# The importance of micronutrients



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Does anyone think about ensuring that they get enough of the micros, as well as the macros?

When watching supersize v. superskinny, it always hits me how the superskinny's are usually consuming a reasonable number of calories, and therefore, I can only assume that their skinniness is due to where these calories come from i.e. nutrient deficiant foods e.g. fizzy drinks & sweets. I just find it amazing just how cruicial these nutrients are and how without them, some people find it hard to put on weight and often have dark sunken eyes....not to mention all the horrid stuff like decaying teeth, poor gum health etc.

It seems that so many people neglect to appreciate the importance of them, and this also affects young children being raised by parents who don't understand the importance of fruit and veg.


----------



## Rusky87 (Jan 15, 2012)

I saw the TV Show last night and thought the exact same!


----------



## dannnn (Nov 15, 2011)

Katy said:


> Does anyone think about ensuring that they get enough of the micros, as well as the macros?
> 
> When watching supersize v. superskinny, it always hits me how the superskinny's are usually consuming a reasonable number of calories, and therefore, I can only assume that their skinniness is due to where these calories come from i.e. nutrient deficiant foods e.g. fizzy drinks & sweets. I just find it amazing just how cruicial these nutrients are and how without them, some people find it hard to put on weight and often have dark sunken eyes....not to mention all the horrid stuff like decaying teeth, poor gum health etc.
> 
> It seems that so many people neglect to appreciate the importance of them, and this also affects young children being raised by parents who don't understand the importance of fruit and veg.


That guy on Supersize Vs. Superskinny looked really ill with his sunken dark eyes and green teeth. His diet of crisps, coke and pizza is undoubtably to blame for that. Certainly fruit and veg wouldn't have done him any harm


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

Rusky87 said:


> I saw the TV Show last night and thought the exact same!


For some reason that made me smile knowing that someone else thought the same 



dannnn said:


> That guy on Supersize Vs. Superskinny looked really ill with his sunken dark eyes and green teeth. His diet of crisps, coke and pizza is undoubtably to blame for that. Certainly fruit and veg wouldn't have done him any harm


Exactly, he was consuming about 2,300 kcals I think so if weight was purely the result of calories, he shouldn't have been so thin. It could surely have only been because those calories were coming from such nutrient deficient foods. Had he gotten 2,300 kcals from fruit and veg and meat he'd have looked significantly different!

I found it funny when Dr Christian mentioned at the end about lifting weights to put the weight on in the right places i.e. not his belly. And speaking of Dr Christiam...he's bulked up recently!


----------



## mark_star (Jun 14, 2012)

and I don't think it's just those people that neglect them, sometimes we get so hung up macros that we forget the micros


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

mark_star said:


> and I don't think it's just those people that neglect them, sometimes we get so hung up macros that we forget the micros


Oh absolutely! Looking at some people's food intake on here I think 'where the hell is the veg? They must feel like sh!t!'. For people who are trying to build muscle to such a degree, micros surely shouldn't be neglected.


----------



## dannnn (Nov 15, 2011)

Katy said:


> And speaking of Dr Christiam...he's bulked up recently!


Yeah he's a unit now. I wonder if he's on something.... :whistling:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Katy, I think the biggest difference BY FAR in long term health comes from paying attention to this. IMO there is way too much focus on macros and not at all enough upon micro nutrients (or genetic variability), and it leads to some seriously generalised and bunk popular (and even some 'scientific') views on physiology... the relationship of micronutrients affects the way the body responds to macronutrients, and is a very profound variable factor in health, possibly the most important factor when matched to genetic traits.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

dannnn said:


> Yeah he's a unit now. I wonder if he's on something.... :whistling:


Yeah, I'm suspecting some assistance...not that it matters. He looks good! And he did well on the hair plugs too.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

dtlv said:


> Katy, I think the biggest difference BY FAR in long term health comes from paying attention to this. IMO there is way too much focus on macros and not at all enough upon micro nutrients (or genetic variability), and it leads to some seriously generalised and bunk popular (and even some 'scientific') views on physiology... the relationship of micronutrients affects the way the body responds to macronutrients, and is a very profound variable factor in health, possibly the most important factor when matched to genetic traits.


I suspected this thread would get your attention


----------



## Jux (Jul 23, 2008)

Micronutrients are paramount. Many are cofactors for enzymatic pathways, of which are severely reduced/abolished in the absence of them.


----------



## MURPHYZ (Oct 1, 2011)

Katy said:


> Oh absolutely! Looking at some people's food intake on here I think 'where the hell is the veg? They must feel like sh!t!'. For people who are trying to build muscle to such a degree, micros surely shouldn't be neglected.


