Question:

For far too long this debate has raged between the two factions.  No amount of "scientific proving" is going to "prove" anything other than the fact that those scientists are being paid to do a study or proving.  By whom? As a natural practitioner, one can only use those products that seem to work best over the years, and in my books that is the NATURAL ones.  I have used different techniques to determine the most efficacious supplements for my patients and have found this to be the best way to get the best results.  I have now been doing this for over 20 years. I have used synthetic and I have used natural and yet it would seem the body does not lie in its testing for the one that works best.  NATURAL. Why?  Who knows?  I am not a scientist, but I sure would appreciate them hurrying up and telling me the news before I die of old age!  They have had long enough. Elivera – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have a serious suspicion that this study along with all the others > that have been done since the fifties, that show that the human body > is better able to absorbe natural sources of vitimins and mimerals, > will be declared scientificly invaled in some manner. > All previous studies were demed by the scientifc "Establishment" as be > invalied  due to either to smaller sample, or the results were not > published in English. > Thus the vested intrests of the mutinational drug companies have been > able to maintain their market in synthetic products, when "The > Science" showed that Natural Vitimins and minerals were far better. > Yet as Natural products can not be Patented the scientifc > "Establishment", have tried to discredit any study that showed contra > information to what "The drug company Researchers" wanted to be shown. > I realise that the folks here who seem to see science as the be all > and end all, will not welcome the idea that scientices are in the > pockets of the drug companies.  It is always important to ask who is > making the statement, for or against, and make a judgment based upon > logical reasoning. > The simple fact that this study shows what should have been > hypotisised by reasoning, has been born out by research should make > all folks question any study that shows synthetics are better. >     A recent study in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (67:669-84), 1998, confirms in humans what >had previously been suspected in pigs.  Natural vitamin E is twice as potent as >the synthetic, due to being retained twice as well in the body.  The officially >defined ratio of potency (derived from a rat assay which isn’t relevent to rats, >let alone humans) put the potency ratio of the two products at 1.36.   What this >means in practive is that when you buy a bottle of synthetic vitamin E (the >label says "dl-alpha" rather than "d-alpha" tocopherol), you’re getting only >about 68% of the "I.U." potency shown on the label.  Not such a big deal, >but interesting. >    The new study labeled synthetic dl-tocopherol (8 isomers) and natural d-tocopherol >and administered them to humans in high and low doses, in the range of supplements. >It found that the ratio in tissues of the two compounds was generally about 2:1. >The difference is probably caused by the dl isomerism at only one point (one >of three chiral centers in the molecule, which is the only one which the >body recognizes.  It probably completely >ignores the "wrong" isomer in this case, giving half the tissues levels. >Steven B. Harris. M.D. > Aromatherapy E-Mail Discussion Group > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hunters/index.html

Response:

>Thus the vested intrests of the mutinational drug companies have been >able to maintain their market in synthetic products, when "The >Science" showed that Natural Vitimins and minerals were far better.

   Baloney.  Stop being so paranoid.  The "natural" vitamin E is 80% sythesized these days also (out of other vitomers, such as beta and gamma tocopherol), and it’s being done by multinational companies also (like ADM: Archer Daniels Midland).                                     Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

:   :      A recent study in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (67:669-84), 1998, confirms in humans what : had previously been suspected in pigs.  Natural vitamin E is twice as potent as : the synthetic, due to being retained twice as well in the body.  The officially [...] :     The new study labeled synthetic dl-tocopherol (8 isomers) and natural d-tocopherol : and administered them to humans in high and low doses, in the range of supplements. : It found that the ratio in tissues of the two compounds was generally about 2:1. : The difference is probably caused by the dl isomerism at only one point (one : of three chiral centers in the molecule, which is the only one which the : body recognizes.  It probably completely : ignores the "wrong" isomer in this case, giving half the tissues levels. I have always used `natural’ vitamin E, but I had thought that it was better because it was the succinate form, not the acetate! You had better check that your d- and dl are both succinate or both acetate in the test, also. For about 15 years, I suppose, I have used the Red Seal brand, but the taste of the tablets is wrong in the recent brand, which Red Seal say comes from Britain now, and is at strength. It is not the sort of acetone smell of old vitamin E tablets but seems a bit toxic. What would it be? I wonder if they are still calling it d- when it isn’t now, though it is still succinate? I though that really natural vitamin E was supposed to be better becuase it was alpha, beta and gamma, though individually beta or gamma would not work? Dodo Dolphin. : Steven B. Harris. M.D.

