Lynda Wharton Naturopath Acupuncturist Writer

Every day after my breakfast I take nutritional supplements.  Depending on how I’m feeling and what particular health issues are on my personal radar, the exact make up of supplements will vary.  There is an exception to this.  One supplement that I take every single day of my life, and will do until the day I die.  What is this nutritional supplement that I feel is so indispensable?  Fish oil!  Everyone is talking about it, and health stores sell it by the truck load (not always the best quality though, I might add).

The list of benefits associated with a high intake of omega 3 fatty acids (which are plentiful in fish oil) is long and impressive.  Not only do these fats safeguard the health of your cardiovascular system,  they also support optimal immune function; protect against various cancers including cancer of the breast and prostate; reduce incidence of anxiety and depression; and help protect against neurological diseases such as Alzheimers Disease. 

Type 2 diabetes (once called old age onset diabetes, but now effecting people from all age groups), is reaching epidemic proportions in many western countries, including here in New Zealand.  Most clearly a “life style” disease, type 2 diabetes effects obese and sedentary people in particular.  Besides losing weight, eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly, one of the most important aids to preventing this devastating disease, is the addition of generous amounts of omega 3 fats to the diet.

With type 2 diabetes, the body becomes resistant to the blood sugar regulating effects of the hormone insulin.  In a healthy body, consumption of sugars or carbohydrates starts to increase the levels of sugar in the blood.  In response to this, the pancreas begins to release insulin into the bloodstream.  It is the job of insulin to take glucose from the blood stream and shunt it across the cell membranes, into the cells.

Every cell has insulin receptors, which effectively allow insulin to communicate with the cell, and “open the door” allowing glucose to flow across the cell membrane.  With type II diabetes, these receptors become insensitive to insulin, and more and more of the hormone is required to move glucose into the cell.

Eventually, the pancreas becomes exhausted and unable to manufacture enough insulin to do the job of regulating blood sugar.  Insulin levels plummet, and blood sugar levels sore, cause havoc with the cardiovascular system, eyes and kidneys.

Wonderful fish oil comes to the rescue in multiple ways.  Firstly, fish oil helps to sensitise insulin receptors to the effects of insulin, preventing the receptor “burnout” characteristic of insulin resistance.

Secondly, fish oil helps to normalise blood fats, thus slowing or preventing much of the cardiovascular damage associated with high blood sugar.  Fish oils lower triglycerides, lower blood pressure, and increase protective HDL cholesterol, while leaving “bad” cholesterol levels unchanged.

Finally, fish oils works as a powerful natural anti-inflammatory.  High levels of inflammatory markers are associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis and allergies.

So, have I convinced you that daily fish oil supplements are your best friend?  Make sure the oil you choose is high quality, 100% purified and devoid of contaminants.  A basic daily dose of 2000mg is the suggested supplemental level for most healthy people.  Those with chronic illness should be taking higher doses, as advised by their nutritional health care professional.

Tags: blood sugar, diabetes, fish oil, insulin, type 2 diabetes

Read Users' Comments (0)

ADHD or attention deficit disorder… it’s everywhere!  Kids in their millions are swallowing Ritalin type drugs daily, and in their wake, an ever growing torrent of the newly diagnosed.  Theories about its growing prevalence abound.  Is it modern parenting practice?  Too much TV and screen time?  Too much sugar and processed foods?  I would argue that each of these factors has some impact on childhood behaviour and focus. 

Now there is a new and fairly robust theory, and from my perspective it’s one of the most frightening.  Children whose mothers are exposed to pesticides while they are pregnant are more likely to be destined destined for an ADHD diagnosis.  This recent study published in the Environmental Health Perspectives, shows yet another troubling way in which exposure to organophosphate pesticides can throw the human body into turmoil.

Why do I find this latest finding frightening?  Because organophosphates are everywhere, and it is a rare human being that does not have residues of these powerful chemicals in their bloodstream and tissue.

In this most recent study, researchers tested pregnant women for organophosphate chemicals, and found that the higher the residue in their urine during pregnancy, the more likely their offspring were to have ADHD symptoms at age 5.  A ten times increase in pesticide residues in the mother’s urine, equated to a 500% increase in offspring ADHD by the age of 5.  Interestingly, if the children themselves had organophosphate resides in their urine, but were not exposed in utero, their risk for ADHD still increased, but no as dramatically.  Don’t take too much comfort from this though, as another study demonstrated that children with high organophosphate in the urine were twice as likely as those with undetectable levels to have ADHD.

It hardly seems like rocket science to me.  After all organophosphates are designed to attack the nervous system of bugs, by affecting the neurotransmitters (brain chemicals that carry messages).  One of these affected brain chemicals is acetylcholine, which is vital to the development and function of the human brain.

The good news (yes there is some!) is that swapping to an organic diet during pregnancy, and feeding your children organic fruits and vegetables, will radically decrease organophosphate exposure.  A study in Environmental health Perspectives (2006: 114) looked at pesticide levels in children living in Seattle USA.  For the first five days the children ate their usual shop bought, spayed diet.  For the next five days they ate only organic foods; and finally went back to another 5 days of sprayed foods.  Not surprisingly, researchers found that pesticide residues in their urine were high in the two “conventional food” phases, and virtually non-existent in the organic phase. Take home message?  Organics protect our kids (and us) from damaging and toxic pesticide residues.

In New Zealand the Total Diet Survey has for years demonstrated that our pesticide exposure is many times greater than in other countries.  The 1998 survey estimated Kiwi kids to have organophosphate exposure twenty times greater than their American counterparts! Forget the “clean, green NZ” propaganda.  The truth is that our food and our environment is contaminated with a plethora of agricultural chemicals harmful to our nervous system and hormonal health.

Children actually come out worse off than adults when it comes to pesticide residues, as they eat proportionally more food than adults, and they also tend to eat more fruits and vegetables for their body size.   The latest Total Diet Survey (2003/4) shows that young children get twice as much pesticide in their food compared with adult men.

What to do about all this bad news?  It’s simple really.  Make the choice to pay the extra, and convert your kitchen to organics.  If you can’t go the whole hog, at least convert to organics for the foods most likely to contain organophosphate residues -  bread and wheat products; pears, apples, nectarines, tomatoes, cucumber and lettuce.

Tags: ADD, ADHD, agricultural chemicals, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, breast cancer prevention, Hormones, new zealand, organic food, organics, organophosphates, pesticide

Read Users' Comments (0)

One of the most common complaints I hear from my menopausal patients, is the problem of poor sleep.  After a lifetime of sleeping like the proverbial baby, it’s common for perimenopausal and menopausal women to suddenly battle with insomnia for the first time.  Often it’s the problem of frequent night waking, and of course this is not helped by hot flushes or night sweats.  Not only do broken nights leave you feeling like a zombie, it would appear that they also contribute significantly to that other bane of the menopausal years…. weight gain. 

A new study in the International Journal of Obesity had the benefit of assessing participants over a lengthy period of time.  This contrasts with most other research that has looked at sleep and weight issues at a single point of time.. making it difficult to determine, which cane first, the sleep problems or the weight gain?  This latest study suggests strongly that it’s the sleep problems which eventuate first, and over time, contribute to excessively high weight gain.

The Finnish researchers followed 7,300 people aged 40 to 60 (both men and women) for seven years.  They found that a third of women with sleep problems at the start of the study gained an average of 11 pounds over the seven years, compared with only one fifth of their soundly sleeping counterparts.  And the cruelest twist of all for us mid-life women?  Men showed no such link between weight gain and sleep!

The study authors do comment that while an association between poor sleep and weight gain looks fairly strong, it is impossible to prove an absolute “cause and effect” relationship at this time.   It’s possible that other factors account for the observed relationship. 

Why would insomnia affect our weight anyway?  It seems that a lack of sleep alters our levels of the appetite suppressing hormones leptin and ghrelin, which could lead to overeating.  That makes sense to me.  I always notice that if I’ve had a really bad nights sleep, or been very late to bed, the next day I can’t get enough carbs to satisfy my hunger.

If you’re a woman and battling the bulge, even though the research is not 100% definitive, I would strongly suggest getting some help to sort out your sleep issues, as well as addressing the weight more directly through sensible diet and regular exercise.

Tags: Hormones, sleep

Read Users' Comments (0)

Reflux, indigestion, heartburn… whatever you want to call it, it’s a huge pain in the gullet.  It’s also an incredibly common problem plaguing millions of us.  Rather than cut out the coffee, alcohol, rich foods and overeating that contribute to the problem, it’s so much easier to reach for a pill.  And that’s exactly what millions do each day. 

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI’s) are one of the most widely used class of drugs for reflux and stomach ulcer pain.  They include drugs such as Nexium, Prilosec and Prevacid.  In many western countries PPI’s are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs, and in America alone, 2009 sales reached   $13.6 billion.

When your stomach and chest feel like they’re about to burst into flames, do these drugs work?  Yes… they give fairly rapid relief, and prevent ongoing acute episodes of heartburn.  What many don’t realize though, is that these drugs come with some very real side effects and risks.

PPI’s bring their sweet relief by suppressing your stomach production of hydrochloric acid, needed to digest food. Tinkering with stomach acid can lead to some unexpected outcomes, one of which is an increased risk of a really nasty intestinal infection from the bacteria Clostridium difficile.  For some this hard to treat infection will just cause a major case of diarrhea.  For others the outcome may be the surgical removal the colon, or death.

Then there’s the problem of snapping bones with long term or high dose use of PPI’s.  The FDA have just issued a warning that these drugs increase your risk of fracturing your hip, wrist or spine.  The research behind the warning stretches way back to 2007 when a large study demonstrated that those using PPI’s for a year increased their risk of hip fracture by a whopping 44%.

Why?  Because these drugs reduce hydrochloric acid in the stomach, making it difficult to absorb calcium.

So rather than rely on months or years of these drugs to control your digestive problems, try taking some proactive steps yourself.  Cut out all the foods known to trigger reflux – tomato, citrus, chocolate, tea, coffee, alcohol and spicy foods are top of the list.  Cut down your portion size, and start to actually chew your food before you swallow.  Avoid drinking anything for a half hour before or after your meals.  If you’ve still got a problem try a course of high potency quality probiotics for a month to six weeks, and augment with digestive enzymes if needed. 

Lynda Wharton is a registered acupuncturist and naturopath specializing in woman’s health issues.  She is also a widely published columnist and author.  Her latest book “Wellbeing” is available at www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: digestion, reflux

Read Users' Comments (0)

HOW MANY EGG FOLICLES HAVE YOU GOT LEFT IN YOUR OVARIES?

AMH TEST

As an acupuncturist and naturopath, working with women trying to conceive is a big part of my daily clinic life.  Recently, many of them have asked me about the new AMH blood  test hitting the headlines in New Zealand. While it’s early days and there appears to be yet more research to do, this simple blood test appears to be a very useful tool  for women wanting a true insight into the state of their remaining fertility.

The AMH tests levels of Anti-mullerian hormone.  This hormone is produced by egg follicles that the ovaries grow in order to prepare an egg for release.  In a nut shell, the more of this hormone you have in your bloodstream, the better off you are in the fertility stakes.  Hormone levels reduce with age, and the lower your levels, the less likely you are to conceive.

AMH levels are a reflection of how many egg follicles you have remaining in your ovaries, and it’s also a reflection of the biological health and vitality of those remaining eggs.  The biological age of a woman’s eggs can differ from her chronological age.  You can be a fit and sprightly 35 year old for example, but have eggs more like those you’d expect to find in a 40 year old woman. A baby girl is born with all the egg follicles she will ever have, and once she starts ovulating from her early teens onwards, the number of egg follicles gradually decline until menopause.  The existing test used to guage fertility is the FSH or Follicle Stimulating Hormone test.  This test is much less sensitive than the AMH test, and is only able to tell a woman her fertility is declining, at an advanced stage of the process.

Developers of the AMH test are really emphasising this use for the test, suggesting that women in their thirties have a test to determine their likely fertility for the following two years.  Based on their results they have a clearer understanding of the potential cost or otherwise of delaying conception.  Perhaps they want to travel overseas; take a job promotion… or simply find a man of “fathering” quality.  A poor AMH result would give them the option of trying to conceive sooner rather than later.  Test results are thought to be 70% accurate.

The AMH also makes the stressful process of fertility treatment a little less of a lottery.   AMH testing of women about to undergo IVF allows specialists a clearer idea of the likelihood of success for a particular woman.  Understanding the biological age of a womans eggs will allow doctors to tinker with fertility drug doses to maximise a womans chance of success, while minimising the risk of “hyperstimulating” her ovaries… a potentially fatal situation. 

Working with women experiencing the grief of infertility, I personally see  a great benefit in this new test.  I would encourage all my 30 something patients, still putting off pregnancy for yet another year, to have this test.

Lynda Wharton is a Traditional Chinese Acupuncturist and Naturopath with 25 years experience in Holistic Woman’s Health.  She is also the author of “Wellbeing – an essential guide to vibrant good health for women available online at www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: Hormones, Infertility, Nutrition

Read Users' Comments (0)

WHAT HAS SLEEP GOT TO DO WITH DIABETES?