I don't feel or look like sh1t, and I never eat veg, I do eat a little fruit sometimes, only thing I can say is I don't eat much of crisps or sweets or mushed up pretend meat.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Katy said:


> I suspected this thread would get your attention


Haha, bait cast - hooked, reeled in and flopping around in the net :lol:

I started to write a very long post but figured that since such long posts of mine have a tendency to kill threads and become too long even for me to re-read, thought I'd leave it :lol:

I can maybe share some well documented examples of the effects of certain micronutrients later though if you like?


----------



## mark_star (Jun 14, 2012)

dtlv said:


> Haha, bait cast - hooked, reeled in and flopping around in the net :lol:
> 
> I started to write a very long post but figured that since such long posts of mine have a tendency to kill threads and become too long even for me to re-read, thought I'd leave it :lol:
> 
> I can maybe share some well documented examples of the effects of certain micronutrients later though if you like?


long or short i'll read them, get typing please


----------



## Joe Shmoe (Jan 12, 2009)

I know from people i worked with that they only look at calories. No interest whatsoever in the breakdown of those calories. When you try to educate them, they look at you like your the idoit!


----------



## Joe Shmoe (Jan 12, 2009)

Btw, that was deliberate lol.


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

dtlv said:


> *Haha, bait cast - hooked, reeled in and flopping around in the net* :lol:
> 
> I started to write a very long post but figured that since such long posts of mine have a tendency to kill threads and become too long even for me to re-read, thought I'd leave it :lol:
> 
> I can maybe share some well documented examples of the effects of certain micronutrients later though if you like?


Spot on! :lol:

I think the forum would really benefit from your scientific ramblings... I know it's an area of interest for you and it's becoming once for me and it's certainly an area that I think people should be educated on and understand 

Type away please


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Ok, you did ask for it 

I think the best thing to do to start is to look at evolutionary/paleo nutrition, which is widely regarded as the healthiest way for humans to eat with the lowest set of disease risk factors.

When looking at all the evidence so far available (and the picture is by no means complete) as collected by evolutionary anthropologists, geneticists and nutritionists, the following differences in macro and micro nutrient patterns between evolutionary diets and modern diets seem to be very striking -

*Ancestral Diet* *Modern Diet*

Total energy intake More Less

Caloric concentration: Very little Much

Dietary bulk More Less

Total carbohydrate intake Less More

Added sugar and refined carbohydrate Very little Much more

Glycemic load Relatively low High

Fruit and vegetables Twice as much Half as much

Antioxidant capacity Greater Lesser

Fiber More Less

Soluble:insoluble Closer to equal Far more insoluble

Protein intake More Less

Total fat intake Equivalent

Serum cholesterol-raising fat Less More

Total polyunsaturated fat More Less

Omega fats x-6:x-3 Closer to equal Far more x-6

Long-chain essential fatty acids More Less

Cholesterol intake More Less

Micronutrient intake More Less

Electrolytes Much more potassium More sodium

Acid-base effect (NEAP) Alkaline Acidic

''Dairy'' products Mother's milk only Considerable

Cereal grains Very little A great deal

Free water intake More Less

*Nutrients*

Carbohydrate (% daily energy) 35-40 45-65

Added sugar (% daily energy) 2 25

Fiber (g/d) 70 38 for males, 25 for females.

Protein (% daily energy) 25-30 10-35

Fat (% daily energy) 30-40 20-35

Saturated fat (% daily energy) 7.5-12 7

Cholesterol (mg/d) 500 300

EPA1DHA (g/d) 5-6 1.6 for males, 1.1 for females

Vitamin C (mg/d) 500 90 for males, 75 for females

Vitamin D (IU/d) 4000 1000

Calcium (mg/d) 1000-1500 1000

Sodium (mg/d) 1000 1500

Potassium (mg/d) 7000 4700

Some micronutrients in more detail:

*Minerals*

Calcium 1622 920

Copper 12.2 1.2

Iron 87.4 10.5

Magnesium 1223 320

Manganese 13.3 3.0

Phosphorus 3223 1510

Potassium 10500 2500

Sodium 768 4000

Zinc 43.4 12.5

*Vitamins*

Ascorbate (vit c) 604 93

Folate 0.36 0.18

Ribo?avin 6.49 1.71

Thiamin 3.91 1.42

Vitamin A 17.2 7.8

Vitamin E 32.8 8.5

(links to references can be found on this thread - http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/general-conversation/205198-what-did-cavemen-really-eat-were-they-actually-healthier-6.html#post3745355).

Now just looking at some of those differences a very obvious set of patterns come over - in the ancestral diet there are hugely significantly more nutrients which improve insulin sensitivity - better omega 3/6 ratio, higher magnesium, more fiber, less long chain saturated (listed as 'cholesterol raising fat'), more phytonutrients... there was also far less sugar, but interestingly, while total carb intake was lower, not that much so, and still was the dominant macro for most populations.

