High SUPPLEMENTAL vit C reduces risk of heart disease

This forum will focus on analyzing recent clinical studies of vitamin C.

Moderator: ofonorow

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 12407
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

High SUPPLEMENTAL vit C reduces risk of heart disease

Post Number:#1  Post by ofonorow » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:20 am

A conservative interpretation of the numbers in the following two studies reveal that a single 360 mg vitamin C pill daily would save more than 300,000 lives per year.

Both studies found that vitamin C supplements, and only supplements, are protective of cardiovascular disease, especially major cardiovascular events (such as heart attack or stroke.).

Ideally, these studies should be the basis for recommending vitamin C supplements to the population. Both studies found that "dietary" (what is available from foods) antioxidants have little effect on the risks of heart disease, but that supplemental vitamin C affords considerable protection.

Meta Analysis

Antioxidant vitamins and coronary heart disease risk: a pooled analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... s=15585762

Abstract wrote:
RESULTS: Dietary intake of antioxidant vitamins was only weakly related to a reduced CHD risk after adjustment for potential nondietary and dietary confounding factors. Compared with subjects in the lowest dietary intake quintiles for vitamins E and C, those in the highest intake quintiles had relative risks of CHD incidence of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.00; P=0.17) and 1.23 (1.04, 1.45; P=0.07), respectively, and the relative risks for subjects in the highest intake quintiles for the various carotenoids varied from 0.90 to 0.99.

Subjects with higher supplemental vitamin C intake had a lower CHD incidence.

Compared with subjects who did not take supplemental vitamin C, those who took >700 mg supplemental vitamin C/d had a relative risk of CHD incidence of 0.75 (0.60, 0.93; P for trend <0.001). Supplemental vitamin E intake was not significantly related to reduced CHD risk.

CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a reduced incidence of major CHD events at high supplemental vitamin C intakes. The risk reductions at high vitamin E or carotenoid intakes appear small.


Health author Bill Sardi's take on this meta analysis:

Bill Sardio wrote:"This pooled study shows health benefits at >700 mg vitamin C from supplements compared to no supplementation. This ABSOLUTELY disproves the RDA and the false idea that there is a 200 mg daily limit on health benefits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""



Harvard Nurses Study

Drs. Hickey and Roberts remind us that large, multi-year studies are not very good science for the simple reason they are hard to repeat (and thus verify). However, this 15-year study of 85,000 nurses from Harvard should be convincing for those who prefer large trials.

Vitamin C and risk of coronary heart disease in women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=7

As summarized here

15-YEAR HARVARD STUDY OF 85,000 FINDS SINGLE VITAMIN C PILL REDUCES HEART DISEASE ALMOST 30%.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514162.html

abstract wrote:After adjustment for age, smoking, and a variety of other coronary risk factors, we observed a ?modest? significant inverse association between total intake of vitamin C and risk of CHD (relative risk [RR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.94).

Among women who did not use vitamin C supplements or multivitamins, the association between intake of vitamin C from diet alone and incidence of CHD was weak and not significant (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26).

In multivariate models adjusting for age, smoking, and a variety of other coronary risk factors, vitamin C supplement use was associated with a significantly lower risk of CHD (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS: Users of vitamin C supplements appear to be at lower risk for CHD.


Interestingly, again, dietary intake of vitamin C seemed to have little effect on coronary heart disease risk.

However, if women used vitamin C supplements, their risk was reduced by 27 percent.

Accordingly, it bears repeating, a single 360 mg vitamin C pill daily would save more than 300,000 lives per year.

How did conventional medicine respond? (This was a large study and presumably cost something to produce.)

Did our medical or government authorities recommend to the public that we begin taking completely nontoxic vitamin C pills? Pills that the Harvard study predicts would relieve the suffering of hundreds of thousands and save billions in health care costs?

No, the general response was, as reported by the media:

"It is too early to recommend vitamin C pills. We need more [15 year, 85,000 subject] studies before we can tell people to take vitamin C pills."!?
Owen R. Fonorow, Orthomolecular Naturopath
My statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Any product mentioned is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

J.Lilinoe

SICK

Post Number:#2  Post by J.Lilinoe » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:31 am

ofonorow wrote:Did our medical or government authorities recommend to the public that we begin taking completely nontoxic vitamin C pills? Pills that the Harvard study predicts would relieve the suffering of hundreds of thousands and save billions in health care costs?
No, the general response was, as reported by the media:
"It is too early to recommend vitamin C pills. We need more [15 year, 85,000 subject] studies before we can tell people to take vitamin C pills."!?

:x

godsilove
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:44 am

Re: High SUPPLEMENTAL vit C reduces risk of heart disease

Post Number:#3  Post by godsilove » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:48 pm

ofonorow wrote:A conservative interpretation of the numbers in the following two studies reveal that a single 360 mg vitamin C pill daily would save more than 300,000 lives per year.

Both studies found that vitamin C supplements, and only supplements, are protective of cardiovascular disease, especially major cardiovascular events (such as heart attack or stroke.).

Ideally, these studies should be the basis for recommending vitamin C supplements to the population. Both studies found that "dietary" (what is available from foods) antioxidants have little effect on the risks of heart disease, but that supplemental vitamin C affords considerable protection.

Meta Analysis

Antioxidant vitamins and coronary heart disease risk: a pooled analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... s=15585762

Abstract wrote:
RESULTS: Dietary intake of antioxidant vitamins was only weakly related to a reduced CHD risk after adjustment for potential nondietary and dietary confounding factors. Compared with subjects in the lowest dietary intake quintiles for vitamins E and C, those in the highest intake quintiles had relative risks of CHD incidence of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.00; P=0.17) and 1.23 (1.04, 1.45; P=0.07), respectively, and the relative risks for subjects in the highest intake quintiles for the various carotenoids varied from 0.90 to 0.99.

Subjects with higher supplemental vitamin C intake had a lower CHD incidence.

Compared with subjects who did not take supplemental vitamin C, those who took >700 mg supplemental vitamin C/d had a relative risk of CHD incidence of 0.75 (0.60, 0.93; P for trend <0.001). Supplemental vitamin E intake was not significantly related to reduced CHD risk.

CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a reduced incidence of major CHD events at high supplemental vitamin C intakes. The risk reductions at high vitamin E or carotenoid intakes appear small.


Health author Bill Sardi's take on this meta analysis:

Bill Sardio wrote:"This pooled study shows health benefits at >700 mg vitamin C from supplements compared to no supplementation. This ABSOLUTELY disproves the RDA and the false idea that there is a 200 mg daily limit on health benefits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""



Harvard Nurses Study

Drs. Hickey and Roberts remind us that large, multi-year studies are not very good science for the simple reason they are hard to repeat (and thus verify). However, this 15-year study of 85,000 nurses from Harvard should be convincing for those who prefer large trials.

Vitamin C and risk of coronary heart disease in women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=7

As summarized here

15-YEAR HARVARD STUDY OF 85,000 FINDS SINGLE VITAMIN C PILL REDUCES HEART DISEASE ALMOST 30%.
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514162.html

abstract wrote:After adjustment for age, smoking, and a variety of other coronary risk factors, we observed a ?modest? significant inverse association between total intake of vitamin C and risk of CHD (relative risk [RR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.94).

Among women who did not use vitamin C supplements or multivitamins, the association between intake of vitamin C from diet alone and incidence of CHD was weak and not significant (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.26).

In multivariate models adjusting for age, smoking, and a variety of other coronary risk factors, vitamin C supplement use was associated with a significantly lower risk of CHD (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS: Users of vitamin C supplements appear to be at lower risk for CHD.


Interestingly, again, dietary intake of vitamin C seemed to have little effect on coronary heart disease risk.

However, if women used vitamin C supplements, their risk was reduced by 27 percent.

Accordingly, it bears repeating, a single 360 mg vitamin C pill daily would save more than 300,000 lives per year.

How did conventional medicine respond? (This was a large study and presumably cost something to produce.)

Did our medical or government authorities recommend to the public that we begin taking completely nontoxic vitamin C pills? Pills that the Harvard study predicts would relieve the suffering of hundreds of thousands and save billions in health care costs?

No, the general response was, as reported by the media:

"It is too early to recommend vitamin C pills. We need more [15 year, 85,000 subject] studies before we can tell people to take vitamin C pills."!?


You're estimating the benefit based on results from an observational study, which doesn't control residual confounding. It is possible that vitamin C users were more likely to engage in healthy behaviours than non-users? It is also possible that other differences between the two groups that were not accounted for in the analysis were responsible for the observed outcome.

And you're partly incorrect in saying that the medical community did not respond to this study. At the time the reports of this study were published, the Physician's Health Study II which employed a randomized, placebo-controlled design was already underway using a 500mg daily dose. Based on the results of this interventional study, a 360 mg pill would not be likely to save 300,000 lives every year.

High Sierra Medical
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:54 pm
Contact:

Re: High SUPPLEMENTAL vit C reduces risk of heart disease

Post Number:#4  Post by High Sierra Medical » Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:41 pm

Vitamin C is an electron donor in physiologic reactions.

If there are no electron donors present then physiologic processes will eventually cease.

Medically, this is known as death.

zarfas
Vitamin C Expert
Vitamin C Expert
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:17 am
Contact:

Re: High SUPPLEMENTAL vit C reduces risk of heart disease

Post Number:#5  Post by zarfas » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:26 pm

godsilove wrote:]

You're estimating the benefit based on results from an observational study, which doesn't control residual confounding. It is possible that vitamin C users were more likely to engage in healthy behaviours than non-users? It is also possible that other differences between the two groups that were not accounted for in the analysis were responsible for the observed outcome.

And you're partly incorrect in saying that the medical community did not respond to this study. At the time the reports of this study were published, the Physician's Health Study II which employed a randomized, placebo-controlled design was already underway using a 500mg daily dose. Based on the results of this interventional study, a 360 mg pill would not be likely to save 300,000 lives every year.


I bolded your good point
this is the same "science" as when the gov. tells us, "physical exams save lives"
Unfortunately, this is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation. The kinds of people who like to keep up-to-date with their physical exams are the same kinds of people who focus on keeping a healthier lifestyle in general.

no real benefit to a physical exam
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/healt ... itual.html

I do wonder how so lttle vit C could do much of anything? Vit C is gonna get used up rather fast, and/or washed out by being water soluble.


Return to “Clinical Studies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests