BBC Horizon says taking antioxidants results in a 12% increase in mortality, and cancels out some of the health benefits of exercise

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
Just watched a BBC Horizon documentary from 2018 on vitamins and minerals by Dr Giles Yeo.

This documentary questions some of the long-held beliefs about the benefits of antioxidant supplements, and details studies in which antioxidant supplements are shown to increase the risk of death by up to 12%.

The first half of this BBC documentary a bit slow, but it gets interesting from timecode 27:30 onwards, where it delves into the historical origins of the idea that antioxidant supplementation may offer health benefits.

The documentary says the grandfather of the "antioxidant miracle" and the anti-aging movement was biochemist Prof Denham Harman, who in the 1950s began to focus on the secrets of living a longer and healthier life.

Prof Harman proposed that oxidative stress and free radicals might be a major factor in aging and the development of disease. Harman was a sober scientist, and never sensationalized his work. But his ideas nevertheless sparked off a whole antioxidant vitamin evangelist health movement, and a supplement industry promoting antioxidants.



Fast forward to 2007: the BBC documentary (at timecode 41:00) focuses on the work of Dr Christian Gluud, who meta-analyzed dozens of studies on humans taking antioxidants.

From his research, Dr Gluud found that antioxidant supplements actually increased all-cause mortality by as much as 12%! Gluud's paper is here.

An article on Dr Gluud's research into antioxidants says that:
  • Vitamin A supplements increased the risk of death by 16%
  • Beta-carotene supplements increased the risk of death by 7%
  • Vitamin E supplements increased the risk of death by 4%
  • Vitamin C supplements did not have any effect on risk of death
Though the article also offers some criticism of Dr Gluud's work:
Shao says it just isn't fair to study antioxidants in this way.

"What these authors have done is combine studies that are incredibly dissimilar in all sorts of ways," he says. "These studies looked at different nutrients at different doses at different durations with different lengths of follow-up -- and in different populations, ranging from folks who were incredibly healthy to people with cancer and other diseases."



Another interesting finding detailed in the BBC documentary was Prof Michael Ristow's research on the effect of taking antioxidant supplements with exercise (timecode 35:18).

Exercise is known to generate oxidative stress and free radicals, so the theory was that taking antioxidants as you exercise would be a good thing.

But Prof Ristow's studies found that supplementing with antioxidants during exercise actually blocks and cancels out some of the health-promoting effects of exercise!

Exercise improves insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, but Ristow found that if you take antioxidants when you exercise, your insulin sensitivity is not improved.

So it seems that the free radicals produced during exercise are actually responsible and required for obtaining certain benefits from exercise.

(This reminds me of the theory of why ozone therapy may be beneficial: because the transient oxidative stress caused by ozone gets the body to actually ramp up its own antioxidant defenses. So with ozone therapy, the theory is a short exposure to oxidative stress can bring benefits.)



This article about Prof Michael Ristow's research has some interesting content:
Right, the “free radical theory of aging” – where is that theory at now?

It’s dead. Well, let’s be a bit more precise. The free radical theory of aging dates back to the 1950s, and then there were decades of research on it, which was all very good research scientifically speaking, but it was always in artificial settings with high doses of free radicals that never occur in real life.

In real life, in healthy model organisms or humans, free radicals occur in very low doses, and they have very different functions from high doses of free radicals, where they serve as signaling molecules that increase our body’s defense mechanisms against external stressors. So it works like a vaccination–repeated low doses of free radicals will increase stress resistance.


The article on Ristow also distinguishes between direct antioxidants, and indirect antioxidants, with the latter being beneficial (as they actually cause transient healthy oxidative stress):
There are direct antioxidants that really react with free radicals, like vitamin C and E and a few others, and then there are indirect antioxidants, which actually induce oxidative stress.

A prime example is polyphenols, like EGCG from green tea, or the compounds that make berries blue or purple or red, which are all pro-oxidants because they cause oxidative stress. So these guys induce antioxidant defense in the body like exercise does, and they really are healthy.
So it seems indirect antioxidants such as green tea EGCG work like ozone to temporarily increase oxidative stress in the body, thereby training the body to better handle oxidative stress.

I find this interesting, as I was not aware that EGCG boosts antioxidant defenses by actually being a pro-oxidant.

(BBC Horizon incidentally also covers the fact that on very rare occasions, high dose EGCG supplements will destroy the liver, requiring an emergency liver transplant).
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
Whether there are any ramifications of this antioxidant research for ME/CFS, it is not clear.

Increased oxidative stress has been found in ME/CFS. Refs: here and here.

However, in ME/CFS it is probably a pathological form of oxidative stress, perhaps arising from issues like mitochondrial dysfunction and/or NADPH oxidase activation.

So there might still be a role for antioxidant supplements in ME/CFS, in spite of the cautions about using antioxidants which were detailed by the BBC documentary.

One new line of research posits that reactive oxygen species may play a role in the development of autoimmunity.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,302
Likes
3,368
Location
Austria
"These studies looked at different nutrients at different doses at different durations with different lengths of follow-up
Additionally one has the biggest elephant in the room of observational studies: Self-selection and -medication. Since for example I only started to supplement any when I got a walking-disabilty from PAD, and the diagnosing internist predicting a 30% risk of dying within 5 years, now almost 13 years ago. :) Which is always the worst circumstance to hope for any positive outcomes. And motivator to try something alternative, conventional medicine isn't able to offer.

And those studies which have been randomized, always using inappropiate doses in isolation, as drugs are used for medications. While there would be more than enough knowledge nutrients don't work that way, but only with all neccesary co-factor nutrients. And that not by a formula, but adjusted to individual blood-markers and symptoms. Otherwise only 1 or 2 nutrients will invariably drive the metabolic demand on other nutrients causing their depeletion. And thereby not really evaluating the single nutrients at excess, but unintentionally induced and not tested for deficiencies of co-factor nutrients.

As with beta-carotene study with unnaturally high doses, the 7% risk increase is actually a relative risk increase, as absulute its only a insignificant 1%, and in smokers only!

So all in all, just junk-science without the abilty to prove any causation.

However, came accross this surprising outcome of the TACT trial, where they at least gave a combination of nutrients in a randomized trial (still at irrational off-doses):

Intervention
Daily high-dose oral multivitamins and multiminerals (6 tablets, active or placebo).​
Results
The primary end point occurred in 137 nonstatin participants (30%), of which 51 (23%) of 224 were in the active group and 86 (36%) of 236 were taking placebo (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Results in the key TACT secondary end point, a combination of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, or recurrent MI, was consistent in favoring the active vitamin group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.75; P = .002). Multiple end point analyses were consistent with these results.​
After 55 months there was a 9% absolute risk decrease in mortality compared to placebo!

Though for some nutrients they used a crazy dose (like 20mg of Manganese), the fat solubles were:

25,000 IU Vitamin A
100 IU Vitamin D3
400 IU Vitamin E
60 μg Vitamin K1

So the vitamin D and K amounts again almost not worth mentioning (and usually neccesary to prevent vitamin A toxicity). Still such encouraging results, if for once they stop testing supplemented nutrients in isolation, but as they are actualy taken in combinations.

But Prof Ristow's studies found that supplementing with antioxidants during exercise actually blocks and cancels out some of the health-promoting effects of exercise!
First of all, who in their right mind would supplement during exercise? In my case with walking-disability in the beginning any cardiac exercise wouldn't have been posible at all!

But by starting high-dose comprehensive supplementation of all nutrients (leaving out no direct or indirect antioxidant) my pain-free (slow) walking distance gradually improved from 3-400 meters to even 2 hours within the first 3 years!

The next 8 years I always went to a South-Indian beach in the deepest winter, where I excersised swimming out in the open ocean. Starting each season with maybe 20 minutes swims, after 6 weeks always improved to about 40 minutes. For 5 years not able to supercede my higher mark, but suddenly it gave way up to 80 minutes the latest year. Along with having removed my government certified 60% walking-disability. And complete remission!

Whole much more complex story retold here: https://www.longecity.org/forum/stacks/stack/111-pad-and-additional-remissions/

So in my case antioxidant supplemented comprehensively not only didn't abolish any exercise benefits, but actually made it possible to really excercise in the first place. Even improve much more than I ever could have dreamed of.

Increased oxidative stress has been found in ME/CFS. Refs: here and here.
That is the crux. Without excessive oxidation, one might very well overdo. With such deathly oxidative stress - as in my case with PAD - antioxidants barely could move the needle. As oxidation blood-test results over many years show:

Year - oxidated LDL (oxLDL) ug/l, normal range 20 - 170, optimal range < 60
2012 - 66
2015 - 114
2018 - 107

2020 - 44

Year - Glutathion peroxidase (GSH-Px) U/gHb, normal range 27.5 - 73.6, optimal 69 - 90
2012 - 43
2015 - 65

2018 - 72
2020 - 78


Some other results, showing the association of high vitamin D, sunshine and testosterone with my remission in 2017:
Code:
year:   PFWD   ESR    CRP   ABI    mcg    hrs    25-D    TT    CIMT

2006:    -     74    96      -       -      -      -      -     -
  -      -      -     -      -       -      -      -      -     -
2008:    0.3    5     -     0.7      -      -      -      -     -
2009:    1      8     1.6    -      50      -      -      -     -
2010:    4     15.5   3.4    -     160     60     63     399    -
2011:    6      4     2.4   0.5    240     60     43     220    -
2012:    3      -     5.2   0.8    300     60     62     262    1.3 mm
2013:    3.5   68.5   3.7    -     200    220     84     320    -
2014:    5      9     4.8   0.7    190    220     50     340    1.9 mm
2015:    8     11.5   2.5    -     210    220     78     351    -
2016:    9      8     1.1   0.7    170    240     72     468    1.8 mm
2017:    9     18     1.7    -     220    340    101     631    -
2018:    -     32     5.1   0.9    160    340     93     681    1.0 mm
2019:    -     18.5   2      -     190    340     85     368    -
PFWD.. pain-free walking distance
ESR... Erythrocyte sedimentation rate
CRP C-reactive Protein
ABI.. Ankle–brachial pressure index (>0.9 normal)
mcg.. daily vitamin D intake
hrs.. yearly whole-body sunshine expsoure
25-D.. vitamin D3 serum level
TT.. total testosterone
CIMT... max. carodid intima thickness (<0.9 normal)
 
Last edited:

Alvin2

The good news is patients don't die the bad news..
Messages
2,496
Likes
6,060
I had read some criticism of antioxidants and how we might be really overdoing it and causing harm by loading up on them. Its bookmarked somewhere but i'll be damned if i can find it.
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,208
Likes
2,865
Antihistamines have recently also been linked to a worse exercise response (ref).

I notice pretty clear worsening of my symptoms with both antihistamines and antioxidants, but most people with ME/CFS don't seem to have this response and some improve as well. I guess the lesson is there are no miracle substances that work for everyone. I have tried to cut out all supplements that I either do not notice a clear and obvious benefit from or that do not have strong evidence supporting their health benefits.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
While there would be more than enough knowledge nutrients don't work that way, but only with all neccesary co-factor nutrients.
There may be some truth to that, because the Horizon documentary mentions that when antioxidants were given with other supplements, the increase in death was only 4%. But when antioxidants were given on their own without other supplements, the increase in death went up to 12%.


One thing is for sure though: the ideas of the antioxidant evangelists appear to be completely dashed, because dozens of well-conducted studies have shown that if anything, antioxidants shorten life rather than extend it. In many cases, these studies were paid for by the supplement industry themselves.

Dr Christian Gluud's work thus suggests that standard antioxidant such as vitamin C, E and A do not appear to be the elixir of health and longevity that the vitamin evangelists had always claimed.

Having said that, when I was healthy, I always found I felt slightly better taking high doses of vitamin E, and took this vitamin daily for decades. Sometimes you can intuitively sense what makes you feel better.

Of course, we know that vitamin E supplements increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, so there are advantages and disadvantages to everything.


What the research of Christian Gluud does not cover is the potential benefits of antioxidants in specific diseases, such as ME/CFS.

The research also does not look at more specialist or niche antioxidants (eg Q10, acetyl-L-carnitine, alpha lipoic acid, and exotic stuff like tempol).



First of all, who in their right mind would supplement during exercise?
It does not literally mean during exercise; we are talking about supplementing just before or after athletic performance, which most athletes and serious gym users do.

When I was healthy and went to the gym, I would load up with certain supplements a couple of hours before going to the gym, mainly high dose L-carnitine and Q10. L-carnitine in particular seemed to dramatically improve my stamina.
 

pamojja

Senior Member
Messages
2,302
Likes
3,368
Location
Austria
I have tried to cut out all supplements that I either do not notice a clear and obvious benefit from or that do not have strong evidence supporting their health benefits.
As my experience with antioxidants and tested oxidation in the body shows, it can take a very long time to correct in chronic disease. And in my case improvements where never noticed before becoming obvious within 2-3 years only. So with you approach immetiately dropping anything nothing mentioned - and not as I did by monitoring blood-markers - I would never got as far as experiencing remissions.

we are talking about supplementing just before or after athletic performance,
Certainly badly worded. Still, how in real life (and not a lab with young and healthy volunteers) was a doubling of swiming-time even ever posible after 6 weeks in real life (taking antioxidants before and after swimming) for 5 consequtive years?

