Occasionally, headlines like "The vitamin trap"(currently on asplus) other"Risk of death in high doses" etc.. This has also taken root in the minds of many doctors. And it's all because of a - statistically unqualified - metastuthe. Why?
In general, you can overdose on any substance, including vitamins. It is known that very high doses of retinol (animal vitamin A) lead to bone disease. Since the fat-soluble vitamin A - in the active form - cannot be excreted. Vitamin E is also fat-soluble, but it can be excreted from the body as needed.
How much is too much?
A study from 2004 tried to evaluate this [tom original text the study Meta-analysis: high-dose vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality.]. Although there were no negative individual observations, there were slightly more deaths in the groups with quite high intakes of "vitamin E" (> 400 mg) ("all causes", i.e. cause of death not recorded) than in the groups with no or less intake.
As a precaution, the responsible EFSA has set the recommended maximum amount to 300 mg aTE. We consider the 300mg/d to be sufficient and safe - and suggest taking 100mg (from 50 to 300mg). But please only with natural vitamin E and with a natural mixture.
The above-mentioned study exposes the harmfulness of synthetic or extracted vitamin E. Only the administration of alpha-tocopherol alla was examined. The alpha-tocopherol can be the one of the seven components of vitamin push away. They are then no longer available for their specialized tasks. This was obviously not known a few years ago.
From today's perspective, the result of the study was also to be expected.
What does tocotrienols mean?
In relation to the tocotrienols, their importance is underlined. Namely, it was ineveryoneStudies examined only used alpha-tocopherol as “vitamin E”. High doses of alpha-tocopherol alla can replace the other types of vitamin E (including the tocotrienols).[a proof to date]As a result, the people being treated lose the effect of the tocotrienols that have been proven to be effective. In addition, alpha-tocopherol itself is a weak radical, so in high doses it can have exactly the opposite effect.
The above study highlights that the intake of vitamins must be done in complete natural association. In the case of vitamin E with the tocotrienolsn and with the alpha/beta/gamma/delta versions.
To avoid any counterargument, we would limit the use of vitamin E and tocotrienolsn to 300 mg aTE (outdated also 400 IU or the IU) per day.
The research reports we have cited, some of which are sensationally good, are almost all based on significantly lower amounts (from 80 to 400 mg of tocotrienolsn per day, corresponding to around 14 to 65 aTE equivalents).
Criticism of the study
However, the study was also statistically poorly done. Apparently some doctors are poor statisticians.
Why?
- It is a meta-analysis, i.e. a study that attempts to summarize the data from many other studies. However, of 2170 vitamin E studies, only 19 were selected (0.9 percent). The selection of the original data obviously influences the results. Here is a link gate[Description of the selection process].
- The result of the study was the Number of deaths. However, the data was included in the selection only those in which more than 9 deaths had occurred were selected. This is the KO for the study. You can't just evaluate studies with deaths and then find out what they were.
- There is a natural random distribution of deaths. If I only select the one percent with the highest deaths - then I get exactly these.
- Studies were also carried out that examined these substances at the same time.
Anthee critical summary here:[Annals.org article]
The Bielacovic Anti-Antioxidant study
In this further meta-study from 2007, the data from many other studies were evaluated. After the complicated selection process, these data sources were immediately sorted out (tor graphics, like). More than half (405 studies with 40,000 participants) of the studies were excluded - because no deaths had occurred (but mostly in the same groups). As many studies with extremely sick and old people were included, which cannot be meaningful for the general population. The result for all antioxidants:no statistically detectable influence on mortality(also not due to lower mortality).
Afterwards, part of the studies were moved into a separate group, called "high bias risk" - for example: "less trustworthy" (!). This group showed a um 9% lower Mortality due to the antioxidants ("high-bias risk" overview image. )!
As a result, the remaining studies now had a 5% higher mortality rate ("low-bias risk" overview image).
If you manipulate the input data long enough, you can get any result you want. Why wasn't the first choice good enough? Leithe reminds you of the grand phrase "just a statistic that I falsified myself...". We don't want to assume that the authors have intentions - but they do have wishes.
Is the data even suitable for statistics on deaths? The original mares were mostly made with old and sick people. It can easily happen that the student does this during the study. In the case of clan groups (e.g. 15, see the 2 overview diagrams) there is immediately a significant risk of death. Statistical. In reality, the other group “got lucky”. One gets the one who wants to die in the draw. Without any statistical connection.
In studies with a large number of participants, the effect is evened out.
Blot 1993 (n~29000) Mortality with antioxidants 6% lower.
GISSI 1999 (n~11000) Mortality with antioxidants 8% lower.
You 2001 (n= 2*1706) Mortality with antioxidants 12% lower.
In summary: The same applies as already noted above to the first metastuthe. The importance of the tocotrienols and complete vitamin complexes is underlined.
The Bielacovic study started with false numbers
In addition to the craftsmanship errors, there was something more factual. Incorrect numbers were quoted from the study by Brown et al.
Safety first - review the Metastuthen
Despite all the criticism of these studies, one should approach health issues with the greatest possible certainty.
You can easily stay on the safe side - by limiting your vitamin E intake to less than 400mg/day. The critical results are only available in > 400 IU. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) suggests 300 mg/day aTE as a safe upper limit for lifelong daily intake.
| 300 mg aTE (equivalents), the EFSA maximum value | are equivalent to: |
|---|---|
| natural alpha-tocopherol | 300 mg |
| synthetic (all-rac dl-)alpha-tocopherol acetate | 447 mg |
| alpha-tocotrienol | 990 mg |
| gamma-tocotrienol | 3960 mg |
| delta-tocotrienol | a very large amount (approx. 30 g) |
| natural TRF from palm oil with 51% vitamin E isomers (tocomin) | 1.83g |
| Wheat no oil | 173g |
As a precaution, we would halve the maximum value of the EFSA again.
All of the studies we mentionedtocotrienolIncidentally, vitamin E came with a much lower dosage (80 to 400 mg tocotrienols per day, corresponding to around 14 to 65 aTE equivalents).