Vitamin E dangerous?

"bc_acadia" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/health/webmd/main654887.shtml

Quoted message said:

Please reply in this forum, above email address is no longer

valid.

Quoted message said:

Have a nice day AND a happy life. Acadia.

really bad 'study'... a mix of others collated to get that
result. Many of the subjects on the range of studies were
already suffering from serious diseases.

There may or or may not be some validity to the
findings...bias or not. etc One thing for sure, if the drug
companies can get us to stop taking suppliments, they will
sell more of thier vioxxy type [censored].

Phil Scott

"bc_acadia" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/health/webmd/main654887.shtml

Please reply in this forum, above email address is no longer valid.
Have a nice day AND a happy life. Acadia.

It's interesting to read the whole study. If you exclude the studies with very small
sample size, I bet you'd not find anything significant. Even if the effect is real,
it is slight (see figure 3).

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200501040-00110v1

It's already come in for some formal criticism.
http://www.crnusa.org/PR04_1110CRNAIM.html

Lar

These studies seem to reflect the whole spirit of the times right now.
Everything is so corporately run. If you read Thomas Kuhn, one can
see the paradigm for science is to now back up pharmacueticals.
Linus Pauling lived, very active, to his 90's. We will see the
real life results of people who are pro-supplements.

Studies also came down on mega-dosing vitamin C. What were wrong
with all those studies that were done in the pre-Reagan era?

Still, it makes you have a more balanced view.
--
Robert Pearson
http://www.rspearson.com/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net

These studies seem to reflect the whole spirit of the times right now.
Everything is so corporately run. If you read Thomas Kuhn, one can
see the paradigm for science is to now back up pharmacueticals.
Linus Pauling lived, very active, to his 90's. We will see the
real life results of people who are pro-supplements.

Studies also came down on mega-dosing vitamin C. What were wrong
with all those studies that were done in the pre-Reagan era?

Still, it makes you have a more balanced view.
--
Robert Pearson
http://www.rspearson.com/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net

[email hidden] (bc_acadia) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/health/webmd/main654887.shtml

Please reply in this forum, above email address is no longer valid.
Have a nice day AND a happy life. Acadia.

One thing I noticed is that the study doesn't distinguish the typical
Vitamin E pills from the water solubilized type. If I'm not mistaken,
when someone is taking a water solubilized Vitamin E, their body won't
use the full 400IU, it will just take what it needs & get rid of the
rest. So I would think this purported danger doesn't apply to the
water solubilized vitamins. But I don't know a lot about vitamins, so
I could be wrong...

"Dominic Shields" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 10 Nov 2004 13:16:08 -0800, [email hidden] (bc_acadia)

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/health/webmd/main654887.shtml

Please reply in this forum, above email address is no longer valid.
Have a nice day AND a happy life. Acadia.

What amazes me when I go into a health food shop is the number of
vitamin supplements on sale that have staggering amounts of the active
substance per tablet. The most idiotic example was Vitamin B12 tablets
that contained 100000% (yes I mean one hundred thousand percent) of
the EC Recommended Daily amount.

If you knew what the recommended daily amount was actually representing, it may not
seem so absurd. I'll use the terms from the US, because I'm more familiar with them.

The core determination is the EAR, the Estimated Average Requirement. That's the
50th percentile of overt deficiency risk, based on the seven-day averaged intake of
a nutrient. At the EAR, there are equal numbers of individuals showing overt
deficiency symptoms, and equal numbers not. The RDA is two standard deviations above
the EAR. By definition, that captures all individuals up to the 97.5th percentile.
At the RDA of intake, 1 in 40 *healthy and normal* subjects is still exhibiting
overt deficiency symptoms.

For a visual representation, see the graph at:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071836/html/24.html#pagetop

Usually, the overt deficiency symptoms are with respect to one particular and
defined symptom or symptom cluster. In the case of B12, that is blood counts, and
the deficiency state is defined pernicious anemia. The problem is that not all
people deficient in B12 have pernicious anemia. Moreover, as circulating B12
concentrations do not reflect tissue stores, even serum concentration assessment
does not clarify if B12 deficiency exists. Additionally, restricting thinking to
pernicious anemia alone does not address the other functions of vitamin B12 in the
body (e.g. as a scavenger of peroxynitrite).

Now, back to that "idiotic" 100,000% of RDA. If you look at the table at:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309065542/html/310.html#pagetop, you'll see that
high-dose crystalline B12 is absorbed at about 1% of intake (by passive diffusion,
rather than via the saturable uptake pump which requires intrinsic factor).
Immediately, we're down to each tablet supplying 1,000% of RDA, or 10 times the 5
microgram recommended daily intake. Given that normal food intake leads to about a
50% uptake, we're looking at about a 20-fold increase in B12 uptake, above the RDA.

