Posted on 03/01/2008 2:40:50 PM PST by blam
Vitamin E linked to lung cancer
High vitamin E doses were found to increase risk
Taking high doses of vitamin E supplements can increase the risk of lung cancer, research suggests. The US study of 77,000 people found taking 400 milligrams per day long-term increased cancer risk by 28% - with smokers at particular risk.
It follows warnings about similar risks of excessive beta-carotene use.
Writing in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, an expert said people should get their vitamins from fruit and veg.
Dr Tim Byers, from the University of Colorado, said a healthy, balanced diet meant people took in a whole range of beneficial nutrients and minerals, which might help to reduce cancer risk.
The researchers followed people aged between 50 and 76 for four years and looked at their average daily use of vitamin C and folic acid, and vitamin E supplements.
Over the course of the study, 521 people developed lung cancer.
Smoking, family history and age all had unsurprisingly strong links to cancer risk.
And while neither vitamin C or folic acid use had any effect on lung cancer risk, vitamin E use did.
The researchers extrapolated their findings, and concluded that over a decade, there was an additional 7% increase in risk for every 100 milligrams taken per day.
The vitamin E trend was most prominent among smokers, but was not confined to them.
Vitamin E is known to be an antioxidant - protecting cells from molecules called free radicals.
But the US researchers speculate that, in high doses, it may also act as a pro-oxidant - causing oxidation and therefore damage to cells.
'Toxic effects'
Dr Christopher Slatore of the University of Washington in Seattle, who led the study, said: "In contrast to the often assumed benefits or at least lack of harm, supplemental vitamin E was associated with a small increased risk of lung cancer.
"Future studies may focus on other components of fruits and vegetables that may explain the decreased risk of cancer that has been associated with fruit and vegetables.
"Meanwhile, our results should prompt clinicians to counsel patients that these supplements are unlikely to reduce the risk of lung cancer and may be detrimental."
But Henry Scowcroft, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "The jury's still very much out on whether vitamin and mineral supplements can affect cancer risk.
"Some studies suggest a benefit, but many others show no effect and some, like this one, suggest they may even increase risk."
He added: "Research repeatedly shows that a healthy, balanced diet can reduce your risk of some cancers while giving you all the vitamins you need.
"Quitting smoking remains the most effective way to avoid many cancers. There's no diet, or vitamin supplement, that could ever counter the toxic effects of cigarette smoke."
In 2002 a Finnish study of 29,000 male smokers found taking beta-carotene - which is converted into vitamin A in the body - was linked to an 18% increased risk of developing lung cancer
Cheaper but less fun than smokes.
Made in China ingredients?
(Beta Carotene Supplements Harmful to Ex-Smokers)
This is a really serious issue, especially since there are so many people & companies that tout the "benefits" of anti-oxidant supplements. Every now & then I come across someone touting their vitamins & antioxidants from some company, usually an MLM, and they are completely ignorant of the danger to ex-smokers of anti-oxidant supplements. One of the worse is a Nu-Skin spin-off company that uses a Raman-Laser type device to detect the beta-carotene levels in the victim's (i.e, the potential customer) skin. Not surprisingly, most people come up short in this area (unless your skin is orange from eating to much carrot juice!) and "need" the companies products. I wonder how many customers have been sent to an early death by this company.
I tell every ex-smoker I come across to avoid taking these supplements, especially the beta-carotene ones. Interestingly, it seems to be OK to get anti-oxidants from traditional sources, but then that means eating greens & colored vegetables!
Thanks. I quit smoking six months ago today.
I tried to start several times but cant seem to fine the time money or energy to stick to it....
Maybe it’s just me or somebody else has noticed, but for the past several months a whole lot of articles have come out that supposedly debunk the benefits of many of the OTC products that we commonly buy.
If we go back to the virtual ban on pseudoeprinephine brought about about the “meth” epidemic we go forward to the more often bans or cautions on most of the feel-good stuff like energy enhancers through children’s cold medicines, expanded recently to cover the 7-16 age group, onto the performance enhancers, now the particular vitamin supplements themselves.
A skeptic might think that either this is being done to line the pockets of doctors and drug companies or some ground-breaking science is going on.
There are DIFFERENT KINDS of Vitamin E....this is, I believe, only alpha E.....what this doesn’t say is that the delta, gamma, and tocotriels (sp) are very good for you....and I believe that means EVEN if you smoke.
Lung cancer is an old peoples cancer.
Less than 10 % of lung cancer is found in people under 50.
So they immediately followed a higher risk group. And they followed for 4 years so each year the risk increases.
521 lung cancers out of 77,000...that’s less than 7%
and the “risk” is increased 28 % ? How meaningful is that ?
Congratualtions!!!!!! I hear quitting smoking is the hardest habit to break.....good for you!!!!!!!
After mom died last year of pancreatic cancer, I make sure and take my Vitamin D daily.