Many times in modern nutritional conversations 'carbs' get the blame for all manner of ills and obesity because, primarily, of the effect of excessive consumption upon insulin sensitivity... but the modern diets which cause these issues so frequently not only have too many carbs, but also have higher sugar, and a completely incorrect balance of these other nutrients which affect how those carbs are metabolised... it seems very clear that the issue with carbs is not so much the total quantity, but the type of carb (sugar vs resistant starches, fibers and complex carbs), and the accompanying micronutrients (or lack of) and their effect on overal metabolism.

A second thing that immediately pops out is cholesterol - some of the micro nutrients more abundant in the ancestral diet (specific fatty acids and their balance against other FA's, fiber, B group vitamins, vits C, E, chromium) help to both reduce total LDL, increase HDL, and to improve the LDL cholesterol particle size to a less artherogenic density - the lower sugar content also plays in here.

Also, looking at blood pressure - lower intakes of cholesterol elevating long chain saturated fats, higher potassium intakes and lower sodium intakes are all common to the ancestral diet compared to the modern diet, and these things (along with many phytonutrients also more common in ancestral diets via fresh fruit and veg intake) result in much better control of BP.

The next thing to look at is plasma pH balance - the NEAP (net endogenous acid production) on ancestral diets was primarily alkaline due to higher bicarbonate intake from fruti and veg, and from many alkaline minerals also found primarily in plant matter and natural high mineral content water sources... but with these micronutrients lower in modern diets the NEAP is more acidic, and this links to increased risk for osteoporosis and kidney stone issues.

Next, there is systemic inflammation, another issue associated with modern diets that plays a role in many diseases, especially immune and autoimmune conditions and cognitive impairments - ancestral diets had lower sugar, higher omega 3's, more vits c, d, e, b6, magnesium, selenium and manganese... all micronutrients that lower inflammation.

Scarily, am not done yet - the different balances of starches, dietary fibers, sugars and fatty acids between modern and ancient diets affect intestinal bacterial populations and therefore vitamin k biosynthesis and type of nutrients synthesised and absorbed through the gut... the ancestral profile provided a set of micronutrients more suitable for anti-allergenic health, as many allergies start with issues in the digestive system.

A final point (for the moment) is something in general about food processing. The processing of food not only strips away many of these micronutrients, but often replaces them with un natural nutrients that our bodies have not developed an evolutionary mechanism yet to process well, but also often includes anti nutrients (hydrogenated, rancid and transfats, glycated proteins etc) all as part of methods to stablise colour, flavour, texture and to increase shelf life. These anti nurients negatively alter inflammatory status, ability to release fat from fat cells, increase LDL and change its particle size... not much going on that is good here at all.

Another thing too about processed foods is that the thermic effect of food is often much lower with processed foods (because they are already broken down and require less digestion) than natural equivalents - is common knowledge in bodybuilding that protein has an average TEF of 25% (of each 100kcals of protein consumed it takes 25kcals to digest it and liberate the energy), but in processed proteins the TEF is often less and closer to only about 10%. Similar thing with processed carbs - without fiber the TEF is also lower. This means modern junk diets are more calorific simply because of differences to TEF.

This all sounds incredibly complex, and it is in a sense, but the take home message should be that if you drop the junk food and processed crap and eat a balanced natural diet closer to the ancestral micronutrient pattern (which would happen fairly automatically when eating a varied clean diet), a lot of the issues often linked to macros will be significantly reduced, even where macros themselves do not change very much.

IMO micronutrients rule for health, much more than macros


----------



## Monkey skeleton (Jul 8, 2012)

A fascinating and very useful read, thanks for taking the time! 

This is one of the reasons I would never do a consistently dirty bulk, you'll hit your macros but not your micros.

It's also why it drives me mad that most (in my experience) of the medical profession look at you as if your insane if you talk about diet and supplementary vitamins/minerals, then try to convince you to take a drug with horrendous potential side effects.

If you've the inclination, I could happily read up on this subject all day long!


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

@dtlv, I always read your posts regarding everything with extreme interest and I often end up copying and pasting them for future reference.

I remember you mentioning in the past that you have a particular interest in genetic variability regarding diet, but I can't recall that you've really expanded significantly on this assertion. Lyle McDonald has spoken in the past on his website that there is genetic variability concerning the secretion of insulin in response to intake of carbohydrates and furthermore insulin sensitivity (both in fat and muscle cells). He would appear to feel that the type of diet one should undertake - whether low-carb/keto or else something more along the lines of an isocaloric/zone-type diet - should be based on one's personal characteristics regarding the above.

Is this what you also mean when you talk about genetic variability? Or is there more?


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

dtlv said:


> Ok, you did ask for it
> 
> I think the best thing to do to start is to look at evolutionary/paleo nutrition, which is widely regarded as the healthiest way for humans to eat with the lowest set of disease risk factors.
> 
> ...


Just pop some multi vits/minerals and then hit the macros however you want? :whistling:


----------



## Monkey skeleton (Jul 8, 2012)

MutantX said:


> Just pop some multi vits/minerals and then hit the macros however you want? :whistling:


This is an interesting area, I'd be interested to hear @dtlv s opinion on this, as from what I understand this doesn't work. I seem to remember reading about a trial on vit A (I think) Evidence showed that smokers who had the most vit A in their diets were least likely to contract lung cancer, but in the actual trial where people were popping vit A pills rather than getting from their diet, the incidence of cancer increased so much beyond the norm that the trial was ended prematurely.


----------



## mark_star (Jun 14, 2012)

Monkey skeleton said:


> This is an interesting area, I'd be interested to hear @dtlv s opinion on this, as from what I understand this doesn't work. I seem to remember reading about a trial on vit A (I think) Evidence showed that smokers who had the most vit A in their diets were least likely to contract lung cancer, but in the actual trial where people were popping vit A pills rather than getting from their diet, the incidence of cancer increased so much beyond the norm that the trial was ended prematurely.


i may be wrong on this but I believe the trial actually used synthetic beta carotene where as natural doesn't raise the risk of lung cancer


----------



## Monkey skeleton (Jul 8, 2012)

mark_star said:


> i may be wrong on this but I believe the trial actually used synthetic beta carotene where as natural doesn't raise the risk of lung cancer


My money would be on you being right! Lol


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

@dtlv shall we stick this? I think it's important


----------



## Hera (May 6, 2011)

I've stickied it! I'm too impatient


----------



## The Cheese (Sep 22, 2012)

MutantX said:


> Just pop some multi vits/minerals and then hit the macros however you want? :whistling:


 @dtlv

^^ I was wondering the same thing myself.

Although I try to eat as much veg as possible, I sometimes reckon I'm falling short and because of that, I tend to supplement with pills (multi-vits, zinc, magnesium, vit c, omega 3, etc).

Does this cover me or do I need to make sure I'm getting the micronutrients from foods?

Which leads me on to another question: Not that I'd want to try, but can you supplement nutrients at the expense of giving up fruit and veg entirely?


----------



## mark_star (Jun 14, 2012)

found this, I have seen similar in the past that have suggested even higher losses.

In 2004, a University of Texas research team headed by biochemist Donald Davis, Ph.D., analyzed a U.S. Department of Agriculture report on 43 common garden fruits and vegetables and found that almost half of the substances containing minerals important to good health had lost some nutritional value.

Davis said in a university news release that at first, his team didn't evaluate individual fruits and vegetables but found the nutritional declines in the plants as a group. "Considered as a group, we found that six out of 13 nutrients showed apparently reliable declines between 1950 and 1999," he said.

The nutrients Davis's team identified as losing at least some measurable value were protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid. The declines ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for riboflavin.

Specific Produce Identified as Losing Nutritional Value

Why did this happen? As best as Davis can determine, the nutritional value in some produce was diluted through faster methods major agro-farm companies employed to grow high-yield crops to meet consumer demand.

Davis continued studying what he termed the "genetic dilution effect" and was able to identify specific high-yield crops that had declines in nutrients.

Mother Earth News reported in its June/July 2009 edition that Davis had used the USDA report to find the following declines in nutritional value of broccoli:

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data, calcium content of broccoli which averaged 12.9 milligrams per gram of dry weight in 1950, had declined to only 4.4 mg/g dry weight in 2003

And in a study of much longer duration, Davis reported that in wheat and barley crops, protein concentrations declined by 30 to 50 percent between the years 1938 and 1990.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

MutantX said:


> Just pop some multi vits/minerals and then hit the macros however you want? :whistling:


In theory yes, and that would be awesome, but in practise popping supp's only works to a point.

These interactions with micronutrients are complex and subtle (and further influenced by genetics and behavioral patterns), and unfortunately while some specific micronutrients do show benefits when taken as supp's on top of a lackign diet, in most studies using a broad range of supp's on top of a highly lacking diet doesn't show any statistical change in results when it comes to disease risk of most kinds.

My theory as to why is that it's all about proportionate relationships between things, but I don't know enough to explain why.

I think personally that the best use of sup's is for those who eat fairly clean but use a particular diet (for whatever reason) that isn't varied - like keto for example. Add in some fiber supp's and replace the lacking minerals to a calorie controled keto diet combined with plenty of exercise and it can combine to work well... but taking a multi vit on top of a diet of pizza, microwave meals, take away meals, soda and alcohol whilst sitting on the couch all day and its not enough to make a difference... the micronutrients are lacking and swamped out by the antinutrients.



