 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / June 2005Chromium - wipes me out
Hi, I've just began supplementing 400ug of Chromium a day, after having it recommended to me following a hair mineral test. About an hour after taking it I start to feel so tired that I am useless, start slurring words, and generally feel wasted. It seems that chromium is giving me hypoglycemia, but I have heard from many sources that it's supposed to help with hypo. Does anyone have any experience with this? Maybe it's a temporary thing? Tony. There are different forms, and the other ingredients in the supplement could be the problem. You could reduce the dosage, try different brand and different forms, and there's nutritional yeast, which is high in chromium. I eat small amounts of nutritional yeast with each meal, less than a teaspoon, but I don't take chromiumc supplements. You didn't say why you are taking it. Trace minerals are undeniably important, but if you are deficient, it is important to discover why. If there is a great deal of oxidative stress, some minerals might be getting used up by the SOD activity, for example. Aside from a "balanced diet," one needs to avoid more than small amounts of oxidative (and other forms of) stress. Get to the underlying or root cause - otherwise, there's going to be a major problem at some point in the not too distant future. Most problems in countries like the USA are the result of too much arachidonic acid stored up in the tissues (which can then be turned into very dangerous metabolites upon minor stressors) and too much dietary oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation), which is enhanced by high iron diets and low antioxidant diets. I'd give you more specific suggestions if you were more specific (age, gender, height/weight, previous medical history, your diet, etc.). Thanks for your response Montygram, I'll chew over what youv'e said. The chromium I am taking is Chromium Picolinate, I was also low in copper and told to take that also, but am only taking the chromium at the moment as I'm waiting for my liquid copper to arrive in the post. The interesting thing about the effect the chromium is having on me, is it's exactly the same as what happened when I was taking magnesium a few months back. After 3 weeks on the magnesium my appetite went through the roof and, I began feeling woozy and a bit out of it. The nice thing about it was all the extra food I was eating was going on as muscle, with no training. I was tempted to keep on with the magnesium as I really appreciated the way it was changing my bod, but I was half zombie and had to give it up. From what I have read both the Mag and the Chromium increase insulin sensitivity, so maybe this is what has been happening with both, the increased insulin sensitivity is pushing more glucose into muscle and leaving the blood level too low for normal functioning. Maybe it is at this point that the copper deficiency comes in, as I know this mineral is needed for Epinephrine synthesis, which would rescue my low blood sugar. But is in too short supply to get me back on an even keel. What do you guys think? Oh and Montygram, here's my specs: Age 28 Male Height 70 inches weight 170 pounds Medical hist: ongoing fatigue, allergies, cold hands and feet Diet: Mixed meat eating diet, mainly fish protein, also eat a wide range of fruit and veg, avoid grains. Thanks for offering more suggestions, I'd be very happy to hear what you think. Tony. When I began to overcome severe osteoporosis (no, I'm not an old lady, but a thin, 40 year old male), I went through a period when I had almost a pregnant woman's appetite. There could be all kinds of things going on. You could even have Charcot Marie Tooth (cold hands and feet). If you can get a doctor to do all kinds of tests, then you'll get a better idea. Thyroid suppression is good possibility. Have them do a test for parasites (stool test), as well as comprehensive blood tests, urine test, and anything else you can get. If they detect something, you can send me a message and I'll give you my ideas. Some claim that too much zinc means allergies and auto-immune problems, whereas too much copper means a depressed immune system. You could have something like orthostatic hypotension. You can just take your BP and heart rate after lying down for 20 minutes or more, then do it again after walking around for ten minutes (just walk slowly, and stand still for about half the time, alternating - just as you would if you were making dinner or something like that). If BP and heart rate change (BP going down as heart rate goes up), that can cause a "chronic fatigue syndrome" by itself). > There could be all kinds of things going on. You could even have > Charcot Marie Tooth (cold hands and feet). If you can get a doctor to Please explain more about Charcot Marie Tooth (cold hands and feet). You can find several CMT web sites that will give you all the info. you want. The nerves in the hands and feet die off, then the muscles atrophy, etc. > Thanks for your response Montygram, I'll chew over what youv'e said. > > The chromium I am taking is Chromium Picolinate, <snip> Even though it was probably way overblown, there was a study done I think on mice that showed (I think, but could be wrong) Chromium Picolinate caused DNA damage in the mice. I could be wrong, but look for study if you want...and make up your own mind... search for it on google if you want.. > Age 28 > Male [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Diet: Mixed meat eating diet, mainly fish protein, also eat a wide > range of fruit and veg, avoid grains. In ref to your allergies, do you consume dairy & cow's milk products? > From what I have read both the Mag and the Chromium > increase insulin sensitivity, so maybe this is what has > been happening with both, the