Guest guest Posted May 9, 2003 Report Share Posted May 9, 2003 An update by a really knowledgable nutritionist who does know his stuff re vitamins and minerals. marianne > " Vitamin Safety Limits Are Unsafe " > > The vitamin scare stories that hit the headlines in national newspapers > today are based on a recent report by the Food Standards Agency, > recommending Upper Safety levels for vitamins and minerals. " Most of these > upper safety levels are based on good science. They have, however, made > three important blunders which will do much more harm than good. " says > nutritionist Patrick Holford. > > The first is restricting vitamin B6 to 10mg. B6 can be bad for you at > 1000mg, causing reversible nerve tingling and numbness, but not 100mg. The > Institute for Optimum Nutrition, a research charity, recently investigated > the long-term effects of B6 supplementation. They investigated 563 patients > of clinical nutritionists, who had been taking 30 to 250mg for 3 months to > 42 months. The nutritionists had recorded a wide variety of symptoms > associated with B6 toxicity. They found no evidence of nerve tingling, > numbness or any other adverse effect associated with B6 regardless of the > dosage or the length of time taken. " Nutritionists frequently recommend > 100mg of B6 a day. There is no evidence that this amount has any harm > whatsoever. The FSA are quite wrong to recommend this restriction. It will > do much more harm than good. B6 not only helps stabilise moods, especially > in women, it also helps reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. I take > 100mg a day and intend to keep doing so. " said Patrick Holford, founder of > the Institute for Optimum Nutrition. > > The second is confusing the loose bowels that some people experience on 2 > grams of vitamin C with diarrhoea, which is why they've limited vitamin C > to 1,000mg a day. Nutritionist Patrick Holford commented " I take 2,000mg. I > go to the loo twice a day, while, according to a nation-wide survey, 90% of > people don't go every day. This is a benefit, not a risk of taking larger > doses of vitamin C. People are intelligent enough to take less if they > don't like the effect. It is certainly no more pronounced than figs or > prunes. " > > Thirdly, there's a type of B3 called niacin that makes you blush for 20 > minutes at doses above 100mg. Nutritionist Patrick Holford commented > " Personally, I like the effect. Sex too makes you blush, but it isn't bad > for you. The blushing effect from vitamin B3 certainly isn't a toxic > effect. " Some people prone to depression appear to need this much to keep > stable moods or free from migraines. Niacin also lowers cholesterol by 20% > to 35% and is therefore a natural alternative to statin drugs. The Food > Standards Agency have recommended an upper limit of 17mg, which is less > than the RDA of 18mg. > > The other major over-reaction is regarding a form of chromium, chromium > picolinate. The FSA don't have a problem with chromium per se, and have set > an upper limit of 10,000mcg. However, they are concerned about chromium > picolinate, a form of chromium, based on one report more a decade ago that > showed that animal cell, exposed to chromium picolinate in a test-tube > showed DNA damage. The FSA's report states that " the significance of these > observations is unclear. " The media have reported that the FSA wish to ban > chromium picolinate, however the FSA deny this and have reiterated that > that they are concerned and wish to present this data to their Committee on > Mutagenicity. Patrick Holford says " I doubt very much there is any real > reason to be concerned about chromium picolinate. There isn't a single case > of a person supplementing this and developing cell mutation or cancer. Most > supplement companies have switched to other forms of chromium which are > equally effective, such as chromium polynicotinate. " > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 Whilst Patrick Holford does plug his own company here, the rest of the news and his tireless efforts to promote good supplements is worth the read. marianne > 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 <A HREF= " http://www.thehfactor.com/ " > > www.thehfactor.com</A> 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 as the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (<A HREF= " http://www.ion.ac.uk/ " > > www.ion.ac.uk</A>) - 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.