Response:

     A recent study in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (67:669-84), 1998, confirms in humans what had previously been suspected in pigs.  Natural vitamin E is twice as potent as the synthetic, due to being retained twice as well in the body.  The officially defined ratio of potency (derived from a rat assay which isn’t relevent to rats, let alone humans) put the potency ratio of the two products at 1.36.   What this means in practive is that when you buy a bottle of synthetic vitamin E (the label says "dl-alpha" rather than "d-alpha" tocopherol), you’re getting only about 68% of the "I.U." potency shown on the label.  Not such a big deal, but interesting.  It does mean, among other things, that natural vitamin E is probably the better buy per actual unit of potency, and always has been.     The new study labeled synthetic dl-tocopherol (8 isomers) and  the "natural" d-tocopherol,and administered them to humans in high and low doses, in the range of supplements. It found that the ratio in tissues of the two compounds was generally about 2:1.  The difference is probably caused by the dl isomerism at only one point (one of three chiral centers in the molecule, where the long hydrophobic chain connects to the ring, which is the only chiral site where the body recognizes a difference in vitamin activity according to the stereochemistry.   The body probably completely ignores the "wrong" isomer in this case, giving half the tissues levels for the "dl" product (which is actually "dl,dl,dl", while the natural product is "d,d,d"). Steven B. Harris. M.D.

Response:

     A recent study in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (67:669-84), 1998, confirms in humans what had previously been suspected in pigs.  Natural vitamin E is twice as potent as the synthetic, due to being retained twice as well in the body.  The officially defined ratio of potency (derived from a rat assay which isn’t relevent to rats, let alone humans) put the potency ratio of the two products at 1.36.   What this means in practive is that when you buy a bottle of synthetic vitamin E (the label says "dl-alpha" rather than "d-alpha" tocopherol), you’re getting only about 68% of the "I.U." potency shown on the label.  Not such a big deal, but interesting.     The new study labeled synthetic dl-tocopherol (8 isomers) and natural d-tocopherol and administered them to humans in high and low doses, in the range of supplements. It found that the ratio in tissues of the two compounds was generally about 2:1. The difference is probably caused by the dl isomerism at only one point (one of three chiral centers in the molecule, which is the only one which the body recognizes.  It probably completely ignores the "wrong" isomer in this case, giving half the tissues levels. Steven B. Harris. M.D.

Response:

I have a serious suspicion that this study along with all the others that have been done since the fifties, that show that the human body is better able to absorbe natural sources of vitimins and mimerals, will be declared scientificly invaled in some manner. All previous studies were demed by the scientifc "Establishment" as be invalied  due to either to smaller sample, or the results were not published in English. Thus the vested intrests of the mutinational drug companies have been able to maintain their market in synthetic products, when "The Science" showed that Natural Vitimins and minerals were far better. Yet as Natural products can not be Patented the scientifc "Establishment", have tried to discredit any study that showed contra information to what "The drug company Researchers" wanted to be shown. I realise that the folks here who seem to see science as the be all and end all, will not welcome the idea that scientices are in the pockets of the drug companies.  It is always important to ask who is making the statement, for or against, and make a judgment based upon logical reasoning.   The simple fact that this study shows what should have been hypotisised by reasoning, has been born out by research should make all folks question any study that shows synthetics are better.     – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >     A recent study in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (67:669-84), 1998, confirms in humans what >had previously been suspected in pigs.  Natural vitamin E is twice as potent as >the synthetic, due to being retained twice as well in the body.  The officially >defined ratio of potency (derived from a rat assay which isn’t relevent to rats, >let alone humans) put the potency ratio of the two products at 1.36.   What this >means in practive is that when you buy a bottle of synthetic vitamin E (the >label says "dl-alpha" rather than "d-alpha" tocopherol), you’re getting only >about 68% of the "I.U." potency shown on the label.  Not such a big deal, >but interesting. >    The new study labeled synthetic dl-tocopherol (8 isomers) and natural d-tocopherol >and administered them to humans in high and low doses, in the range of supplements. >It found that the ratio in tissues of the two compounds was generally about 2:1. >The difference is probably caused by the dl isomerism at only one point (one >of three chiral centers in the molecule, which is the only one which the >body recognizes.  It probably completely >ignores the "wrong" isomer in this case, giving half the tissues levels. >Steven B. Harris. M.D.

Aromatherapy E-Mail Discussion Group http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hunters/index.html

Response: