From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2000 - 00:28:21 MST
On Tuesday, February 15, 2000 7:03 PM John Thomas jwthom@earthlink.net
wrote:
> >What about the UCLA study of vitamin C published in 1992? This was not
the
> >most rigorous study, but it tracked over 11K individuals over about a
> >decade. The findings? Men taking 800 mg of vitamin C per day lived
about 6
> >years longer than those taking 60 mg of the same per day. Another 9 year
> >study completed in 1996 with a similar population size seemed to confirm
> >this, though the study focused on vitamins C and E, rather than just
vitamin
> >C. Granted, those are only two studies, but that beat Lee Daniel's above
> >statement.
>
> The problem with these studies is that there's no way to control
> for other variables.
> The kind of person who takes 800 mg of vitamin C probably does a
> great many other things to enhance life extension: e.g. exercise, eat
> a low-fat diet, and of course take other vitamins. The person who
> takes 60 mg probably isn't too serious. Until it's possible to do an
> extensive long-term study of individuals so isolated that every
> possible variable affecting their health is controlled it won't be
> possible to take these studies seriously. And who would volunteer?
I think that while long term such studies are not perfect, they indicate
something. Also, the particular studies I mentioned are not the only ones.
There are plenty of short term studies with vitamin C where the variables
are controlled much more fully and other factors are measured (e.g.,
homocysteine levels in blood) and the lot of these seem to point in the
direction of the two I mentioned. Extrapolation is not forbidden...:)
Also, the mechanisms by which that particular nutrient works are becoming
more well known. Ultimately, what one wants is a causal explanation of why
it works at all. (This is typically how one finds out why it does not work
in all cases and how one can develop a regimen.)
There are plenty of short term studies on other supplements which show them
working to alleviate one problem or another. One must study them and make
judgements regarding the costs and benifits. But anyone who says there
aren't any studies on this (as Lee Daniel did several posts ago) is
misinformed. (Or a lot of what I've read on the subject for the past decade
is all wrong. I sure hope not.:)
Also, remember, my original post in this thread was _not_ in advocacy of
popping pills, but of a broad spectrum, informed approach to life extension.
My goal -- and I hope the goal of all or many of you reading this -- is to
live longer, healthier, and happier -- not merely to adhere to some doctrine
of self-medication.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
There's nothing on vitamins at:
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:50 MST