KANSAS NURSING HOMES: FAR TOO DEPENDENT ON MIND-ALTERING MEDS TO CONTROL PATIENTS

File under Ghastly.

Kansas has always ranked at or near the top in percentage of medicated residents, suggesting there are thousands of residents in the state’s certified nursing facilities who have been given drugs that aren’t medically indicated for them, and could actually harm them.  

Then there is this: 

Kathy Greenlee, a former Kansas Secretary of Aging who was appointed to U.S. Assistant Secretary of Aging under President Barack Obama, said the overuse of anti-psychotics is an unintended consequence of removing physical restraints from nursing homes in the 1980s and 1990s.

Like I said, ghastly. 

I don't know why adult children put their parents in nursing homes.  Why not use that same money to buy or rent an apartment.  That way the other tenants will involve him or her in their social life.  I mean if the complex is 10% ethical.  Most people are neutral.  Hopefully, there will be a 10% ethical influence among the tenants, which is enough to move things in the right direction.  Hopefully, people will do the neighborly thing.  As to regular meds, why rely on sedatives for your mom, dad, husband, or wife?  Don't you want your loved to thrive in all that he does? One neighbor I had was an older gentleman whose family lived back in Chicago.  He had emphasema but he still got around, drove around town, in fact, quite a bit with this portable oxygen tank.  Great guy.  But he left a pan with boiling water on the stove too long.  The water evaporated and the heat turned his pan into a conductor and smoke began filling his apartment house.  I smelled the smoke as it billowed out his window, so I stepped over to his apartment and knocked but his door was locked.  He was asleep and couldn't hear me knocking and pounding on his door or my screams of "Bob!"  I phoned the fire department and they broke into his kitchen window, woke him up, and extinguished the smoke.  I apologized for making a big to do about it, but he was grateful.  Somebody was looking out for him.

Red and brown onions, garlic, shallots, and leeks contain Benfotiamine.

Also, there are alternatives to dementia.  Ignore that information at your peril.  See at the bottom of this post for THE key ingredient to stave off dementia.  Understand that nutritional compounds, for them to work, require several weeks at resetting your biology, one that perhaps has been undernourished for years if not decades.  Too many folks expects miracles over night.  And still some vitamins actually do produce immediate miracles depending on your level of deficiency through diet, conditions, and lifestyle.  There is a lot to correct.  With Benfotiamine, you have to be on this B1 compound for 18 months for it to produce benefits.  Lots of folks will simply wax cynical, "Oh, yeah, of course, manufacturers [or nutritional reviewers] are going to say that so they can keep you on the product for months and years and profit from your desperation."  Not if it's noted up front.  If you didn't know that Benfotiamine requires 18 months to be effective, what would happen is that you would try it for a few weeks and give up, exclaiming "that stuff is not worth it."  Read that article.  It is the only effective B1 compound that protects nerves from dementia.  So there's that.

Leeks

For foods that contain Benfotiamine, you're already familiar with: onions, garlic, shallots, leeks, and other members of the allium family of vegetables.

In the interview seen here, Charlene Wagner explains that the St. John's nursing home was giving her husband, who was diagnosed with Lewy Body Dementia, sedatives Seroquel and Adol, saying that the nursing homes use these meds to sedate her husband, not cure, relieve, or heal her husband's condition.  Or, she says, "I would rather say that they use the meds to control them."  Yeah, that's about right.  Read what Seroquel is typically used for:

Seroquel is the brand name of the generic drug quetiapine, used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (formerly known as manic-depression).

Seroquel changes the levels of neurotransmitters (naturally occurring brain substances) including serotonin and dopamine.

Seroquel belongs to a class of medications called atypical antipsychotics.

Here is the article.

Kansas nursing homes have 'become far too dependent' on mind-altering meds.

  by Andy Marso and Kelsey Ryan.  

Allen Wagner used to light up when his granddaughter entered the room, but when she visits him at his nursing home in Overland Park now, he hardly reacts. He’s sleepy and uncommunicative.

He’s sedated.

Wagner, 78, has Lewy Body Dementia and Parkinson’s disease. But his wife, Charlene, said it’s hard to tell how much of his lethargy is due to that and how much is due to the anti-psychotic medications he was first given during an extended hospital stay and has continued taking in nursing homes.

“I’ve seen a change since he went to the nursing homes,” Charlene Wagner said. “Not because of the care. The care is good. I believe it’s the medicines.”

Anti-psychotics are contraindicated for people with dementia and include a U.S. Food and Drug Administration warning that they increase the risk of falls, stroke and other potentially fatal side effects.

The federal government started tracking the off-label use of such medications in nursing homes in 2011. Since then, Kansas has always ranked at or near the top in percentage of medicated residents, suggesting there are thousands of residents in the state’s certified nursing facilities who have been given drugs that aren’t medically indicated for them, and could actually harm them.

