Sacramento Superbowl day usually is filled with fats in foods, from hot dogs and burgers to garlic and cheese fries. Or there's the chicken-fried steak with popcorn and other foods varying from ground meats and steaks to fat sausages and cabbage with mashed potatoes. Or there's ethnic food, the large pizzas, the pastas, maybe some Asian foods or whatever you enjoy eating while watching superbowl. Did you ever check out how many more people fill Sacramento's emergency rooms on or just after superbowl day, usually, aftering eating too much, especially too many fats, sugars, and alcoholic energy drinks?
The problem is if your winning team loses, Sacramento usually finds its emergency rooms filled with people suffering heart problems related to emotions plus a fatty meal at night if their favorite team loses...or sometimes if your favorite team wins. It's all about the fatty meal plus the emotion, usually of routing for the team that just lost that could land you in a Sacramento emergency room.
Sacramento's elderly has to watch out on Superbowl day for strangers who target homes of the elderly. They use the familiar scam, "can I use your bathroom?" to get into your home. While the man or woman uses the toilet, the woman or man keeps talking to the elderly person or couple in the home. Watch out. It has been done in California, and it could increase in Sacramento. Check out the online article on this scam here. And don't open your door to strangers on Superbowl day, when most of the family may be distracted by the TV.
In the usual scam, a man and woman knocks on the door of a home in a senior community, asking to come in to use the restroom. The man steals jewelry from the home while ostensibly using the bathroom, while the woman talks with the homeowner. Another Sacramento Superbowl problem is what happens to you physically if your team loses, especially if you've just had a fatty meal such as hot dogs, cold cut luncheon meats (processed meats), pizza, too much cheese, or burgers and fries.
The highest number of heart attacks arrive the morning after an evening consisting of a fatty, heavy holiday meal, especially around the winter solstice holidays, New Year's Eve, or Thanksgiving, and especially to the young and middle-aged or to anyone eating too much at one sitting. Do you know how eating heavy holiday meals affect the human body? Don't forget birthday and anniversary parties as well and those buffets on cruises. See the article, "Health benefits of Tocotrienols."
Can certain types of the eight-part tocotrienol vitamin E and C may help prevent problems if you can't eat smaller portions on family holidays? The key to the holiday meal heart attack epidemic that peaks in October, November, and December. and reaches its lowest point in August, is eating a meal containing lots of fat such as the Christmas ham, the Thanksgiving turkey or various ethnic foods for ethnic holidays that consist of a main course of fatty meat, a side of potatoes or pasta laden with melted butter, fat, grease, gravy, or various oils. Also see the article, "Tocotrienol.org - Health Benefits of Tocotrienol."
Then there's the additional burden on the body of alcoholic drinks and candy, pie or cake for dessert. The cakes or cookies are made with more butter or other fats and cups of sugar. If you want to make an animal get fat and raise its blood pressure, you feed the animal sugar. See, "Researchers Discover Important Benefits of Tocotrienols: Breaking News." Also check out, "Why are tocotrienols superior to tocopherols?
Benefits of Tocotrienol Supplementation (Tocopherol-Free)
- Cholesterol Reduction
- Triglyceride Reduction
- Plaque Reduction
- Cellular Health
- Antioxidant Activity
- Skin Protection
The fatty meal culprits most often are the Superbowl day or dinner ham, the pastrami or corned beef sandwich with fries drenched in gravy, the sauce Alfredo type buttery drippings over pasta, or mashed potatoes with butter and cream, and cheese and egg blintzes made with white flour and fried in butter, trans-fat-laden vegetable shortening, or animal fat.
What can you do if you're going to stuff yourself during the Superbowl with fatty meals and sugary beverages? Some people don't know whether they're salt resistant or sensitive, which adds another burden and raises the blood pressure in those sensitive to salt. People who are drinking on Superbowl day in Sacramento need a designated driver. Maybe it's better to drink non-alchoholic smoothies if you don't want to feel lousy the next day or end up in a local emergency room. Why do Sacramento emergency rooms see more people right after the Superbowl ends--or the following morning?
There were plenty of football and baseball games sixty years ago. But back then Sacramento emergency rooms filled up with people who overindulged in transfats. In the 1950s, the culprit was food fried in hydrogenated vegetable oils--that white, solid fat people used before they switched to rice bran oil, grapeseed oil, or olive oil years later (unless they came from an ethnic group that used olive oil or other healthy oils such as macademia nut oil).