increased insulin sensitivity > is pushing more glucose into muscle and leaving the blood > level too low for normal functioning. No, chromium helps to stabilize your insulin levels - if you are 'insulin sensitive' it it doesnt increase it, it helps prevent it. You might get more info/tips here: http://tinyurl.com/4u2yz I would be looking at WHAT you eat after taking your supplements and thruout the day and make some changes because I dont think its the supplements, but more what you are eating or not eating that is causing your 'symtoms'. My question is, why arent you getting some of these necessary minerals from their food sources? Usually supplementation is just that 'in addition to' not in lieu of, if you know what I mean. I could see if you had been eating lots of foods that contain these trace minerals and still were depleted, you could need supplementation of them to bring your levels up to par - but then the question would be WHY are you deficient in these? I would look deeper into this before just taking whatever - liquid copper? Do you have digestion problems or chrohns disease? Otherwise copper deficiency is extremely rare: http://tinyurl.com/bhpsj Magnesium, as one of its uses, may help in energy metabolism - its needed by certain enzymes to help convert foods thru digestion into energy. Really nothing to do with insulin. Read more about magnesiums uses here: http://tinyurl.com/de8yx Oh and btw for the person that mentioned about chromium damaging DNA there's info about that as well in the first link - a few mice tests with wopping overdose amounts doesnt always translate into humans. joanne > There are different forms, and the other ingredients in the supplement > could be the problem. You could reduce the dosage, try different brand [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If there is a great deal of oxidative stress, some minerals might be > getting used up by the SOD activity, for example. getting "used up" by the SOD actitity? you are aware that chemical elements do not have the habbit of spontaneusly disappearing or transforming into other chemical elements.. don't you? > Aside from a > "balanced diet," one needs to avoid more than small amounts of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stressors) and too much dietary oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation), > which is enhanced by high iron diets and low antioxidant diets. which is enhanced by any _free_ metal ion with a redox potential. > I'd give you more specific suggestions if you were more specific (age, > gender, height/weight, previous medical history, your diet, etc.). High iron diets are the most common problem. Nobody is suggesting that one consume large amounts of lead, etc. The SOD issue is interesting. Several studies have found that people who live the longest have the lowest SOD activity, but high vitamin E levels, whereas the reverse is true of those who are middle aged and dying or who have "chronic disease." The body can crank up SOD levels, but certain trace minerals are needed, and if they are being used for that purpose, they can't be used for other vital purposes, unless one is getting much larger amounts than most people. > High iron diets are the most common problem. Nobody is suggesting that > one consume large amounts of lead, etc. Not lead but other metals with a redox potential.. zinc for example- since the "the more the better" supplementation philosophy is so popular people are not aware that trace elements are supposed to be exactly that.. taken in trace ammounts. iron is a problem because the span between too low and too high iron levels is so small. generally however iron problems (like lipid peroxidation etc) can only occur when there is iron overload and the iron binding protein system (ferritin/transferrin) is overpowered. only _free_ iron is a problem in vivo. > The SOD issue is interesting. Several studies have found that people > who live the longest have the lowest SOD activity, but high vitamin E [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that purpose, they can't be used for other vital purposes, unless one > is getting much larger amounts than most people. citation for the first part? small SOD activity is not the same as small SOD protein levels. you suggest that there is chromium deficiency.. but where is the proof? if there would be deficiency, what about glucose tolerance factor (another chromium dependent enzyme)? >Even though it was probably way overblown, there was a study done I >think on mice that showed (I think, but could be wrong) Chromium >Picolinate caused DNA damage in the mice. >I could be wrong, but look for study if you want...and make up your own >mind... search for it on google if you want.. Yeah I was aware that Chromium Picolinate had been shown to be slightly mutagenic in mice, but this was at a very high concentration. I'd bought a bottle of 250 caps before I found out, so I'm gonna use them up now, next time I'll go for the Polynicotinate to be on the safe side. >In ref to your allergies, do you consume dairy & cow's milk >products? Yeah I do consume a fair amount of dairy; milk, cheese and butter. But I've never had a problem with them, I did cut them out for several months a while back and didn't notice any benefit from it. I don't think dairy intolerance is an issue for me. >No, chromium helps to stabilize your insulin levels - if you are >'insulin sensitive' it it doesnt increase it, it helps prevent it. You >might get more info/tips here: http://tinyurl.com/4u2yz That's what I was thinking, but if I am already insulin resistant to a degree, then wouldn't taking the Chromium make the cells more sensitive to the hormone, thereby creating more hormonal effect. At least until my body readjusts to the greater sensitivity and releases less insulin?? >I would be looking at WHAT you eat after taking your supplements and >thruout the day and make some changes because I dont think its the >supplements, but more what you are eating or not eating that is causing >your 'symtoms'. It's definately the Chromium and Magnesium that is causing these effects. I've been eating the same diet the whole time, when I have and haven't been supplementing, and the dozeyness comes only when I take the supplements. With the chromium it comes real fast, about an hour after taking 400ug. with the magnesium, it takes about a week of 300mg a day and then it starts hitting me. A couple of months back when I was on the mag, I'd eat nearly all day long, as soon as I stopped I started feeling weak and snoozy, and get this , I was actually loosing fat from my hips and gut. >My question is, why arent you getting some of these >necessary minerals from their food sources? Well, I've read that Chromium deficiency is rife; 90% of americans, and it's supposed to be the same picture over here in the UK. And that's just because it aint in the land like it used to be, so it aint in the food either. If I really believed I could get adequate minerals from my food I wouldn't bother with the supps. >I would look deeper into this before >just taking whatever - liquid copper? Do you have digestion problems or >chrohns disease? Otherwise copper deficiency is extremely rare: >http://tinyurl.com/bhpsj I am sure I am low in copper, the hair test I had suggested this, and I've later found this to be true. I am aware of the suspicion surrounding hair analysis as being quack, and it was because of this I wasn't ready to believe that I was low in copper. I'd also read, like you say, that copper excess is more common and more of a problem, so it sounded unlikely that I was low. To find out for sure I decided to take some zinc for a short period and see how it made me feel. Zinc is a known antagonist of copper at the absorption site in the intestines, so if I was really high in copper then taking the zinc should make me feel better. It didn't, after a week on 50mg of zinc a day, I was feeling pretty crook. My eyes became bloodshot with very fine red blood vessels and my gum tissue became very fragile and bled on brushing my teeth. Both these things are indicators of a need for copper. These things went away on supplementing copper. I'm waiting for liquid copper to avoid the staric acid found in caps, as it's messing with my joints. Tony. > >Even though it was probably way overblown, there was a study done I >>think on mice that showed (I think, but could be wrong) Chromium [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > food either. If I really believed I could get adequate minerals from > my food I wouldn't bother with the supps. The thing about chromium deciciency is total nonsense. It comes from people who want to sell you chromium supplements. I can't blame you on believing this, but you should be a little more critical when choosing your sources of information. >>I would look deeper into this before >>just taking whatever - liquid copper? Do you have digestion problems or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Tony. >The thing about chromium deciciency is total nonsense. It comes from people >who want to sell you chromium supplements. I'm sure you are right that the people who sell the stuff are pushing the deficiency angle. But how can you be so sure that the deficiency isn't widespread enough to be an issue? After hearing about the importance of Chromium as a trace mineral I looked at my diet to see what high chromium foods I was eating. The only decent one was egg yoke, and you need about 100g of yoke to get the 200ug advised intake, that's about 6 or more eggs a day, there's no way I'm gonna manage that every day, talk about egg-bound!! Also seeing as I am definately experiencing a physiological response from the Chromium, and it appears that it's through blood sugar, I think it's safe to say I must have had some kind of deficit otherwise I wouldn't be experiencing a lowering of blood sugar? Tony. > >The thing about chromium deciciency is total nonsense. It comes from > >people [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Tony. There is just not any single credible study that says that 90% of the US are chromium deficient, I don't say that nobody is deficient or that chromium is taken in in huge quantities- but if 90% would be deficient then 90% would show signs of deficiency (like you seem to do). Btw: high chromium foods are also: cheese (at about 100ug/100g), paranuts, black tea (at 110ug/100g), corn, wheat full grain breads (ca. 50ug/100g), nuts.. maybe you try these. I'm not saying chromium is deficient due to SOD levels. Magnesium, manganese, selenium, zinc, and copper are the ones to be concerned about in this context. Chromium seems to help in certain conditions, but I'd just go with the nutritional yeast in small amounts with each meal. Citation (too lazy to do a quick search?): Free Radic Biol Med. 2000 Apr 15;28(8):1243-8. Plasma antioxidants and longevity: a study on healthy centenarians. Mecocci P, Polidori MC, Troiano L, Cherubini A, Cecchetti R, Pini G, Straatman M, Monti D, Stahl W, Sies H, Franceschi C, Senin U. Sezione di Gerontologia e Geriatria, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Sperimentale, Universita di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. geriat@unipg.it A large body of experimental research indicates that oxidative stress contributes to the processes related to aging and to the pathogenesis of several age-related diseases. Vitamins and antioxidant enzymes have a fundamental role in defending the organism from oxidative stress. To better understand the role of antioxidants in human aging, we measured plasma levels of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), uric