This link is very interesting. Y’all got me thinking (rather dangerous sometimes) about my consumption of Vitamin E which was suggested by my doctor.
I quit smoking about 20 years ago....smartest thing I ever did. One thing that helped me a lot was taking a deep breath when I thought I would die if I didn’t get a cigarette. You can do it!
Thousands of years ago....the GREEKS knew.
EVERYTHING IN MODERATION
>>Taking high doses of vitamin E supplements can increase the risk of lung cancer, research suggests. The US study of 77,000 people found taking 400 milligrams per day long-term increased cancer risk by 28% - with smokers at particular risk.<<
So if you eat 30 times as much of something as you are supposed to, something bad may happen. Shocking.
I only smoke 300mg of E, so I should be ok.
This particular study reeks of agenda and seems really short on basic scientific method. First, a 4 year study of a cancer that takes decades to develop is laughable. Second, the participants all self-reported their intake and were free to use whatever supplement they wanted. No standardization. An analysis of the Vitamin E purchased at the Dollar Store might turn up actual carcinogens and no E.
And third, the 28% "increase in risk" they report is not something they actually obeserved; they extrapolated the figure over a 10 year period--2 1/2 times longer than the actual study that took place. The study does not appear to distinguish among those who took E for decades or just for the period of the study. If E were indeed a causative or exacerbating factor, those on E the longest would show clear patterns of earlier and more aggressive cancers. But no, no effort was made to track any of that. It may be that that those who took E for the longest period of time were protected, and only the newest users made it into the cancer group, skewing the results.
And let's look at this supposed 28% increase in risk among those who took vitamin E. Even if we accept the sloppy methodology because--oh let's pretend we're stupid or drunk--it sounds like a huge number...til you realize this report is worded to obfuscate the fact that their findings are actually statistically insignificant.Bottom line, only 521 people out of 77,000 were diagnosed with lung cancer at all in this study. That's seven-tenths of 1%. So we're supposed to get excited about 28% of seven-tenths of 1%? The only thing worth getting excited about is the deceptive, manipulative nature of this report and the grant or tax dollars wasted.
Actually, it’s even less meaningful than you suggest. Only seven-tenths of 1%.
thanks for the analysis
and for fixing my math. I left off the decimal.
My thoughts exactly. Anyway, my vitamin E intake can't be giving me lung cancer. I never could keep those slippery little things lit.
Yup.
I really wonder is science is backward on this one. They assume that oxidative stress causes pathology, but I wonder if it could be a form of repair or protection. (for example; a fever doesn’t cause a cold. it’s a symptom and an attempt by the body to fight the disease. chicken or the egg.) For years I’ve wondered if antioxidants are doing more harm than good by eliminating a protective/healing mechanism.
“Vitamin E Linked To Lung Cancer”
You don’t have to have a name like
Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim (aka Paracelsus)
to understand that “it’s the dose that makes the poison”!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
Legend and rumour
Paracelsus is often cited as coining the phrase
“the dose makes the poison”.
Although he did not say this precisely, it seems that Paracelsus was
indeed well aware of the principle
Definitely a nominee for Post of the Day.
Or maybe they are just getting the sheeple used to not having medicines that will actually do some good and get them used to waitng years to see a doctor or get medicine prescribed
More correlation being mistaken for causation.
Show me the mechanism that makes vitamin E cause lung cancer.
OH, NO! Anyone over 50 is OLD? Why didn't someone tell me that when I turned 50? Dad Gumb!!!
I never did take to those things. They are slippery and too damned hard to light and get a decent coal burning.
Well, first, of all the cancers that happen in people (worldwide), smokers or not, lung cancer is number one. So I think it is safe to say that because of genetic disposition or environmental factors, people are somewhat prone to lung cancer.
Second, I’ve heard about some of the protocols used in some of these studies. (The bad ones). Sometimes people don’t take the stuff and don’t report that they’re not taking it, sometimes people are ALREADY taking other supplements or dietary items that expand the effect.
Thirdly, there are multiple active forms of Vit E. Unless you get the right ones in the proper balance, I could see where it very well could cause some damage. Sometimes the wrong form can attach to a receptor and because it is the wrong form (wrong stereoisomer or whatever), the receptor gets blocked and not turned on.
Everything in moderation. The antioxidant properties of Vit E are well established, also it’s importance to healthy cell membranes.
This is suspect unless repeatable and verified by meta-analysis.
Get your sunshine! It's the best form of vit D.
Good analysis.
The world is full of agenda driven individuals and groups that must scare us all to death to get their way.
Yes, there are two statistical risks involved here, “relative risk” and “absolute risk”. They are focussing on the relative risk.
Yes, they found a relative increased risk of 28%, but, as you point out, the absolute risk was 0.7% of developing lung cancer at all. So, even with the relative risk added, folks were extremely UNLIKELY to develop lung cancer.
The problem is, people are succeeding in making careers out of the notion of eliminating all risk from your life. But at what expense? Witness the recent idiotic Mississippi bill against serving bad food to obese folks in restaurants!
Get your sunshine! It’s the best form of vit D.
In fact it’s not.
The UVB rays that make Vit D in your skin only get through the atmosphere if the sun is within 15 degrees or so of the zenith, the highest point in the sky.
For most of North America, there’s a good six months of the year when the sun never gets far enough up - you can sit in the sun all day then and make none at all.
So you can eat eggs. And lard. No, I’m not kidding! Lard!!
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html
Oxidation is a process by which compounds or elements are slowly consumed or ‘burned’ by oxygen by definition; at best, to imply or assert that antioxidants are beneficial or curative must be specious since without oxygen, we should all surely die.
The whole mess revolves around the mysterious ‘free-radicals’ just like the answers found in the proverbial entrails.
Give that boy a Cup O Gold... (apologies to Roger Miller)
Actually, this result isn’t surprising. It has been known amongst serious vitamin organizatinos for a long time that alpha tocopherol by itself is not good for you. It competes for concentration with gamma tocopherol. If you supplement with just alpha (which 90% of vitamin supplements do), you deplete your gamma. They have distinct physiological roles and low gamma is quite bad for you in several different ways. Together, they are quite good for you, even as supplements.
What “oxidation” in a biological sense means is this:
Something that wants to steal electrons.
Singlet oxygen can do it. So can chlorine.
And by “stealing” electrons, it can (sometimes, not always), change the chemical bonds and composition of the thing it stole them from. If it steals it from a sugar molecule, probably no big deal.
If it steals it from your DNA, that could be a major calamity.
Antioxidants work by having some extra electrons (rather, loosely bound ones) that it can give away to the thieving bunch.
So they are free to just wander around with all the electrons they could want, and they won’t attack your cell membranes, arteries, or DNA. That’s a good thing.
High vitamin E doses were found to increase risk
Linked? It is somehow attached?
Have they proved causality?
“If it steals it from your DNA, that could be a major calamity.”
Any examples?
Happens all the time, it’s a mutation. But Nuclear DNA has very efficient methods of finding and repairing defects.
Go here to learn more about free radicals and antioxidants.
http://www.benbest.com/nutrceut/AntiOxidants.html
Go here to read about the seven or so general reasons we get old.
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/aging.html
The most pertinent reasons are:
Mitochondria degradation
Oxidative damage
Glycation (cross linked proteins)
Overload of the cells disposal systems (lysosome failure)
Telomere depletion
Then tell me how to stop it.
I have taken vits for well over 40 years, and at the time I was going thru menopause, instead of the 400 IU’s, I took 800 a day, divided into two dosages...after a couple years, I went back to the 400IU’s. Oh, and I’m 75 years old and none the worse for taking many vits for all these years.
This is just proof that the big drug companies....as in international conglomerates, are in the process of seeing their goal come to fruition, after years of lobbying, and millions of influence dollars going to people in positions of power, to finally gain control of the vitamin sales...going to make it a mandate that we go to a Dr. first and get what will be a prescription, and supposedly there will be more than a few vitamins that will no longer be available...period. I think each of us has a line where, when it is crossed, we'll stand up and say NO MORE, I'm mad as he## and I'm not taking it any more...maybe it will happen when the gov. takes our guns, or maybe our property...or maybe our right as a FREE people to be able to choose between taking drugs or buying vitamins, as in many cases some chronic illnesses respond just as well to certain vitamins as to a high priced drug...and without the nasty side effects that seem to go along with so many drugs. Have you thought about what your line may be?
The very best way would be if you had some of your own stem cells from your own placenta when you were born.
Other than that, the only thing I can tell ya is what the commercial says:
I shoulda had a V-8!
The study was paid for by the AAAC, the American Association of Ambulance Chasers
Lawywers are marking their targets
How long is long enough?
Yes, you are getting to the underlying issue. Vitamins are generally much safer than drugs. Vitamins are not patentable. Nor are they covered by insurance. Many root causes of disease revolve around nutritional/vitamin deficiencies. Vitamins can reverse damage and disease, if it is not too far gone, more safely and less expensively than drugs.
For the ignorant guy who said to get your vitamins from your food, you won’t get any from processed foods. The natural fruits and veggies we have in the market now are steadily losing vitamins compared to what they used to contain 20, 30, and 50 years ago due to depletion of the soils. They have been studied and measured. You cannot get the necessary healthy amounts of vitamins from food alone anymore.
THAT'S the term I was wracking my brain for! Don't know why it eluded me. I gave myself a crash course in relative vs absolute risk some years back when trying to sort out medical recommendations for a relative who was being pressured into treatment via impressive stats for "increased survival rates." Turned out that, once broken down, the numbers used to argue for the treatment were just about equal in absolute terms to the placebo group. Worse, the actual death rate associated with the treatment exceeded the so-called benefit percentages. So yeah, I get honked off at using numbers to justify crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.