It’s been an interesting week in the bedroom… but not in a good way.  It’s been a week of broken sleep, followed by alarm clocks ringing at dawn, and a body determined to pull up the duvet and keep on slumbering.   Between cat fights, teenagers and the full moon, sleep deprivation has been the order of the day.

That’s why I was so interested to read a new study from the University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, looking at the effect of sleep deprivation on our health.  In particular, the effect that not enough shut eye has on our body’s ability to regulate blood sugar levels.

Here in New Zealand type II diabetes (once upon a time called “old age onset diabetes) is reaching epidemic proportions, and costing our country a fortune.  Type II diabetes is now effecting children in their early teens, instead of the once usual old age onset.  Experts tell us that this crippling disease is the result of obesity, lack of exercise and a poor diet.  While all that remains true, this latest study got me wondering about the part played by poor sleep habits.  Could it be that the modern phenomenon of staying up late into the night playing on computers, or watching TV, and the resulting chronic sleep deprivation, is partly driving our type II diabetes epidemic?

This form of diabetes occurs when our body is unable to effectively respond to the hormone insulin.  Insulin is responsible for moving sugar out of our bloodstream and into our cells, thus regulating blood sugar.   When we become resistant to the effects of insulin, sugar levels rise and wreak havoc with our eyes, blood vessels, kidneys and nerves.

This latest study found that even after one night of inadequate sleep (4 hours, instead of the ideal 8 hours), blood sugar regulation is markedly effected.  Nine healthy people were examined, once after a good 8 hours of sleep, and once after only 4 hours of sleep.  After the short nights sleep, the sensitivity to the blood sugar regulating effects of insulin was reduced by between 19 and 24%. 

An American study published last year found that people who slept less than six hours a night were 4.5 times more likely to develop abnormal blood sugar readings, in the following six years, compared with those sleeping 8 hours a night regularly.

So, the obvious take home message… turn off the tv and computer, ignore the stack of work waiting to be done, and slide beneath the duvet on the right side of midnight.

Lynda Wharton is a Registered Acupuncturist and Naturopath, health researcher and writer with over 20 years experience.  She is the author of three woman’s health books, the latest of which is “Wellbeing” published by Harper Collins, available online at www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: insulin, sleep

Read Users' Comments (0)

I am representative of the modern woman. I want it all…. Happy marriage, thriving children, and a career that keeps me engaged and stimulated. I have always been a career woman, but it doesn’t mean that my role as a mother is not hugely important to me. There have been many occasions when mothering and being the dynamic career woman have pulled me in different directions. It’s stressful trying to do, be and have it all… and I’m not alone. The women who seek my help in restoring their health frequently complain of the same conflicts. For other women, it is simply the ongoing demands of a high pressured job that potentially cause health problems.

A new study from Denmark confirms what I’ve suspected for a long time. Women who live a life of high career pressure (a role traditionally associated with males) take on the male profile of cardiac disease. The Danish study looked at a group of 12,000 nurses between the ages of 45 and 64, and assessed the impact of their work pressures, and the degree of personal influence or power they had in the workplace. The nurses were tracked for a fifteen year period. The results were hardly surprising, but interesting confirmation that it’s not just stressed out type A business men who pay a price for workplace stress. Those nurses who reported their work pressures to be too high, were 25% more likely to develop heart disease compared with nurses who said work pressures were manageable and appropriate. For those at the top end of the stress scale, who felt overwhelmed by work pressures, there was a 35% increased risk of heart disease.

Premenopausal women under the age of 50 generally have a low incidence of heart disease, due to the cardiovascular protective effects of estrogen. If you’re a younger woman in a stressful work environment, don’t bank on your female hormones protecting your heart from the effects of stress. According to this latest study, you are in a demographic MOST at risk of work stress related heart disease. Nurses under the age of 50, who felt they were under moderate work place stress were a whopping 60% more likely to have heart disease compared with their unstressed peers.

So is it the actual biochemical changes resulting from stress that predispose us to heart disease, or is it the effect that stress has on our lifestyle choices? Most likely it’s a combination of both. Feeling chronically stressed puts you into a “fight or flight” state for much of the day, complete with health damaging biochemical changes. But the truth is that if you’re stressed and exhausted when you get home you’re much less likely to have the energy to exercise or cook yourself a healthy dinner… and a glass or three of wine a night may look just a little too tempting.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins. Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: Heart Health, work place stress

Read Users' Comments (0)

I am a mother of two beautiful daughters who I adore. The birth of a baby means a lifetime of making choices about the welfare, health and happiness of your child. One of the first choices a new mum is faced with is how she will feed her baby… breast or bottle? It’s fairly common knowledge that choosing to breast feed gives the best start in life to an infant. Breast milk is nature’s perfect food, designed for optimum growth, brain development and immune support. But did you know that making the choice to breast feed is also a gift of health for the mum? While everyone talks about breast feeding as being the best possible way of dropping excess kilos, few know that breast feeding will also significantly lower your risk of breast cancer in the future.

In 2002 a Cancer Research UK study looked in detail at a group of 50,000 women with breast cancer, and another group of 100,000 women without breast cancer. They were especially interested in whether or not women had breast fed their infants. What they found was that the longer a woman had breast fed, the less likely they were to develop breast cancer. For every year of breast feeding a woman’s risk of breast cancer decreased by 4.3%. There was also a 7% reduction in risk of breast cancer for each child born.

You’re probably thinking that 4.3% is not much of a risk reduction for a whole year of breast feeding? Because breast cancer is such a common cancer, in a country like Britain, if every new mum chose to breast feed for an extra six months, it would mean 1000 fewer breast cancer diagnoses each year.

When you look at the global pattern of breast cancer, the western world has by far the highest incidence. Countries in which breast feeding for long periods of time is standard practice (like China and Japan) have much lower rates of breast cancer. Based on global study, researchers have concluded that the incidence of breast cancer in developed countries could be reduced by more than half, if women had the number of births, and duration of breast feeding common in undeveloped countries

It’s still not fully understood exactly how breast feeding protects breasts, but we do know that breastfeeding lowers the levels of some cancer related hormones in a mother’s body. Also, when breast feeding comes to an end the body rids itself of any cells in the breasts that may have DNA damage, and this reduces the risk of breast cancer developing in the future.

If you’re still not convinced that breast feeding is the way to go, here’s another amazing health benefit for your breast fed baby. Breast fed female infants have a 25% lower risk of eventual breast cancer, compared with women who were bottle fed.

In October 2007 the World Cancer Research Fund published one of the most comprehensive reports ever on the link between cancer and lifestyle. One of its ten key recommendations was that mother breastfeed exclusively for six months before adding other foods to an infants diet…. To lower breast cancer risk for both the mum and the baby.

So if you or someone you know is about to become a mum, give them the ultimate mothers day gift… tell them about the amazing health benefits for them and their baby, from choosing breast over bottle.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your breast health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins. Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: Breast Cancer, breast feeding benefits, Nutrition

Read Users' Comments (0)

I don’t know about your house, but in ours, breakfast seems to be one of the most chaotic meals of the day. Between packing lunchboxes, signing notes, finding coins for the bus and checking on afterschool plans, we somehow find time to eat. Usually it comes out of a muesli box, and with the addition of some milk and fruit, passes as a healthy meal.

Latest reading this week suggests that I’m fooling myself if I think giving my kids muesli for breakfast is a healthy choice. Last week saw the release of the latest New Zealand Total Diet Survey results. This ongoing food testing looks for pesticide residues in common New Zealand foods. This time it was the turn of the muesli box to come under scrutiny. The results made my hair stand on end!!

Four samples of muesli contained ten pesticide residues. Six of these ten were not just your average garden variety pesticide, but belonged to the list of pesticides highlighted by Pesticide Action Network as highly hazardous pesticides. These chemical nasties pose a known hazard to human health, increasing risk of cancer and endocrine (hormone) disruption.
“Ok”, I hear you say, “I’ll swap to a different cereal to avoid the pesticides”. I don’t like your chances! Bran cereal tested was almost as toxic, containing eight different pesticide residues. The Food Safety Authority (as usual) totally downplayed the findings, pointing out that each of the pesticide residues was below the legal limit. After years of reading and researching the subject of environmental toxins and their effect on our health, I know this reassurance is utter codswollop (don’t you love that word). As the highly clued up, Dr Meriel Watts from the Pesticide Action Network points out, low level exposure to pesticides can cause both cancer and endocrine problems. Add together six different pesticide residues at the breakfast table, each of which are known to cause these problems, and you most definitely have a health risk. Pesticides are always tested in isolation when their potentially negative effects are investigated. Studies show us, that mixing together chemicals which are seemingly “safe” at small doses, can result in new toxic effects.