Even coconut oil, a saturated plant-based fat, had less bad health consequences sixty years ago than hydrogenated trans-fats. But what you eat depends on habits and customs. People might opt for tradition at holiday times instead of looking for what healthier substitutions might be made. Those with the genes to resist the onslaught of heavy, fatty meals resisted. And those without genetic resistance succumbed. Also beware of Superbowl headache, which actually is a reaction to eating too much MSG in processed foods such as hot dogs or takeout Asian foods that put MSG in sauces or meats.
Do you need protection from your heavy, high-fat dinner in the form of natural vitamins E and C? Many vitamin E studies of the past used synthetic vitamin E which contains only one part of the eight parts of natural vitamin E.
Synthetic vitamin E is lab-made and counters the benefits of natural vitamin E that you get from food and/or natural vitamin E supplements that actually contain the entire eight parts, the tocotrienols in the vitamin E. Food is best, but what if heat, sanitizing, time in the refrigerator, or other processing has destroyed the vitamins in the whole foods?
See the research study, “Effect the antioxidant vitamins on the transient impairment of endothelium-dependent brachial artery vasoactivity following a single high-fat meal,” Plotnick, G.D., et al. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278; 20:682-86, Nov. 26, 1997. In plain language, Plotnick and team showed that if you have a high-fat meal that you consider ‘heavy’, and it’s late at night, you are at a much higher risk of having a heart attack in the morning, unless you take 500 mg of vitamin C and 800 IU of the natural type of vitamin E to counteract the damage.
The actual study concluded in medical language that, “A single high-fat meal transiently reduces endothelial function for up to 4 hours in healthy, normocholesterolemic subjects, probably through the accumulation of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. This decrease is blocked by pretreatment with antioxidant vitamins C and E, suggesting an oxidative mechanism.”
The reference also appears on page 8 in the book, The Cholesterol Hoax, by Sherry A. Rogers, M.D. Now the question remains should you use vitamin E to protect yourself against the foods you eat if you’re not on any drugs? Or should you use natural vitamin E to protect yourself if you’re on statin drugs and need not only vitamin E but also COQ10 to replace those same nutrients that statin drugs remove from your body?
Related to heart disease, vitamin E is believed to inhibit oxidative changes to LDL (“bad”) cholesterol that promote blockages in blood vessels leading to heart attack and stroke. Observational and clinical studies support this hypothesis. An observational study of approximately 90,000 nurses suggested that incidence of heart disease was 30% to 40% lower among nurses with the highest intake of vitamin E from diet and supplements.
The apparent benefit was mainly derived from vitamin E supplements because high intake of vitamin E from food alone was not associated with cardiac risk reduction. Similarly, a 1993 study of 40,000 male health professionals found those who took at least 100 IUs daily for two years had a third fewer cases of heart disease than those receiving no vitamin E supplements. A 1996 study from the National Institutes on Aging followed 11,000 elderly people for seven years and found the death rate for vitamin E users was a third of that of nonusers.
In an intervention study, the Cambridge Heart Antioxidant Study (CHAOS), researchers assigned 2,002 participants with established heart disease to receive either 800 IU or 400 IU of vitamin E or a placebo for a median of 510 days. Treatment with vitamin E substantially reduced the rate of non-fatal heart attack, with beneficial effects apparent after one year. Over a three-year period of vitamin E and vitamin C supplementation in men and postmenopausal women 45-69 years with elevated blood cholesterol levels, researchers in Finland observed a 74% reduction of atherosclerotic progression in men.
Vitamin E may also play a role in cancer risk reduction by protecting against free radicals implicated in cancer, blocking the formation of cancer-promoting nitrosamines, and helping to enhance immune function. Although research is limited, some studies associate higher intakes of vitamin E with a decreased incidence of specific types of cancer, such as prostate, breast, bladder, and colon. Evidence for a link between vitamin E and prostate cancer was compelling enough to be investigated in a large ongoing clinical trial of 35,000 men.
The National Institutes of Health launched the SELECT study (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial) to examine whether one or both of these dietary supplements may help reduce risk of prostate cancer. Other studies are underway to examine the potential benefits of vitamin E in reducing the risk of developing cataracts, age-related macular degeneration, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.
For example, the National Eye Institute launched a new study following the release of promising findings from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), a study of nearly 5,000 participants that found slower progression of age-related macular degeneration with a daily dose of vitamin E (400 IU), beta-carotene, vitamin C, zinc, and copper. The new study will examine if vitamin E, together with lutein and omega-3 fats, can slow the onset of age-related macular degeneration.