acid, vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol), vitamin A (retinol), carotenoids, total thiol groups, and the activity of plasma superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione peroxidase (GPX) as well as the activity of red blood cell (RBC) SOD in 32 healthy centenarians-17 elderly subjects aged 80-99 years, 34 elderly subjects aged 60-79 years, and 24 adults aged less than 60 years. Considering the "noncentenarians" only, we observed a consistent behavior in the antioxidant pattern, with a decrease of the nonenzymatic antioxidants and an increase of the enzymatic antioxidant activities relative to age. Remarkably, centenarians were characterized as having the highest levels of vitamins A and E, whereas the activities of both plasma and RBC SOD, which increase with age, decreased in centenarians. From these results, it is evident that healthy centenarians show a particular profile in which high levels of vitamin A and vitamin E seem to be important in guaranteeing their extreme longevity. > I'm not saying chromium is deficient due to SOD levels. Magnesium, > manganese, selenium, zinc, and copper are the ones to be concerned [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > vitamin A and vitamin E seem to be important in guaranteeing their > extreme longevity. Did you read the paper? This was the composition of the groups: young adults: (>60 yrs) 13 women 11 men (makes roughly 50:50) young-old subjects: (61-80yrs) 13 women 13 men (50:50) old subjects: (81-99yrs) 7 women 10 men (roughly 50:50 again) the last group, the one they used to make their statement has a totally different composition cenetarians test group: (>100yrs) 25 women and * 7 * men (makes almost 80:20%)! its well known that women differ greatly from men when it comes to age related studies.. having the one group you'd like to say something about being so radically [no pun intended] different from the rest is at best very dubious. not to say that high retinol and high tocopherol levels don't play a very important role.. but this study certainly does not have the power to say so because the test group composition is majorly flawed compared to the others.. and I hope you will at least agree on that bit. I am really getting tired of refuting people like MMu and MattLB with actual scientific evidence. They, on the other hand, enjoy attacking my obvious typographical errors. If you listen to these guys, your health may be at serious risk. MattLB recently attacked what I said about tightly wound DNA an cancer cells, yet it was on sciencedaily.com a few weeks back. DO SOME RESEARCH - AND CITE SOME RESEARCH, rather than making ludicrous, non-scientific attacks. As for the lead claim, here is the evidence. I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, but the problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical mediated. How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is fats going rancid in your body) or chronic inflammation, which generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs. This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red herrings to justify their moronic claims. Here's a refutation to MMu's claims about the effects of lead: Toxicological Sciences 69, 149-156 (2002) Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Toxicology MOLECULAR AND GENETIC TOXICOLOGY Tea Catechins Protect against Lead-Induced Cytotoxicity, Lipid Peroxidation, and Membrane Fluidity in HepG2 Cells Liuji Chen*, Xianqiang Yang*, Hongli Jiao and Baolu Zhao,1 * Department of Tea Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China 310029; and Laboratory of Visual Information Processing, Research Centers of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics, Academia Sinica, 15 Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China 100101 Recent studies have shown that lead causes oxidative stress by inducing the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reducing the antioxidant defense system of cells. This suggests that antioxidants may play an important role in the treatment of lead poisoning as a kind of excellent scavenger of free radicals and chelator of heavy metal. Whether tea catechins have protective effects against oxidative stress after lead treatment in cell systems remains unclear. The present study was designed to elucidate if tea catechins have any protective effects on lipid peroxidation damage in lead-exposed HepG2 cells. Exposure of HepG2 cells to Pb++ decreased cell viability and stimulated lipid peroxidation of cell membranes as measured by the thioburbituric acid reaction. Electron spin resonance (ESR) spin-labeling studies indicated that lead exposure could decrease the fluidity in the polar surface of cell membranes. Tea catechin treatment significantly increased cell viability, decreased lipid peroxidation levels, and protected cell membrane fluidity in lead-exposed HepG2 cells in a concentration-dependent manner. The galloylated catechins showed a stronger effect than nongalloylated catechins. Cotreatment with (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) and (-)-epicatechin (EC), (-)-epicatechin gallate (ECG), and (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) showed a synergistically protective effect. The results suggest that tea catechin supplementation may have a role to play in modulating oxidative stress in lead-exposed HepG2 cells. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/1/149 Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher saying this explicitly. So by attacking me, they are actually attacking the scientific process. What they gain by doing this is beyond my comprehension, but it probably has to do with some sort of psychological imbalance in their brains - probably due to the polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic. Do a pubmed.com search for arachidonic and you'll see that this is not a joke! > I am really getting tired of refuting people like MMu and MattLB with > actual scientific evidence. That's the one thing you never do. You're a hit and run poster. You make some extraordinary claim and then never back it up or counter criticism with explanation. > They, on the other hand, enjoy attacking > my obvious typographical errors. If you listen to these guys, your > health may be at serious risk. I think you'll find that the "attacks" are in the name of preventing health problems as a result of following your unsupported advice. > MattLB recently attacked what I said > about tightly wound DNA an cancer cells, yet it was on sciencedaily.com > a few weeks back. DO SOME RESEARCH - AND CITE SOME RESEARCH, rather > than making ludicrous, non-scientific attacks. I said, and I quote: "Care to explain that?". That's a request for more detail about your claim, not an attack. I realise to you anything other than simple acceptance of what you say is probably an attack, but there you go. Explain in what way it is more tightly bound and why. > As for the lead claim, > here is the evidence. I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, One where he didn't claim anything about lead. You're obviously on a planet where he did. The reality is: you brought lead up and then imagined MMu was saying something about it. > but the > problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical > mediated. Nothing to do with lead's strong binding to protein kinase C and synaptotagmin then? What is the molecular source of the free radicals lead creates? > How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks > are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore > worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am > talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is > fats going rancid in your body) Poor analogy since it's different mechanisms. > or chronic inflammation, which > generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs. > This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed > should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red > herrings to justify their moronic claims. Moronic claims are what YOU specialise in. > Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic > disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher > saying this explicitly. So by attacking me, they are actually > attacking the scientific process. What they gain by doing this is > beyond my comprehension, Many things seem to be. You continue to rail against things that have never been said. > but it probably has to do with some sort of > psychological imbalance in their brains - probably due to the > polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic. Arachidonic is a psychological imbalance now? It certainly seems to be in your case. MattLB >>Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher saying this explicitly.<< COMMENT: They can say it as explicitly as they want, and that doesn't make it generally true. It's a theory that goes back to Harman and has been promoted by optomists like Pearson and Shaw, and has gained currency as a good hypothesis. The problem is that there's not much evidence for it. Now wait, you say. Whenever there's worn out or damaged tissue, aren't there more free radicals around? Sure. Whenever there's damage to buildings by fire or crime, there are lots of cops and firemen around. This does not mean that uniformed people or paperwork or insurance claims cause disasters. Try *removing* the cops and firemen to test this hypothesis. It doesn't work. Nor does removing free radicals modify chronic disease progression, much. The biggest cause of chronic disease in developed countries is aging. If you remove free radicals by introducing spin traps, antioxidants, and so on, you do not find aging markedly changed in animals. There were some hopeful experiments along that line, but they haven't been replicated, and some of the early ones turned out to be due to dietary restriction, not antioxidants (these things often taste bad). Nor is there much evidence that you can modify the rate of "chronic disease" in humans by giving antioxidants. I've brought up the subjec of vitamin E, and all the proponents can think of to say is that maybe we have to use every kind of molecule with vitamin E activity that exists in nature. Well, they didn't say that 25 years ago before the vitamin E experiments failed. The claims of the vitamin hawkers are moving targets. Produce data against them, and they just change. They are not only data-free, but data-proof. When it's explained to these people that the greatest life expectancies and lowest chronic disease rates occur in the Japanese, who probably eat one of the highest polyunsaturated fat diets there is, they just blank out and invent magical reasons that the Japanese might be eating huge doses of free radical blockers to make up for it. You wouldn't want to just damp out all free radicals willy nilly anyway, even if you could. They are the body's messengers for dealing with infection, and for triggering healing. Yes, sometimes they need modulation. Free radicals are produced in copious amounts during tissue damage (acute trauma or infection or tissue ischemia) and they often are produced in amounts too large for optimal health (due to the fact that evolution did not design you with antibiotics in mind, nor to survive giant traumas that require ventilators and pressor support or a lot of brain or heart ischemia--- you're expected to DIE in those cases). So antioxidants (ironically) actually shine more as possible modifiers of ACUTE disease processes, not chronic ones. For chronic disease, the inflammatory process will probably need to be modified far higher up in the process