RCS said...
BB,
Thanks for posting this. I found it very interesting ... Especially the parts on two types of vitamin e. I stopped taking vitamin e supplements, but I do eat a lot of nuts. Thanks for the info.
You are welcome! I also have not taken VitE supplements for quite a while, but when I was I was making sure that there was a mixture of various VE types, including Gamma. But as for nuts, the link I gave for "sources" had some great info about
nuts. Looking at the alpha to gamma ratios(A/G), it shows that almonds have 25 mg alpha per 100 gms(about
3 oz?) of nuts, and .89 gamma, or 25/.89. Hazel nuts are 15/0. Brazil nuts have 5.7/7.8, and delicious cashews .92/5.4! Starting to look much better if you think it is better to get more natural gamma, but just wait! ( of course, following nature a mixture of both might be best)
But if you think that more gamma might be better, do you like pecans? MMMMM, pecans good! 1.4/24! Pistachios 1.9/22, black walnuts 1.8a/28g.
As for seeds, flax has .31 gms alpha and 19.9 gms gamma per 3 oz. or .31/19.9. Aren't pumpkin seeds reputed to be good for the prostate, or GFMPH? 0.0/19! Sesame seeds 1.2/28. But sunflower seeds 34/0.
Of course, you would have to eat a lot of nuts to approach the alpha levels in a typical Vit E supplement. Still, it is guaranteed true natural and not synthetic as was used in some of the negative studies, and you can pick your food to make sure you get plenty of gamma if that is what you want. Plus, it can make for some tasty snacking!
""For γ-tocopherol(gamma), 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""
Robert C: "This is an article that questions the very high dose of synthetic alpha tocopherol in the SELECT study. Dietary sources of gamma tocopherol might still prove to be beneficial."
I know. All these studies can be tricky and a variable like a high dose of synthetic supplement can throw things off. For instance, by suppressing gamma levels. And maybe even alpha does have it's place, as in the study I linked to in my 2nd post:
" the alpha-Tocopherol, beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial testing the effects of beta-carotene and alpha-tocopherol supplements on cancer incidence in adult male smokers in southwestern Finland (n = 29,133). Prostate cancer survival was examined ......... Higher serum alpha-tocopherol at baseline was associated with improved prostate cancer survival (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-1.00), especially among cases who had received the alpha-tocopherol intervention of the trial and who were in the highest quintile of alpha-tocopherol at baseline (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-0.90) or at the 3-year follow-up measurement (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71). Serum beta-carotene, serum retinol, and supplemental beta-carotene had no apparent effects on survival. These findings suggest that higher alpha-tocopherol (and not beta-carotene or retinol) status increases overall prostate cancer survival. Further investigations, possibly including randomized studies, are needed to confirm this observation.""
Makes me wonder. Were these guys on average getting their relatively high blood alpha E levels from high doses of synthetic supplements? I guess at least some from supplements because it said "especially among cases who had received the alpha-tocopherol intervention of the trial". Or maybe from diet, or a combo? Either way, did they also have plenty of gamma thrown in the mix? (which would be more likely if most of it was from diet, although some supplement these days also make sure to have plenty of gamma, or even gamma only as was mentioned by Hummbug). Either way, the ones with the best survival had the highest levels of good old alpha E. But of course, that is just one study.
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 8/1/2014 10:58:32 AM (GMT-6)