Fw: News Update

[Guest guest]

E NEWS

 

 

 

-

eletters

baronwarleggan

Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:02 PM

News Update

 

 

DECEMBER E-NEWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOMOCYSTEINE CAUSES HEART DISEASE - IT'S OFFICIAL

 

While the link between homocysteine and heart disease is old news, two questions

have remained unanswered. The first is 'How strong is the association - does

homocysteine actually cause heart disease or is it just a risk factor?'. The

second is 'Is homocysteine the " new cholesterol " - should all those at risk get

tested?'.

 

A report published last month in the British Medical Journal, which reviewed 92

studies that measured homocysteine in more than 20,000 people, confirmed that

homocysteine causes heart disease and is a very strong risk factor. Since over

10% of the population have a genetic mutation that increases homocysteine

levels, the report split the groups into those with or without this gene

mutation.

 

They found that with every 5 µmol/l (or 'unit') increase of homocysteine

measured in the blood, the risk for heart disease went up 42% in those with the

gene mutation and 32% in those without. The risk for strokes went up 65% in

those with the genetic mutation and 59% for those without. The researchers

concluded that these 'highly significant results indicate strong evidence that

the association between homocysteine and cardiovascular disease is causal'.

 

The average homocysteine level in Britain is around 10 units. Risk is negligible

below 6 units. Those with heart disease often have levels above 15 units. This

means that lowering a high homocysteine from 16 to 6 units might cut risk by

75%! This is not only much more substantial a reduction than cholesterol, it's

also more achievable. How? With nutrients, not drugs. The combination of folic

acid, B12 and B6, plus a nutrient called TMG can lower high homocysteine by more

than 5 units in less than two months. This level of risk reduction is greater

than that achieved by taking Statin drugs for a year, and has none of the

associated adverse effects. The growing realisation of the importance of

homocysteine is going to revolutionise prevention approaches to heart disease.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

New PageYou can to Patrick Holfords newsletter -author of Optimum

Nutrition

 

HEALTH E-LETTER

 

Dear e-news r

 

In this issue, I tell you about:

 

.. The Food Standards Agency's decision on limiting B6 supplements

 

.. Why supplements are a better source of folic acid than food

 

.. How to look behind the nutrition myths reported in the media to see the real

agenda

 

'NO 10mg LIMIT ON B6' SAYS FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY

 

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has abandoned plans to limit the amount of

vitamin B6 in supplements to 10mg. In a letter to the Institute for Optimum

Nutrition, the FSA states that it is " working with manufacturers on a labeling

initiative which, by the use of agreed advisory statements, would allow levels

of more than 10mg vitamin B6 to be available, allowing informed consumer

choice " . If this strategy is extended to other vitamins and minerals, it would

mean 'advisory statements', for example, about flushing with niacin, or risk of

loose bowels with large amounts of vitamin C. The FSA has not announced

decisions about which nutrients will require advisory statements, nor at what

levels these will be required, nor whether there will be a maximum level of, for

example, B6 allowed in supplements. However, the move towards a policy allowing

for informed consumer choice is regarded as an important step.

 

Also encouraging is the FSA's intention to argue this position in the EU which

is now obliged, in the next two years, to effect some policy regarding 'upper

safety levels'. However, Britain's instigation of advisory notices on labels,

rather than banning higher levels of certain nutrients, does not guarantee that

the EU will adopt a similar policy. The position of other European countries,

especially those with the most votes such as Germany and France, will carry a

lot of weight. But, this move by the FSA, in response to an immense amount of

campaigning, is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

RESEARCH REVEALS FOLIC ACID SUPPLEMENTS TWICE AS EFFECTIVE AS FOOD

 

Many people assume that nutrients in food work better than nutrients in

supplements. Sometimes this is the case and for others it isn't. In the case of

folic acid, supplements have consistently proven more effective in raising blood

levels of this nutrient than the equivalent amount in food.

 

To test this, the Food Standards Agency has been involved in a series of studies

investigating the effect on folic acid status, giving healthy people the

equivalent amount of folic acid (both as supplements in tablet form or as

folic-acid-fortified food) or in natural food rich in folates (the natural form

of folic acid). Overall, food folates were found to be half as effective at

equivalent doses to folic acid supplements in raising people's nutrient status.

 

The average intake of folate in Britain is 252mcg, although those who eat plenty

of fruit, vegetables and beans may be able to achieve 350 to 400mcg. (The best

foods for folate are green vegetables such as lettuce, broccoli, Brussel

sprouts, avocados and asparagus, plus pulses such as lentils, chickpeas, all

beans and seeds.) The basic recommended daily allowance (RDA) for folate is

200mcg a day, while the optimal intake is in the range of 400mcg to 800mcg, the

latter being for pregnant women, the elderly and those with homocysteine levels

above 6 (homocysteine being a key health marker - see www.thehfactor.com for

more details). Therefore, as a rule of thumb, it is best to supplement around

200mcg a day.

 

Source: September FSA Newsletter 'Bioavailability of folic acid and natural

folates: studies using the functional marker plasma homocysteine'

 

 

 

DO SUPPLEMENTS DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

 

According to a recent statement issued by Sarah Schenker, dietician for the

British Nutrition Foundation (BNF), " You shouldn't need supplements if you eat a

balanced diet. Supplements can do more harm than good " . However, would you trust

that a spokesperson for a nutrition organisation has your best interests in mind

if you knew that organisation was funded by the makers of sugar, salt, suet,

confectionary, food additives, fast foods and fizzy drinks? The British

Nutrition Foundation's list of 'member companies' reads like a 'who's who' of

food manufacturers whose products may well 'do more harm than good' themselves.

Ajinimoto (makers of the additive MSG), Associated British Foods (sugar and

artificial sweeteners), British Sugar, Cadbury Schweppes, Coca-Cola, McDonalds,

Nestle, Tate and Lyle Sugars, to name a few.

 

So is Schenker's prehistoric view about supplements based on science? No. It's

propaganda, paid for by the bad food industry. Every survey conducted in Britain

since the 1980s shows that even those who said that they ate a balanced diet

fail to eat anything like the government-set Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs)

of vitamins and minerals. And these RDAs aren't even designed to ensure optimal

health, rather to prevent severe nutritional deficiency diseases such as scurvy

or rickets. As for harm, there has never been a single death reported anywhere

in the world from taking a multivitamin, compared to ten of thousands of deaths

attributed to prescribed drugs every single year. But the evidence is growing

for the beneficial effects of taking a multivitamin (less heart disease, less

cancer, longer healthy lifespan, raised IQ and memory, less aggression, less

infections, to name a few). So those who say that " you don't need supplements "

are not just ill-informed, they are encouraging people to not take one of the

simplest and cheapest steps towards better health.

 

I believe that instead of funding the British Nutrition Foundation, food

companies should fund cleaning up their own products in order to promote the

nation's health and become part of the solution instead of being part of the

problem.

 

But since there is more money in bad food, it is very much in the interests of

the food industry to downplay the massive shortfall between the nutrients we

need for optimal health and what the average diet currently delivers. In other

words, promote the belief that everything is alright on the diet front. However,

if this were true, we wouldn't have a nation full of obese people, kids with

diabetes, and a life expectancy of only 76, with people dropping dead from

preventable diseases such as heart disease and cancer.

 

These days, the battle between the truth and lies about what constitutes good

nutrition is fought in the media. Despite coming up against companies that spend

£millions on PR, and the muscle that comes from spending £billions on

advertising, organisations such the Institute for Optimum Nutrition

(www.ion.ac.uk) - which is not funded by food, drug or vitamin companies -

command a lot of respect.

 

That is why I write to the editor of any paper who prints inaccurate or biased

statements so that, next time, they know where to check out their facts. You

might want to do the same.

 

 

 

DON'T MISS.

 

In my November 100% health newsletter, you can read about:

 

.. 'How I cured my Alzheimer's Disease' - interview with Tom Warren

 

.. Vaccinations - my recommendations for your children

 

.. From chronic fatigue to feeling great - why getting connected is the key

 

Plus there's the latest health research, health tips and special offers on books

and events. If you're not already a r and would like to receive this

issue, call now on 020 8870 9119.

 

 

 

Wishing you the best of health,

 

Patrick Holford

 

 

 

If you'd like to to this free e-news, please email your details to

enquiries