31 replies to this topic

[Xena]

Ker to spada pod sestavine, sem se odločila to tukaj dati.

Ugotovljeno je bilo pred en mesec nazaj, ko je bilo končano največje ugotovitve in poskusi glede antioksidantnih vitaminov.
Bila sem presenečna.

Antioksidanti vitamini ne samo da ne preprečujejo bolezni oziroma, da pomagajo zdravju, vendar so škodljivi, v merha ki so bile včasih najbol priporčljive.

V teh merah SO ŠKODLJIVI

Ker kreme vsebujejo antioksidantne, mislim, da je dobro, da je to tukaj. Zdaj ne vem, kakšen ima to vpliv v kremah, ker sicer spet to ne gre v kri, vendar na koži.
Vendar mislim, da je logično, da se zdaj spremeni mišljenje, vse se spremeni. Če je to tako, so bolj kvalitetne kreme tiste, ki ne vsebujejo antioksidantov. Vednar ni to to. Glavno je to, da je to presnečenje in poruši mnogo prejšnih informacij, to da so VITAMINI lahko ŠKODLJIVI.

Preberite si sami.

http://www.medscape....warticle/552910

[Hsul]

Škodljivi samo če jih je PREVEČ, ker drugače so vitamini NUJNO potrebni za delovanje organizma!

Take novice sem jaz zasledil že kako leto nazaj. Ne moreš takoj verjeti vsega kar piše. Je pa dobro da se od časa do časa predramimo in uporabimo kritično razmišljanje.

[Xena]

Škodljivi samo če jih je PREVEČ, ker drugače so vitamini NUJNO potrebni za delovanje organizma!

Zgleda, da si nisi ničesar prebral. Ne moreš govoriti kar tako na pamet. To je veljalo včasih, če jih je preveč, je škodljivo.
Vendar je zdej vse obrnejno.
Vitamin C, ki je veljal za glavnega glede imunskega sistema, je edini antioksidantni vitamin, ki vsaj škodljiv ni. Nima pa niti malo učinka na zdravje.

Najmočnejši antioksindant, Vitamin E, in nato ostala, beta-carotin in Vitamin A pa znatno povečajo umrljivost.

Rečen je, zdaj le navadna prehrana in vaje, šport, če hočeš čim boljše zdravje. Zdaj ni več uno, tok pa tok zaužiti kašnega Vitamina, koliko je priporočljivo, v kakšnih merah, ker ni. Zdaj se le drži pač navadeni hrane, diete in ne zdaj pa tok pa tok Vitamin se mora vzeti, ker niso učinkoviti, nasprotno, škodljivi so.

Tuki je ta članek

March 1, 2007 — The largest analysis of data on antioxidant vitamins ever conducted has shown that beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E probably increase mortality. Two other antioxidant substances — vitamin C and selenium — had no effect on mortality.

The meta-analysis of 68 randomized trials with a total of 232,606 participants, published in the February 28 issue of JAMA, was conducted by a group led by Goran Bjelakovic, MD, of the Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

Coauthor, Christian Gluud, MD, of the Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, commented to heartwire: "This is the most comprehensive collection of data on anti-oxidant vitamins ever conducted, and we have shown that on the whole that these agents have no benefit. Indeed, vitamin A, vitamin E and beta-carotene are associated with an increase in mortality at the doses studied. Vitamin A and beta-carotene seem to have a dose-related effect, with mortality increasing as doses increase, whereas vitamin E does not appear to have a dose-related effect, with all doses associated with increased mortality."
Jury Still Out on Vitamin C and Selenium

Dr. Gluud added that the jury is still out on vitamin C and selenium. "Vitamin C does not appear to be detrimental but it is not beneficial either, and all the trials of selenium together suggest a small benefit, but when only the well conducted trials are included, there appears to be neither benefit nor harm." "Our data show that anti-oxidant vitamins should not be taken in an effort to prevent illness. People should instead eat a balanced diet and take regular exercise," he said.

In the JAMA article, the authors note that many people are taking antioxidant supplements in the belief that they improve health and prevent diseases. Many primary or secondary prevention trials of antioxidant supplements have been conducted to prevent several diseases — mainly cardiovascular disease and cancer — but results have generally not been positive, with some trials showing increases in mortality.

