Appalling Reader's Digest Article

[Paramindso]

Did anyone happen to see the cover of the recent Reader's
Digest? Ten vitamins you shouldn't take, something like that?
C and Folic Acid were two of the vitamins. They really lost
any vestige of respect from a lot of people by that one.

--
Robert Pearson ParaMind Brainstorming Software
http://www.paramind.net Creative Virtue Press/Telical
Books/Regenerative Music http://www.rspearson.com

[Ron Peters]

On Oct 31, 10:08 pm, "paramindsoftw...@gmail.com"
<paramindsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone happen to see the cover of the recent Reader's
> Digest? Ten vitamins you shouldn't take, something like
> that? C and Folic Acid were two of the vitamins. They
> really lost any vestige of respect from a lot of people by
> that one.

Reader's Digest has never been about responsible journalism.
Ripplewood Holdings is the new owner. Tim Collins is the CEO
of Ripplewood Holdings.

--
Ron

[trigonomet]

On Oct 31, 7:08 pm, "paramindsoftw...@gmail.com"
<paramindsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone happen to see the cover of the recent Reader's
> Digest? Ten vitamins you shouldn't take, something like
> that? C and Folic Acid were two of the vitamins. They
> really lost any vestige of respect from a lot of people by
> that one.
>
> --
> Robert Pearson ParaMind Brainstorming
> Softwarehttp://www.paramind.net Creative Virtue
> Press/Telical Books/Regenerative
> Musichttp://www.rspearson.com

I agree. When the Reader's Digest says anything it a wise man
who doubts even if he agrees with it. The RD is rather like
Rush Limbaugh (the back end orifice of the GOP) or Paul Harvey
( a former mid-day AM radio talking head) in that they are not
to be trusted. As they represent interests contrary to the
best interests of the public at large.

[Dorsy1943]

On Oct 31, 10:08 pm, "paramindsoftw...@gmail.com"
<paramindsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone happen to see the cover of the recent Reader's
> Digest? Ten vitamins you shouldn't take, something like
> that? C and Folic Acid were two of the vitamins. They
> really lost any vestige of respect from a lot of people by
> that one.
>
> --
> Robert Pearson ParaMind Brainstorming
> Softwarehttp://www.paramind.net Creative Virtue
> Press/Telical Books/Regenerative
> Musichttp://www.rspearson.com

I don't know anything about readers digest but I do know that
some studies (not in readers digest) have suggested that
folic acid (in pill form) is connected to the rise in colon
cancer. They correlate a rise in colon cancer with the
fortification of foods with folic acid. I do not know if that
is true or not but I believe the idea was published somewhere
in a peer reviewed journal. I can also vaguely remember
something similar about vitamin C. I know that at least one
study showed that beta carotene (in pill form) was shown to
correlate with more lung cancer in smokers than in smokers
who were not given the beta carotene. I also read quite a
while ago that vitamin C (in pill form) at levels of 500
milligrams or more, causes thickening of the carotid artery.
When you are taking some manufactured vitamins it is not
necessarily true that more is better.

I do not think anyone would ever say that beta carotene,
vitamin C or folic acid when consumed in the food on your
dinner plate is harmful. Taking good stuff out of the food
matrix, concentrating it and making it into a pill is not the
same as getting your vitamins and minerals from wholesome
whole foods.

So maybe readers digest is just reporting correctly on some
studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals. And in
this case they probably got it right.

Dolores

[meow2222]

dorsy1943 wrote:
> On Oct 31, 10:08 pm, "paramindsoftw...@gmail.com"
> <paramindsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Did anyone happen to see the cover of the recent Reader's
> > Digest? Ten vitamins you shouldn't take, something like
> > that? C and Folic Acid were two of the vitamins. They
> > really lost any vestige of respect from a lot of people by
> > that one.
> >
> > --
> > Robert Pearson ParaMind Brainstorming
> > Softwarehttp://www.paramind.net Creative Virtue
> > Press/Telical Books/Regenerative
> > Musichttp://www.rspearson.com
>
> I don't know anything about readers digest but I do know
> that some studies (not in readers digest) have suggested
> that folic acid (in pill form) is connected to the rise in
> colon cancer. They correlate a rise in colon cancer with the
> fortification of foods with folic acid. I do not know if
> that is true or not but I believe the idea was published
> somewhere in a peer reviewed journal. I can also vaguely
> remember something similar about vitamin C. I know that at
> least one study showed that beta carotene (in pill form) was
> shown to correlate with more lung cancer in smokers than in
> smokers who were not given the beta carotene. I also read
> quite a while ago that vitamin C (in pill form) at levels of
> 500 milligrams or more, causes thickening of the carotid
> artery. When you are taking some manufactured vitamins it is
> not necessarily true that more is better.
>
> I do not think anyone would ever say that beta carotene,
> vitamin C or folic acid when consumed in the food on your
> dinner plate is harmful. Taking good stuff out of the food
> matrix, concentrating it and making it into a pill is not
> the same as getting your vitamins and minerals from
> wholesome whole foods.
>
> So maybe readers digest is just reporting correctly on some
> studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals. And in
> this case they probably got it right.
>
> Dolores