Even quatrupling the 3 following years?

The only answer which sufficiently answers this, is my oxidation levels were a whole lot worse than of those participants in studies.

dozens of well-conducted studies have shown that if anything, antioxidants shorten life rather than extend it.
Observational studies only can show associations. And in these cases not even that really well conducted. But if you aware of any single study in this meta-analysis well conducted, please do point it out. And in which way compared to the above linked to TACT trial.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
Is there a way those of us not in the UK can see this documentary?
According to this article, you should be able to view BBC programs on the BBC iPlayer website if you use a VPN which gives you a UK Internet IP address.

Out of the VPNs listed, Hotspot Shield is free.

You now have to register a free account on the iPlayer to watch programs. When you register, they will ask whether you have a TV license (everyone with a TV in the UK has to pay £159 per year for a TV licence, which funds the BBC). But you just say yes, you have a licence, because they do not check.

This particular BBC Horizon documentary is only going to be on the iPlayer for the next 30 days though.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
Observational studies only can show associations.
Yes, but that is not relevant here, because these were not observational studies, they were dozens of high quality, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials on the effects of antioxidants.

And the results of all these studies showed that the antioxidant vitamin evangelists were very wrong.

Here is the relevant transcript from the BBC Horizon documentary (timecode 44.44) about Dr Christian Gluud's 2007 meta-analysis paper:
Then Christian gathered as much data as he could. He focused on 78 randomized clinical trials, conducted around the world from 1977 to 2011, examining whether antioxidant supplements could prevent conditions like lung cancer and heart disease.

The participants varied in age, whether they smoked, and whether they had pre-existing diseases.

56 of these trials were identified as low risk of bias.

56 trials were of the best quality you could have, meaning they had proper randomization, and proper blinding, and proper reporting of outcomes. These trials involved more than 244,000 people, who had been given antioxidants or placebo. The doses of antioxidants varied, but were often well above recommended dietary intakes, and sometimes even safe upper levels.

Christian counted the number of deaths among those given antioxidants, and those given a placebo. To avoid introducing bias, he did not remove deaths from car crashes or other non-dietary causes.

In statistical terms, he found just as in his earlier study, no evidence of benefit among those taking antioxidants, and a small increase in the rate of mortality.

We saw that the mortality was increased by 4%. This means that if 100 people died in the placebo group, 104 would die in the antioxidant group.

Next, Christian analyzed a subset of data from 27 of the trials, involving more than 46,000 people. In these studies, antioxidants were given without other vitamins or medicines. Then a 12% increase in mortality was found.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
4,522
Likes
8,255
Location
Alberta
All the bioscience reading I've done since developing ME has made one point pretty clear: don't depend on simple theories. "Oxidants damage cells, therefore taking antioxidants will prevent cell damage, including aging!" The theory is nice and simple. Reality isn't quite so simple. Statistical studies can be done in misleading manners, but overall, I think they're more likely to represent the truth than simple, very limited theories.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
After 55 months there was a 9% absolute risk decrease in mortality compared to placebo!
The benefits of multivitamins and minerals for cardiac patients demonstrated in the TACT trial does not directly relate to antioxidants, since trial participants were give a lot more than just antioxidant supplements.

One comment I would make is that given the strong association between heart attacks / myocarditis / heart valve disease and enterovirus, and given that fact that selenium deficiency has been shown to make enterovirus infections worse, I wonder whether the fairly high dose of selenium given to these participants (200 mcg daily) may have had an antiviral effect.

The magnesium dose given was also quite high, 500 mg daily, and I happen to know that magnesium is one of the only supplements that has been shown to help heart valve disease (a family member has heart valve disease, so I looked into possible treatments).

But with these many supplements given, it would be hard to know for sure what ones are leading to benefits in heart disease patients.
 
Messages
4,314
Likes
4,917
Location
Vermont, school in Western MA
Just watched a BBC Horizon documentary from 2018 on vitamins and minerals by Dr Giles Yeo.

This documentary questions some of the long-held beliefs about the benefits of antioxidant supplements, and details studies in which antioxidant supplements are shown to increase the risk of death by up to 12%.