Questions Raised about Vitamin E
Recent data from the Women’s Health Study, in which nearly 20,000 healthy, middle-aged women were given 600 international units of vitamin E every other day for roughly 10 years, suggest that vitamin E provides no overall benefit for major cardiovascular-related events or cancer, nor does it affect total mortality or decrease cardiovascular-related deaths in healthy women.
This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial also found that although overall there was no statistically significant cardiovascular benefit to vitamin E, there was a 24 percent reduction in cardiovascular deaths and a 26 percent reduction in major cardiovascular events among a sub-group of women who were 65 or older. But what type of vitamin E was used, synthetic or natural?
Another randomized clinical trial known as the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study found a lack of protection with vitamin E supplements. This study followed nearly 10,000 patients 55 years and older with vascular disease or diabetes. After about five years, the study was extended and renamed HOPE-TOO (HOPE- The Ongoing Outcomes) with nearly 7,000 patients for four more years.
The subjects who received 400 IU of vitamin E daily did not experience fewer major cardiovascular events or differences in cancer incidence, but were 13 percent more likely to develop heart failure compared to those not taking vitamin E. Researchers speculated that higher doses of vitamin E may disturb the balance of beneficial, naturally occurring antioxidants.
A review of 19 clinical trials conducted between 1993 and 2004 also found a lack of benefit associated with vitamin E supplements, especially at higher doses. With vitamin E supplements above 400 IU per day, researchers concluded that there was an increased risk for death among older, high-risk patients. This review may be somewhat limited in that it excluded studies reporting fewer than 10 deaths and did not consider the results of epidemiologic observational studies.
Not the Final Word on Vitamin E
Experts suggest there is good reason to be cautious about generalizing the findings of recent vitamin E studies. Experts point out that many studies with negative results were secondary prevention trials where study participants were older with existing disease. “The evidence simply does not support the use of vitamin E in reversing disease,” say some experts. Yet the effects on younger and healthier individuals may be more promising.
Despite a substantial amount of research on vitamin E, some experts advise that there is still much to learn—about how vitamin E works with other antioxidants and food components and, particularly, the optimal amount of vitamin E and other antioxidants for specific individuals that may produce favorable health outcomes.
Until more is known, it may be premature to make sweeping recommendations about whether to supplement with vitamin E. The question remains, if you use the natural form of vitamin E with all eight parts--including the tocotrienols, is it reasonable to suggest that the potential benefits of vitamin E seem to outweigh the risk (if any), especially for at-risk individuals? Is it premature to ask this question now? Or does research already point to a direction?
Studies suggesting greater risk with vitamin E supplements containing more than 400 IU observed no harm at lower levels, such as 100 IU per day. The IFIC Foundation and Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Guidelines for Communicating the Emerging Science of Dietary Components for Health suggest that consumers should be guided to make lifestyle changes based on consensus science, rather than emerging science.
To do so, communicators are advised to:
• Convey emerging science on a continuum, based on the strength of the overall evidence as opposed to isolated studies.
• Provide context when new or emerging scientific evidence adds to and supports the body of research currently available or when the emerging science contradicts previous research, questioning established dietary guidance.
The Guidelines are discussed at the IFIC Foundation site. For more information on how to critically review scientific studies, see the IFIC Review: How to Understand and Interpret Food and Health-Related Scientific Studies.
The latest findings pose some perplexing questions about vitamin E, but do not revoke the body of evidence that supports the safety and potential benefits of vitamin E supplements for a healthy population, as well as at-risk individuals, at the most common daily doses (100-400 IU) found in vitamin E supplements.
One conclusion researchers can agree on: vitamin E, or any food component by itself, cannot match the most effective ways to reduce disease risk—not smoking, getting regular exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and eating an overall healthful diet. But, is this advice really enough? Vary your oils. Try sesame seed oil for a change. What does the ongoing research say?
Recommended Dietary Allowances for Vitamin E
Age (years) RDA for Vitamin E (mg alpha-tocopherol)*
1-3 6 (9 IU)
4-8 7 (10.5 IU)
9-13 11 (16.5 IU)
14 + 15 (22.5 IU)
Pregnancy 15 (22.5 IU)
Lactation 19 (28.5 IU)
* 1 mg ATE vitamin E = 1.5 IU (ATE: alpha-tocopherol equivalents)
Source: Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes: Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids. National Academy Press, 2000.