This is the sort of bogus argument usually used to discourage
use of nutritional supplements. Many vitamins and minerals
work not in isolation but in groups, affecting each other. If
you take enough vit A your body reacts as if it has less vit E
available, and so on. E is an antioxidant, something that
reduces cancer incidence...

Responsible use of vits and mins does not include taking
significant quantities of a single nutrient, unless a person
has a specific deficiency. The grey area of megadosing to
treat illness is open to debate.

NT

[trigonomet]

On Nov 1, 2:05 am, dorsy1943 <dtm...@usadatanet.net> wrote:

>
> I don't know anything about readers digest but I do know
> that some studies (not in readers digest) have suggested
> thatfolicacid (in pill form) is connected to the rise in
> colon cancer. They correlate a rise in colon cancer with the
> fortification of foods withfolicacid. I do not know if that
> is true or not but I believe the idea was published
> somewhere in a peer reviewed journal.

I've seen that too. I still not ready to alter my folic acid
regimen with is quite high. There maybe trade offs. Higher
folic acid may reduce some cancers and maybe in some people
increase certain cancers. This is a big topic and I just
started reviewing it again. This time there is clearly more
research. Now, some interesting points. Higher folic acid MAY
increase riboflavin requirements. This was in a population
quite marginal in their riboflavin intake. This was BOTH
dietary or supplement source folic acid. Next there is an
epigenetic connect of folic acid to vitamin D metabolite
formation in the colon. Here again the population is quite
marginal in vitamin D status. See the numerous posting of
myself and others on that topic.

So now I've a notion that this runs even deeper. That
increased folic acid or faster metabolism of folic acid may
increase vitamin D needs.

So I am not surprised in part of the pale skin population of
Europe this is another trait that may lower vitamin D
metabolism. Ding Ding ding. If I've got this right. About 30
percent of some population carry a trait that slows their
metabolism of folic acid. As a result these folks are more
prone to NTD births and cardiovascular disease especially if
they have two copies of the less effective gene. So they just
maybe less prone to rickets albeit as a cost. Rather like
sickle cell and C-cell population pay a genetic price to
resist the malaria parasite. Both malaria and vitamin D
deficiency were problems that put strong selective pressure on
their subject populations. Of course folic acid also puts some
genetic pressure and perhaps epigenetic pressure in other
directions. A person with a dark skin loses less folic acid to
UV caused breakdown.

Moreover even though lecturers call folic acid a methylation
source, what it really is is a methyl group shuttle such that
the methyl group come from other dietary sources such as
lecithins, choline and NNN trimethylglycine (betaine). Granted
the folinic acid is both but isn't the main source of folic
acid for most. Merck will tell you it is the way to go as they
have the patent on it. No matter the USFDA pulled the yeast
concentrate based folinic acid supplement years prior to the
reform law all the vitamin haters complain about.

Tentatively, I'll suggest more folic acid means one should
take in more riboflavin, betaine, vitamin D3, and possibly
vitamins b-6 and b-12.

It seems taking one additional vitamin in populations that
are deficient in numerous other vitamins may not get
optimal results.

Also research shows that for best possible genomic stability
more than the USRDA of 0.4 mg of folic acid is needed. As I
recall the value was thought to be 0.7 mg though I'd need to
check that. And anyway this may not have reached the optimal
value if one puts in all the other variables/vitamins and
nutrients I've mentioned.

I am not clear that additional folic acid will have
downsides if one make these other dietary and supplement
changes. It seems clear not having a high folic acid intake
has it downsides

On another note further down in your comments, there are
indeed those who have connected higher levels of dietary
(nonsupplement source) vitamins to problems both beta-carotene
and FA as well as vitamin A. Though I'd not be otherly
concerned. I will add beets are a good source of both folic
acid and betaine.

> I can also vaguely remember something similar about vitamin
> C. I know that at least one study showed that beta carotene
> (in pill form) was shown to correlate with more lung cancer
> in smokers than in smokers who were not given the beta
> carotene. I also read quite a while ago that vitamin C (in
> pill form) at levels of 500 milligrams or more, causes
> thickening of the carotid artery.

