|
[ Supplements Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Thanks for answering my questions, GregD. My testing was done by Great Smokies Lab in the States, so I'm assuming they have the right equipment to come up with the results that they did. I happened to have Packer's book here, and I looked up his "Packer Plan" to compare his dosages to what you had written below:
Daily supplementation:
Vit E (d-alpha-tocopherol) 800-1000 IU
Alpha lipoic acid 500-1000 mg, in combination with 6000-12000 microgram biotin
NAC 600-1200 mg
Packer's dosages for his "antioxidant cocktail" are as follows:
AM
100 mg tocotrienols (form of Vit E)
200 mg mixed tocopherols (form of Vit E)
30 mg Co Q10
50 lipoic acid
250 mg ester C
400 mcg folic acid
300 mcg biotin
2 mg Vit B6
PM
200 mg natural alpha tocopherol (Vit E)
50 mg lipoic acid
250 mg ester C
30 mg Gingko Biloba
200 mcg selenium
He says on p. 186, "Some people may recommend higher doses of specific antioxidants; I, however, do not believe that more is necessarily better. Although I believe that the RDAs for antioxidants are ridicuously low, this does not mean that I endorse megadoses of supplements. There is no point in taking a supplement if it is not absorbed by the body. Therefore, my doses are carefully designed to naturally boost the level of network antioxidants in a safe, effective way."
Every book I've read has recommended something different in terms of dosages and particular antioxidants. Packer doesn't even include glutathione in his, and according to my test reesults I need that. Who to believe, what dosages to take, what not to leave out - it's all very confusing at the moment.
Walt, I'm curious what you are going to tell the people at your workshop about antioxidants and what to take.
In Reply to: to Greg D/Walt - antioxidants followup posted by dfs on April 28, 2002 at 09:05:24:
If you eat a ton of antioxident-rich foods, do you feel that you still need to take such a concoction as you have listed above?
In Reply to: to Greg D/Walt - antioxidants followup posted by dfs on April 28, 2002 at 09:05:24:
dfs,
I do agree with Dr Packer that mega-dosing is not necessary and only puts a strain on the body's removal mechanism. Furthermore, research over the past 5 years is now showing 2 main things: 1. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are not always damaging, but it is now known that species such as hydrogen peroxide play an important role in signal transduction (transferring signals from outside the cell to the cellular nucleus in order for particular gene to switch on or off). Nitric oxide has been shown to be a messenger molecule, in much the same way that hormones act, for vascular dilation. So they play an important role in cellular homeostasis (balance). The question now is...do you really want to neutralise all species..i.e. are all ROS "bad". 2. Any antioxidant is potentially a pro-oxidant, which means that, at a particular concentration, the antioxidant is actually promoting ROS formation. So both points directly address the question of concentration and how to get the antioxidant to the right place in the body.
After seeing some negative evidence in human clinical trials with various antioxidants, our group decided to go back to basics to determine the mechanisms of oxidative stress and antioxidant efficacy in cell cultures (we previously thought that through cellular research over the past decades the mechanism was fully understood). We are now at a stage where we are testing various compounds in lab-animals. Getting the dose right and providing the right “vehicle” for antioxidant uptake is still a major challenge
The list I gave you is a recommendation given by the Life Extension Foundation (who fund a lot of research), they have experience with this as far as therapeutics may be concerned:
http://www.lef.org/
Perhaps you can contact them and they can give you advice.
Manufacturers and doctors recommend different antioxidants and doses for the simple reason that we/they simply do not know what the right doses are. It has set us back as far as antioxidant research is concerned.
You should try a protocol for a period of time and subsequently repeat the tests to see if you have made any improvements.
Also, ask GSM labs which tests they did in urine/blood for lipid peroxidation and how they tested for hydroxyl radical activity … I would be interested, since I still feel that they need to test for F2-istoprostanes in urine using mass spectrometry.
If they did a so-called TBARS (thio-barbituric acid reactive substances) for MDA (malon dialdehyde, a product of lipid peroxidation) detection, you can throw away the results. This test is notoriously inaccurate and often provides false positives.
Hope this helps,
GregD
(Biochemist/Cell Biologist)
In Reply to: Re: to Greg D/Walt - antioxidants followup posted by sarah on April 28, 2002 at 17:33:15:
Hi Sarah
Depends on where you live and how healthy you are.
If you live in Asia or the South of Europe for instance, where traditional agriculture is still used, I wouldn't be concerned or supplement my diet (sufficient fresh fruits, vegetable oils, whole grain products, cheese and fish and in a wealth of variety are available). If you live in the North of Europe, as I do, or the US, the products available there are mass produced and are often deficient in nutrients, antioxidants and trace minerals, because of the agricultural and processing methods used. Yes..I would supplement to some extent ... but I try not to. I try to obtain products from those parts of the world that are still OK .. have to pay more for it of course .. but I'll take that for granted...besides, getting your daily dose from a food product is much more enjoyable compared to taking a pill.
The concoction is directed at liver problems.
GregD
(Biochemist/Cell Biologist)
)
In Reply to: to Greg D/Walt - antioxidants followup posted by dfs on April 28, 2002 at 09:05:24:
Thanks, dfs.
Although the ultimate answer is who does best on what:
My question would be what this person knows about "Le Chatliere's Principle"?
It is well documented that some "normal" people need more than 1000 times as much of some micronutrients than other "normals". Since there are few toxic effects from taking much more of most micronutrients than are needed, the only way (for now) to tell what any individual REALLY needs is to take massive doses until any benefits are reduced as reducing doses finally figure out the maintenance dose for THAT individual.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: to Greg D/Walt - antioxidants followup (Archive in supplements.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 29, 2002 at 08:46:27:
What we ultimately would like to see, is the possiblilty to tailor the doses and composition to the individual, according to health status, genetic make-up, life style and easting habits.
Unfortunately, we are still a long way from that ideal situation. I have good hopes that the human genome-proteomics project will provide the basis for that in a decade or less.
GregD
(Biochemist/Cell Biologist)
In Reply to: Re: to Greg D/Walt - antioxidants followup posted by GregD on April 29, 2002 at 06:33:55:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: Walt, can you address the procedures in GSM testing?nmi posted by dfs on April 29, 2002 at 10:08:32:
Hi, dfs.
GregD would know a lot more than I about that and you could get specific information from GSDL about specific tests. I have not ordered stuff like this since 1994 when I stopped seeing patients.
Let us know what you learn.
Walt
|
[ Supplements Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |