Glucosamine + fish oil omega-3’s has been shown to begin the process of reversing osteoarthritis, as published by Gruenwald et al in the Sept 2009 issue of the journal Advances in Therapy. (link) Though this is not a big surprise, its nice to see as a new addition to the scientific literature. I’ve been recommending glucosamine/chondroitin + fish oil/vitamin D + green lipped mussel oil + MSM + proteolytic enzymes, for years, and now have added to the repertoire concentrated anthocyanins from all the major “super fruits”, for all manner of inflammatory problems. With just 1500 mg of glucosamine, and 200 mg of EPA+DHA (a wimpy dose of omega-3) 44% of the group receiving both glucosamine and omega-3 showed at least an 80% reduction in pain over 26 weeks time, as compared with only 32% of those who received only glucosamine. Just think what they might find if they added vitamin D, green lipped mussel oil, MSM, proteolytic enzymes, and fruit anthocyanins…
A study in the Annals of Epidemiology linking vitamin D and Cancer Prevention.
It is projected that raising the minimum year- round serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D3, or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increaseintake of vitamin D and calcium.
Its not just cholesterol any more…. New study connects vitamin D levels to risk of dying from heart disease (link). And if you think the 400-600 IU of vitamin D in your multiple vitamin is going to give you optimum levels of vitamin D in your blood, think again! Government health agencies are now admitting that the recommended levels of vitamin D intake for all ages are woefully inadequate, but they still recommend levels (such as 1,000 IU) that are far too low. Start at 2,000 IU per day, unless you’re a sun worshipper and you live in the land of eternal summer. After 3-4 months, ask your doctor for a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level test—it’s probably a more important number to know than your cholesterol level. If that number is less than 50 ng/ml (be sure its ng/ml and not nmol/L units—if the latter, you have to divide it by 2.5 to get ng/ml). Many people require 4,000 to 6,000 IU of vitamin D—especially older, heavier, or more dark skinned people—some may need even more. The blood level will tell you if you’re getting enough—don’t wait for government regulations to do so—they’re 10 years behind the science.
Insufficient levels of vitamin D puts elderly at increased risk of dying from heart disease
A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado Denver and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) shows vitamin D plays a vital role in reducing the risk of death associated with older age. The research, just published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, evaluated the association between vitamin D levels in the blood and the death rates of those 65 and older. The study found that older adults with insufficient levels of vitamin D die from heart disease at greater rates that those with adequate levels of the vitamin.
Read more about the University of Colorado study at ScienceDaily.com.
Evidence that vitamin D may be the MOST important vitamin continues to mount. Although epidemiological studies such as this one (link) don’t prove cause and effect, the sheer number of such associations are suggesting that one of the most important things you can do for your health is make sure that you have a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level in the neighborhood of 50 ng/ml.
A new study in the Journal of Nutrition research showed:
Higher vitamin D levels associated with increased survival among older women over a 6 year period
Vitamin D deficiency is associated with osteoporosis, poor muscle strength, falls, and fractures. The relationship between serum vitamin D concentrations and mortality in older community-dwelling women has not been well characterized. We hypothesized that women with lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations were at higher risk of mortality. We examined the association between serum 25[OH]D concentrations and all-cause mortality in a prospective, population-based study of 714 community-dwelling women, aged 70 to 79 years, the Women’s Health and Aging Studies I and II in Baltimore, Md. The studies were originally designed to evaluate the causes and course of physical disability in older women living in the community. Vital status was determined through follow-up interviews and matching with the National Death Index. During a median of 72 months of follow-up, 100 (14%) of 714 women died. Women in the lowest quartile of 25(OH)D (<15.3 ng/mL or 38.2 nmol/L) were at higher risk of death (hazards ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-5.36; P = .02) compared to women in the highest quartile (>27.0 ng/mL or 67.4 nmol/L) of 25(OH)D in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for demographics, season, and conventional risk factors. Older community-dwelling women with low 25(OH)D levels are at an increased risk of death.
OK, so fish oil isn’t going to make you lose those extra 30 pounds you’re carrying. But it appears that keeping your omega-3 intake high, and your omega-6 intake (meat, poultry, warm weather vegetable oils) low, may contribute to making it easier to maintain a healthy weight—not to mention a healthy heart, healthy brain, healthy joints, healthy immune system, etc. etc…..
A recent study found:
Higher blood levels of omega-3 fatty acids may help reduce obesity, according to a new study from Australia’s University of Newcastle.
Omega-3 levels in people who are a healthy weight are 15 percent higher than in those who are overweight, the researchers reported in the British Journal of Nutrition.
News reports are routinely talking about the problem of mercury in fish.