The first half of this BBC documentary a bit slow, but it gets interesting from timecode 27:30 onwards, where it delves into the historical origins of the idea that antioxidant supplementation may offer health benefits.

The documentary says the grandfather of the "antioxidant miracle" and the anti-aging movement was biochemist Prof Denham Harman, who in the 1950s began to focus on the secrets of living a longer and healthier life.

Prof Harman proposed that oxidative stress and free radicals might be a major factor in aging and the development of disease. Harman was a sober scientist, and never sensationalized his work. But his ideas nevertheless sparked off a whole antioxidant vitamin evangelist health movement, and a supplement industry promoting antioxidants.



Fast forward to 2007: the BBC documentary (at timecode 41:00) focuses on the work of Dr Christian Gluud, who meta-analyzed dozens of studies on humans taking antioxidants.

From his research, Dr Gluud found that antioxidant supplements actually increased all-cause mortality by as much as 12%! Gluud's paper is here.

An article on Dr Gluud's research into antioxidants says that:


Though the article also offers some criticism of Dr Gluud's work:





Another interesting finding detailed in the BBC documentary was Prof Michael Ristow's research on the effect of taking antioxidant supplements with exercise (timecode 35:18).

Exercise is known to generate oxidative stress and free radicals, so the theory was that taking antioxidants as you exercise would be a good thing.

But Prof Ristow's studies found that supplementing with antioxidants during exercise actually blocks and cancels out some of the health-promoting effects of exercise!

Exercise improves insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, but Ristow found that if you take antioxidants when you exercise, your insulin sensitivity is not improved.

So it seems that the free radicals produced during exercise are actually responsible and required for obtaining certain benefits from exercise.

(This reminds me of the theory of why ozone therapy may be beneficial: because the transient oxidative stress caused by ozone gets the body to actually ramp up its own antioxidant defenses. So with ozone therapy, the theory is a short exposure to oxidative stress can bring benefits.)



This article about Prof Michael Ristow's research has some interesting content:




The article on Ristow also distinguishes between direct antioxidants, and indirect antioxidants, with the latter being beneficial (as they actually cause transient healthy oxidative stress):


So it seems indirect antioxidants such as green tea EGCG work like ozone to temporarily increase oxidative stress in the body, thereby training the body to better handle oxidative stress.

I find this interesting, as I was not aware that EGCG boosts antioxidant defenses by actually being a pro-oxidant.

(BBC Horizon incidentally also covers the fact that on very rare occasions, high dose EGCG supplements will destroy the liver, requiring an emergency liver transplant).
This is all very interesting, but the fact that we are exercise intolerant and seem to have lower tolerance for oxidative stress, as well as the many theories that pwME do have lots of oxidative stress, makes me think this isn't true for us.

Not to mention vitamin a and e (especially in certain forms) have negative effects unrelated to their function as antioxidants.
 

bertiedog

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
Likes
3,255
Location
South East England, UK
Of course, we know that vitamin E supplements increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, so there are advantages and disadvantages to everything.
I believe that recent research has shown the effect of vitamin e on mortality can be due to specific genetics. For some with a polymorphism on one gene the effect is negative whereas those with the two other variations it will be positive. Going to do a search to see if I can find the exact gene, I know I have it somewhere.

Pam
 

bertiedog

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
Likes
3,255
Location
South East England, UK
Here it is from www.geneticlifehacks.com

The study on vitamin E and COMT used the data from two large studies that examined the cancer rate in a 10 year follow-up period after trials involving supplementing with vitamin E. All in all, more than 50,000 people were involved in the trials. The results showed that people with the COMT val/val (rs4680, G/G) genotype who took supplemental alpha-tocopherol had an increased overall rate of cancer (HR=1.18). Those with the met/met (rs4680, A/A) genotype had a decreased risk of cancer (HR=0.88). And those with val/met genotype had no statistical effect on cancer risk from vitamin E.

  • G/G: higher COMT activity, (val/val) increased the overall rate of cancer with alpha-tocopherol supplementation
  • A/G: intermediate COMT activity
  • A/A: lower COMT activity, met/met, decreased overall rate of cancer with alpha-tocopherol supplementation

I am met/met for COMT so I should be getting benefit from the low dose of vitamin E I take most days.

Pam
 

bertiedog

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
Likes
3,255
Location
South East England, UK
Just found another article from genetic lifehacks on Vitamin E and inflammation so will pass it on, again a mixed picture I think -

For some people, vitamin E increases inflammation:

A 2012 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that supplementing with 75 IU of alpha-tocopherol (a common, supplement form of Vitamin E), increased inflammatory cytokines depending on the genotype. Specifically, for the GSTP1 polymorphism, rs1695, those with A/A and A/G had an increase in interleukin-6.

