Is Supplementing Vit E Actually Bad For You?

[Obi-wan]

Per @haidut- Yes, I still do and actually concur with Ray that currently no vitamin E product on the market comes even close to the original vitamin E used before 1950. I am about to release a vitamin E supplement from wheat germ oil and once people have tried it you will see that there can be no comparison. Once again, I am shocked at how compromised our food supply has become, and that includes supplements. We are being fed organic matter that is more often than not a waste material of some industry. And we are paying dearly for such waste, both with money and our health.

The wheat germ oil vitamin E supplement would be its own supplement. If I were to use it as the base for the other supplements like EstroBan and MitoLipin it would make them much more expensive. Also, I think it would help if people are able to try the wheat germ oil (WGO) tocopherol supplement on its own and see first-hand the difference. After trying it myself I am convinced that the difference the old and studies have observed is not due to the various tocopherol isomers like alpha, gamma, beta and delta but the fact that a WGO vitamin E contains much more than just the tocopherols. The waxes, phenols, sterols and squalene in the germ oil extracted vitamin E somehow synergize with the actual tocopherols to produce its amazing anti-estrogenuic and pro-metabolic effects that Peat observed. If nothing else, the taste is quite distinctive and having tried most of the commercially available tocopherol supplements I can tell you that nothing comes even close to matching it. The closest in taste would be a combination of fattiness taste of tahini and intense bitterness of fresh unrefined olive oil. The other tocopherols available commercially are probably still very useful as solvents but the metabolic effects they have are nothing like the WGO extracted vitamin E. My heart rate goes from 80 to 100 within 5 minutes after taking 1tsp of the WGO vitamin E. I'd say the effect is pretty similar to taking thyroid.

 

[Vinero]

I hope that TocoVit and Progest-E are an exception!

 

[TreasureVibe]

I think that in the SELECT study they used the synthetic form of vitamin E which has the prefix of DL- in its chemical formula, opposed to the natural which is D-. I remember reading that in all the negative studies about vitamin E, the synthetic form was used. Often the researchers wouldn't even note which form they were using to hide this fact.

However there is a website called Nutri-spec which claim to be experts on the subject, who state that any vitamin E dose above 200 IU is megadosing and considered bad for your health, including heart health. This however is confusing when looking at the patients of the Shute's brothers, who were given doses of sometimes 1000 IU at a time to cure certain ailments like heart disease, so perhaps someone could elaborate on this important question.

 

[Obi-wan]

Is the synthetic form from petrochemicals?

 

[TreasureVibe]

Is the synthetic form from petrochemicals?

I believe it is yes, a derivative of the petroleum industry. That's what I've read.

 

[Jsaute21]

Good research but i feel phenomenal on tocovit. I usually take 20 drops once a week. typically with a restaurant meal with some PUFA and notice feeling androgenic after the meal despite usually booze intake. Its hard to separate placebo from reality sometimes, but i truly feel as if tocovit is an anabolic and healthy tool in the repertoire.

 

[Obi-wan]

Antioxidant nutrients like vitamin E protect cell constituents from the damaging effects of free radicals that, if unchecked, might contribute to cancer development [9]. Vitamin E might also block the formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines formed in the stomach from nitrites in foods and protect against cancer by enhancing immune function [28]. Unfortunately, human trials and surveys that have attempted to associate vitamin E intake with cancer incidence have found that vitamin E is not beneficial in most cases.

Both the HOPE-TOO Trial and Women’s Health Study evaluated whether vitamin E supplements might protect people from cancer. HOPE-TOO, which followed men and women ≥55 years of age with heart disease or diabetes for 7 years, found no significant differences in the number of new cancers or cancer deaths between individuals randomly assigned to take 400 IU/day vitamin E or a placebo [22]. In the Women’s Health Study, in which healthy women ≥45 years of age received either 600 IU vitamin E every other day or a placebo for 10 years, the supplement did not reduce the risk of developing any form of cancer [25].

Several studies have examined whether vitamin E intake and/or supplemental vitamin E affects the risk of developing prostate cancer. A prospective cohort study of >29,000 men found no association between dietary or supplemental vitamin E intake and prostate cancer risk [29]. However, among current smokers and men who had quit, vitamin E intakes of more than 400 IU/day were associated with a statistically significant 71% reduction in the risk of advanced prostate cancer. In a clinical trial involving 29,133 male smokers, men randomly assigned to take daily supplements of 50 IU synthetic vitamin E for 5–8 years had 32% fewer prostate cancers compared to subjects who did not take the supplements [30]. Based in part on the promising results of this study, a large randomized clinical trial, called the SELECT trial, began in 2001 to determine whether 7–12 years of daily supplementation with synthetic vitamin E (400 IU, as dl-alpha-tocopheryl acetate), with or without selenium (200 mcg, as L-selenomethionine), reduced the number of new prostate cancers in 35,533 healthy men age 50 and older. The trial was discontinued in October 2008 when an analysis found that the supplements, taken alone or together for about 5.5 years, did not prevent prostate cancer [31]. Results from an additional 1.5 years of follow-up from this trial (during which the subjects no longer received vitamin E or selenium), showed that the men who had taken the vitamin E had a 17 percent increased risk of prostate cancer compared to men only taking placebos, a statistically significant difference [32]. The risk of developing prostate cancer was also slightly increased in subjects taking vitamin E plus selenium or selenium alone, but the differences were not statistically significant. No differences were found among groups in the incidence of lung or colorectal cancers or all cancers combined. Study staff members will continue to monitor participants’ health for up to 5 more years. The National Cancer Institute web site provides additional information on the SELECT -synthetic. The selenium probably was inorganic

 

[burtlancast]

This however is confusing when looking at the patients of the Shute's brothers, who were given doses of sometimes 1000 IU at a time to cure certain ailments like heart disease, so perhaps someone could elaborate on this important question.

More like 3500 IU !!

In cases of life threatening situations like venous thrombosis, very high doses would be needed to urgently dissolve the blood clots in the interval of a few days lest evolution to fully sclerosed, closed shut veins, which basically means being a cripple for the rest of your life without any hope for relief except amputation .

To my knowledge, only Vit E can achieve that. Anticoagulants cannot. Or maybe serrapeptase, but the hospitals don't use it.

Shute also cites the case of a lady who took 15000 IU a day and cleared her Crohn symptoms.

Vit E is an antioxydant; it spares oxygen being consumed in the blood, so it becomes more available to skeletal and heart muscles, hence the increase in the work output. It's like a bolus of oxygen in your circulation. You can increase this antioxydant effect by associating it with Vit C and selenium.

I always feel full of energy the following day after ingesting it. And also very horny, as others have attested.

 

[Obi-wan]

Vitamin E can act as an anticoagulant, increasing the risk of bleeding, specifically acting synergistically with the blood-thinner, warfarin, which acts as a vitamin K antagonist.[1] From a 1982 review, vitamin E was reported as not having an anti-coagulation effect in humans who were vitamin K status sufficient.[40] -Wikipedia

The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) updated Estimated Average Requirements (EARs) and Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for vitamin E in 2000. The current EAR for vitamin E for women and men ages 14 and up is 12 mg/day -Wikipedia

I think Ray at most was using it once per week, maybe 100-200mgs.

Long term high daily dose could be a problem

 

[TreasureVibe]

More like 3500 IU !!

In cases of life threatening situations like venous thrombosis, very high doses would be needed to urgently dissolve the blood clots in the interval of a few days lest evolution to fully sclerosed, closed shut veins, which basically means being a cripple for the rest of your life without any hope for relief except amputation .

To my knowledge, only Vit E can achieve that. Anticoagulants cannot. Or maybe serrapeptase, but the hospitals don't use it.

Shute also cites the case of a lady who took 15000 IU a day and cleared her Crohn symptoms.

Vit E is an antioxydant; it spares oxygen being consumed in the blood, so it becomes more available to skeletal and heart muscles, hence the increase in the work output. It's like a bolus of oxygen in your circulation. You can increase this antioxydant effect by associating it with Vit C and selenium.

I always feel full of energy the following day after ingesting it. And also very horny, as others have attested.

Yes! But Nutri-Spec states that anywhere above 200 IU strains the heart, see:

The vitamin E in Activator is the highest biological activity and highest quality you can find anywhere. You may not realize that vitamin E is the one nutrient that is available in several different grades, all of which appear on the vitamin supplement labels as d-alpha Tocopherol. There is no way you can tell when you look at a product label whether you are getting common low grade vitamin E, or the high grade that you get from NUTRI-SPEC.

Something else you may not know about vitamin E is that almost all vitamin E in supplements is derived from wheat. Wheat, of course, is probably the number one food allergen. For that reason we have gone to the extra expense of getting your vitamin E from a non-wheat source.