“There’s something about that dementia coupled with the anti-psychotics,” said Margaret Farley, a board member for Kansas Advocates for Better Care, a group that represents nursing home residents. “This is not just us saying, ‘Gee, that’s not very good, you’re robbing them of their personality, they won’t talk, they’re not active, etc, etc.’ This is hardcore. This is a 1.6 to 1.7 times increase in deaths that most of the time is related to cardiovascular changes or it’s related to the development of pneumonia.”

Kansas also led the nation last year in percentage of skilled nursing facilities cited by the federal government for a broad slate of medication-related violations, some of which relate to anti-psychotic use.

Kathy Greenlee, a former Kansas Secretary of Aging who was appointed to U.S. Assistant Secretary of Aging under President Barack Obama, said the overuse of anti-psychotics is an unintended consequence of removing physical restraints from nursing homes in the 1980s and 1990s.

Now when people visit nursing homes they’ll no longer see residents strapped to beds and wheelchairs. But they will likely see some under “chemical restraint,” through the use of anti-psychotic medications like Haldol and Seroquel, which Charlene Wagner said have caused her husband to deteriorate.

Greenlee said she knows Kansas nursing homes are not the worst in the nation overall. But the rate at which they use anti-psychotics should cause some soul-searching about how they deal with difficult or disruptive behavior of residents with dementia.

“They can be overprescribed to sedate people and then mask the need to deal with these underlying causes (of disruptive behavior),” said Greenlee, who is now vice president of aging and health policy for the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Mo.

Groups that represent Kansas nursing homes say the state’s anti-psychotic use ranking is unfairly skewed by a handful of homes that specialize in mental illness and that they face a number of challenges that are outside their control.

It’s hard to find enough qualified staff in many parts of the state. Some facilities rely heavily on Kansas Medicaid and payments under that program have been delayed for years due to bureaucratic changes. There’s also a shortage of psychiatrists in Kansas, especially those who specialize in treating older people.

“All of those I believe do factor into our ability to continue to really tackle this issue,” said Debra Zehr, the president and CEO of LeadingAge Kansas.

Cindy Luxem, the president and CEO of the Kansas Health Care Association, said Kansas homes have brought rates down, but they need help to reduce them further.

“We’re going to take a lot of responsibility on this topic, but at the same time we look at it as something where we really better start getting family members involved,” Luxem said. “Physicians, pharmacists, you name it.”

Zehr said that when doctors and nursing home workers use anti-psychotics on people who don’t have a mental illness, it’s not ideal, but it’s done with good intentions.

“Anybody who’s spent time with people in the throes of dementia and has seen the kind of internal anguish and volatile behaviors of people with dementia at certain stages, they’re trying to help,” Zehr said.

But some facilities have found better ways to handle those behaviors. Farley said more should follow their example.

“It’s not an easy thing to be able to take care of bad behaviors without these medications, but we’ve become far too dependent upon them,” Farley said.

The fight over the rankings

On average, 20 percent of all Kansas long-term nursing home residents received an anti-psychotic medication at some point in 2016, tying it for the highest rate in the country with Oklahoma and Mississippi. The national average is 16 percent. Missouri ranked near the top at about 19 percent.

Kansas has dropped from a high of about 26 percent in 2011, but other states’ rates have fallen more since then.

SUPPLEMENTAL MAGNESIUM IS CRITICAL FOR DIABETICS

Here I review Bill Sardi's article, "On Controlling Diabetes Free of Prescription Drugs."

It is amazing to me how helpless those with diabetes talk about their condition.  It used to be called a disease.  Now it's just a metabolic condition. 

Herbal supplements, like cinnamon, are touted for their ability to control

blood sugar levels.

It can certainly become a disease.  But without a glitch each person I know who has it treats it as though it is a life sentence handed down to them from their genetic make-up by claiming that "My mother had it, my father had it, and my grandmother had it."  No doubt.  

So what I hear is a surrender to a condition that they believe the primary cause is genetic and not food or diet related.  And it certainly is difficult to see the faults in eating habits when you've lived those habits your whole life.  I should know . . . though thankfully I've not yet been diagnosed with diabetes.  By the time we're adults, I would think that most people should the know the error of their ways and jettison breakfast cereals and soda pop.  Many adults who survived the onslaught of a sugary diet from childhood celebrate the survival of childhood excesses by announcing "Oh, I ate four bowls of Captain Crunch" or "I downed 5 bowls of Coco Puffs before I drank a 6 pack of Cherry Cola.  Just the thought now of those soda binges wears me out.  Two, high-energy adults I've worked with have both been addicted to Diet-Pepsi.  I mean a 6-pack a day.  I could only shake my head at what that HFCS was doing to their hormones.  iSe la vie! 