IL-6 genetic variants:

  • A/A: increased interleukin-6 with supplementing alpha-tocopherol
  • A/G: increased interleukin-6 with supplementing alpha-tocopherol
  • G/G: decreased interleukin-6 with supplementing alpha-tocopherol
Your genotype for rs1695 is AA).

So what is interleukin-6? It is a cytokine that is involved in inflammation. It induces an inflammatory response and is implicated in several autoimmune diseases including diabetes, arteriosclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis".

So from this information it would seem that it isn't a good idea for me to be taking this daily so glad I read this thread..

Pam
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
This is all very interesting, but the fact that we are exercise intolerant and seem to have lower tolerance for oxidative stress, as well as the many theories that pwME do have lots of oxidative stress, makes me think this isn't true for us.
That may well be true. Possibly antioxidants may be beneficial for specific diseases where oxidative stress is high.


But I think it's interesting how as a society we have all been unconsciously programmed to think that antioxidants are good for us — no doubt as a result of the many decades long wave of antioxidant enthusiasm sparked off by Prof Denham Harman's health and longevity ideas in the 1950s.

Even mothers will say to their kids: "Drink your orange juice, it's got vitamin C which is good for you".

So we all feel virtuous when we take antioxidants.

But for the general population, the Gluud research suggests that at best, standard antioxidants like C, E and A don't help stave off disease, and at worst are actually more likely to accelerate your demise rather than avert it.

So I found the work of Dr Christian Gluud interesting from the perspective of checking our unconscious assumptions and beliefs.

Of course Gluud's research conclusions are only a broad-brush result; they cannot say whether antioxidants might help or hinder a specific person or patient.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
16,936
Likes
37,780
The study on vitamin E and COMT used the data from two large studies that examined the cancer rate in a 10 year follow-up period after trials involving supplementing with vitamin E. All in all, more than 50,000 people were involved in the trials.

The results showed that people with the COMT val/val (rs4680, G/G) genotype who took supplemental alpha-tocopherol had an increased overall rate of cancer (HR=1.18). Those with the met/met (rs4680, A/A) genotype had a decreased risk of cancer (HR=0.88). And those with val/met genotype had no statistical effect on cancer risk from vitamin E.

  • G/G: higher COMT activity, (val/val) increased the overall rate of cancer with alpha-tocopherol supplementation
  • A/G: intermediate COMT activity
  • A/A: lower COMT activity, met/met, decreased overall rate of cancer with alpha-tocopherol supplementation

A 2012 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that supplementing with 75 IU of alpha-tocopherol (a common, supplement form of Vitamin E), increased inflammatory cytokines depending on the genotype. Specifically, for the GSTP1 polymorphism, rs1695, those with A/A and A/G had an increase in interleukin-6.

IL-6 genetic variants:

  • A/A: increased interleukin-6 with supplementing alpha-tocopherol
  • A/G: increased interleukin-6 with supplementing alpha-tocopherol
  • G/G: decreased interleukin-6 with supplementing alpha-tocopherol
That's very interesting.

If anyone wants to look up their COMT rs4680 and their GSTP1 rs1695 mutations on 23andme, just click on those links.


I can see a potential new market for designer multivitamins, where you upload your genetic SNP data, and the company sends you a jar of pills containing the exact supplement doses which genetic studies suggest will be beneficial for you.

Maybe we should all get together an develop an interactive webpage on Phoenix Rising where we can enter our SNPs, and the page then provides supplement suggestions based on individual SNP mutations.

In the context of ME/CFS, supplements which can help lower inflammation for people with specific SNP mutations might be of interest, as we tend to feel better when inflammation is reduced.
 
Last edited:

bertiedog

Senior Member
Messages
1,693
Likes
3,255
Location
South East England, UK
That's very interesting.

Maybe we should all get together an develop an interactive webpage on Phoenix Rising where we can enter our SNPs, and the page then provides supplement suggestions based on individual SNP mutations.

In the context of ME/CFS, supplements which can help lower inflammation for people with specific SNP mutations might be of interest, as we tend to feel better when inflammation is reduced.
That sounds like a great idea to me and could mean we are less likely to get reactions provided the dose is right. It could also save us a lot of money and less discarded supplements in the cupboard!

Pam