Bull Terrier said:


> @dtlv, I always read your posts regarding everything with extreme interest and I often end up copying and pasting them for future reference.
> 
> I remember you mentioning in the past that you have a particular interest in genetic variability regarding diet, but I can't recall that you've really expanded significantly on this assertion. Lyle McDonald has spoken in the past on his website that there is genetic variability concerning the secretion of insulin in response to intake of carbohydrates and furthermore insulin sensitivity (both in fat and muscle cells). He would appear to feel that the type of diet one should undertake - whether low-carb/keto or else something more along the lines of an isocaloric/zone-type diet - should be based on one's personal characteristics regarding the above.
> 
> Is this what you also mean when you talk about genetic variability? Or is there more?


Nail on the head really... insulin sensitivity varies at a genetic level as well as being influenced by micronutrients and macros and exercise level, and this is a big deal for body comp and disease risk. There are also other genetic variables that affect optimum diet for each person, not just revolving around insulin sensitivity... copied and pasted from another thread of mine (http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/food-diet-nutrition-info/161198-fat-loss-diets-your-genes.html):

....

For a long time, often heatedly so in the world of bodybuilding, the debate has raged over what the optimum diet to shed excess bodyfat may be, but rarely does the discussion include a nutrigenomic point of view, it always seems a black and white debate between high fat/low carbs vs low fat/high carbs vs high protein diets.

The study shown below is one of several recent studies which begin to show just how this simplisitic debate is flawwed and that there just isn't one diet suitable for all - and that taking a nutrigentic approach to customise diet according to an individuals genetics is a far more effective approach.

Below is an abstract of the study, followed by a review of the same study taken from a blog.



> *Genetic Phenotypes Predict Weight Loss Success: The Right Diet Does Matter*
> 
> Mindy Dopler Nelson, Stanford Univ, Palo Alto, CA; Prakash Prabhakar, Venkateswarlu Kondragunta, Interleukin Genetics, Waltham, MA; Kenneth S Kornman, Interleukin Genetics, Waltham, CA; Christopher Gardner, Stanford Univ, Palo Alto, CA
> 
> ...


A brief scientific analysis of the study from the Blog of Fabricio Gonzalez (Biomed Researcher)



> *SNPs Genotyping and the diets to lose-weight*
> 
> *Mindy Dopler Nelson* and *Christopher Gardner* from the *Stanford Prevention Research Center*, and other researchers of *Interleukin Genetics Inc*. performed a very interesting Clinical Trial entitled: *Genetic Phenotypes Predict Weight Loss Success: The Right Diet Does Matter*, presented at the Joint Conference -50th Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention- and -Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism 2010, scheduled March 3, 2010, San Francisco, California.
> 
> ...


....

I have several more links on this I can post if interested, but the one link that I'd suggest people do look at (as it's not too sciency and quite readable) is this one - http://graemethomasonline.com/low-carb-or-low-fat-let-science-settle-the-debate/

IMO, gaining an understanding of your body, and then eating (mostly, not obsessively - a healthy body easily has the ability to process some junk with no ill effect) a micronutrient rich diet that is targeted towards your own individual nature is the way to go for longevity and long term health.

If you focus just on crude macros and tight calorie control you can certainly make radical changes to body composition and lower some disease risk factors even if you aren't either eating clean or getting a natural balance of micronutrients... but long term my view is that it will still catch up with you in the end.

There are a few of things I haven't touched on in that big post above, because am not so confident of my understanding in a wide enough context (am not with most of this to be fair, is just my own understanding of it), but nutritional practices and micronutrients (and behaviors like exercise) activate certain genes that would otherwise remain dormant or less active through a process called gene regulation... in the case of eating healthy and exercise the genes that switch are usually of benefit, but in the case of becoming obese and lazy the genes switched on often are linked with longer term health issues, and conditions that develop in later life... many issues of ill health discussed above are partially regulated through this mechanism (inappropriate balance of micronutrients for ones genetic make up switches genes which then cause systemic dysfunction).


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

mark_star said:


> i may be wrong on this but I believe the trial actually used synthetic beta carotene where as natural doesn't raise the risk of lung cancer


This common to a lot of micronutrients taken as supps - synthetic forms, incorrect isomers etc often do not deliver the same benefits as natural forms of the same micronutrients.

Not all synthetic micronutrient supp's are useless, not at all, but many don't seem to replicate the benefit from an equal intake of natural forms from diet.


----------



## Heath (Mar 3, 2011)

so much for getting my extra carbs from choco rocks


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

mark_star said:


> found this, I have seen similar in the past that have suggested even higher losses.
> 
> In 2004, a University of Texas research team headed by biochemist Donald Davis, Ph.D., analyzed a U.S. Department of Agriculture report on 43 common garden fruits and vegetables and found that almost half of the substances containing minerals important to good health had lost some nutritional value.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think there are other studies confirming similar declines in micronutrients from intense framing... and not just in plants but livestock too which show changes in fatty acid balances and the relative proportions of amino acids.

Trace antibiotics, hormones, pesticides etc as contaminents (anti nutrients) are also possible issues, although to be fair I think sometimes these issues are over hyped as nowadays controls are a lot better than they used to be in most places.

As to how relevant it all is, that's not for me to say... plenty of research still needed to make absolute conclusions.


----------



## mark_star (Jun 14, 2012)

here we go another piece of light reading

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, January 17, 2012

Supplements: The Real Story

Natural or Synthetic? Foods or Tablets?

(OMNS, Jan 17, 2012) It's a nutritional "Catch 22": The public is told, confusingly: "Vitamins are good, but vitamin supplements are not. Only vitamins from food will help you. So just eat a good diet. Do not take supplements! But by the way, there is no difference between natural and synthetic vitamins."

Wait a minute. What's the real story here?

A recent health study reported that the risk of heart failure decreased with increasing blood levels of vitamin C [1]. The benefit of vitamin C (ascorbate) was highly significant. Persons with the lowest plasma levels of ascorbate had the highest risk of heart failure, and persons with the highest levels of vitamin C had the lowest risk of heart failure. This finding confirms the knowledge derived over the last 50 years that vitamin C is a major essential factor in cardiovascular health [2,3]. The study raises several important questions about diet and vitamin supplements.

Was it Food or Supplements?

The report discussed vitamin C as if it were simply an indicator of how many fruits and vegetables were consumed by the participants. Yet, ironically, the study's results show little improvement in the risk for heart failure from consuming fruits and vegetables. This implies that the real factor in reducing the risk was indeed the amount of vitamin C consumed. Moreover, the study appears to utterly ignore the widespread use of vitamin C supplements to improve cardiovascular health. In fact, out of four quartile groups, the quartile with the highest plasma vitamin C had six to ten times the rate of vitamin C supplementation of the lowest quartile, but this fact was not emphasized. This type of selective attention to food sources of vitamin C, while dismissing supplements as an important source, appears to be an attempt to marginalize the importance of vitamin supplements.

Many medical and nutritional reports have maintained that there is little difference between natural and synthetic vitamins. This is known to be true for some essential nutrients. The ascorbate found in widely available vitamin C tablets is identical to the ascorbate found in fruits and vegetables [3]. Linus Pauling emphasized this fact, and explained how ordinary vitamin C, inexpensively manufactured from glucose, could improve health in many important ways [4]. Indeed, the above-mentioned study specifically measured the plasma level of ascorbate, which was shown to be an important factor associated with lower risk of heart failure [1, 2]. The study did not measure blood plasma levels of the components of fruits and vegetables. It measured vitamin C.

A known rationale for this dramatic finding is that vitamin C helps to prevent inflammation in the arteries by several mechanisms. It is a necessary co-factor for the synthesis of collagen, which is a major component of arteries. Vitamin C is also an important antioxidant throughout the body that can help to recycle other antioxidants like vitamin E and glutathione in the artery walls [2,3]. This was underscored by a report that high plasma levels of vitamin C are associated with a 50% reduction in risk for stroke [5].

Yes, Synthetic Vitamin C is Clinically Effective

We can almost hear "Unsubscribe" links being clicked as we state it, but here it is: synthetic vitamin C works, in real people with real illnesses. Ascorbate's efficacy has little direct relation to food intake. A dramatic case of this was a dairy farmer in New Zealand who was on life support with lung whiteout, kidney failure, leukemia and swine flu [6]. He was given 100,000 mg of vitamin C daily and his life was saved. We have nothing against oranges or other vitamin C-containing foods. Fruits and vegetables are good for you for many, many reasons. However, you'll need to get out your calculator to help you figure out how many oranges it would take to get that much, and then also figure how to get a sick person to eat them all.

It is established that liver function improves with vitamin C supplementation, and it is equally well known that adequate levels of vitamin C are essential for the proper functioning of the immune system. Vitamin C improves the ability of the white blood cells to fight bacteria and viruses. OMNS has more articles expanding on this topic, available for free access at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml .

Deficiency of vitamin C is very common. According to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, [7] nearly half of Americans do not get even the US RDA of vitamin C, which is a mere 90 mg.

