Tag: smoking

Smokers should get more vitamin C and E

Claus Hancke

April 1, 2006

Far too many people get too little vitamin E. The problem is especially large in smokers and can partially be solved by a supplement of vitamin C.

What do you do if you get too little vitamin E? Here is a suggestion: take more vitamin C.

Smokers have this problem more than any other group. They use vitamin E much faster than non-smokers. This is because tobacco smoke oxidizes and destroys the vitamin, which causes it to fail in the fight to protect the unsaturated fats of the body’s cells. Smokers therefore have a greater need for vitamin E than non-smokers. Because they have a greater need, it is easier for them to receive too little.

This is where vitamin C comes in. Vitamin C is easier to get a hold of than vitamin E. Because vitamin C is an antioxidant it can protect the vitamin E from oxidization by the free radicals of the tobacco smoke. This has long been believed, but, until recently, remained unproven in people. There has lately been a small scientific breakthrough in this field.

The study was done as a cooperative effort between a number of American universities and one Canadian university. 11 smokers and 13 non-smokers were given supplements of 50 mg vitamin E containing deuterium. By measuring the amount of deuterium in the blood the researchers were able to determine how fast the vitamin E disappeared from the smoker’s blood (plasma) and compare that to the changes in vitamin E levels in the non-smokers.

It disappeared, as expected, fastest in the smokers. In the course of 25 hours half of the marked vitamin E had disappeared. In the non-smokers this took 42 hours. But, when the smokers were given 500 mg vitamin C morning and evening, it took 34 hours for half of the marked vitamin E to disappear. The vitamin C protected the vitamin E reserves in the smokers, but did not bring them to the level of those in the non-smokers.

Far too few get enough
One can therefore see a normalising of vitamin E in smokers with the help of vitamin C. This is of course only true if the smokers receive enough vitamin E in the first place, which can be said of far too few.

To conclude the summary of this research is should be mentioned that only 8% of men and 2.4% of women receive the recommended 12 mg vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) per day. This is highly likely no better in the U.K. The first and most important recommendation made is that smokers received the recommended amounts (for smokers) of both vitamins C and E (125 mg vit. C and 15 mg vit. E). The second recommendation is that more research be undertaken regarding whether other antioxidants can protect against the degradation of vitamin E. This is important.

But is it true that one needs 12 mg vitamin E per day? Yes it is! An earlier study has shown that the bodily tissue of healthy, young people uses about 5 mg vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) per day.

Because one on average only absorbs about one third of ones food intake in the intestine, should one take a little bit more than the aforementioned 12 mg. But if one eats an especially light diet more should be taken. If breakfast is only cornflakes and low fat milk, taking a vitamin E supplement won’t do much good. Only a tenth of it will be absorbed.

Even young, healthy smokers should receive more vitamin E than others. Older people have an even greater need and it is apparent that most people don’t get enough.

By: Vitality Council

References
1. Bruno R S et al. Human vitamin E requirements assessed with the use of apples fortified with deuterium-labeled α-tocopheryl acetate. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;83:299-304
2. Bruno R S et al. α-Tocopherol acetate disappearance is faster i9n cigarette smokers and is inversely related to their ascorbic acid status- Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:95.103.
3. Bruno R S et al. Faster plasma vitamin E disappearance in smokers is normalized by vitamin C supplementation. Free Radical Biology & Medicine 2006;40:689-97

Antioxidants Prevent Lung Cancer After All

Claus Hancke

August 4, 2004

Smokers taking a wide range of antioxidants through their diet, reduce their risk of getting lung cancer. This is demonstrated by a follow up study from a world famous research study (ATBC). The ATBC study has been the source of the opposite interpretation for ten years.

The startling result is sourced from the so called ATBC-study, a Finnish study from 1994, which demonstrated that the risk for male smokers getting lung cancer did not decrease, but increased, when they were given large dosages of betacarotene – the yellow colouring substance in carrots.

The ATBC study was a shock for researchers all over the world, who on the basis of numerous animal studies were convinced that antioxidants prevent cancer. Since then the ATBC study has been the standing argument for recurrent warnings against antioxidants on TV etc.