To find out more, they conducted the current systematic review to analyze the effects of antioxidant supplements on all-cause mortality of adults included in primary and secondary prevention trials. They included all primary and secondary prevention published trials in adults randomized to receive beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, or selenium vs placebo or no intervention.

Results showed that when all trials of antioxidant supplements were pooled together, there was no significant effect on mortality, but when the 47 trials said to have a low risk of bias (in a total of 180,938 participants) were analyzed alone, the antioxidant supplements as a whole significantly increased mortality, and beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E were all associated with increased mortality when given alone or in combination. Vitamin C and selenium had no significant effect on mortality.
Table. Relative Risk for All-Cause Mortality With Antioxidant Vitamins
Trials/Agent Relative Risk of Mortality
With Antioxidant Vitamins 95% Confidence Interval
All trials — all agents 1.02 0.98 - 1.06
Low bias trials — all agents 1.05 1.02 - 1.08
Beta-carotene 1.07 1.02 - 1.11
Vitamin A 1.16 1.10 - 1.24
Vitamin E 1.04 1.01 - 1.07

Source: JAMA. 2007; 297:842-857.

The researchers note that more than two thirds of the included trials fell into the category of low-bias risk trials, which they say highlights the validity of their results. "Antioxidant supplements not only seem to be one of the most researched topics in the world, they also seem to be one of the most adequately researched clinical questions," they say.

They point out that a large number of unpublished trials on supplements may exist, but as unpublished trials are more likely to have been either neutral or negative than to have shown beneficial effects, this suggests their estimate of a 5% increase in mortality is likely to be conservative.
Substantial Public Health Consequences

Noting that 10% to 20% of the adult population (80 - 160 million people) in North America and Europe may consume these supplements, Bjelakovic and colleagues say the public health consequences may be substantial.

Speculating on possible mechanisms, they point out that although oxidative stress has a hypothesized role in the pathogenesis of many chronic diseases, it may be the consequence of pathologic conditions, and that by eliminating free radicals, some essential defensive mechanisms may be affected.

In an interview with heartwire, Dr. Gluud also suggested that the antioxidant vitamins could actually also have prooxidant effects. "We don't know exactly how they are doing harm but rather than preventing cardiovascular disease and cancer, they actually seem to be accelerating these conditions."
Lessons Learned

Dr. Gluud said these observations were "a huge disappointment," but added that at least it has been discovered. "We must see the positives in this. The question has been thoroughly addressed and we now know the answer — these agents are harmful. The companies selling these anti-oxidant vitamins have been able to dodge the issue for a long time, saying that any negative data has not been comprehensive. They cannot do this any longer. There are lessons to be learnt here. For example, the importance of conducting trials with these agents and publishing the results."

Dr. Gluud added that food supplements should be regulated in the same way as medical products. "The governments of the world now have the responsibility to inform people of these results. They have been too slow in the past in requesting that health supplements are properly evaluated, and allowing these products to be added to foods. People have been buying these supplements and foods advertised as having these supplements added under the impression that they are good for them, when in actual fact they are harmful. Any potential health supplements should not be allowed to be added to foods unless they have been shown to be beneficial, or at least proven not to be harmful."

JAMA. 2007;297:842-857.

The complete contents of Heartwire, a professional news service of WebMD, can be found at www.theheart.org, a Web site for cardiovascular healthcare professionals.
Clinical Context

Antioxidant supplements are widely used by the general population despite limited evidence of any significant health benefit. A previous review by the authors of the current study examined 14 randomized trials with a total of 170,525 participants for the effects of antioxidant supplements vs placebo on the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer. The study results, which were published in the October 2-8, 2004, issue of The Lancet, found no overall difference in the rates of gastrointestinal cancer among subjects receiving antioxidants or placebo. This main study finding was unchanged when examining the use of individual or combination supplements or when focusing on specific gastrointestinal cancers.