Synthetic Vitamin E is Less Effective

For some other nutrients, there is a significant difference in efficacy between synthetic and natural forms. Vitamin E is a crucial anti-oxidant, but also has other functions in the body, not all well understood. It comprises eight different biochemical forms, alpha-, beta-, delta- and gamma tocopherols, and alpha-, beta-, delta-, and gamma-tocotrienols. All of these forms of vitamin E are important for the body. Current knowledge about the function of vitamin E is rapidly expanding, and each of the eight forms of natural vitamin E is thought to have a slightly different function in the body. For example, gamma-tocotrienol actually kills prostate cancer stem cells better than chemotherapy does. ( http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n11.shtml )

Synthetic vitamin E is widely available and inexpensive. It is "DL-alpha-tocopherol." Yes, it has the same antioxidant properties in test tube experiments as does the natural "D-alpha-tocopherol" form. However, the DL- form has only 50% of the biological efficacy, because the body utilizes only the natural D isomer, which comprises half of the synthetic mix [8]. Therefore, studies utilizing DL-alpha-tocopherol that do not take this fact into account are starting with an already-halved dose that will naturally lead to a reduction in the observed efficacy.

Then there are the esterified forms of vitamin E such as acetate or succinate. These esterified forms, either natural or synthetic, have a greater shelf life because the ester protects the vitamin E from being oxidized and neutralized. When acid in the stomach cleaves the acetate or succinate component from the original natural vitamin E molecule, the gut can then absorb a good fraction and the body receives its antioxidant benefit. But when esterified vitamin E acetate is applied to the skin to prevent inflammation, it is ineffective because there is no acid present to remove the acetate ester.

Based on USDA data [9] an astonishing 90% of Americans do not get the RDA of vitamin E, which is, believe it or not, under 23 IU (15mg) per day.

Magnesium Deficiency is Widespread

Magnesium is another example. Over two-thirds of the population do not get the RDA of magnesium.[10] Deficiency can cause a wide variety of symptoms, including osteoporosis, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, depression, and diabetes. Magnesium can be purchased in many forms. The most widely available form is magnesium oxide, which is not very effective because it is only about 5% absorbed [11]. Magnesium oxide supplements are popular because the pills are smaller -- they contain more magnesium, but won't help most people. Better forms of magnesium are magnesium citrate, magnesium malate, and the best absorbed is magnesium chloride. It's always good to consult your doctor to determine your ideal intake. Testing may reveal unexpected deficiency. [12]

Well, Which? Natural or Synthetic?

While the natural form of vitamin E (mixed natural tocopherols and tocotrienols) is at least twice as effective as the synthetic form, this is not true of vitamin C. The ascorbate that the body gets from fruits and vegetables is the same as the ascorbate in vitamin C tablets. On first thought, this may sound confusing, because there are many so-called "natural" forms of vitamin C widely available. But virtually every study that demonstrated that supplemental vitamin C fights illness used plain, cheap, synthetic ascorbic acid. Other forms of ascorbate, for instance, the sodium or magnesium salt of ascorbic acid, are digested slightly differently by the gut, but once the ascorbate molecule is absorbed from these forms, it has identical efficacy. The advantage of these ascorbate salts is that they are non-acidic and can be ingested or topically applied to any part of the body without concern about irritation from acidity.

Further, it is known that essential nutrients are symbiotic, that is, they are more effective when taken as a group in proper doses. For example, vitamin E is more effective when taken along with vitamin C and selenium, because each of these essential nutrients can improve the efficacy of the others. Similarly, the B vitamins are more effective when taken together. Readers with dosage questions will want to consult their healthcare provider, and also look at freely available information archived at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml .

Food Factors

Natural food factors are also important. Bioflavonoids and other vitamin C-friendly components in fresh fruits and vegetables (sometimes called "vitamin C complex") do indeed have health benefits. These natural components are easily obtained from a healthy, unprocessed whole foods diet. However, eating even a very good diet does not supply nearly enough vitamin C to be effective against illness. A really good diet might provide several hundred milligrams of vitamin C daily. An extreme raw food diet might provide two or three thousand milligrams of vitamin C, but this is not practical for most people. Supplementation, with a good diet, is.

The principle that "natural" vitamins are better than synthetic vitamins is a widely quoted justification for actually avoiding vitamin supplements. The argument goes, because vitamins and minerals are available from food in their natural form, that somehow one might suppose that we are best off by ignoring supplements. Apparently this is what the authors of the above-mentioned study had in mind, because the report hardly mentions vitamin supplements.

Conclusion

In the real world of today's processed food, most of us don't get all the nutrients we need in adequate doses. Most people are deficient in several of the essential nutrients. These deficiencies are responsible for much suffering, including heart disease, cancer, premature aging, dementia, diabetes, and other diseases such as eye disease, multiple sclerosis and asthma. The above-mentioned study showing the efficacy of vitamin C in reducing heart failure is but one of the many studies showing the value of vitamins. Others are discussed and available at http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml .

For vitamin E, the natural form, taken in adequate doses along with a nutritious diet, is the best medicine. However, for most vitamins, including vitamin C, the manufactured form is identical to the natural one. Both are biologically active and both work clinically. It all comes down to dose. Supplements enable optimum intake; foods alone do not.

