Dr. Mercola April 10 2008 160,390 views
Taking high doses of vitamin E supplements can actually increase the risk of lung cancer.
A study of 77,000 people found consuming 400 milligrams of vitamin E per day increased cancer risk by 28 percent. Smokers were at particular risk.
An expert writing in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine said that people should get their vitamins from fruit and vegetables rather than supplements.
Vitamin E is known to be an antioxidant that protects cells from molecules called free radicals. But in high doses, it may also act as a pro-oxidant, causing oxidation and damage to cells.
At first glance this article may appear to be nothing but another attempt to assassinate a natural health-promoting agent. However, there is some truth to these findings, which is why it’s important to weed through it to discern what’s what.
Vitamin E: Healer or Killer? Two Sides of the Same Coin
There have been numerous studies pointing out the two sides of vitamin E.
On the one hand vitamin E has been found to have strong health promoting influences by protecting against damaging free radicals – because it is a very effective antioxidant for many fats.
On the other, it has been found that it can also increase, rather than reduce, oxidation and speed up the onset of both heart disease and cancer if you smoke and eat a diet high in polyunsaturated fat.
According to one such study, vitamin E can induce heart disease through “reductive stress.” Reductive stress is a condition caused by excessive levels of reduced glutathione, which is one of your body’s most powerful antioxidants. When your cells work properly, they produce just the right amount of reduced glutathione, which is healthy for your body. However, in some people, a mutated gene can disrupt the fine balance, causing the cells to produce too much.
Additionally, vitamin E should not be given to certain brain injured children, such as those with some types of autism. In these cases, accumulations of long chain fats require oxidation to remove them, which is impaired by vitamin E, actually making the disease worse.
On the other hand, one classic NEJM study found that vitamin E can reduce your risk for heart disease by up to 80 percent.
Another study published in Life Extension Magazine came to the same conclusion, stating that vitamin E reduces high levels of the inflammation-causing proteins C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL-6, which are likely contributors to heart disease. (Blood levels of both CRP and IL-6 are often elevated in patients with heart disease, indicating an increased risk for heart attack.)
And other studies have shown that vitamin E:
So as you can see, there’s plenty of evidence for both sides of the argument. Vitamin E may lower the risk of disease in some people, and raise the risk in others.
But what’s most likely at the heart of this discrepancy?
All Vitamin E are Not Created Equal
Ever since its discovery in 1922 there has been much discussion over what type of vitamin E is best. Many do not know that the term “vitamin E” actually refers to a family of at least eight fat-soluble antioxidant compounds, divided into two groups of molecules: tocopherols (which are considered the “true” vitamin E) and tocotrienols.
Each of the tocopherol and tocotrienol subfamilies contains four different forms:
Each one of these subgroups has its own unique biological effects.
Ideally, vitamin E should be consumed in the broader family of mixed natural tocopherols and tocotrienols, (also referred to as full-spectrum vitamin E) to get the maximum benefits.
And there’s the main problem: the vitamin E most often referred to and sold in most stores is a synthetic form of the vitamin, which really should NOT be used if you want to reap any of its health benefits.
You can tell what you’re buying by carefully reading the label.
When vitamin E is stabilized by adding either succinic acid or acetic acid, the chemical name changes from tocopherol to tocopheryl (as in d-alpha-tocopheryl succinate, for example).
Your body can easily distinguish between natural and synthetic vitamins, and several studies have shown that natural vitamin E is between two and three times as bioactive as the same amount of synthetic vitamin E.
And that brings us to the best source of natural vitamins…
Food, Not a Supplement, is Your Best Source of Vitamin E
Free radicals are a natural byproduct of breathing; antioxidants such as vitamin E mop up the excess, and leave the rest of the free radicals to fulfill their other functions, which include things like turning air and food into chemical energy, and aiding your immune response by attacking foreign invaders and bacteria.
This fine balancing act can be easily tipped to the point of either too much or too little. Eliminating or dramatically reducing free radicals could actually lead to more problems than are solved.
The Goldilock's equation, meaning you need just the right amount to achieve optimal health -- not too much and not too little, is the answer here.
And your body can do a phenomenal job of self-regulating many of these levels if you supply it with wholesome, healthy foods and dramatically limit your intake of processed foods, which are loaded with artificial chemicals.
Tocopherol and its subgroups are found in certain nuts and green leafy vegetables. Sources of tocotrienols include palm oil, rice bran and barley oils. However, many Americans do not get nearly enough of dietary vitamin E due to their poor dietary choices.
So yes, vitamin E is a wonderful antioxidant with powerful health benefits, but you need to make sure you’re getting them from the right sources -- from the food you eat. A diet rich in fresh vegetables and nuts will usually supply you with the whole nutrients needed to walk this fine line.
Always remember that not only are nuts and leafy greens rich in vitamin E, they also contain hundreds of other natural chemicals that create a synergistic effect where the total benefit is far greater than the sum of its parts.