In the new study, staticians from the prestigious American Yale University together with Finnish colleages looked through 1,787 cases of lung cancer, approximately the amount of the 27,000 male heavy smokers in the ATBC group, who got lung cancer during the 14 years.

In the new study, measurements were taken not just for one single antioxidant, but for the total intake of the antioxidants selenium, Vitamin E, Vitamin C as well as coloured parts in plants, the so called carotenoids and flavonoids. The most updated inclusive index was calculated in advance stating the total antioxidant intake with just one figure.

It turned out that the fifth of the smokers, who had the highest index statisticly seen through their diet, had a 16% less risk of lung cancer! Smokers who ate large amounts of meat had a 25% decrease, despite of red meat having a high oxidative effect! This supports the fact that it was the antioxidative effect that made the difference.

It is not the first time such results are seen, but they are of great importance, because they are sourced from the same ATBC study, which has been one of the most outspoken arguments to warn against antioxidants. Two other larger studies has found the risk of lung cancer decreased up to as much as 32% and 68%.

The researchers emphasize in a commentary, that when the original study was a disappointment, the explanation may lie in the fact that smokers did not get a combination of vitamins etc., but were given betacarotene alone. They recommend smokers to always take a wide selection of antioxidants as a protection against cancer.

By: Vitality Council

References:
1. Wright ME et al. Development of a comprehensive dietary antioxidant index and application to lung cancer risk in a corhort of male smokers. Am J Epidemiol 2004;160:68-76.
2. Yong LC et al.Intake og vitamins E, C and A and risk of lung cancer: The NHANES I epidemiologic follow-up study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:231-43.
3. Michaud DS et al. Intake of specific carotenoids and risk of lung cancer in 2 prospective US cohorts. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;72:990-7.

jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/4/476
www.aje.oupjournals.org
www.ajcn.org
www.iom.dk

B Vitamin (Folic Acid) May Strengthen the Bones

Claus Hancke

August 2, 2004

The vitamin B substance folic acid (Vitamin B9) may be able to counteract osteoporosis. This is concluded by an American and a Dutch population study, which were simultaneously publisized in the medical magazine The New England Journal of Medicine.

Folic acid prevents neural tube defect (spina bifida) which is a serious and relatively frequent congenital malformation. Moreover, it is assumed that the vitamin counteracts coronary thrombosis, strokes, and other sequelae from atherosclerosis. Folic acid deficiency is quite widespread. One of the results of folic acid deficiency is that the blood level of the amino acid homocysteine is raised to abnormal high levels.

In the Netherlands, a group of 2,406 people above the age of 55 located in Rotterdam and Amsterdam were followed over a period of up to nine years.

In the American study which was part of the well-known Framingham study, 1,999 elderly people participated and were followed for 15 years. In addition to fractures, a large number of other significant factors in the development of osteoporosis were registered: Smoking habits, age, height and weight, consumption of coffee and alcohol, calcium- and vitamin D intake, oestrogen supplements, etc.

The two studies demonstrated that a high level of homocysteine was linked to an increased risk of suffering hip fractures. Both studies showed that people who belong to the top 25% with regards to high homocysteine levels in their blood have twice as large a risk of breaking their hip as the ones who have much lower levels of homocysteine.

Several conditions point towards a cause and effect relationship here. For example, it was statistically rejected that the risk was related to and biased by other known causes of osteoporosis, such as smoking, a lack of dietary calcium, etc.

It is also known that osteoporosis is a pronounced phenomenon in the hereditary disease homocystinuria in which the levels of homocysteine are particularly high. Finally, it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that homocysteine weaken the cross-links in the wickerwork of connective tissue around which the bones are built.

According to the Dutch results, a high level of homocysteine – and thereby a resulting lack of folic acid – might be the cause of approximately 19% of all hip fractures!

By: Vitality Council

References:
1. Van Meurs Joyce B J et al. Homocysteine levels and the risk of osteoporotic fracture. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2033-41.
2. Mc Lean Robert R et al. Homocysteine as a predictive factor for hip fracture in older persons, N Engl J Med 2004;350:2042-9.
3. (Editorial) Raisz LG. Homocysteine and osteoportic fractures – culprit or bystander? N Engl J Med 2004;350:2089-90.

content.nejm.org
www.iom.dk