Archive for August, 2009
B Vitamins May Ward off Macular Degeneration
08.17.2009
Macular degeneration is a leading cause of vision loss in the elderly
A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that women over the age of 40 who took vitamin B6, B12 and folic acid had a reduced risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Women who took the supplements for seven years had a 41 percent lower risk of developing AMD than those given a placebo.
Age-related macular degeneration is the number one cause of blindness among people over the age of 65. It is estimated that as many as 12 million Americans could get macular degeneration each year, and about 10% of these will suffer severe central vision loss. AMD can make reading or recognizing faces difficult, although enough peripheral vision remains to allow other activities of daily life.
Previous studies have drawn a correlation between AMD and blood levels of the amino acid homocysteine. High levels of homocysteine are associated with dysfunction of the blood vessel lining, and that could provide a clue as to why these supplements helped to ward off the disease. “It’s fairly well-established that folic acid, B6 and B12 can reduce blood levels of homocysteine, so there’s a reason to suspect a possible benefit,” said William Christen, the leader of the study.
Dr. Krawitz’s addendum:
Nancy has correctly summarized the published findings of the authors. However, criticisms of this study have been numerous and from scientists without a profit agenda. While homocysteine levels can induce heart disease, the patients in this study had pre-treatment homocysteine levels that were within the normal range.
Thus, the failure to see benefit against cardiac disease may have been a result of this population of patients having heart disease that was NOT due to elevated homocysteine levels.
Dr. Emily Chew, Director of the National Eye Institute, has been publicly critical of the eye findings as well, noting that the authors were not looking for a benefit against eye disease and instead “stumbled into the result.” Dr. Chew steadfastly maintains that the authors’ deviation from following the “null hypothesis” as a scientific norm makes the study results interesting, but highly inconclusive.
Paul Krawitz, M.D., President
VisiVite.Com
Nancy Hirsch VisiVite.Com Certified Nutritionist
U.S. Children Low in Vitamin D
08.14.2009
Many children in the United States have low vitamin D levels raising their risk for bone problems, heart disease, diabetes and a host of other health problems, according to a study released earlier this week. The study was done at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in the Bronx.
Most children don't get enough vitamin D from the sun or from food.
Vitamin D deficiency was thought to be rare in the United States. Deficiency is defined as less than 15 ng/mL of blood, and insufficiency is defined as 15-29 ng/mL. The researchers found that 9 percent of children in the study (7.6 million) were vitamin D deficient and 60 percent (50.8 million)were vitamin D insufficient.
My thoughts are that the problem is even worse than this study shows, because the researchers are considering any level over 30 ng/mL to be sufficient. Optimal vitamin D levels, in my opinion, are actually more in the range of 50-60 ng/mL.
The new finding adds to the growing evidence that children, as well as many adults, have vitamin D levels that are too low. “No one had examined this issue nationwide,” said Dr. Michal L. Melamed, the lead researcher of the study.
It is believed that vitamin D levels have declined over the last 20 years because children are not spending as much time outdoors as they used to. The widespread use of sunscreens has only compounded the problem, as their application blocks beneficial UVB rays.
Just 15-20 minutes a day in the sun without sunscreen during the summer months should be enough for most children to maintain proper vitamin D levels. Sunscreen shouldn’t be applied until after they’ve been out in the sun for about 10 minutes, unless they burn very easily.
Since it is very difficult to obtain vitamin D from dietary sources alone, supplementation is advised during the winter months. The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that infants, children, and teenagers should take at least 400 IU of vitamin D per day.
Nancy Hirsch, VisiVite.Com Certified Nutritionist
One in Five Teenagers Reports Sight Problems
08.11.2009August is Children’s Eye Health and Safety Month
Twenty percent of students reported difficulty seeing the blackboard.
For all you parents out there already racked with guilt, I’m going to add to your list…
When was the last time you took your child to see an eye doctor for an exam?
Just because Tommy can kick the soccer ball doesn’t mean his vision is clear. And now there is a study to back that up. VSP Vision Care of Rancho Cordova, California and Prevent Blindness America sponsored a survey of 1,500 kids between age 12 and 17. Astoundingly, 20% of them reported difficulty seeing the chalkboard, even though 45% of them were already wearing eyeglasses.
If you’re following this, you should be asking why kids who already have glasses are having difficulty. It’s because they’re still growing! And they don’t just need new tops and bigger shoes, they likely need an update in their eyeglass prescription too.
A survey of 1,500 participants found more than 1 in 5 of those between 12 and 17 years old have difficulty seeing the chalkboard, and more than 25% complained of headaches, according to VSP Vision Care (Rancho Cordova, Calif.) and Prevent Blindness America, who jointly sponsored the survey. The complaints were noted even though 45% of the participants wore some type of prescription eyewear.
There was another disturbing finding. Two-thirds of children under the age of 6 had never had an eye exam by an ophthalmologist or optometrist.
Prevent Blindness America recommends all children have their vision checked at infancy and regularly throughout childhood. If a child fails a vision screening, or if there is any concern of an eye or vision problem, the child should be referred for a complete eye exam by an eye doctor. The combination of primary care doctor eye evaluations and vision screenings with a referral for a complete eye exam by an eye doctor is the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Association for the Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.
—
Paul Krawitz, M.D., President
Vitamin Science Inc
Is Organic Food Really No Better Than Conventional?
08.07.2009
Nancy Hirsch, VisiVite.Com Certified Nutritionist
Quote of the day:
“The food industry, in alliance with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies, has waged a long, often cynical campaign to convince the public that mass-produced, chemically-assisted and intensively-farmed products are just as good as organic foods, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.”
The quote comes from an article written in response to the UK’s Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) report this week that claims that organic food is no healthier for you than conventional food. The findings were based on fifty years worth of research papers on the subject.
There are, in my opinion, many inherent problems with this report. First of all, contaminants like pesticides and antibiotics contained in conventional produce were not even addressed. The FSA said that they were “beyond the scope of the study.” It is now widely believed that pesticides not only poison the soil and harm wildlife, but also promote cancer and many other diseases because of their toxicity.
Is this food organic?
The FSA report didn’t include the latest research commissioned by the European Union, which found that vitamins and other beneficial compounds were significantly greater in organic crops than in conventional ones. The EU study found that organic wheat, tomatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 10 and 20 percent more vitamins than conventional produce. And let’s not forget that organic food simply tastes better. It’s not just that conventional food is sprayed with pesticides and herbicides — it is also filled with additives, colorings and other chemicals just so that is has an acceptable appearance once it reaches grocery store shelves.
The FSA also failed to include the 15 studies that came out after the cut-off date of February 2008, which could have changed the outcome of the report. For example, one study found that organic foods contain more phosphorus, while conventional foods contain more nitrogen, which scientists have linked to cancer.
Supporters of organic farming claim that the results of the study are flawed because of the criteria used to select the most important research. Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association states, “The review rejected almost all of the existing studies of comparisons between organic and non-organic nutritional differences.” When all of the research was taken into account, organic food was frequently higher in nutrients than conventional produce. Beta-carotene was shown to be over 50 percent higher in organic food, and organic milk contained around 60 percent more antioxidants and beneficial fatty acids than non-organic milk. Even the FSA’s own published research shows that organic foods are clearly far better for the consumer in nutritional terms alone.
So why was this research by the FSA brought to the attention of the public? There are some people who feel that by reporting it this way and apparently rendering the playing field equal for conventional farmers, the government and the agricultural sector wouldn’t have to begin the difficult job of moving towards a system of sustainability. One reporter on the subject wrote in response to this idea, “Sustainable agriculture improves not just our personal health, but our collective environmental health as well.”
And I couldn’t agree more.