Vitamin E Issues
Nutritional issues also surround vitamin E studies. Some studies reported that people with heart disease grew worse and had more fatalities and heart attacks when taking vitamin E at certain dosages. Other studies showed vitamin E did no harm when taken at lower dosages by people who did not have heart disease.
Early studies at first showed vitamin E reduced the risk of heart disease. For example, in the Nurses’ Health Study, involving more than 87,000 women, Dr. Meir Stampfer and colleagues at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health in 1993 reported a 41 percent reduction in risk of heart disease among nurses that had taken vitamin E for more than two years.
Atherosclerosis is inflammation of and hardening of the arteries by calcium, plaque, and cholesterol. Researchers in the Nurses’ Health Study reported that a beneficial effect of vitamin E on heart disease "is plausible because of the substantial evidence indicating the importance of oxidation of LDL in atherosclerosis."
In a 1993 study of women’s consumption of vitamin E, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Women who took vitamin E supplements for short periods had little apparent benefit, but those who took them for more than two years had a relative risk of major coronary disease of 0.59 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.91) after adjustment for age, smoking status, risk factors for coronary disease, and use of other antioxidant nutrients (including multivitamins).”
The numbers referred to as the “confidence interval” which is defined in plain language as the expected range of outcome in the study, actually means that the results do not prove a cause-and-effect relation. Instead, the early study suggested at that time that among middle-aged women the use of vitamin E supplements was associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease. As the years passed, more randomized trials of vitamin E in the primary and secondary prevention of coronary disease were being conducted with a variety of results.
In 1980, 87,245 female nurses 34 to 59 years of age who were free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease and cancer completed dietary questionnaires that assessed their consumption of a wide range of nutrients, including vitamin E. The average vitamin E intake in the lowest-risk group was 200 IU.
During follow-up of up to eight years (679,485 person-years) that was 97 percent complete, we documented 552 cases of major coronary disease (437 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 115 deaths due to coronary disease). In that particular 1993 study, “further adjustment for a variety of other coronary risk factors and nutrients, including other antioxidants, had little effect on the results,” according to the abstract of that New England Journal of Medicine article. “Most of the variability in intake and reduction in risk was attributable to vitamin E consumed as supplements.”
The early 1993 vitamin E study with nurses didn’t prove a cause-and-effect relation. Instead, the study suggested that “among middle-aged women the use of vitamin E supplements is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease.” Conclusions in the early study regarding public policy recommendations about the widespread use of vitamin E focused on waiting for the results of further randomized trials.
In 2005, a new study of the effects of taking vitamin E supplements appeared in The Annals of Internal Medicine appeared. The newer 2005 vitamin E study looked at 135,967 adults who also had previously participated in 19 studies. Many were older than 60 years of age.
Approximately 60% had heart disease or one or more risk factors for heart disease. Examples of some risk factors include smoking, a family history of heart disease, and high blood pressure.
What the scientists actually looked at were reported deaths in the 19 random trials and the dosages of vitamin E. These randomized trials compared vitamin E consumption with no treatment or a placebo. A pill or other medicine that has no effect on the body is what is called a placebo.
In order to find previous trials lasting more than a year that emphasized the effects of vitamin E, researchers also studied published medical literature dated until August 2004. The scientists wanted to look at the dosages of vitamin E and how the various low or high dosages affected the individuals.
The dosages in the trials varied widely--from 16.5 IU daily to 2000 IU daily. The next step focused on combining all the trial’s data showing individuals swallowing different amounts of vitamin E. Finally, researchers looked at the death rate among people taking these various vitamin E dosages.
The scientists found that the consumption of 400 or more IU of vitamin E each day for more than a year actually increased the risk for death. For those individuals who took less than 400 IU of vitamin E daily for longer than one year the results were unclear and uncertain as to whether or not vitamin E increased the risk for death.
This conclusion left an uncertainty in the air regarding vitamin E. What some nutritionists now advise is that adults should not take more than 400 IU of vitamin E daily because it is still uncertain to researchers what the upper safe limit of vitamin E is. The political issue for health food stores and those who sell vitamins is whether to sell or not to sell vitamin E containing more than 400 IU per dose.
Currently, nutritionists may be divided on issues related to vitamin E consumption. Politically, manufacturers and retailers of vitamin E supplements are at odds with researchers as the trails and studies are continuing on the vitamin E issue.
Several articles appeared in the mass media interpreting in plain language, the results of the 2004 studies on the effects of vitamin E on mortality rates. Then numerous nutritionists began to focus on rebuttals, claiming that up to 2,000 IU of vitamin E is safe.