Vitamin B12 is stored in tissues, unlike any other B-vitamin. Circulating levels of
B12 are buffered by tissue stores. It has been estimated that the tissue stores
might hold about a 3 year supply of B12. The only way to replenish those tissues is
to exceed the RDA (the floating average mean requirement) by a substantial amount,
over a substantial period of time. There is no Upper Limit or toxic threshold to
consider for B12. The limiting factor is physiological, as plasma binding proteins
are saturable. Excess unbound B12 is excreted in urine.

Who might benefit from such high doses of B12? Apart from those deficient in
intrinsic factor, anyone with hypochlorhydria (low stomach acid) or achlorhydria (no
stomach acid), whether idosyncratic or iatrogenic. Anyone taking a proton pump
inhibitor or other acid-reducing medication is living on borrowed time, as
sufficient stomach acid is a requirement for the extraction of B12 from food.
Vegetarians of all sorts are at substantial risk. It is an indirect mechanism, but
B12 is essential for the production of stomach acid in the first place. Being
deficient in B12 can be a cause of poor B12 uptake, locking in the deficiency state.
By the time symptoms show up, you're well into a systemic depletion of B12, which
may show neurological signs or GERD (for example), rather than the classic
pernicious anemia.

By no means am I advocating huge intakes of vitamins, absent some indication of
health problems. However, RDAs are based on overt deficiency states in *normal
healthy* people. There is (generally) a huge separation between RDA and Upper Limit
of intake. Somewhere in the broad expanse, I believe there is another conceptual
position (not defined in the conventional paradigm) which I call Optimal Intake.
Just because some people get what they need from diet alone (half of all people at
EAR are no longer exhibiting overt deficiency) does not mean that all people can do
so. There are many acquired or lifespan-related reasons for needing supplemental
intake.

"I wonder how humans existed before vitamin tablets, maybe they used placebos,
actually thinking about it - they did."

Almost right. You missed a letter. They died.

Lar

"Dominic Shields" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:12:55 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Thanks for a very lucid and detailed explanation snipped

Quoted message said:

"I wonder how humans existed before vitamin tablets, maybe they used placebos,
actually thinking about it - they did."

Almost right. You missed a letter. They died.

Well strictly speaking everyone dies so I'm not sure what that proves.

I was thinking in terms of current lifespan. With a significant portion of the
population making it past reproductive age, death from e.g. functional malnutrition
once past that threshold no longer exerts significant evolutionary pressure.

Quoted message said:

Modern-day people who eat a balanced diet and don't see the need to
take vitamin supplements will also die, the difficult one to answer is

"Will they live any less time than those who do take vitamin
supplements?"

Indeed, that is the question. However, it is not yet possible to answer such a
question for the individual. We are left with the classic population statistics from
which to derive generalized rules. Given the vast array of confounding factors, I
don't see us getting to the heart of this question any time soon. What I do see as a
possible benefit, though, is to break out of the mindset that a "balanced diet" is
an adequate resource for nutrition for all people. That is a classic example of
application of a statistical concept to individuals. Some/many/most people
successfully deriving full nutrition from unsupplemented diet does not preclude
some/many/most people requiring supplementation as they age, acquire diseases,
suffer uptake of contaminants, and so on. Relying on another statistic, the RDA, for
intake guidance also fails to accomodate optimal health, as opposed to the mere
avoidance of overt deficiency states as assumed in the derivation of the RDA.

Lar

"Dominic Shields" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larry Hoover said:

Relying on another statistic, the RDA, for
intake guidance also fails to accomodate optimal health, as opposed to

the mere

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

avoidance of overt deficiency states as assumed in the derivation of the

RDA.

Quoted message said:

What bothers me I supposes about 100000% RDA tablets is that that
something may not be overtly toxic but the effects of taking them over
a long period of time may be serious. You have described circumstances
where such doses may be necessary, but surely this should only be done
under expert supervision. Instead I could buy 1000 ug B12 tablets
quite easily here.

The 1000 mcg B-12 tablets are safe enough. Elderly
often have impaired absorption and low B-12 status.
Further, some lack intrinic factor and massive
doses of oral B-12 have been shown to improve
such persons B-12 status. In the massive doses
only tiny amount are absorbed.

What bothers me is the the Docs hand out
PPI meds such Nexium like candy, not
warning the elderly that the meds reduce
the amount of folic acid and B-12 available
for absorption. Many elderly are already low
on B-12 and folic acid.