WASHINGTON – Mercury contamination was found in every fish tested at nearly 300 streams across the country in the most comprehensive look at the spread of the toxic element in streams and rivers.
All fish had traces of contamination, and about a quarter had mercury levels exceeding what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for people eating average amounts of fish.
Why do “they” never advise people to take fish oil (DHA and EPA) supplements? Seems like a no brainer to me….. Even without the extra purification step of molecular distillation (which should be used to remove PCBs, dioxins, and other fat soluble environmental contaminants to produce a high quality fish oil), the mercury stays in the fish protein. There is essentially no mercury in any (even low quality) fish oil products. Seems like this ought to be better known…..
All fish had traces of contamination, and about a quarter had mercury levels exceeding what the Environmental Protection Agency says is safe for people eating average amounts of fish.
A question of balance… and prejudice? Recent publication of a research article from Germany has created lots more controversy around antioxidant supplements, though vitamin C and vitamin E were the only compounds studied, and there are a great many more antioxidants both in foods and in supplements that have not been looked at in this context.
The article, published in the on-line version of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/11/0903485106 showed that 500 mg of vitamin C twice daily and 400 IU of d-alpha tocopherol (1 of the 8 forms of the vitamin E complex) taken once daily by 20 young healthy men who performed supervised exercise for 85 minutes Monday thru Friday for 4 weeks, decreased the beneficial effects that this exercise program had on insulin sensitivity in the 20 unsupplemented men (control group). What this study appears to have discovered is that the oxygen free radicals produced by exercise produce beneficial effects on glucose metabolism, and may help decrease development of diabetes. However, the title of the article “Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans” overstates the case quite a bit, since their findings related ONLY to insulin sensitivity, and did not at all investigate the other known benefits of exercise, such as improving cardiovascular function, immune response, stress handling, mood, cognitive function, etc. etc. There was also no detriment shown in the supplemented group
Antioxidant vitamins such as vitamin C and E are different from many of the other antioxidants found in foods, herbs, spices, and teas, in that they can become free radicals themselves, if the diet is low in antioxidants and the individuals are under high oxidative stress. The “burst” of oxygen free radicals associated with an hour of exercise are quite different from the continuous barrage of free radicals associated with smoking for instance. So this study tells us only about the effect of 2 specific vitamin antioxidants, in a group of healthy young men, in terms of markers of insulin sensitivity, 1 of many known positive benefits of exercise.
This is not to minimize the importance of these findings, but simply to put them in context. Unfortunately, a controversy loving and science undereducated press will generalize and draw unwarranted conclusions, and the anti-supplement folks will point and say, see we told you so—supplements are no good….
It is important to document that at least in this context, the oxygen free radicals generated by an hour of intensive exercise have some beneficial effects that we would be better off not to block. We don’t know if other antioxidants such as co-q-10, alpha lipoic acid, OPCs, and other polyphenolic compounds would have similar effects or not. We also don’t know if a high antioxidant diet vs a low antioxidant diet has impact on the system they studied (diet is a major confounding influence on any studies of antioxidant supplements, and notoriously difficult to control for). But its probably the case that if you’re a young healthy man who exercises, or someone with risk factors for metabolic syndrome or diabetes who exercises, its probably best not to take vitamins C and E along with your exercise.
In biology there is always a question of balance. Its almost always possible to have too much of a good thing, whether that be oxygen free radicals or antioxidants—having the RIGHT AMOUNT is key, which probably varies with age, sex, state of health, environment, diet, level of physical activity, etc. I would predict that if the investigators studied antioxidants (optimally a much larger number in much smaller amounts, because that is how nutrients work) in people training for marathons and triathlons, where the oxidative stress is much greater, they would find a net BENEFIT for antioxidants supplements. My rule of thumb in 35 years of experience prescribing and formulating nutritional supplements has been to use many nutrients together, and avoid megadoses of any one, as that is most likely to create imbalances. My hope is that before too many more decades scientists will develop a model to study nutritional supplements in humans as networks of many interacting compounds that support and supplement the diet to support health, rather than as a few compounds in large doses and in isolation.
Below are some quotes from other experts that illustrate the points I’m making (borrowed from www.nutraingredients.com)
The design of randomized clinical trials to study isolated nutrient factors, following the drug- or evidence-based model in general has received much criticism.
Andrew Shao, PhD, vice president of scientific & regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), a trade association, said: “The current drug-based approach used in randomized clinical trials may not be the best approach to assess the health benefits of antioxidants, or other nutrients for that matter, and that researchers need to rethink how to design and execute such trials.”
“I do think more clinical trials are needed for antioxidants, but it is critical that they are designed and conducted to truly test the question(s) of interest, with the results interpreted and communicated appropriately,” added Dr Shao.