But here again, it's Bill Sardi who lays out a new way of seeing old problems.  He's not simply pulling these assessments out of a hat but he cites research after research, collating data to demonstrate that a lot of the medical assumptions that have reached the popular culture are just wrong.  With regards to diabetes, not completely wrong, but wrong as to the causes.  The cause is the overconsumption of sugar in all of its forms.  Bill Sardi takes it apart, starting with almost a comical scene--a meeting in which the nation's largest food companies were asked to "share" some of the responsibility.  I laugh because when I emailed Pederson's bacon about their use of soy as feed for the pigs, I got a reply that went like this "If we told you, we'd have to kill you."  That was their attempt at a joke, of course, a Customer Service joke.  Ha, ha.  But one has to ask--Should customer service be joking like that?  So, I turn to honest, direct and ethical men like Bill Sardi.  He starts

At a 1999 conclave, executives of the nation’s biggest food companies walked out on a meeting that attempted to get them to share some of the responsibility for the then growing diabesity epidemic.  [New York Times Feb 20, 2013]  With sugarized bacon, ketchup, peanut butter, wrapped meats, salad dressings and processed foods dominating grocery store shelves, shockingly half the nation now is diabetic or pre-diabetic.  [LA Times Sept 8, 2015; Journal American Medical Assn. Sept 8, 2015] 

That's about right.  I couldn't imagine anything good coming from this meeting either.  Absolutely--high blood sugar levels are the causes of diabetes.  The answer then is to bring down the high blood sugar levels by removing from one's diet those foods that cause it to soar, regardless if they are traditional foods of your culture.  

Pre-diabetes means that your blood sugar level is higher than normal but not high enough to be classified as adult-onset (type II) diabetes and you have not developed symptoms yet (eyes, kidneys, heart, pancreas).  You are more likely to develop full-blown diabetes within 2 to 10 years. [Mayo Clinic] 

What I find interesting is that the theory of a disease is driven in part, perhaps in large part, by a pharmaceutical monopoly on the medicines that treat specific diseases put forth by institutions funded by the companies providing the antidote.  Wow!  Does that ever sound conspiratorial.  But it is mainly just folks jimmying with the free market.  Instead of allowing the customer or patient to find his own cure, conglommerants put enough safeguards in place so as to ensure a higher percentage of patients purchasing their prescription.  And so the narrative that folks walk around with in their heads about a condition is an old one.  Hell, it's antique.  So as the profession has a lock on the narratives that filter down to us folks, we are left with antiquated knowledge that serves as a terrible guide for greater health.  

On the diabetic front, Sardi points out important feature of diabetic drugs--

It is common for diabetics to experience frequent urination.  Elevated blood sugar has diuretic action induces frequent urination which results in loss of nutrients.  Yet replacement of lost nutrients is not the mainstay of diabetic therapy.

I wonder how many diabetics know this.  What is astounding is that physicians are phyto-phobic and mineral phobic when it comes to diabetes.  Sardi explains that supplemental magnesium is critical for diabetics.  

More than 50% of diabetics take dietary supplements, but most are unguided.  [Diabetic Educator 2011]  Even dietitians look at dietary supplements with disdain when it comes to diabetes.  One prominent dietitian says she doesn’t recommend over-the-counter supplements for fear of possible drug contraindications. 

She says: “I’d never advise anyone to take extra magnesium or to use a supplement-level doses of herbal remedies that claim to lower blood sugar.”  [Todays Dietitian Nov 2011]  Yet, as you will learn below, supplemental magnesium is critical for diabetics. 

Phyto-phobic physicians themselves issue caution over dietary supplements interfering with anti-diabetic drugs even though vitamins and minerals are essential for life.  It may be the drugs that are interfering with nutrients. [Advances Clinical Experimental Medicine Nov 2014]

And people wonder why doctors are held in such contempt.  Perhaps they hold your health in contempt.  More importantly, it is vitamins and minerals that are the first line of defense.  This goes for any non-diabetic individuals as well. 

 In development of a list of supplemental nutrients for diabetics, essential vitamins and minerals such as vitamins C and D should be given priority over herbal or other supplements.  While there are many herbal supplements that are touted for sugar control (among them cinnamon, Gymnema sylvestre, and many others), it is important to first utilize essential nutrients (vitamins and minerals) in a daily dietary supplement regimen for diabetics. 

Could it be clearer?  If someone has diabetes, your first line of attack is a daily vitamin C and D supplement.  Commit to this regime for a few weeks first before you look for the long-term benefits from herbs, like cinnamon, to bring under control other symptoms associated with diabetes.  

MAGNESIUM for DIABETIC CONDITIONS

Low magnesium blood levels are common among adults with diabetes. [Journal College Physicians Surgery Pakistan Nov 2014]

Low dietary intake of magnesium or increased excretion of magnesium due to diuretic use, are the most common causes of magnesium deficiency.  [World Journal Diabetes Aug 2015; Journal Renal Injury Prevention 2014]

Blood serum magnesium levels decline as blood sugar levels rise.  The hemoglobin A1c blood test, a measure of long-term blood sugar status, rises as serum magnesium levels decline.  [Diabetes Metabolism Syndrome Jan 2015]

In another study, 382 mg of supplemental magnesium taken over a 4-month period resulted in 50.8% of supplemented patients improving their blood glucose levels compared to just 7.0% taking an inactive placebo.  [Diabetic Metabolism June 2015]

One of the biological actions of metformin, a commonly prescribed anti-diabetic drug, is it raises magnesium levels. [Biology Trace Element Research July 2011]

Magnesium has been proposed as a public health strategy against diabetes.  Diabetics are commonly deficient in magnesium.  Insulin and glucose regulate magnesium and visa versa. 