Meanwhile, the rebuttals continue with nutritionists on both sides of the political arena. Those employed by the companies selling vitamin E will report the beneficial health effects of vitamin E. Nutritionists looking at death rates also will report those findings.
Which side is right? Since the studies are continuing, safety is an issue, and all the trial results are not yet in. The issue is very complicated and constantly changing. There are no final results regarding vitamin E.
The question is whether studies were done for risk of heart attack among the studies of nurses or the studies of men? Were studies originally done on people free of heart disease and heart disease risks? How do the results compare with studies of individuals who had heart disease or its risks?
Another question is how did the medicines taken by those with heart disease interact with vitamin E? Were heart disease rates significantly lower in people taking vitamin E or higher?
Were the women studied totally free of heart disease before taking vitamin E? Was the total risk of heart attack mortality lowered by 24% in one study of vitamin E? The answers to all these questions are that the results are not yet clear. Also, what type of vitamin E was taken?
Was it the d-Alpha Tocopherol vitamin E or Gamma type of vitamin E in the studies? According to recent in vitro tests, Gamma-Tocopherol inhibits the COX-2 enzyme. Is it an important factor for a healthy cardiovascular system? Or is vitamin E only important in small amounts? Should the COX-2 enzyme be inhibited? Or does inhibiting it increase heart problems?
All these issues become political issues when the economics behind vitamin E sales and additives to foods comes into focus. Another safety issue arises from other medicines or supplements that also inhibit the COX-2 enzyme.
How about using all parts of vitamin E if you're told to take vitamin E?
Is Gamma-Tocopherol a more effective antioxidant than alpha-tocopherol? Both are parts of natural vitamin E. Some nutritionists say that Alpha is better than Gamma. Nutritionists know that individuals get plenty of Gamma in soybean oil, which is quickly excreted by the body. But if you have to use cooking oil, why not use extra virgin olive oil? Or rice bran oil? Or grapeseed oil?
Research indicates that a ratio of gamma to alpha-tocopherol greater than 1:1 increases levels of both tocopherols in the body and that alpha-tocopherol alone may not be adequate to combat oxidative stress. Most consumers will not be able to interpret the research without some knowledge of how to interpret the results.
For example, some forms of GAMMA E also contain tocotrienols from palm fruit which provides high concentrations of all tocotrienols, including: alpha, beta, gamma, and delta. In some forms of GAMMA E, sesame oil, rich in gamma-tocopherol, is used as the base rather than soy oil.
That’s why it’s up to the mass media, acting as interpreters, to explain in plain language the results of scientific research. There’s a proliferation of studies reported in medical journals found mostly in university libraries.
The issues of where to find current nutritional information increase as changing scientific studies are published. As newspapers and magazines merge, and major media consolidates, fewer science writers employed by the mass media are interpreting the newest results for the layman.
What general consumers need to do is understand all sides of the issues. Without training in how to read and interpret scientific articles, consumers are in the hands of the general assignment reporter or science writer hired by mass media to interpret scientific facts in plain language.
About 30-33% of the members of the American Medical Writers Association have humanities degrees, but not all science writers are members of the American Medical Writers Association. There also are other professional associations that science writers for mass media publications belong to such as the National Association of Science Writers, the National Association of Medical Communicators, and the American Association of Journalists and Authors. Mass media science writers such as medical journalists, don’t have to be licensed, degreed in science, or belong to any professional or regulatory association. Physicians and medical students can join the American Medical Association.
Consumers don’t really know whether or not articles they read in newspapers or general consumer magazines are written by someone with training in nutrition, medicine, health, the life sciences, medical language, or in the science of understanding and interpreting the results correctly in easy-to-understand words. The goal for consumers is to have the technical jargon of medical and science journals explained correctly in plain language. And the vitamin E research continues.
Related Information:
•IFIC Foundation and Institute of Food Technologists' (IFT) Guidelines for Communicating the Emerging Science of Dietary Components for Health.
Browse my books, How Nutrigenomics Fights Childhood Type 2 Diabetes & Weight Issues (2009) or Predictive Medicine for Rookies (2005). Or see my books, How to Safely Tailor Your Foods, Medicines, & Cosmetics to Your Genes (2003) or How to Interpret Family History & Ancestry DNA Test Results for Beginners (2004) or How to Open DNA-driven Genealogy Reporting & Interpreting Businesses. (2007).
Comments