The WACS (Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study) followed 8171 women over an approximately 10-year period to study the effects of antioxidant supplements Vitamin C, Vitamin E, and Beta-Carotene. Their conclusion was that none of these supplements improved cardiovascular outcomes in any combination as compared to placebo. The study also added Folic Acid about half-way into the experiment.
While the study authors were quick to single out and pan antioxidant supplements, they did not go so far as to exclude dietary sources of these vitamins. The implication (in my mind) is that small amounts of antioxidants may provide some benefit but that benefit cannot be magnified by loading up on antioxidants via supplements. Keep in mind, nobody refuted the finding that cholesterol oxidation plays a significant factor in atherosclerosis. They simply said that supplementing dietary sources of the studied antioxidants provides no benefit. But, they also determined that, contrary to other findings, these supplements did little or no harm.
A big fat "I told you so" goes to Drs. Linus Pauling and Mathias Rath (yeah, yeah, I know, they used FAR less than what YOU recommend and didn't include L-Lysine and Proline in the study).
Regards,
HeartHawk
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Another Nail in the Antioxidant Coffin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dear HeartHawk,
What do you think about this rubutle to the WACS study?
http://www.newstarget.com/021974.html
You are a self-proclaimed "numbers guy" - why don't you get the raw data from the authors of the study and crunch the numbers yourself. I downloaded the original paper. Though I don't know much about statistics, there seemed to be a 'fudge factor'. For example, the authors themselves claim that they considered somebody compliant if they took 2/3 of the pills given to them. Keep in mind that somebody who was 100% compliant would only get 500mg/d and 300mg/d of VitE.
Also, I find one of the author's pharma funding a bit uneasy as well. I would hate to think that this would actually cause a scientist to obscure the truth - but hey, it wouldnt be the first time nor the last.
Dear HeartHawk,
What do you think about this rubutle to the WACS study?
http://www.newstarget.com/021974.html
You are a self-proclaimed "numbers guy" - why don't you get the raw data from the authors of the study and crunch the numbers yourself. I downloaded the original paper. Though I don't know much about statistics, there seemed to be a 'fudge factor'. For example, the authors themselves claim that they considered somebody compliant if they took 2/3 of the pills given to them. Keep in mind that somebody who was 100% compliant would only get 500mg/d and 300mg/d of VitE.
Also, I find one of the author's pharma funding a bit uneasy as well. I would hate to think that this would actually cause a scientist to obscure the truth - but hey, it wouldnt be the first time nor the last.
HeartHawky, I think you've taken in by the media release. I agree fully with capnsaj. It would apear to me that the data was maniplulated and the words of the release where carefully choosen to undermine any possible benifits of Vitamin C or E.
Don't you find it odd that they didn't release this finding from the study.
"If you include only the women who complied with taking the vitamins on a regular basis, the results increase substantially and become quite significant with a 31 percent reduction in the risk of stroke and 22 percent reduction of risk in heart attacks. In other words, those women who actually took vitamins E and C experienced substantial benefits from doing so."
Post a Comment