There is considerable evidence that diligent magnesium supplementation may delay the progression from impaired blood sugar (glucose) regulation to adult-onset diabetes.  [Diabetes Obesity Metabolism Sept 2015]

In one study, just 100 mg increase of supplemental or dietary magnesium was associated with a 16% risk reduction for diabetes.  [Biomedical Environmental Science July 2015]

In one study of 54 diabetic patients, 300 milligrams of supplemental daily magnesium improved blood sugar (glucose) levels. [Medical Journal Islam Republic Iran July 2014]

How many diabetics have ever heard of an iron overload as one of the causes for insulin resistance?  That's what I thought.

An overlooked fact is that iron overload induces insulin resistance, that is, the inability of insulin to get into cells and generate energy. 

So how do you know if you have too much iron?  Get a blood test.  Sardi identifies that test.  It's called a ferritin test.  

There is a blood test that is not part of a regular blood panel that measures iron load in the body.  It is called a ferritin test.  Transferrin is another test that measures iron transport.  Elevated transferrin and ferritin are believed to be underlying causes of high blood sugar (glucose) and insulin resistance. [European Journal Endocrinology Aug 20, 2015]

Very few diabetics are aware of the need to measure iron storage in the body.  Men begin to accumulate iron in their body earlier than females who control iron load by monthly menstruation. 

I wonder if this is why men tend to get Diabetes II at a later age than women do.  

Men tend to have a greater risk to develop diabetes as indicated by a high ferritin level.  [British Journal Nutrition Dec 14, 2014]

Males accumulate 1 milligram of excess iron per day of life after they are fully grown.  By middle age, around age 40 years, males will have double the iron load of an equally-aged female and experience double the risk for diabetes. 

I thought that this was the most interesting point about iron accumulattion.  "Iron from plant foods is absorbed on an as needed basis.  Iron from meat is absorbed whether it is needed or not."  Ouch!

Iron from plant foods is absorbed on an as needed basis.  Iron from meat is absorbed whether it is needed or not.  The consumption of red meat, which provides the most easily absorbed iron of any food source, is associated with adult-onset diabetes. [American Journal Clinical Nutrition June 2015]  High ferritin levels, as determined by a blood test for the amount of iron stored in the body, correlates with the onset of diabetes.  [Advances Biomedical Research March 2015]  Insulin resistance occurs when ferritin (iron storage) levels rise. [Journal Pakistan Medical Assn. Dec 2014; Diabetologia March 2015]  In fact, elevated ferritin levels predict future onset of insulin resistance. [Diabetes Research Clinical Practice Jan 2015; Acta Diabetology April 2015] 

Note that the quotation above says "Iron from meat . . . ," and not "iron from red meat."  So any meat--chicken, beef, pork, etc.

FOOD SOURCES of MAGNESIUM
from Healthline

Cooked spinach, one cup, 157 mgs of magnesium.

Pumpkin seeds, 150 mgs of magnesium in a one-ounce serving.

Cooked black beans, a one-cup serving, contain 120 mgs of magnesium.

Cashews, a one-ounce serving, contain 82 mgs of magnesium.

Buckwheat, one-ounce serving, contains 65 mgs of magnesium.

Dark chocolate, a one-ounce bar, contains 64 mgs of magnesium.

Avocado, one medium avocado, contains 58 mgs of magnesium.

Tofu, 53 mgs of magnesium in a 3.5 ounce serving.

Salmon, half of fillet, contains 53 mgs of magnesium.

Bananas, 37 mgs of magnesium.  

In addition to the benefits for diabetics, magnesium is also an important bone mineral.  From Bill Sardi's book, The New Truth About Vitamins and Minerals, he writes comparing the virtues of calcium to magnesium  

Magnesium interferes with crystalization and produces flexible bones that can withstand physical stress.  Boron, a trace mineral, enhances bone hardness.  

So there's that.  

ANTIOXIDANT CAPSULES IMPROVE HEALTH PARAMETERS AMONG ATHLETES IN TRAINING

A review of Bill Sardi's book The New Truth About Vitamins & Minerals is in order.  It is an excellent primer for newbies and regular supplement consumers to understand the complexities of the vitamin supplements.  It's not as easy as you think.  Some vitamin pills produce a better nutrient profile in the blood and tissue than certain foods.  We like to think that foods alone, the beautiful things grown in the verdue fields of Northern California are Nature's secret to good health.  Turns out that beta carotene alone in pill form is better absorbed than that the beta carotene in carrots.   

I want to start off with a statement I found at the close of Sardi's Chapter 3, "The Recommended Daily Allowance Is Obsolete."  The statement is found in a chart that I feel all parents and adults need to see.  Here's the chart:

SPECIAL NUTRITIONAL NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION THAT CANNOT BE MET BY THE BEST DIET OR MOST MULTIVITAMINS

Total US Population: ~280 Million

Athletes, exercisers: Untold millions. Exercise produces more oxidation within the body; countered by antioxidants.  [Cell Biochem Function 16: 269-75, 1998]  Antioxidant pills improve health parameters among athletes in training.  [Int J Sports Med 21: 146-50, 2000]

Heart Disease Patients: 50+ Million.  Vitamin E may be beneficial. [Archives Family Medicine 8: 537-42, 1999]

Hypertensive patients: 43 Million. 500 mgs Vitamin C daily reduces blood pressure similar to drugs. [The Lancet 354: Dec 1999]

Diabetics: 15.7 Million (798,000 new cases annually)  Vitamin E has protective effects.  [Am J. Clinical Nutrition 63: 753-59, 1996]

Hospitalized: 33 million annually. Hospitalized folks have increased need for antioxidant nutrients.  [Int Journal Vitamin Nutrition Research 54: 65-74, 1984]

Pregnant & Lactating Females: 4 Million US women give birth annually; offspring must obtain nutrients from mother.  Fertile women require folic acid before conception to prevent birth defects.

Tobacco Smokers: 66 Million. Smokers require 25 mgs of Vitamin C for each cigarette they smoke.  [Ann NY Academy Sciences 258: 156-67, 1975]

Elderly: 34 Million Older adults have increased nutritional needs. [Geriatric Nutrition, Raven Press 1998]

Retirees at Risk for Cataracts: 34 Million 10-year users of 250 mgs of Vitamin C have 45-83 percent reduction in risk.  [British Med J 305: 335-39, 1992]

I would have liked to have seen this chart when I was a young man playing baseball or running or basketball.  This is must-viewing for all athletes from elementary through to college level.  

The other thing about vitamins is that we're often misled from the beginning.  During the 1980s we were told that the cholesterol in eggs is bad for you.  We were told that a low-fat, high-carb diet is the healthy diet, so people were eating more pastas and more breads.  Cakes and cookies, too, by that logic must have had some benefit despite the sugars.  Then the '90s came and we got a correction.  Suddenly meat and cheese and butter, even eggs, were healthy again.  Almost overnight.  Alarms about sugar then began to surface.  And as common sense began to reclaim the dietary landscape, instances of some claims going too far emerged, like all-meat diets that produced ketones.  A ketogenic diet was touted as the key to weight loss and a top-tiered approached to curing cancer since its low-carbohydrate efforts positioned itself as the antidote to the '80's high-carbohydrate diet with its high sugar content as the previous avenue to health.  Pictures of carrots, broccoli, and eggs aside, the ketogenic diet may, in fact, help you to lose some weight.  The goal, however, in any diet regimen is health with weight management a beneficial and beautiful side effect of health.  Problem with a ketogenic diet is that people will eat more meat and fewer vegetables.  The antioxidants are in the leafy green and multi-colored vegetables, not in the tissue of the cow.  Animal protein is a superior form of protein, no doubt.  But the iron content of red meat is something to watch out for.  When we're young, iron, which is a growth mineral, is excellent for growing bodies.  At age 40 and beyond, we've accumulated enough iron and probably don't need supplementation of that mineral.  For young folks there is no better protein source than red meat.  But for us older folks, we need to manage mineral accumulation better for iron and iron accumulation is implicated in disease.  

But what about the cancer-prevention theory of ketogenic diets?  Sardi answers that question.  

Dave Bolton, age 35, diagnosed with stage 4 advanced brain cancer ditched carbohydrates and replaced them with protein and vegetables and experienced a shrinkage of his terminal brain tumor to the point where it is barely detectable.  Chemotherapy was also employed.  The scans of his brain are quite remarkable. [Daily Mail UK Aug 24, 2016]

Sadly, the ketogenic diet is often sold as a low-carbohydrate diet, which if not spelled out can be confusing and actually legitimize the consumption of some (and how much is "some"?) carbohydrates.  The carbohydrates you eat on a ketogenic diet are vegetables and some fruit.  Period.  Dot.  End of story.  That is if you want it to work.  Eating meat pinched between two slices of bread on sandwich ain't it.  That's an American diet.  But the point I wanted to make was that the absence of vegetables from your diet is what causes the production of unhealthy blood proteins called homocysteines.  And these are not good for your heart.  I like Bill Sardi's way of phrasing biological processes. 

Homocysteine is an undesirable blood protein whose levels are particularly high among individuals who do not eat fresh vegetables .  When homocysteine levels are intentionally elevated in small animals their memory is impaired whereas if the animals are pre-treated with very high doses of vitamins E and C, memory loss is prevented.  [Metab Brain Disease 17:211-17, 2002] 

And as he himself says, taking vitamins in isolation, like exclusively C without E or A or D, you won't be getting their true benefit, explaining that  

A significant percentage of adults only supplement their diet with Vitamin C or Vitamin E.  They are likely missing the many health benefits provided by a well-designed multivitamin.

So be careful with the ketogenic diet.  Eat your vegetables.  And what is of equal interest is the fact that some vitamins and antioxidants are better absorbed through pill form than through food.  This is important for anyone who believes, as this author once did, that nutrients are better absorbed through food.  

Get out of here!  

No, really.  It's true.

Sardi explains that "While Americans are frequently advised to ovtain essential nutrients from foods, a study conducted among women in an undeveloped country showed that a beta carotene pill improved Vitamin A status better than foods."  

Beta carotene pills may be superior to beta carotene in foods.  While Americans are frequently advised to obtain essential nutrients from foods, a study conducted among women in an undeveloped coutnry showed that a beta carotene pill improved Vitamin A status better than foods.  [The Lancet 346: 75, 1995]  This study reveals that beta carotene in pill form can often improve Vitamin A status better than dark-green leafy vegetables.  Furthermore, a recent report issued from the National Academies of Sciences shows it takes twice as much plant foods such as carrots, broccoli and sweet potatoes, as previously believed to produce a given amount of Vitamin A.  [Natl Acad Sci, Jan, 2001]  A carrot provides plenty of fiber which impedes beta carotene absorption whereas a beta carotene pill contains no fiber to interfere with absorption.  

 Beta carotene is not only beneficial because it produces Vitamin A.  Studies indicate beta carotene helps to keep cholesterol particles from oxidizing (hardening).  [Free Radical Biology Med 17: 537-44, 1994]  

So it's not over.  Sardi concludes his section on vitamin A by bottomlining it for us:

Multivitamins should provide vitamin A for well-nourished population solely in the beta carotene form.  Since there is no toxicity from beta carotene, no limit is suggested though there may be some competition for absorption between carotenoids (beta carotene and lutein/zeaxanthin), so balanced carotenoids are recommended.  Persons with chronic infections or other special circumstances such as night blindness should obtain vitamin A in its fatty form (retinyl acetate or palmitate). 

An important footnote is provided on the different brands that he lists.  That footnote reads like this, "Beta carotene is convereted to vitamin A in the liver and excesses are stored in the skin, which means beta carotene exhibits no liver toxicity [or] (liver buildup)."  How's that for reassurance?  Part of that same chart, he footnotes that the "Amount of vitamin A provided by the typical American diet: 5000 IU."  Which all that a healthy person needs in terms of a maintenance dosage.  He did say that only those who are sick or chronically sick should supplement with the fat soluble forms of vitamin A, "In conditions where dietary intake of the fatty form of vitamin A is insufficient and in states of chronic or prolonged infection, supplementation with less than 5000 IU is suggested."  So there.  He tells you when to supplement and how much to supplement with.  If the situation does not apply to you, then no need to supplement.  Then this, "Amount of vitamin A needed in food supplements: 0."  And finally, "Amount of vitamin A required to produce long-term side effects: 25,000 IU."  

So there you have it.  Just take heed on what he said about the other carotenoids,

Since there is no toxicity from beta carotene, no limit is suggested though there may be some competition for absorption between carotenoids (beta carotene and lutein/zeaxanthin), so balanced carotenoids are recommended.

HUMANS LOST THEIR ABILITY TO PRODUCE VITAMIN C LONG AGO

I recently read Bill Sardi's 2003 book, The New Truth About Vitamins & Minerals.  It is the perfect book for anyone wanting to pinpoint specific amounts of vitamins to take for this or that ailment so that you can get more effective use out of your supplements and make your dollars go further.  He gets you there by eloquently sorting through the hype, the fears, the exaggerated claims about vitamins.  I have read lots of online articles about this or that vitamin, what it can do for you, how it will work, and so forth and no one delivers on specifics the way Sardi does.  No one.  Not Mercola.  Not Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.  Few come close.  What makes Sardi's reporting remarkable in his signature specificity on dosage, application for a specific condition, the controversial histories on a particular nutrient compound, and so on.  He discerns the benefits of a nutrient compound at one at and for one group versus that for another group including an age group.  I can't find other nutritional journalists who do what he does or even come close to what he does.  So I turn to him often. 

His books examines a lot of the myths associated with different kinds of nutrients.  The one that seemed to monopolize all the press was Vitamin C, perhaps due to the controversary surround Linus Pauling and his claims that high dose Vitamin C "cured cancer."  Not only did Vitamin C get a questionable rap, but so did palliative theories advancing high dose nutrients.  But let's start with Vitamin C.  

His Chapter 4 is titled "Make Certain Your Multivitamin Is Potent," which reivews the kinds of C that are the most potent along with the dose.  And since RDI for Vitamin C is set by the amount required to prevent scurvy, which is very low at 30 mgs, Sardi starts there.  The section in his Chapter 4 on Vitamin C carries the subheading of "Antioxidants Rescue Brain Neurons."  This section should be read by any parent whose child is enrolled in an after-school sports program.  Even if it is running, where the child is not making any contact with other players, the parent needs to understand what the nutritional needs of their child is.  Therefore, they should memorize the details of this section on Vitamin C.  Protect your kids minimally with Vitamin C.  The antioxidants that Sardi lists are presented here.  Note, too, in a later chapter, Sardi explains that lasting benefits from vitamins and antioxidants comes when they are combined, like in the form of a multi-vitamin.  The best multi-vitamin I've found is his Molecular-Multi.  But here is the list of vitamins: 

Antioxidants, such as Vitamin C, Vitamin E, and glutathione, serve as anti-rusting agents, protecting brain cells from premature aging and disease.  In mice, the administration of high-dose Vitamin C completely prevented drug-induced amnesia.  [Neurobiology Learning Memory 64: 119-24, 1995] In Switzerland, adults age 65-94 years of age, higher circulating Vitamin C and beta carotene levels are correlated with improved memory and vocabulary.  [Journal American Geriatric Society 45: 718-24, 1997] 

So, Vitamins C, E, and glutathione are anti-rusting agents.  Note well, mom.  They also protect the brain from aging and from disease.  Mom, did you hear that?  Specifically, Vitamin C prevents amnesia.  Minimally that means that it helps your child's brain remember more and remember better, which certainly would be a strategic advantage while in school and beyond when he is in business.  That alone should stand out as a #1 reason why parents should be giving their children higher doses of C.  I think it's that word "higher" that scares a lot of people, left over perhaps from the controversy of Dr. Linus Pauling's work.  Sardi adds that low Vitamin E levels make it harder to recall details.  So up the E, Ma!

In an elderly population of US adults, the ability to recall events or facts was diminished with low circulating levels of Vitamin E.  [American Journal Epidemiology 150:37-44, 1999]

Okay, so these facts derail that myth that Americans or anyone for that matter are simply wasting their money by paying for supplements, that all they're doing is producing expensive urine.  People claim that you don't need that much Vitamin C, that all you need to do is eat an orange or two a day.  Maybe.  But as his characteristic thoroughness prevails, Sardi looks at dosage provide which level of protection.

How Much Vitamin C?
To prevent scurvy	30 mgs	Half an orange
Recommended intake	90 mgs	1 ½ oranges
Average dietary consumption	110 mgs	Almost 2 oranges
To prevent cataracts	300-2000 mgs	5-33 oranges
To control blood pressure	500 mgs	8 oranges
To replace Vitamin C in smokers (pack a day habit)	500 mgs	8 oranges

So Sardi answers that question of "How much of a vitamin do I need?"  The short answer is "It depends on your situation, on your condition, what you're experiencing."  So instead of pointing to an average daily requirement, Sardi considers your age, your sex, or any specific conditions.  In other words, no RDI is the same for everyone.  Got it?  This is a much better, personalized approach.  You won't waste time or money this way.  

Want to prevent cataracts?  Then 1,000 mgs/day.  But can you really eat 30 oranges a day?  This alone is the worth your time to read and evaluate his reviews.  Most journalists will state that Vitamin C fights cancer or cuts short the life of the cold.  But how many will provide you with a specific amount to target a specific condition?  That's what I thought.  

What is required to prevent scurvy?  30 mgs.  In fact, what is interesting is that the RDI for Vitamin C recommended by the FDA is set, get this,

by the absensce of scurvy . . . . 

Get that?  When supplement companies manufacturer the vitamins, they're obliged follow the FDA's RDI.  But for Vitamin C, the amount determined is merely by the absence of scurvy, which takes several weeks to manifest itself.  As scurvy takes a long time to develop, it means that our immunity, in the absence of Vitamin C, is woking based on other nutritional compounds and biological processes.  Sardi presents a very interesting chart by introducing it thus.

Scientists estimate humans need about 2000-4000 mgs of Vitamin C, taken at intervals through the day, to approximate what the human body once produced when Vitamin C was a hormone, not a vitamin.  [Medical Hypotheses 5: 711-21, 1979] 

Check out this chart.  It is fascinating:

Humans Lost Their Ability to Produce Vitamin C Long Ago Most Animals Produce Their Own Vitamin C by the Enzymatic Conversion of Blood Sugar to Ascorbic Acid* *Except for some species of guinea pigs, fruit bats, fish, and primates Daily Production of Vitamin C in Humans and Animals
Humans & Animals	Milligrams of Vitamin C produced per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight/per day	If humans were the same weight as these animals how much Vitamin C would humans produce per day? (in milligrams)
Snake	10	700
Tortoise	7	490
Mouse	275	19,250
Rabbit	226	15,820
Goat	190	13,300
Rat	150	10,500
Dog	40	2800
Cat	40	2800
Humans	0	--
*Chart provided courtesy of Rusty Hoge of cforyourself.com.  Cforyourself is the internet’s leading website about the nutritional benefits of Vitamin C for optimum health.  Visit cforyourself.com.