In this previous review, 7 high-quality trials suggested that antioxidants increased the risk for mortality. The current systematic review and meta-analysis addresses this issue.
Study Highlights

* Trials included in the review were randomized studies involving beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, selenium, or vitamin C vs placebo. Studies examining healthy adults (primary prevention) and adults with specific diseases (secondary prevention) were included. However, trials examining the acute use of antioxidants for illness were excluded, as were those with no recorded deaths.
* The authors reviewed studies of antioxidants used singly or in combination. Analysis for the review was by intent-to-treat.
* The initial search yielded 16,111 references. 68 trials involving a total of 232,606 patients were included in the final data analysis. The mean age of subjects was 62 years, and 44.5% of participants were women. 21 primary prevention trials were examined along with 47 secondary trials.
* Vitamins E and C were the most commonly studied antioxidants. Nearly half of the trials examined combination therapy with different antioxidants. The mean daily doses of beta-carotene and vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium were 17.8 mg, 20,219 IU, 488 mg, 569 IU, and 99 µg, respectively.
* The mean duration of follow-up was 3.3 years. 62 trials were conducted in countries with a high mean income.
* 69.1% of the research reviewed was of sound methodologic quality, and there was little heterogeneity between trials.
* Overall, the relative risk for mortality associated with antioxidants compared with placebo was 1.02, a nonsignificant difference. Examining only research of high methodologic quality, antioxidants significantly increased the risk for mortality, whereas the opposite effect was found among poor-quality trials.
* Overall, beta-carotene used singly increased the risk for mortality. Only high-quality trials demonstrated a mortality risk for beta-carotene in combination therapy.
* Examining only high-quality research, vitamins A and E increased the risk for mortality when used alone or in combination therapy.
* Vitamin C had no significant effect on mortality in any statistical analysis.
* Selenium was associated with a slight reduction in mortality overall, but this effect was obviated when examining high-quality trials alone.

Pearls for Practice

* A previous review found that antioxidant supplements, using either singular agents or multiple antioxidants, failed to reduce the risk for gastrointestinal cancers.
* The current review demonstrates that the use of antioxidants has no significant effect on mortality. Beta-carotene and vitamin A and vitamin E could increase mortality.

[Hsul]

Nisem si prebral, ker link ne dela. Vsaj meni ne.

- Članek, ki si ga citirala, zajema SAMO beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, selenium, vitamin C.
- povprečna starost oseb v raziskavi: 62 let
- za velike količine beta-karotena je že dolgo znano da so škodljive
- raziskava je obravnavala omenjene VITAMINE kot DODATKE
- če verjameš, da so VITAMINI kot taki škodljivi zdravju, si sestavi tak jedilnik, da omenjenih vitaminov SPLOH NE BO VSEBOVAL.
.
.
.

[soma]

Mislim da je treba pogledat mal drugače. 1. če se redno ukvarjaš s športom je večji vnos antioksidantov potreben zaradi večje oksidacije celic nikjer pa ne piše, da morajo biti sintetični lahko jih dobimo s prehrano.
2. Res je da lahko določeni vitamini vplivajo na neko sestavino, da le ta postane škodljiva Primer:benzylbenzoat v kombinaciji z vitaminom C postane karcinogen. Velikokrat najdemo to kombinacijo v pijačah-sokovih.

[Hsul]

No, že malo več kritičnega zdravega, večstranskega razmišljanja.

[nihrida]

March 1, 2007 — The largest analysis of data on antioxidant vitamins ever conducted has shown that beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E probably increase mortality. Two other antioxidant substances — vitamin C and selenium — had no effect on mortality.

To ti vse pove. Zaenkrat nimam namena nehat jest pomaranč in kivija. Tud kompleks vitamina B bom še naprej jemala. Eno jabolko na dan al pa ena cigareta....same thing!! Od nečesa je treba umret.

[sonchika]

Brez veze.

[Xena]

Nisem si prebral, ker link ne dela. Vsaj meni ne.

- Članek, ki si ga citirala, zajema SAMO beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, selenium, vitamin C.

Ali ni dovolj, to so najmočnejši antioksidanti.

- povprečna starost oseb v raziskavi: 62 let

Kot da ma veze. Poanata je, da so znatno povečali umrljivost, tako da res nima veze.

- za velike količine beta-karotena je že dolgo znano da so škodljive

Za keratin je to res znano, vendar zdaj je rečen, čim več ga vzameš, huj je, vendar tud če ga malo vzameš, nima nič v zvezi glede življenskih funkcij, noben vitamin nima več teh funkcij, nobene funkcije nima, zdaj le velja za življenske funkcije, hrana=energija (in v tej hrani bi pa itak že dovolj vitaminov, za to kar jih rabiš, in ker nimajo takega pomena kot je bilo prej mišljeno, bo to kar dovolj), to je to.
Zato so rekli, da je navadna hrana dovolj, navadna dieta in da se več ne skrbi, koliko pa koliko česa vzeti.

- raziskava je obravnavala omenjene VITAMINE kot DODATKE

Obravnavala jih je kot na splošno, njihove funkcije.

Pa res mi je smešno, ko se gre nekdo svoje mišljenje glede raziskovalcev na tem področju in govori na pamet (medtem ko je bilo znano, da vitamini niso dobro raziskani, to so pa zdaj največje ugotovitve). To je prej veljajo, kar ti še vedno misliš in ne več.
Največja poanta je, da je bilo rečeno, da so Vitamini zdravi, vendar je ugotovljeno, da nimajo nobenega pozitivnega učinka, le nasprotno, lahko da imajo škodjivega učinka.

Najbolje da pozabite zdaj na tisto (sintetični) pa kok pa kok ga je treba vzeti, priporčljive mere, ker zdaj tega ni več, ne velja, to je porušeno. Iz navadne hrane boš dobil dovolj vsega, ker niti niso pomebne sploh.
Ni treba več sintečtnih ,samo da bi si zagoiv lprave mereilo, ker mnogi to delajo in ni treba, ker je samo škodljivo.

[bluberry]

Primerjava:roaccutane:vitamin a,škodljivo!
Ampak v kremah so to tako majhni odstotki tak da pomoje sploh ni panike.

[nihrida]

Xena, super, da si z nami delila ta link!
Moraš pa razumet, da ne more vsak takoj prijet za vsako stvar. Jst imam v glavi zasidrano mnenje, da so vitamini v primerni količini zdravju prijazni, če ne celo potrebni. Bo potrebnih malo več raziskav, da bom verjela kako so škodljivi - kar pa ne leti nate, ampak na preprosto človeko lastnost - dvom.

[DiLeMa]

Jaz sem za zmernost. Tega nasploh folku manjka, se mi zdi. In potem grejo v ekstreme, kar pa ni dobro. Najpomembneje je imeti posluh za lastno telo in njegove potrebe in se ravnat v skladu z njimi.

[Xena]

Xena, super, da si z nami delila ta link!
Moraš pa razumet, da ne more vsak takoj prijet za vsako stvar. Jst imam v glavi zasidrano mnenje, da so vitamini v primerni količini zdravju prijazni, če ne celo potrebni. Bo potrebnih malo več raziskav, da bom verjela kako so škodljivi - kar pa ne leti nate, ampak na preprosto človeko lastnost - dvom.

Ja, se povsem strinjam. Vem pa, da so vedno govorili, da so vitamini še dokaj neraziskani, tukaj so pa rekli, da je bil to največji poskusi do zdaj glede njih.
Mislim pa, da bomo čim več začeli vedeti o njih.
Vseeno pa mislim, da bi moralo biti vse v redu, če se normalno prehranjujemo glede vitaminov v hrani, pač tko v teh mejah k so bli včasih (pa kot so rekli, da naj pač normalno, zdravo jemo, da bo to že dovolj glede vitaminov in funkcij, sam s tem pa dodatki odpadejo, če bi to držalo, kar piše), vendar je pa tudi zdaj rečen, da ne pomaga zdravju.

Vseeno moramo več vedeti o njih, več teh raziskav. Saj verjetno se bo to itak vse več in več vedelo.

Upam, da pa to kar piše, ne bi držalo.

[DiLeMa]

Jaz ne maram člankov, ki so totalno radikalno nagnjeni v eno skrajnost, ker mi izkušnje in zdrava pamet pravijo, da je resnica vedno nekje vmes.

[sonchika]

Enako. Potem pa eni panični ljudje pošiljaj naokoli razne maile, kako bomo od paradižnika, vitaminov, sadja, sonca in vsega mogočega umrli. Brez veze.

[DiLeMa]

Potem pa eni panični ljudje pošiljaj naokoli razne maile, kako bomo od paradižnika, vitaminov, sadja, sonca in vsega mogočega umrli.

Fak, kok sem se rezgetala, ko sm tole prebrala ... ful posrečeno napisano.

[Hsul]

- Članek, ki si ga citirala, zajema SAMO beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin E, selenium, vitamin C.

Ali ni dovolj, to so najmočnejši antioksidanti.

??? Ti si napisala, da so VITAMINI škodljivi. Tako enostavno ne moreš posploševati.

Obravnavala jih je kot na splošno, njihove funkcije.

Ni res, očitno sama na razumeš angleščine (po pisanju sodeč tudi slovenščine ne obvladaš preveč dobro):
* The authors reviewed studies of antioxidants used singly or in combination. Analysis for the review was by intent-to-treat. - Popolnoma je jasno da so mislili dodatke!

Zato so rekli, da je navadna hrana dovolj, navadna dieta

- Hočeš povedat, da v navadni hrani ni vitaminov? Ali pa samo da tisi niso škodljivi???


Sicer pa kot sama kasneje popolnoma spremeniš mnjenje,

Vseeno pa mislim, da bi moralo biti vse v redu, če se normalno prehranjujemo glede vitaminov v hrani, pač tko v teh mejah k so bli včasih (pa kot so rekli, da naj pač normalno, zdravo jemo, da bo to že dovolj glede vitaminov in funkcij,

lepo pritrdiš, da vitamini niso škodljivi kot taki. Ko si sama uvidela, ne smeš takoj ekstremno sklepat.

[Xena]

Najhuje ko se gredo nekdo kot it pametnega delati proti raziskovalcem, to je nekaj najlepšega, ko prebrem.
Itak se bo vse več in več vedelo o vitaminih.
Tvoje mnenje je nič proti ''dokazom''. V bistvu se pojdi pridružit tem raziskovalcem, da jim rečeš malo svoje mnenje oziroma mišljenje.

Hočeš povedat, da v navadni hrani ni vitaminov? Ali pa samo da tisi niso škodljivi???

Ne, da se od tam že dovolj dobi za održevanje ''življenskih funkcij'' in da ni treba več tisto skrbeti, tok pa tok vitaminov (za pred boleznimi, prehladi, ker tega učnika nimajo, kot piše), dovolj jih boš dubu že iz hrane, ni se več treba omejevati, dodatki pa to.
Največa točka pa je, da so rekli da v vsaki meri nimajo (četudi da jih naprimer vsaj malo vzeti zaradi življenskih funkcij, kar je že po samam, da boš čim bolj zdravo živel), ampak pred tem je bilo mišljeno da ni le to, toda da so zdravi, da preprečujejo bolezni, povečajo imunski sistem, zdaj je pa ugotovljeno in največja poanta je, da nimajo teh pozitvninh učinkov, v večjih merah samo negativne (niti okrepitve imunskega sistema), le to da jih poješ za pač kolikor bo telo potebovalo, nimajo pa nič teh lastnosti kot se je še pred kratkim mislilo.

V glavnem, brez dodatkov od zdaj naprej, ampak vseeno, Vitamini je zdaj ugotovljeno da nimajo pozitivnega učinka na zdravje in preventive pred boleznimi, v pravih merah tudi škodljivi niso, vendar zdaj je izpodvrženo to, da so preventini pa to, zato je doktor rekel, le iz navadne hrane ko jemo in to je to in ne v večjih mereh, kar je blo prej mišljeno, da ti res povečajo imunski sistem, preventive pred boleznimi (posebej za vitamin E, za Vitmain C so pa rekli da sploh nimajo niti slabega niti pozitivnega učinka), ugotovljeno je pa da je Vitamin E škodljiv v merah za katere so prej bile mišljene, da so izjemno zdrave in te okrepijo (medtem ko je zdaj mišljeno in ''ugotovljeno'' da znatno povečajo umrljivost).

To je glavno.

Bilo bi pa dobro za nas, da to ne drži, kajne?

[Hsul]

Hehehehehe

Jaz razumem popolnoma poanto te raziskave (večje težave imam z razumevanjem tvojega pisanja). Očitno ti ne razumeš poant mojih komentarjev. Na te ne odgovarjaš, ker nimaš odgovora ali pa nočeš priznati zmote. Sicer pa je tvoje mnenje že zabetonirano, tako da trošim besede.