I am not yet worried about that either. Though I'd be sure to
take lots of flavonoids with my vitamin C.

> When you are taking some manufactured vitamins it is not
> necessarily true that more is better.
>
> I do not think anyone would ever say that beta carotene,
> vitamin C orfolicacid when consumed in the food on your
> dinner plate is harmful.

As noted earlier I have.

> Taking good stuff out of the food matrix, concentrating it
> and making it into a pill is not the same as getting your
> vitamins and minerals from wholesome whole foods.

Much of what you seem to be complaining about is synthetic and
not from concentrates.

>
> So maybe readers digest is just reporting correctly on some
> studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals. And in
> this case they probably got it right.

Peer review while helpful isn't the stamp of proof. And the
Readers Digest is never to be trusted. As I say if they agree
with you, it is time to question that view/belief/concept.

>
> Dolores

This is my first run at the topic in some time and I will
clearly get numerous points to post on from this topic and the
related topic of epigenetics if I keep on track.

Dwight

[trigonomet]

On Nov 2, 2:41 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote:
> It's too complicated for an RD article, so they should have
> avoided it, but then again, if they did this with everything
> there would be no RD at all. "Vitamin E," for instance, is
> several different molecules. Too much of one kind can lead
> to too little of others. I avoid taking large amounts of
> "supplements," and only take moderate amounts of some
> electrolyte minerals (in specific forms - again, too complex
> for RD).

Actually when it comes to molecules that function as vitamin E
there are several families of molecules the tocopherols (
alpha, beta, gamma and delta), the tocotrienols, and another
found in marine sources whose escapes me for the time being.
The latter two also have alpha, beta, gamma. and delta forms
as I recall.

The RD is printed to make money not to inform. Hence, moron
material for the masses.

Trig

[Robert W.]

monty1945@lycos.com wrote:
> It's too complicated for an RD article, so they should have
> avoided it, but then again, if they did this with everything
> there would be no RD at all. "Vitamin E," for instance, is
> several different molecules. Too much of one kind can lead
> to too little of others. I avoid taking large amounts of
> "supplements," and only take moderate amounts of some
> electrolyte minerals (in specific forms - again, too complex
> for RD).

The general rule of thumb when reading any article about
medicine that isn't in a refereed medical journal is to use
the article as a guide to the real sources. Look up the
article's references and read them. And if the article has no
references, ignore it.

Bob

[Rf]

trigonometry1972@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:41 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote:
>> It's too complicated for an RD article, so they should have
>> avoided it, but then again, if they did this with
>> everything there would be no RD at all. "Vitamin E," for
>> instance, is several different molecules. Too much of one
>> kind can lead to too little of others. I avoid taking large
>> amounts of "supplements," and only take moderate amounts of
>> some electrolyte minerals (in specific forms - again, too
>> complex for RD).
>
> Actually when it comes to molecules that function as vitamin
> E there are several families of molecules the tocopherols (
> alpha, beta, gamma and delta), the tocotrienols, and another
> found in marine sources whose escapes me for the time being.
> The latter two also have alpha, beta, gamma. and delta forms
> as I recall.
>
> The RD is printed to make money not to inform. Hence, moron
> material for the masses.

And then there is the synthetic dL-alpha (L for lousy ;-) )
that is less well absorbed. I read the article about the
effect of Vit E on smokers (they should avoid it and
continue poisoning themselves) and a similar article that
showed an increase in deaths when it is given to very sick
elderly people.

Taking single vitamins by themselves appears to me to be
somewhat unnatural. In our evolution the nutrients most likely
always entered the body in groups. Some nutrients may
e.g. harden an artery and others relax it.

And, as for RD, it doesn't even make good toilet paper ;-)

RF

[Crinoidgir]

On Nov 9, 4:03 pm, "Robert W. McAdams"
<r...@fambright.com> wrote:
> monty1...@lycos.com wrote:
> > It's too complicated for an RD article, so they should
> > have avoided it, but then again, if they did this with
> > everything there would be no RD at all. "Vitamin E," for
> > instance, is several different molecules. Too much of one
> > kind can lead to too little of others. I avoid taking
> > large amounts of "supplements," and only take moderate
> > amounts of some electrolyte minerals (in specific forms -
> > again, too complex for RD).
>
> The general rule of thumb when reading any article about
> medicine that isn't in a refereed medical journal is to use
> the article as a guide to the real sources. Look up the
> article's references and read them. And if the article has
> no references, ignore it.
>

Amen.
> Bob