Great article! In the 90s I was the PI on a study looking at the impact of vitamin e on NKC activity to inhibit leukemia cell growth.
Preliminary in vitro results were exciting! But when we started dosing monkeys with the levels we thought would drive enhanced cancer surveillance something weird happened. Plasma levels plateaued well below the targeted levels seen to enhance NKC activity.
The problem was that vitamin e was sequestering in fat and liver cells resulting in toxicity before any measurable increase in NKC activity happened.
Studies are typically looking at large groups of people. There are always exceptions. The "we never wore helmets and we were fine." The "I wasn't vaccinated and never got the flu." Or your example of your relatives.
I think it's great that you got to have your relatives around for that long! But exceptions don't prove the science wrong. Nobody would say that 100% of people who didn't wear a helmet got a head injury from riding a bike. Or that 100% of the people get flu if they aren't vaccinated. But helmets and vaccinations are protective against head injuries and flu.
The message I left with after reading the article is "more isn't always better." Vitamin A is good but massive amounts of vitamin A aren't better. And less isn't always better either.
Great piece! Part of the reason for this pervasive bias is that most people, including people who are reasonably educated in the sciences, never study pharmacology, a discipline that is almost exclusively taught to health-care professional. The concept of "dose-response curve" is an essential one in general pharmacology. As my old pharmacology professor in medical school taught us in lecture 1, "A medicine is the right dose of the right drug given to the right patient for the right amount of time". Today's precision medicine takes that statement several steps further.
Great article! If you take 5 mg of amlodipine daily, it can help manage moderately high blood pressure. But if someone decided to take 10, 15, or 20 grams of it daily, it would be dangerous.
The principle applies broadly — vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, even sunlight exposure. The dose matters. More is not always better.
Biology operates within ranges. Outside those ranges, benefits turn into harm.
As a chemical scientist (Phys Organic) who once worked as a hired hand in Heart Research, I can give you a literal case of antioxidant reversal - in Vitamin E in blood plasma. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00067a019 (JACS 1993) Enjoy!
Great article! In the 90s I was the PI on a study looking at the impact of vitamin e on NKC activity to inhibit leukemia cell growth.
Preliminary in vitro results were exciting! But when we started dosing monkeys with the levels we thought would drive enhanced cancer surveillance something weird happened. Plasma levels plateaued well below the targeted levels seen to enhance NKC activity.
The problem was that vitamin e was sequestering in fat and liver cells resulting in toxicity before any measurable increase in NKC activity happened.
The study came to an abrupt end.
Many thanks! Very informative with great examples. It made me think of Paracelsus's "Only the dose makes the poison." Except smoking, of course!
Nicely done.
Clear.
Understandable to the lay public.
In other words eat healthy limit the supplements
Great synopsis.
Only thing I can say is my mom lived to age 92 and her sister my aunt lived to age 95
My aunt smoked, neither did a lick of exercise on their life and I know my mom did not eat healthy.
My mom also did not take supplements. No idea regarding my aunt
My mom’s great or great great aunts lived into their 90’s. Back in the 1800’s
Longevity is in my genes. Not that I rely on that as my brother died at age 55 from stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
I have long wondered about all these supplements “tricks”.
I do try to exercise on a regular basis, but try not to overdue it. Mostly walking my dogs a few miles a day.
My 70 year old type 2 diabetic husband who exercises at least an hour a day was told to increase his
exercise time by 2-3 times. I thought that was ridiculous advice for a 70 year old.
I am glad that you scientifically do this research. Just proves my point to anyone who would take time to read your article.
Thank you for your research and letters.
I on a limited income and cannot subscribe at this time. I will when I am able
Studies are typically looking at large groups of people. There are always exceptions. The "we never wore helmets and we were fine." The "I wasn't vaccinated and never got the flu." Or your example of your relatives.
I think it's great that you got to have your relatives around for that long! But exceptions don't prove the science wrong. Nobody would say that 100% of people who didn't wear a helmet got a head injury from riding a bike. Or that 100% of the people get flu if they aren't vaccinated. But helmets and vaccinations are protective against head injuries and flu.
The message I left with after reading the article is "more isn't always better." Vitamin A is good but massive amounts of vitamin A aren't better. And less isn't always better either.
Great piece! Part of the reason for this pervasive bias is that most people, including people who are reasonably educated in the sciences, never study pharmacology, a discipline that is almost exclusively taught to health-care professional. The concept of "dose-response curve" is an essential one in general pharmacology. As my old pharmacology professor in medical school taught us in lecture 1, "A medicine is the right dose of the right drug given to the right patient for the right amount of time". Today's precision medicine takes that statement several steps further.
Great article! If you take 5 mg of amlodipine daily, it can help manage moderately high blood pressure. But if someone decided to take 10, 15, or 20 grams of it daily, it would be dangerous.
The principle applies broadly — vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, even sunlight exposure. The dose matters. More is not always better.
Biology operates within ranges. Outside those ranges, benefits turn into harm.
Hi Morgan, love your work!
As a chemical scientist (Phys Organic) who once worked as a hired hand in Heart Research, I can give you a literal case of antioxidant reversal - in Vitamin E in blood plasma. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00067a019 (JACS 1993) Enjoy!
All the Best
This doesn't require access code https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.90.1.45