Vitaminworkshop.com - Vitamin Mystery

There are a number of apparent vitamin mysteries that give Scientists fits.

Early vitamin research was mainly positive
- Higher dietary (from food) levels of vitamins were equated with lower disease rates. But as vitamins were able to be insolated out of food or synthesized, studies to test vitamin theories were not nearly as positive. And then with longer term studies, the findings were even less positive, plus some showed no benefit and a few exhibited adverse results.
Synthetic vitamins were expected to function the same as natural vitamins
- This has now proven to simply not be true for some vitamins, especially the fat soluble ones, A, D, E, & K. The state of technological medical testing was limited in the 1940's when most vitamins were first synthesized in labs and their activities compared. For vitamin E, Scientists simply used a greater amount of the synthesized material to balance with the activity of a smaller amount of natural vitamin E and thought that was good enough to equalize. It was not!
Consuming more calcium was suppose to prevent future bone fractures
- But, just the opposite appears to also now be true as more long term study results show. Short term increased bone density evidently does not equate to long term benefits. Obviously there are many other variables. Scientists have to explain why the Countries with the highest per capita calcium intake exhibit some of the weakest bones.
How come Official Nutritional advice is often so far off tract and missing new facts from recent research results?
- The U.S.A. National Institutes of Health employs about 27,500 Staffers and Scientists over 27 Institutes and Centers, "each with a specific research agenda, often focusing on particular diseases or body systems." It must be there are other factors rather than just Public Health that are influencing their research grant topics. Plus it could be that Scientists move very slowly in making changes to past vitamin theories.
- One example: Scientists have conducted many studies testing vitamin E as alpha tocopherol for effects on heart disease with inconsistent results. A Doctor recently decided to measure blood levels of alpha tocopherol between heart patients and healthy controls. Amazingly, he found the levels were the same. But it was another one of the eight vitamin E family members from nature that was lower in heart pateints, gamma tocopherol. This prompts the question, why would one expect more alpha tocopherol to help if it is not low? Wouldn't it be better to try all the eight vitamin E family members? Or at least extra gamma tocopherol? There is more to the story. See pages
A major dilemma for Nature, Why are often competing or antagonistic nutrients put together in a food?
- Since Vitamins E and K are both fat soluble, they use the same absorption sites. One in excess, often vitamin E, will block out vitamin K getting to these sites. Calcium in excess often blocks out absorption of many other minerals, such as magnesium, zinc, and phosphorous. High zinc will interfere with copper. Plus certain fibers like phytates in beans block out some certain minerals. There must be a logical reason that Nature puts competitive nutrients together. Or, is it just foolishness on the part of mankind to think humans can eat any foods they want? Perhaps the amounts of these nutrients in whole foods does not present an issue, especially since there are other food elements that slow down absorption site demands like fibers, proteins, and fats.
- Supplements many be the primary culprit to create this interference. Not only is this dilemma presented at absorption, it can also manifest internally for a number of metabolic processes, as seen when vitamin E interferes with vitamin K coagulation structures. These actions form one of the basic premises for the new vitamin criteria.