When buying vegetables, I strongly recommend you try to find locally grown, organic produce, as they often contain greater concentrations of vital nutrients.
Remember also that the Take Control of Your Health program, which includes the entire program of eating the healthiest foods in all the right proportions for your nutritional type, can help you solve most of the problems with “too much” versus “too little” when it comes to essential nutrients.
If you are not eating properly according to your nutritional type -- by far the most important step you can take to improve your health -- no supplement will "save" you.
Health Man: Question on your comment. Most often I see reference to people who have ceased smoking for 10 years and comments related to their risk. What about those of us who quit 25 years ago or longer? My position has been that I smoked and quit, prior to the tobacco industry "fooling" around with "real tobacco" in order to make it more addictive. I have always thought the difficulty in people quiting in this day and the higher incidences of lung cancer now, might well be a result of whatever "ethyl methyl bad shi_" they put into cigarettes to increase their sales. ????????
Thanks Health Man - I will look up Epigenics.
What?? Baking Soda and Maple Syrup??
**************************
Remember Dr. Tullio Simoncini and his treatment of cancer as a fungus? If not, you can
reread an article called "Cancer Is A Fungus" in my August 2, 2007 newsletter.
It's at:
www.Beating-Cancer-Gently.com/nl108.html
If you recall, I quoted several holistic physicians in that article including Dr. Mark
Sircus. I interviewed Dr. Sircus for my web talk radio show a couple of weeks ago. We got
to comparing notes. It seems we had both received a copy of the same magazine article
from one of my readers. The article was entitled "Country Doctor Cures Cancer --
With Baking Soda & Maple Syrup!" There was no date on the article, but it was a
syndicated article from Weekly World News written by George Sanford. The location (of all
places) was Asheville, North Carolina, where I live.
The story told of Jim Kelmun, a 75-year old former truck driver and his success in
helping people heal cancer using -- you guessed it -- baking soda and maple syrup. Seein'
as how I'm a 76-year old former airplane driver who has helped a couple thousand people
recover from cancer, I figured ol' Jim from Asheville and I had a lot in common and I
better pass on his story (and Dr. Mark's reaction to it) to you, my loyal readers, and
see what you think.
First, here's a short quote from the story, so you get the drift.
"'There's not a tumor on God's green Earth that can't be licked with a little baking
soda and maple syrup!'
That's the astonishing claim of controversial folk healer Jim Kelmun -- who says his
simple home remedy can stop and reverse the growth of deadly cancers.
[Kelmun]...has no medical degree and authorities are demanding that he stop dispensing
his 'wonder drug' -- or face a prison sentence.
But his loyal patients swear by the man they fondly call 'Dr. Jim' -- and say he's a
miracle worker.
'Dr Jim cured me of lung cancer,' declares farmer Ian Rodhouse, 64. 'Those other doctors
told me I was a
smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer...frying free radicals ie hydrogenated grease will cause it too..just in case you ask those who havent smoked...then there are also other causes...radon gas etc...so bottom line is not you have lung cancer the you smoke(d)...
I would like to know why it is that anyone critical of anything Dr. Mercola says is getting -points? Is this what free speech is supposed to be about? For example, rajsanand made some excellent points but received -2 points. Who gives these ratings anyway? I've noticed lately that some of the regular posters in the past don't seem to be around anymore. Hmmm.... maybe they realized there is too much bias here and moved on where they aren't judged like they are here. Watch and see how many -points I get for posting this one!
Yes I also find that some comments get deleted if considered (by whom?) too critical. It's a pity since I think Dr Mercola's website is one of the best around. But differing or critical opinions should not be censored.
Some may agree with you....I do. Best Wishes!
Palacie - In a past post on cell phone usage, someone made a slur to the effect that Dr. Mercola just wanted to sell his headsets. I defended him with a statement that I thought his head set sales made up for little of his costs in keeping this website current. Loh and behold (AND AGAIN, I WAS DEFENDING HIM) I got MINUS 30 points.....go figure....
Personally, the biggst issue I have with this site is not what most have complained about, i.e. promoting his products with links (although that is true). It is understood that it costs money to keep a site such as this up and running, and something has to fund it. My issue is - this so called "inner-circle". Not everyone can afford an on-going $24.95 per month to be in-the-in!!! It implies that those of you out there who can, are somehow "special". This is in no way intended to be a "slam" against those of you who have manifested such funds and choose to use them in this manner, but.....the image it presents is not good, in my opinion!! So, bring on the MINUS points. I can handle them. I have big shoulders - teehee.
Palacle, who gives these ratings? Your fellow posters!
I have been complaining about the points system for a year, but I just gave you three for your statement!
Palacie, I wouldn't say that anyone criticising the Good Doc gets negative points for it - that's not what I've observed. What I HAVE noticed is that there are some 'favourite' users in here and you get slammed if you disagree with anything THEY say - or even just ask questions about one of their posts; it's happened to me a lot.
Islander, I had no idea that you've been complaining about the points system! I'm a little surprised. I do see the reasoning behind it but recently I've lost my hard-won 'Apprentice' (yellow) status by someone, or a couple of someones, obviously targeting me (no matter what I say). It hurt, especially because as a student nutritionist I've tried to help a lot on here.
Some points-givers are, I carefully suggest, rather shallow: one line posts saying things like "woo-hoo, way to go!" often get masses of points, while carefully considered, well-researched pieces that actually contribute something are ignored or even shot down! Sometimes I disagree strongly with someone's conclusion but don't 'ding' them if they've given solid info. However, sometimes I will give negatives to those with high status and (e.g.) 30 points for a one-liner, only to balance things and give the actual informative posts the chance to 'move up' and actually get seen.
One thing that's frustrating: if you make a mistake and accidentally 'ding' when you meant to praise or realise you've misunderstood, you cannot take it back!
MROSE, I remember that about the headsets. I'm afraid there are perhaps too many users here who take it upon themselves to judge without first actually reading what's been written (it happens to me when I ask questions; apparently some think I'm being rhetorical). I gave you positives then. And I agree about the Inner Circle, including NOT condemning those who join it: I'm another who cannot possibly afford it. I know you're supposed to get it back later but for now, we have to eat. The 'in crowd' who get these articles a couple of weeks earlier than us lesser mortals don't even get to see our posts.
Every time I stand up for myself and other autistics on here by stating the facts (i.e. the very, very vast majority of autism is inherited and genetic, it isn't 'brain damage', very few cases have anything to do with vaccines etc) or point out that a lot of the language thrown around on here is offensive and uncalled for, I get negative points... just one of the pitfalls of the site. Don't take it too personally.
I only tend to give positive points to people who make good points, same as LadyPam. I don't give negatives to people I don't agree with; only to those who state something that isn't true which can cause confusion and people taking things that are incorrect as truth.
I'm in agreement about "the Inner Circle", LadyPam. I certainly can't afford it. I didn't realize that those who can don't see the comments of us "plebes" who see them later. Well, I do like this site because there is a lot of worthy input, even if I may not agree with it all 100%. We all have different experiences and I'm glad we have an opportunity here to share them. This "point system" is kinda weird.....why not just have a box to check if you've READ the post....instead of the thumbs that can influence some who don't think for themselves into voting one way or the other? No site is perfect to be sure, but this one does have a lot of merit. Cheers, everybody!
Just as I was about to order some vitamin E from Carlson's and I read this?
Yes, we all agree that getting the full spectrum of vitamins should come from food we eat. Although ideal, it is not always possible for many people. So at times we feel we don't have our basics covered-we should consider taking a good quality supplement.
Dr. Merola used to recommend taking vitamin E with fish oil to prevent oxidization in the body. Is this no longer a good idea?
Mega amounts of "natural" vit. E, is not natural either, because it is not found in nature like this. The best source is from food, with complete spectrum and all the parts both known and unknown. We need real food, not isolated nutrients whether natural or not. The best supplement is a whole food supplement.
To Curlilox:
I agree synthetic vitamin E is highly toxic.
But natural vitamin E and especially the non-oily form d-alpha tocopheryl succinate is a wonderful supplement. It has been shown to have no toxicity up to 180 gm/day. It boosts immunity, improves quality of sleep, REVERSES skin cancer and powerfully protects the liver against the toxicity of drugs. I have used this form of vitamin E for years at high dose with only benefits and not a single side-effect and I'm somebody extremely sensitive to side-effects.
And I disagree with Dr Mercola on the point of reductive stress. The problem is ALWAYS oxidative stress and not the opposite. If synthetic vitamin E increases cancer risk this is due to its toxicity. Synthetic vitamin E will not cause reductive stress but strong oxidative stress because of its in vivo toxicity despite its in vitro antioxidant property.
This means there is something more important than taking vitamin E: this is to avoid the exposure of any oxidants. For example when I suffered from headaches natural vitamin E brought no relief. But suppressing the oxidants: copper, drugs, nitrates/nitrites (from processed meat), radiations of cordless phones alleviated them definitively.
Many, many studies have shown that studies which look at only one of the trio A, C and E, will show that it can have negative effects. When taken together they have tremendously good effect. Why? One of this trio of anti-oxidants converts the oxidants into a different set of oxidants which the next one takes and converts into yet another set of oxidants. The final one ( C I THINK) then converts it yet again and flushes them out of the system. Studying only one of these vitamins creates a bogus result. Note - I have no commercial interest in any of the products.
By the way, it has been known for a LOOONG time that taking too much E , especially if you aren‘t used to E, will RAISE blood pressure. Start off at 100 or 200 units per day. Do a month at each level. Slowly build up to 400 units. In most cases that is ample when taken daily. In any event, you must ALWAYS find your own level of any supplement/nutirent/vitamin by listening to your own body - and that may include taking your own blood pressure if need be.
Read the other studies. You will find that the boogey man of "too much E is bad" has been discredited many times over the last decade or so. Sheeeessh