Posted on 12/05/2022 8:36:00 PM PST by ConservativeMind
Healthy diets are rich in antioxidants like amino acids, omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin C, but exactly how beneficial these micronutrients are for cardiovascular health has long been controversial. Now a new meta-analysis provides some clarity.
Researchers reviewed 884 studies available on micronutrients taken as dietary supplements. They identified several micronutrients that do reduce cardiovascular risk—as well as others that offer no benefit or even have a negative effect.
"We developed a comprehensive, evidence-based integrative map to characterize and quantify micronutrient supplements' potential effects on cardiometabolic outcomes," said Simin Liu, MD.
Antioxidant supplementation has long been thought to play a role in heart health. However, results from studies of antioxidant supplements have been inconsistent—one reason why this approach hasn't yet been widely adopted in preventative cardiology.
"Research on micronutrient supplementation has mainly focused on the health effects of a single or a few vitamins and minerals," Liu said. "We decided to take a comprehensive and systematic approach to evaluate all the publicly available and accessible studies reporting all micronutrients, including phytochemicals and antioxidant supplements and their effects on cardiovascular risk factors as well as multiple cardiovascular diseases."
The researchers looked at randomized, controlled intervention trials evaluating 27 different types of antioxidant supplements. They found strong evidence that several offered cardiovascular benefit. These included omega-3 fatty acid, which decreased mortality from cardiovascular disease; folic acid, which lowered stroke risk; and coenzyme Q10, an antioxidant sometimes marketed as CoQ10, which decreased all-cause mortality. Omega-6 fatty acid, L-arginine, L-citrulline, Vitamin D, magnesium, zinc, alpha-lipoic acid, melatonin, catechin, curcumin, flavanol, genistein and quercetin also showed evidence of reducing cardiovascular risk.
Not all supplements were beneficial. Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Vitamin E and selenium showed no effect on long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes or type-2 diabetes risk, while beta carotene supplements increased all-cause mortality.
(Excerpt) Read more at medicalxpress.com ...
Lots of positive supplements to help are listed in there.
This is particularly helpful. Thank you for posting this.
It’s interesting, because in the 1990s there was a study that said beta-carotene increase the risk of cancer. I assume that getting beta-carotene in food does not do that.
I should have said that I have heard some people suggest that supplements like beta-carotene that are found to increase rather than decrease risk do so because the form in some supplements is not the optimal form.
omega 6 was bad
i thought omega 6 was bad
I think “L-arginine” can have an issue with BP meds.
I know that arginine and nitric oxide are often in pre-workout supplements.
(B-vitamins, caffeine, and niacin as well)
Borage, evening primrose, and black currant oil have this GLA subcomponent we need. Nothing else really has it.
L-Arganine, Taurine and things like beet root are involved with making NO2 which relaxes the arteries. They’re good for people on BP meds —- BUT you have to be very very careful as they will typically lower blood pressure over time.
So you can end up with too low blood pressure.
It’s the ratio of fat, not the type.
Bkmk
Vitamins C D and E showed no cardio benefit. Well fine but there are a lot of other problems we humans have that those might help. D especially during these covid times we live in.
bkmk
Vitamine D mentioned twice in a not exact role:
“...Vitamin D, ...also showed evidence of reducing cardiovascular risk.
. ...Vitamin D, ...showed no effect on long-term cardiovascular disease outcomes”
So, which one is correct?
This is a super meta-analysis.
On the surface it is excellent. But one must dig much deeper to understand “WHY” and not just accept it as truth.
I am especially puzzled by the beta carotene correlation.
Per the Mayo Clinic website:
“Precautions
Use of beta-carotene has been associated with an increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoke or who have been exposed to asbestos. One study of 29,000 male smokers found an 18% increase in lung cancer in the group receiving 20 mg of beta-carotene a day for 5 to 8 years. Another study of 18,000 people found 28% more lung cancers in people with a history of smoking and/or asbestos exposure. These people took 30 mg of beta-carotene in addition to 25,000 Units of retinol (a form of vitamin A) a day for 4 years.
However, one study of 22,000 male physicians, some of them smokers or former smokers, found no increase in lung cancer. These people took 50 mg of beta-carotene every other day for 12 years. If you smoke or have a history of smoking or asbestos exposure, you should not take large amounts of beta-carotene supplements for long periods of time. However, foods that are rich in beta-carotene are considered safe and appear to lower the risk of some types of cancer and possibly heart disease.”
Beta carotene decreases the effectiveness of niacin which improves good cholesterol.
.
So hard to tell with such studies, as they are a mishmash of pharma-funded to discredit low-cost, unpatented supplements, poorly controlled for confounding factors, uselessly high or low dosages, short duration or poor follow up, etc., etc.
Most reported results here are just for CV outcomes, but then some all-cause mortality woven in.
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.