Given that gorillas in the wild consume many times more Vitamin C (4500 mgs per day) than modern humans and their diet is supplemented with 5000 mgs per day in captivity, is it any wonder Americans who consume about 100 mgs of Vitamin C from their daily diet and have a vitamin requirement of 60 milligrams, suffer from so many allergic disorders?  http://knowledgeofhealth.com/celiac-gluten-intolerance-are-we-chasing-wrong-villain/.  

He explains what supplemental Vitamin C does for blood pressure.  It reduces high blood pressure.  Specifically, 

500 mgs of supplemental Vitamin C, meaning oral Vitamin C, has been shown to help the blood vessels dilated or widen in response to stress and thus help maintain healthy blood pressure (Sardi, 61). 

Ergo, if you're prone to high blood pressure, keep some Vitamin C around the house.  

The question then that persists is how much Vitamin C should one take?  Let's see what Sardi's conclusions are and how he reached them.  He asks the question himself, 

How much Vitamin C should adults consume?

And he answers it 

   A lot more than many people think. 

So 30 mgs to prevent scurvy he says, adding that 

Most vitamin supplements provide at least 60 mgs of Vitamin C, and updated versions will provide 90 mgs sicne new guidelines call for 75 mgs for females and 90 mgs for males, and a bit more for smokers.  The average daily consumption of Vitamin C in the US Is about 109 mgs.  

He adds that 

However, the adequate amount of Vitamin C is determined by the absence of scurvy, which would be the minimal amount. 

What I find fascinating is that humans used to produce our own Vitamin C.  Sardi explains

Humans once produced Vitamin C in their own bodies.  Back in human history, prior to a universal genetic mutation, Vitamin C was a hormone produced in the human liver.  In reality, all humans are hopelessly vitamin C deficient because our early ancestors produced their own Vitamin C naturally by the enzymatic conversion in the liver of circulating blood sugars to ascorbic acid.  Most animals except for some species of fruit bats, fish, guinea pigs and some primates produce their own Vitamin C.

Humans have a defective gene in their liver which no longer produces the fourther enzyme (gulonolactone oxidase) required to produce Vitamin C. {Am J Med 26: 740-48, 1959]  Animals that produce Vitamin C live 8-12 times beyond their age of physical maturation.  Humans mature physically at about age 18 and live only 2.0-3.5 times beyond this.  Reinstallation of the gene for the missing enzyme would extend the human life span to hundreds of years.  Obviously, at some time in the past humans lived a lot longer than tney do now.  Maybe there is an element of truth to those Bible stories about Adam and Noah and Methuselah living so long. 

Absolutely, fascinating stuff.  So the final thing I will review from Sardi's book are the amounts produced by the different animal species.  You defeinitely need this book around the house.  It is a fascinating read.  And here I am talking only about his section on Vitamin C.  The other sections also will blow your hair back.  

Sardi points out that Vitamin C is primarily a stress nutrient.  It helps other animals to manage stress.  It helps us too for the same reasons from environmental stress, food stress, and other stresses.  He writes

Animals produce about 60 mgs of Vitamin C per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight, or for a 150 pound human would need about 4000 milligrams to reach the level once produced naturally within the body.  Think of what the human body would be like with continual production of Vitamin C.  Since increased stress hormones signal for the release of stored sugars into the blood circulation, under stress humans would produce more Vitamin C.  Humans would no longer be vulnerable to the physical consequences of stress-related disease.  There would be no diabetes since sugar would convert to ascorbic acid.  Humans would renew their tissues more readily since collagen production would be elevated.  Joints wouldn't wear out.  Blood vessels wouldn't weaken with advancing age.  Cataracts, kidney stones and other maladies would be a thing of the past.  Scientists estimate humans need about 2000-4000mgs of Vitamin C, taken at intervals through the day, to approximate what the human body once produced when Vitamin C was a hormone, not a vitamin.  [Medical Hypotheses 5: 711-21, 1979]

Sarid ends this section on Vitamin C with a question, "Why Humans Are Vulnerable to Stress?"  Excellent question.  He admits that 

even this amount [2000-4000 mgs] of Vitamin C may not be enough.

Incredible.  How much then? 

Stress triggers production of adrenal hormones which signals stored sugars and fats to be released into the blood circulation.  Upon passage through the liver, these sugars would then be converted into Vitamin C via an enzymatic process.  This is how Vitamin C is produced today, from corn syrup and enzymes.  In animals that produce their own Vitamin C, the more stress they experience the more Vitamin C their bodies produce.  An animal about the size of a human, such as a 160-pound mountain goat, produces about 13,000 milligrams of Vitamin C per day and more under stress.  [Med Hypotheses 5: 711, 1979]  Vitamin C is an anti-stress vitamin and requirement vary depending upon the level of physical or emotional stress.  A fixed intake level of Vitamin C does not take into consideration varying levels of stress.  

Answer: 2000 mgs 4 times per day.  We do this to make up for a genetic flaw. 

Next, I will review the myths associated with over dosing on vitamins.  Stay tuned.  

Here is his book