Larry Hoover said:

It's already come in for some formal criticism.
http://www.crnusa.org/PR04_1110CRNAIM.html

Yes, this analysis clearly points out what is WRONG with this very old
story about vitamin E.

"This is an unfortunate misdirection of science in an attempt to make
something out of nothing for the sake of headlines," comments John
Hathcock, Ph.D., vice president, scientific and international affairs,
CRN.
....
A meta-analysis on vitamin E and all-cause mortality ... tries to
draw conclusions for the whole population based on a combination of
studies of people who were already at grave risk with existing
diseases including cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and
kidney failure ... stating "the generalizability of the findings to
healthy adults is uncertain. ...Yet they go on to make sweeping
generalizations about the use of vitamin E and all-cause mortality for
the whole population, although they provide no evidence that these
kinds of effects would occur in healthy populations.

Dr. Hathcock added, "In reviewing the totality of evidence on vitamin
E, including all clinical trial data and several large observational
studies, CRN agrees with the Institute of Medicine in finding vitamin
E supplements safe at levels of at least up to 1,000 mg (1,600 I) for
normal, healthy adults. This meta-analysis provides no convincing
evidence to the contrary."

Yes Mark 'the Toad' this is clearly another fraudulent use of science
in an attempt to make something out of nothing for the sake of
headlines. Thus, study actually got Dr. Mercola going on the
anti-vitamin E bandwagon. 🙁

I would classify this study as another pathetic attempt to making
sweeping generalizations about healthy populations from studies of
gravely sick and dying individuals.

Vitamin E is a preventative rather than a quick fix magical potion.
Once you get heart disease, Mark ... don't expect vitamin E to bail
you out.

Just thought that you might want to know.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Larry Hoover said:

It's interesting to read the whole study. If you exclude the studies with very small
sample size, I bet you'd not find anything significant. Even if the effect is real,
it is slight (see figure 3).

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200501040-00110v1

Sample size was more strongly correlated than Vitamin E dosage.

From Figure 2, I was able to do my own ciphering. 🙂

There were 19 studies that had a total of 135,967 test subjects. Of
these 12,506 or 9.2% died (6,232 [9.17%] took vitamin E and 6,272
[9.22%] were controls).

So, from these totally neutral results this study concluded that
Vitamin E caused deaths and showed a dosage dependent trend. Ha, ...
Hah, Ha! Where? I surely do NOT see it from the data.

There was only one study with dramatically positive results which had
430 subjects in each group. And, there were only 3 dramatically
negative studies (149 in one group, 211 in another study, and with 600
subects in a group in the third study). However, there were an
average of subjects per study group of 3,578 for all 19 studies.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Therefore, I can easily conclude from the data that the subject sample
size showed a stronger correlation to the death rate than the dosage
rate of Vitamin E did.

Further, when looking at the studies with over 3,500 test subjects per
study group there WERE only 5 studies worth looking at. Two were
favorable, two were neutral, and only one was negative. That one
study alone (MRC/BHF HPS 2002), at a dosage of 660 IU's day, accounts
for the entire 5% negative death rate. Gee, I wonder if that study
was bogus? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Therefore I concur, that the meta-analysis combined 19 individual
studies, eighteen of which showed no statistically significant
increase in mortality, squeezing out an overall finding of no
increased risk.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Quoted message said:

Further, when looking at the studies with over 3,500 test subjects
per study group there WERE only 5 studies worth looking at. Two
were favorable, two were neutral, and only one was negative.
That one study alone (MRC/BHF HPS 2002), at a dosage of 660 IU's
day, accounts for the entire 5% negative death rate. Gee, I
wonder if that study was bogus? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation
in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:23-33. [PMID: 12114037].[Medline]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12114037&dopt=Abstract