Check out how "little" vitamin E is in your Activator? "That's all?" you ask, "I've seen antioxidant supplements with as much as 800 I.U.!"

Yes you have -- and those products are damaging people by the thousands. Damage from mega doses of vitamin E? You betcha.

Did you know that:

• Vitamin E stimulates anaerobic fermentation at the cellular level?
  
  (Which, by the way, is the cause of most cancers.)
  
  
• Vitamin E inhibits energy production and proper utilization of glucose?
  
  
• Vitamin E elevates blood pressure?
  
  
• Vitamin E can put a strain on the heart?
  
  
• Vitamin E can cause cardiac arrhythmias?
  
  
• Vitamin E can raise cholesterol levels?
  

Next to vitamin C and calcium, vitamin E has to be considered the most abused nutrient. It is taken in mega doses by oodles of people who have no idea what they are doing to themselves. As it lowers their energy, making them sick and weak, it can, if taken long enough, cause any or all of the problems listed above. Ironically, these may be the symptoms for which the person is taking vitamin E to cure. Such is the mess that typically results from non-specific, unscientific supplementation.

The quantity of vitamin E in Activator is actually several times your recommended daily allowance. Considering also the high quality of this particular form of vitamin E, plus that it is accompanied in Activator by such a rich array of other anti-oxidants and bio-protective factors -- this is all the Vitamin E the vast majority of people need to take.

And --- in accord with the NUTRI-SPEC principle of specificity --- the few people who do benefit from higher doses of vitamin E will be quite obvious to you if you do your NUTRI-SPEC testing. These few individuals will invariably test out as being either Dysaerobic or Glucogenic. Giving them, in addition to their Activator, the other indicated supplements (either Oxygenic D and D-Plus or Oxygenic G) will give them more than enough additional vitamin E. Also, of course, most of your patients will ultimately be given OXY POWER/Diphasic PM when they transition to your Diphasic Nutrition Plan.

In its damaging role as an oxidant, Vitamin C destroys the activity of one other important anti-oxidant -- Vitamin E. But, the reverse can also occur. Excess Vitamin E will also act as an oxidant instead of an anti-oxidant and in fact, doses of Vitamin E much above 140 milligrams will actually destroy the activity of Vitamin C.

Brown K.M., et al. Erythrocyte vitamin E and plasma ascorbate concentrations in relation to erythrocyte peroxidation in smokers and non-smokers: dose response to vitamin E supplementation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997;65:496-502.

What do you think of these statements? Do they hold truth?

Link: http://www.nutri-spec.net/articles/tocopherols.html

 

[Travis]

1. What does a 17 percent increased risk of prostate cancer mean?
   In SELECT, this measure means that there were 17 percent more prostate cancer cases diagnosed in the group of men assigned to take 400 International Units (IU) of vitamin E (and no selenium) daily compared to the men taking two placebos (no vitamin E and no selenium) after an average of seven years -- 5.5 of the years on supplements followed by 1.5 years not taking supplements.
   In the men in SELECT who took only placebos, after seven years, 65 prostate cancer cases were diagnosed for every 1,000 men. For the men assigned to take vitamin E only, for every 1,000 men, there were 76 cases of prostate cancer diagnosed (11 additional cases of prostate cancer per 1,000 men over seven years).

They make no distinction between α- and γ-tocopherol; they also do not differentiate selenide, selenate, and selenomethionine. Since selenomethionine alone is capable of inhibiting polyamine synthesis, this is the only species really effective in cancer. Alpha-tocopherol can displace γ-tocopherol over time as the body has a finite capacity of absorbing members of the vitamin E class, meaning the ingested α∶γ ratio will eventually influence the cell membrane ratio. Obviously, this is especially the case with long-term supplementation and certainly in the ones lasting years (i.e. The SELECT Trial). Due to these researchers using minimal amounts of selenomethionine and also the wrong species of vitamin E, this study does nothing to detract from the wealth of data showing selenomethionine and γ-tocopherol to be highly effective.

1. Did the researchers find any difference in the effect of the supplements based on the level of vitamin E or selenium in participants when they joined the trial?
   Yes. In an analysis published in 2014, men who had high levels of selenium at the start of the trial, as assessed by measures of selenium in their toenail clippings, had almost double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the selenium supplement compared to men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial. This finding was unexpected, as previous studies had shown that men with low levels of selenium had an increased risk of prostate cancer that was reduced with supplements (11, 12). Additionally, men with low levels of selenium at the start of the trial had double the chance of developing a high-grade prostate cancer if they took the vitamin E supplement.

No explanation of the real reason: the author simply mumbles something about a "U-shaped curve;' this is something that can be used to describe literally anything.

1. Should men take vitamin E or selenium supplements for cancer prevention?
   No. Scientists do not understand how these supplements really work and more importantly, the interactions that these supplements have together or with foods, drugs, or other supplements.

A cop-out, for sure. Just because the author does not know how these molecules work is not to say that nobody else does. The author is merely trying to save face by shielding his/her failure to comprehend by the sum and imagined ignorance of everyone else.

1. There are no clinical trials that show a benefit from taking vitamin E or selenium to reduce the risk of prostate cancer or any other cancer or heart disease (2, 3, 5-9).

Now this is just a straight-up lie. There has been studies showing significant positive effects using selenemethionine alone, at 800·μg, which is a dose 4× higher than what had been given in The SELECT Trial (200·μg).

Combs G. F. "Status of selenium in prostate cancer prevention." British journal of cancer (2004)​

'The complete, 13 years, results of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial have been analysed, causing some speculation over the robustness of the previously reported findings of reduction of cancer risks by supplements of selenium [selenomethionine] to a cohort of older Americans. These analyses confirmed that Se [selenomethionine] supplementation was associated with marked reductions in risks to total (all-site except skin) carcinomas and to cancers of the prostate and colon–rectum. Of those deep-site treatment effects, the most robust was for prostate cancer, which was more frequent, and was confirmed by serum prostate-specific antigen level. Recent subgroup analyses showed Se [selenomethionine] supplementation reduced risk of cancer mostly among subjects who entered the trial with plasma Se levels in the bottom tertile of the cohort.' ―Combs​

Two hundred micrograms of selenomethionine per day would be less effective in humans than eight hundred. The dose response curve isn't a flat line: higher concentrations inhibit more polyamines. The SELECT Trial merely showed that 200·μg/d is inconsequential.

Redman, C. "Inhibitory effect of selenomethionine on the growth of three selected human tumor cell lines." Cancer letters (1998)

​

You can literally see the very point in which inhibition of polyamine synthesis begins to occur in prostate cancer cells—being at 7·μM, in both cell lines.

If this author cannot distinguish between α- and γ-tocopherol then somebody should take away his/her keyboard, especially considering how there's so much data on this:

Cooney, R. "Gamma-tocopherol detoxification of nitrogen dioxide: superiority to alpha-tocopherol." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (1993)

​

The above data plainly show γ-tocopherol to be uniquely capable of absorbing reactive nitrogen species, lacking a methyl group in the №7 position of the chromanol ring. Alpha-tocopherol simply cannot do this (it being methylated at carbon seven). Since this is the most fundamental physiologically-relevant difference known between these two forms, it follows that the removal of reactive nitrogen species from the cytosol accounts for their differential effects. This is shown below by an author (Campbell) who not only knows the difference between the two species, but goes even one step further to actually define their stereochemisty (RRR):

​

Campbell, S. "Comparative effects of RRR-alpha-and RRR-gamma-tocopherol on proliferation and apoptosis in human colon cancer cell lines." BMC cancer (2006)​

'Results: Treatment with RRR-γ-tocopherol resulted in significant cell death for all cancer cell lines tested, while RRR-α- tocopherol did not. Further, RRR-γ-tocopherol treatment showed no cytotoxicity to normal colon cells CCD-112CoN at the highest concentration and time point tested. [...] Since RRR-γ-tocopherol is effective at inhibition of cell proliferation at both physiological and pharmacological concentrations dietary RRR-γ-tocopherol may be chemopreventive, while pharmacological concentrations of RRR-γ-tocopherol may aid chemotherapy without toxic effects to normal cells demonstrated by most chemotherapeutic agents.' ―Campbell

​

The above graph plainly shows the superiority of γ-tocopherol to either α-tocopherol or vehicle. For the above considerations, you'd expect them to have different effects in vitro—this is exactly what's found. Gamma-tocopherol is found much more protective in epidemiological studies than is α-tocopherol:

Helzlsouer, K. "Association between α-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol, selenium, and subsequent prostate cancer." JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2000)

'For γ-tocopherol, men in the highest fifth of the distribution had a fivefold reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer than men in the lowest fifth.' ―Helzlsouer

​

Of course the selenium levels will tell us little since they'd been determined using neutron activation analysis. Although an interesting technique, it cannot differentiate between: inorganic selenium species (i.e. Se²⁻, SeO₄²⁻), selenocysteine, and selenomethionine. But the high pressure liquid chromatography used to characterize the vitamin E species is indeed highly accurate and reliable, the results from which being totally in-line with the in vitro cell assays made plausible by physical–inorganic nitric oxide absorption curves. Gamma-tocopherol strongly antagonizes reactive nitrogen species and inhibits cancer proliferation while α-tocopherol can not. The routine administration of α-tocopherol will be expected to eventually decrease the concentation of γ-tocopherol on the cell membrane where it's needed most. The foregoing considerations are all you need to describe the 'disappointing' results of The SELECT Trial, where the 400·IU of α-tocopherol given daily had displaced the much more protective γ-tocopherol through competition with dietary intake: The selenium used had been a mere 200·μg, which is an inconsequential amount to globally inhibit polyamine synthesis (and actually being less than you'd get simply from eating kale or broccoli).

 

[Obi-wan]

Thank you @Travis. You are truly a wealth of information. So how does one go about consuming just gamma Tocopherol? Also its looks like I should be consuming 800 mgs of seleonmethionine per day. I currently take 400mg per day.

 

[Braveheart]

Thank you @Travis. You are truly a wealth of information. So how does one go about consuming just gamma Tocopherol? Also its looks like I should be consuming 800 mgs of seleonmethionine per day. I currently take 400mg per day.

For lack of anything better I take this once a week...465mg gamma....rest of week it's IdeaLabs....and min 200 selen. daily

https://www.vitacost.com/carlson-gamma-e-gems-465-mg-120-softgels

 

[Obi-wan]

@bzmazu concerned with other Ingredients: Soybean oil, sunflower oil, soft gel shell: beef gelatin, glycerin, water.

 

[Braveheart]

@bzmazu concerned with other Ingredients: Soybean oil, sunflower oil, soft gel shell: beef gelatin, glycerin, water.

well me too kind of, but these are very small amts once a week to get that gamma...always looking for the perfect supp.....

 

[burtlancast]

What do you think of these statements? Do they hold truth?

Link: http://www.nutri-spec.net/articles/tocopherols.html

Preposterous !

These guys are up to no good. The Shutes treated about 15.000 patients over 40 years, most of them for heart disease and given a death sentence by orthodox doctors; they were so grateful they donated huge sums to establish the Vit E foundation.

Read the books i linked on archive org, they speak for themselves.

 

[Travis]

I vote for mixed tocopherols, perhaps one a bit heavy on the γ. The SELECT Trial had merely demonstrated that 200·μg of selenomethionine is not sufficient to counteract the inimical effects consequent of γ-tocopherol depletion, in turn a consequence of administering one of the other three natural tocopherols (α, β, and δ) for extended periods of time (years). Older literature may not differentiate between pharmaceutically-pure α-tocopherol and 'vitamin E,' which decades ago could very well have been found as 'mixed tocopherols'—the ratio being determined by the plant in which it'd been derived, not a laboratory. I think besides γ-tocopherol, you could also expect mixed tocopherols to be chemopreventative. But as can plainly be seen by reading a few studies on this topic, many authors actually refer to all three of the foregoing types simply as 'vitamin E.' For this reason, a bit of discernment is needed when reading articles mentioning undifferentiated 'vitamin E.'

 

[Mito]

Masterjohn on α-tocopherol vs γ-tocopherol (similar to what Travis has written)

Skip ahead to 14:29 and watch up to 22:42

 

[x-ray peat]

Here is a good analysis of almost 500 studies on Vitamin E.
https://examine.com/supplements/vitamin-e/
Not much to write home about unless targeting something specific like thrombosis or high liver enzymes.

are we saying that most of these studies are not worth anything because we dont know that they used mixed tocopherols?

 

[LukeL]

Here is a good analysis of almost 500 studies on Vitamin E.
https://examine.com/supplements/vitamin-e/
Not much to write home about unless targeting something specific like thrombosis or high liver enzymes.

are we saying that most of these studies are not worth anything because we dont know that they used mixed tocopherols?

Really interesting...after browsing briefly I don’t see too many positive studies regarding Vitamin E