^ how does drinking shitload of green tea daily outweight the disastrous results of accumulating all kinds of toxins, heavy metals, radioactive particles that last a lifetime?

 

all the positive results seen from green tea are done on petri dishes that suggest IT MIGHT prevent cancer and its always with very purified high chemically specificed doses. there is not a single study on a human being drinking green tea from age 1 to age 90 with benefits of having EVERYTHING going well for them healthwise. now, go google how much stuff can concentrate in tea, and there is also a thread on here about it if you check it out http://www.longecity...ve-health-risk/

 

It's simply laughable to say all the studies on green tea have been in vitro. Below is a link to one study in humans, although there are countless others to choose from. Of course no study can satisfy your straw man requirements that nothing bad is allowed to happen to people throughout their entire lives. Anyway here are the results of the study cited:

 

Higher green tea consumption was consistently observed as being associated with a lower risk of mortality due to ovarian cancer, and a decreased risk of ovarian, breast, and colorectal cancers, and adult leukemia occurrences in our observational studies.

The adjusted HR and 95% CI for case mortality from ovarian cancer was 0.40 (0.18-0.90) in the patients who consumed green tea at the highest level compared with non-tea drinkers.

Compared with never or seldom tea drinkers, the adjusted ORs ranged from 0.07 to 0.61 for ovarian, breast, and colorectal cancers, and adult leukemia in those who consumed green tea at the highest level.

Significant inverse dose-response relationships were also observed for quantity, duration, and frequency of green tea consumed.

 

http://functionalfoo...es/58004791.pdf

Edited by joelcairo, 28 May 2016 - 08:35 PM.

[normalizing]

you guys misunderstand what im saying here. green tea can accumulate quite few toxic materials including but not limited to fluoride, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes . is it worth it consuming it daily to get 1 hour half life of EGCG (check sources half life of EGCG is 1 hour or less!) compared to lifetime half life of radioactive isotopes, year to several years accumilation of heavy metals of all types (arsenic, lead and cadmium are widely found in all teas) and various toxins which might have half life of 1 day to months and years even!

 

edit: dear lord i did some research on heavy metals in tea and im shocked, its worse than i thought ill probably make a whole thread of this in the future this is some serious problem considering 90% of americans consume tea and they arent getting any healthier something must be up here. it will be controversial but ill see to it

Edited by normalizing, 28 May 2016 - 11:38 PM.