"METHODS: 20,536 UK adults (aged 40-80) with coronary disease, other
occlusive arterial disease, or diabetes were randomly allocated to
receive antioxidant vitamin supplementation (600 mg vitamin E, 250 mg
vitamin C, and 20 mg beta-carotene daily) or matching placebo.
Intention-to-treat comparisons of outcome were conducted between all
vitamin-allocated and all placebo-allocated participants. An average
of 83% of participants in each treatment group remained compliant
during the scheduled 5-year treatment period. Allocation to this
vitamin regimen approximately doubled the plasma concentration of
alpha-tocopherol, increased that of vitamin C by one-third, and
quadrupled that of beta-carotene. Primary outcomes were major coronary
events (for overall analyses) and fatal or non-fatal vascular events
(for subcategory analyses), with subsidiary assessments of cancer and
of other major morbidity. FINDINGS: There were no significant
differences in all-cause mortality (1446 [14.1%] vitamin-allocated vs
1389 [13.5%] placebo-allocated), or in deaths due to vascular (878
[8.6%] vs 840 [8.2%]) or non-vascular (568 [5.5%] vs 549 [5.3%])
causes. Nor were there any significant differences in the numbers of
participants having non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death
(1063 [10.4%] vs 1047 [10.2%]), non-fatal or fatal stroke (511 [5.0%]
vs 518 [5.0%]), or coronary or non-coronary revascularisation (1058
[10.3%] vs 1086 [10.6%]). For the first occurrence of any of these
"major vascular events", there were no material differences either
overall (2306 [22.5%] vs 2312 [22.5%]; event rate ratio 1.00 [95% CI
0.94-1.06]) or in any of the various subcategories considered. There
were no significant effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation
for any other non-vascular cause. INTERPRETATION: Among the high-risk
individuals that were studied, these antioxidant vitamins appeared to
be safe. But, although this regimen increased blood vitamin
concentrations substantially, it did not produce any significant
reductions in the 5-year mortality from, or incidence of, any type of
vascular disease, cancer, or other major outcome."

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Funny how Lancet interprets their findings differently.

There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality.Lancet
says high dosage Vitamin E is safe, but not effective.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Quoted message said:

Therefore I concur, that the meta-analysis combined 19 individual
studies, eighteen of which showed no statistically significant
increase in mortality, squeezing out an overall finding of no
increased risk.

What do you expect. It is just drug industry propaganda to scare
people away from real health through vitamins/minerals. That is
nothing new. They have been at war with vits/mins and supplements for
decades. Sick people = $$$$$$

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further, when looking at the studies with over 3,500 test subjects
per study group there WERE only 5 studies worth looking at. Two
were favorable, two were neutral, and only one was negative.
That one study alone (MRC/BHF HPS 2002), at a dosage of 660 IU's
day, accounts for the entire 5% negative death rate. Gee, I
wonder if that study was bogus? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation
in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:23-33. [PMID: 12114037].[Medline]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12114037&dopt=Abstract

Funny how Lancet interprets their findings differently.

There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality.Lancet
says high dosage Vitamin E is safe, but not effective.

My review of the data was so easy, so correct, and so obvious
that I sent a Rapid Response Comment to Ann Intern Med
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200501040-00110v1
entitled: 'Lancet was correct!'

It should be showing up within a few days. 🙂

I will also use it as my first health blog to my web site.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further, when looking at the studies with over 3,500 test subjects
per study group there WERE only 5 studies worth looking at. Two
were favorable, two were neutral, and only one was negative.
That one study alone (MRC/BHF HPS 2002), at a dosage of 660 IU's
day, accounts for the entire 5% negative death rate. Gee, I
wonder if that study was bogus? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation
in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:23-33. [PMID: 12114037].[Medline]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12114037&dopt=Abstract

Funny how Lancet interprets their findings differently.

There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality.Lancet
says high dosage Vitamin E is safe, but not effective.

My review of the data was so easy, so correct, and so obvious
that I sent a Rapid Response Comment to Ann Intern Med
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200501040-00110v1
entitled: 'Lancet was correct!'

It should be showing up within a few days. 🙂

I will also use it as my first health blog to my web site.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further, when looking at the studies with over 3,500 test subjects
per study group there WERE only 5 studies worth looking at. Two
were favorable, two were neutral, and only one was negative.
That one study alone (MRC/BHF HPS 2002), at a dosage of 660 IU's
day, accounts for the entire 5% negative death rate. Gee, I
wonder if that study was bogus? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of antioxidant vitamin supplementation
in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:23-33. [PMID: 12114037].[Medline]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12114037&dopt=Abstract

Funny how Lancet interprets their findings differently.

There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality.Lancet
says high dosage Vitamin E is safe, but not effective.

My review of the data was so easy, so correct, and so obvious
that I sent a Rapid Response Comment to Ann Intern Med
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200501040-00110v1
entitled: 'Lancet was correct!'

It should be showing up within a few days. 🙂

I will also use it as my first health blog to my web site.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

(Wolfbrother) said:

Quoted message said:

Therefore I concur, that the meta-analysis combined 19 individual
studies, eighteen of which showed no statistically significant
increase in mortality, squeezing out an overall finding of no
increased risk.

What do you expect. It is just drug industry propaganda to scare
people away from real health through vitamins/minerals. That is
nothing new. They have been at war with vits/mins and supplements for
decades. Sick people = $$$$$$

I expect plenty!

I already knew that the minute that I first heard the headlines. But,
the Vit E story is still in the news so I decided to take a closer
look into it. Dr. Mercola in his health blog, wrote that he has
decided to give up on taking vitamin E supplements. Could the study
actually be correct? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I was interested in knowing specfically why this study was totally
fraudlent.

I already had a list of the ususal possible reasons. I came across
one article that finally criticized the study which sounded reasonable
to me. I read through the threads here and the rapid responses. They
had just as much hot-air in them as the headlines did. 🙁

So, I looked through the study for a table that had the raw data on
it. Found one, and took a closer look and the reason was immediately
obvious.

None of the science geeks here was remotely close.
--
john gohde
http://gnu-dictionary.naturalhealthperspective.com/

"Rodney G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (bc_acadia) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/10/health/webmd/main654887.shtml

Please reply in this forum, above email address is no longer valid.
Have a nice day AND a happy life. Acadia.

One thing I noticed is that the study doesn't distinguish the typical
Vitamin E pills from the water solubilized type. If I'm not mistaken,
when someone is taking a water solubilized Vitamin E, their body won't
use the full 400IU, it will just take what it needs & get rid of the
rest. So I would think this purported danger doesn't apply to the
water solubilized vitamins. But I don't know a lot about vitamins, so
I could be wrong...

I suspect that the water solubilized forms would
have better bioavailability ........lets reword that...
the water solubilized forms would get into the
blood stream whereas other forms might
be somewhat more likely to pass all the way thru
the gut.

I doubt there is any risk from vitamin E provided
the the user is using rrr-alpha tocopherol and
plus mixed tocopherols OR tocotrienols.
Many of these studies used racemic tocopherol.
A vitamin E supplement taker does well to
take vitamin C, flavonoids, alpha lipoic acid
to regenerate the free radical form into the
antioxidant form. Further the user should
maintain a good vitamin K status. At a minimum
400 mcg per day and preferably a milligram or more.
I take a vitamin K supplement with my vitamin E.
And my vitamin E isn't what the EU bureaucrats
call vitamin E as I take mixed tocopherols that
is high gamma and I also take some palm
derived tocotrienols. And I also take some
tocopheryl succinate.

I read and heard that wheat germ (and I am not refering to wheat germ
oil) is a good source for Vitamine E, so I just bought a bag of wheat
germ in COOP in Switzerland. But I found that there is no mention of
vit E on the lable. As well there is a 4 month expiration date. And
the plastic bag is clear so that you can see the flakes, and of course
it is not refrigerated. Ironically the lable says "keep in a cool
place (not in the refrigerator)". When I asked why not in the
refrigerator, they told me that it was to prevent condensation. I do
not think that wheat germ will give me any Omegas or any vit E. I
think that they only sell it mainly for its fiber and minerals.

I investigated on the net and here is what I found.

According to my nutrition data base program Kdiet101:
wheat germ does not have a vit E value entered, the field is blank.

According to values from http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
wheat germ is not listed for vitamin E.

According to http://www.becomehealthynow.com/glossary/vitamin_e.htm
list for men and boys:11 to 51+ years 10 mg alpha-TE per day.

What is the difference between Vitamin E and alpha-TE
???????????????????

According to my 30 year old Nutrition Almanac by Nutrition Search Inc
(McGraw Hill): wheat germ does not have a vit E value entered, the
field is blank. But they measure Vitamine E values in IU.

What is the conversion between IU and
mg????????????????????????????????

According to http://www.ehow.com/how_17037_feed-child-enough.html Each
tablespoon of wheat germ has 2mg of vitamin E. That was the only
figure I was able to get for vitamine E content of wheat germ.

You wrote 1,000 mg (1,600 I). Did you meant to write IU???????????????

Can someone clear up this confusion for
me??????????????????????????????
How much vit E does fresh wheat germ
contain???????????????????????????
How long does wheat germ in normal store environments keep it's vit
???????????

Thank you
andrew vecsey

[email hidden] (N-H-P) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
vitamin

Quoted message said:

E supplements safe at levels of at least up to 1,000 mg (1,600 I) for
normal, healthy adults. This meta-analysis provides no convincing
evidence to the contrary."

(N-H-P) said:

My review of the data was so easy, so correct, and so obvious
that I sent a Rapid Response Comment to Ann Intern Med
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200501040-00110v1
entitled: 'Lancet was correct!'

It should be showing up within a few days. 🙂

I will also use it as my first health blog to my web site.

Yes, the Annals of Internal Medicine actually did in fact
published my rapid response comment. 🙂

It just took a lot longer than expected.
--
john gohde
http://www.annals.org/cgi/eletters/0000605-200501040-00110v1