than the end-result where free-radicals are generated. Another story. SBH I am really getting tired of refuting people like MMu and MattLB with actual scientific evidence. They, on the other hand, enjoy attacking my obvious typographical errors. If you listen to these guys, your health may be at serious risk. MattLB recently attacked what I said about tightly wound DNA an cancer cells, yet it was on sciencedaily.com a few weeks back. DO SOME RESEARCH - AND CITE SOME RESEARCH, rather than making ludicrous, non-scientific attacks. As for the lead claim, here is the evidence. I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, but the problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical mediated. How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is fats going rancid in your body) or chronic inflammation, which generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs. This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red herrings to justify their moronic claims. Here's a refutation to MMu's claims about the effects of lead: Toxicological Sciences 69, 149-156 (2002) Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Toxicology MOLECULAR AND GENETIC TOXICOLOGY Tea Catechins Protect against Lead-Induced Cytotoxicity, Lipid Peroxidation, and Membrane Fluidity in HepG2 Cells Liuji Chen*, Xianqiang Yang*, Hongli Jiao and Baolu Zhao,1 * Department of Tea Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China 310029; and Laboratory of Visual Information Processing, Research Centers of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics, Academia Sinica, 15 Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China 100101 Recent studies have shown that lead causes oxidative stress by inducing the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reducing the antioxidant defense system of cells. This suggests that antioxidants may play an important role in the treatment of lead poisoning as a kind of excellent scavenger of free radicals and chelator of heavy metal. Whether tea catechins have protective effects against oxidative stress after lead treatment in cell systems remains unclear. The present study was designed to elucidate if tea catechins have any protective effects on lipid peroxidation damage in lead-exposed HepG2 cells. Exposure of HepG2 cells to Pb++ decreased cell viability and stimulated lipid peroxidation of cell membranes as measured by the thioburbituric acid reaction. Electron spin resonance (ESR) spin-labeling studies indicated that lead exposure could decrease the fluidity in the polar surface of cell membranes. Tea catechin treatment significantly increased cell viability, decreased lipid peroxidation levels, and protected cell membrane fluidity in lead-exposed HepG2 cells in a concentration-dependent manner. The galloylated catechins showed a stronger effect than nongalloylated catechins. Cotreatment with (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) and (-)-epicatechin (EC), (-)-epicatechin gallate (ECG), and (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) showed a synergistically protective effect. The results suggest that tea catechin supplementation may have a role to play in modulating oxidative stress in lead-exposed HepG2 cells. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/1/149 Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher saying this explicitly. So by attacking me, they are actually attacking the scientific process. What they gain by doing this is beyond my comprehension, but it probably has to do with some sort of psychological imbalance in their brains - probably due to the polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic. Do a pubmed.com search for arachidonic and you'll see that this is not a joke! [quote] I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, but the problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical mediated. How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is fats going rancid in your body) or chronic inflammation, which generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs. This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red herrings to justify their moronic claims. Here's a refutation to MMu's claims about the effects of lead: ... [/quote] claims about lead? I am slowly very concerned about you answering and fighting back claims that nobody took.. this actually could be a lack of n3 fatty acids in the cerebrum. lets take this slowly.. shall we? you wrote: > High iron diets are the most common problem. Nobody is suggesting that > one consume large amounts of lead, etc. I answered: "Not lead but other metals with a redox potential.. zinc for example- since the "the more the better" supplementation philosophy is so popular people are not aware that trace elements are supposed to be exactly that.. taken in trace ammounts." even simpler: you: "nobody is suggesting that one consume large ammounts of lead" _ i: "Not lead but other metals with a redox potential.. zinc for example". I will even spell it out for you: people are not suggesting lead but are suggesting that one consume large ammounts of other metals with a redox potential like zinc which might be a problem when it comes to free radical damage. "I've just began supplementing 400ug of Chromium a recommended to me following a hair mineral test." Anyone considering hair analysis might first want to also take into account: "Hair Analysis: A Cardinal Sign of Quackery" Hair Analysis: A Cardinal Sign of Quackery "I've just began supplementing 400ug of Chromium a recommended to me following a hair mineral test." Anyone considering hair analysis might first want to also take into account: "Hair Analysis: A Cardinal Sign of Quackery" http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/hair.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.