Jeff Blumberg, professor of nutrition science and policy at Tufts University said: “I think that when we look at the idea of a single gold standard, like the randomized clinical trial, for evaluating nutrients, foods and diets, it just doesn’t work.
“Sometimes it’s useful for answering for some very specific questions, but I think at other times we must go and use the approach that we have been using for the last generation or two, of looking at all of the research strategies and the information they can give us, from basic research using cell cultures and animal models, from clinical experience looking at how patients respond in the clinic, to observational studies of large populations followed for long times consuming different types of diets, as well as the intervention clinical trials.”
The criticisms of the drug-model for testing nutrients highlight fundamental issues with the understanding of antioxidants, and nutrients in general. Professor Blumberg added that it was important to understand how nutrients work.
“When we look at nutrients, nutrients are distributed throughout the body. Essential nutrients like vitamins and minerals have to be in every cell in every tissue in our body,” he said. “But in fact the body concentrates those nutrients in higher amounts in some tissues and in lower amounts in other tissues, it uses them in combination with other nutrients. They are designed in a system of synergies and networks.”
You probably don’t hear much from your doctor about DHEA. Since it’s a naturally occurring hormone and not patentable, its become a nutritional supplement in the US (though a drug in the EU). And doctors don’t get educated about nutritional supplements, at least not much (not yet). But I’ve been paying attention to DHEA for about 15 years, and have often included it in programs for people who need to build back lost bone. The only people who shouldn’t use it are those who have or have had hormone related cancers such as estrogen receptor positive breast cancer, or prostate cancer. In this study, reported on at Science Daily, they gave both men and women between the ages of 65 and 75, 50 mg of DHEA.
Taking a DHEA supplement combined with vitamin D and calcium can significantly improve spinal bone density in older women, according to a new study from a Saint Louis University scientist and his colleagues at Washington University.
In my experience that dose is a bit high for women, about right for most men, though some need up to 100 mg to normalize their blood level. Its really best to ask your doctor to test your blood levels of both “free” (unbound) DHEA, and DHEA sulfate (its storage form). If either one is low, you’re a good candidate for supplementing this “supplement”. Your body can turn DHEA into any adrenal or sex hormone that it decides it needs—DHEA is a so-called “precursor” hormone.
They also went a little bit light on the vitamin D in this study (700 IU). Most adults who work indoors need 1000 IU of vitamin D for every 30 pounds of body weight, and 50% more than that if they are dark skinned, overweight, or obese. Again, after you’ve supplemented vitamin D for 3 or 4 months, it’s a good idea to ask your doctor to measure your blood level of 25 hydroxy vitamin D. You want it to be between 50 and 100 ng/ml (be sure its in ng/ml units, not nmoles/L units, or it needs to be between 80 and 140).
These, along with good weight bearing exercise and resistance exercise, are BASIC things that should be done in everyone before considering drugs like Fosamax, Actonel, or Boniva. You can build a lot of your bone back, no matter what the reason that you lost it in the first place. And be sure your kids and grandkids are getting enough vitamin D, calcium, magnesium and trace minerals—they’re building the bone they’ll live off for a lifetime during their teens and early 20s.
Finally, SOMEBODY is talking about the vitamin D—influenza connection. Researchers see link between vitamin D, flu immunity:
–In February, researchers reported a link between vitamin D levels in the blood and upper respiratory infections in a group of nearly 19,000 people ages 12 and older.
–A 2006 review article in the journal Epidemiology of Infection laid out a detailed case for vitamin D and its protective effect against the flu.
Best thing you can do for you and your families to protect them from the flu, swine, avian, or otherwise, is to take 1,000 IU vitamin D per 30 pounds body weight (if you’re not getting summer sun exposure without sunscreen—if you are, start supplementing when the time of year comes that your shadow is taller than you are—a rule of thumb for whether or not the sun is strong enough to produce vitamin D in your skin. I predict that once studies are done, they will show that having a 25-OH vitamin D level between 50 and 100 ng/ml is better at preventing flu than any vaccine—not to mention reducing the risk of many common and deadly forms of cancer.
With all the media coverage of the “swine flu” (H1N1) non-epidemic, I haven’t heard a single expert mention what could well be the most effective public health measure in preventing a pandemic—the recommendation for everyone to take enough vitamin D3 (or get enough un-blocked summer sun exposure) to get their 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level above 50 ng/ml (but not more than 100 ng/ml). A good rule of thumb for supplementation is 1,000 IU for every 30 pounds of body weight. If your health insurance won’t cover the cost of a vitamin D test, the least expensive way ($65) to check your level is a home test kit available through the vitamin D council’s website, unless you live in NY, in which case you’ll have to get your doctor to order a blood test for you.
To read the abstract of the study about vitamin D levels and influenza visit PubMed.