Overall, in the various food groups tested, 25 different pesticide residues were found, amongst 33 different food types. 19 of the pesticides are on the Pesticide Action Network International list of highly hazardous pesticides.

So, should we all stop eating muesli for breakfast? I don’t think so. It is after all a great way to start the day with whole grains, fruits, nuts, and a low glycemic energy boost. Maybe now though, it’s time to pay the extra and choose the organic version. After all, certified organic muesli doesn’t contain any pesticide residues, and you can be sure as you kids head out into the new day, they’re not taking with them a stomach full of pesticides and toxins.

To your Good Health

Lynda Wharton
www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: Nutrition

Read Users' Comments (0)

It’s been an interesting week in the world of woman’s health… and in my clinic.  Most of my woman patients take a high quality multivitamin/mineral and antioxidant formula every day, as part of their nutritional wellness regime.  Just like me, they swallow their tablet alongside their porridge and fruit, secure in the knowledge that this daily ritual is an investment in good health.

Imagine the questions I have fielded this week, with the internet and newspapers abuzz with the news that their daily multivitamin actually INCREASES their likelihood of developing breast cancer.  I’ve read the reports… and have I stopped taking my multi?  No!  Here’s why….

The research causing all the fuss hails from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.  Back in 1997 they recruited just over 35,000 women, between the ages of 49 and 83, to fill in a self assessment questionnaire.  Included, were questions relating to some (but not ALL) known risk factors for breast cancer, as well as questions relating to the use of a daily multivitamin.  Recently, the women were followed up to see how many of them had developed breast cancer in the intervening 10 years.  9,000 women claimed they were taking a multi, and of them 293 developed breast cancer, leaving 96.7% of the multi users not having developed breast cancer.  In the group of 26,000 non multi users, 681 women developed breast cancer.

Ok, so at first glance it all looks a bit of a worry doesn’t it?  Someone who actually understands the intricacies and fallibilities of experimental design is Professor of Epidemiology, Rod Jackson from the University of Auckland.  His take on the research?  “The study is non-randomised, so I wouldn’t take too much from it.  Cohort studies like this trial are just too prone to biases to be very helpful”.

Remember that the latest study found only an association between women using multi’s and breast cancer, not a CAUSE and EFFECT.  Of the women who eventually developed breast cancer, one common denominator was that they took multi’s, but from that, one can’t claim that the multis CAUSED the cancer.    All of the women taking a multi were lumped into one entity, and nowhere did the study look at the data of each woman individually.  Consequently it is impossible to surmise how taking a multivitamin may increase breast cancer risk in any individual woman.

As a  prescriber of clinical nutritional therapy for almost 25 years, I’m also concerned about use of the generic term “multivitamins” in this study.  What the heck does that mean? I know from clinical experience that not all multi’s are born equal.  Quite frankly, some of them are nothing more than a synthetic, poorly balanced recipe for expensive and smelly urine.  I would have been much more interested in the outcome of this study if individual women were examined in terms of the type of multivitamins they were taking.  Did these multi’s contain only vitamins?  Were there minerals in some, any or all of them?  Were they synthetic or organic forms? Did they contain added antioxidants? Did they contain selenium?  Were they iron free or containing iron?  Did they contain vitamin E and was it synthetic, or a complex of different tocopherols?… Blah, blah, blah, I could go on and on, but you get the gist of what I’m saying don’t you?    We have no idea what these women were taking as a “multi” each day, and whether a study in which they each took the same standardized high quality formula daily, would have produced the same results, or would have actually demonstrated a protective effect against breast cancer.

It’s worth noting that this latest warning about the dangers of multi’s flies in the face of some very well respected, large and well designed studies showing no increased risk of disease with multivitamin use in women.  One of the biggest and most respected of these, was the Woman’s Health Initiative study involving over 161,000 women, and running for 8 years.  Robustly constructed, this study failed to show any harm to women taking a multivitamin daily, over an 8 year period.  

Media hysteria aside, I will happily continue to take my multi with breakfast each day, and will prescribe the same high quality nutritional product to my patients, without concern.  I’ll wait for some more reliable research to come along before I’m convinced that my daily multi is a risk to my breast health.

If you are interested in finding out proactive ways of optimizing your breast health, read “Wellbeing”, by Lynda Wharton, published by Harper Collins.  Available in book stores, and online at www.lyndawharton.com

Tags: Breast Cancer, Supplements

Read Users' Comments (0)