Don't be fooled: nutrient deficiency is the rule, not the exception. That's why we need supplements. When ill, we need them even more.

References:

1. Pfister R, Sharp SJ, Luben R, Wareham NJ, Khaw KT. (2011) Plasma vitamin C predicts incident heart failure in men and women in European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk prospective study. Am Heart J. 162:246-253. See also: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v07n14.shtml

2. Levy TE (2006) Stop America's #1 Killer: Reversible Vitamin Deficiency Found to be Origin of All Coronary Heart Disease. ISBN-13: 9780977952007

3. Hickey S, Saul AW (2008) Vitamin C: The Real Story, the Remarkable and Controversial Healing Factor. Basic Health Publications, ISBN-13: 978-1591202233.

4. Pauling L. (2006) How to Live Longer And Feel Better. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. ISBN-13: 9780870710964.

5. Kurl S, Tuomainen TP, Laukkanen JA, Nyyssönen K, Lakka T, Sivenius J, Salonen JT. (2002) Plasma vitamin C modifies the association between hypertension and risk of stroke. Stroke. 33:1568-1573.

6. Watch the Channel 3 New Zealand news report at http://www.3news.co.nz/Living-Proof-Vitamin-C---Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx or http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh70sx_60-minutes-scoop-on-new-zealand-farmer-vit-c-miracle_tech [ Note that each video is proceeded by a commercial, over which we have no control, and with which we have no financial connection whatsoever. ]

7. Free, full text paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405127/pdf/amjph00225-0021.pdf

8. Papas A. (1999) The Vitamin E Factor: The miraculous antioxidant for the prevention and treatment of heart disease, cancer, and aging. HarperCollins, NY. ISBN-13: 9780060984434

9. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminE/ ; scroll down to "Deficiency."

10. Free, full text paper at http://www.jacn.org/content/24/3/166.full.pdf+html (or http://www.jacn.org/content/24/3/166.long )

11. Dean, C. (2007) The Magnesium Miracle. Ballantine Books, ISBN-13: 9780345494580

12. http://www.doctoryourself.com/epilepsy.html

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

Find a Doctor


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

That's a great review above... have covered the differences with vit e and c before, and it does depend a lot on the particular supplement.

There are several meta analysis studies that do not show benefits (or only show selected benefits) from vitamin, mineral and various other micronutrient supplements (can link some studies if people want, but these are easy enough to find in google without access to any journals), but the problem with these meta studies is that they usually do not look at the populations taking supp's - many people who take supp's are health nerds and probably are so anal about diet that a sup on top would make no difference, and many are also in fairly advanced stages of illness anyway and beyond the point of significant benefit... islikely a lot of people who take

My view though is that while these micronutrients each are relevant to specific functions, as I mentioned before, it's about an interaction with mutliple factors - micronutrients(their types and relative ratios to one another)+behaviors+genetics+existing state of health... is more complex than just looking at single micronutrients in isolation, even though that is important. Some illnesses related to diet also possibly have a "point of no return" due to gene activation and physiological changes the disease causes... and certainly there are a lot of studies now showing that infant nutrition and even prenatal nutrition (nutrients recieved via placenta whilst still in the womb) has a big effect on metabolic disease risk in adult life through genes that become activated whilst still at a development stage -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20107142

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22902003

Also, poor birth weight (usually linked to poor prenatal nutrition at a micronutrient level) appears to affect risk of metabolic disease in offspring throughout their lives

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/6_Suppl/1799S.short

Am rambling slightly now and I'll shut up before I start bringing too many things into the discussion, but I do think there is a clear pattern and a central point in that long term health is affected by (micro)nutrients both directly (what you eat now) and indirectly (what you ate yesterday, as a child, and even what your mother ate whilst pregnant).


----------



## anneyauster (Apr 29, 2013)

Micro nutrients are found naturally in a variety of plant- and animal-based foods. Although they can now be synthesized in the laboratory, a varied diet typically provides all of the vitamins and minerals necessary for human health. In many settings, however, such foods are not available and provide a major threat to the health and development of populations around the globe. These are also the places where micro nutrient deficiencies cause the greatest harm.


----------



## resten (Apr 4, 2012)

anneyauster said:


> Micro nutrients are found naturally in a variety of plant- and animal-based foods. Although they can now be synthesized in the laboratory, a varied diet typically provides all of the vitamins and minerals necessary for human health. In many settings, however, such foods are not available and provide a major threat to the health and development of populations around the globe. These are also the places where micro nutrient deficiencies cause the greatest harm.


Thanks for bumping this 4 month old thread with such a gripping post


----------



## BlueRibbon (Apr 6, 2014)

Brilliant read. Nice one!


----------

