From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Subject: Re: Acetyl-L-Carnitine Improves Alzheimer's Symptoms Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause,sci.med.nutrition,misc.health.alternative, sci.life-extension In <Pine.SUN.3.96.970818082244.2624C-100000@coyote.rain.org> Joan Livingston <joanliv@rain.org> writes: >On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Tom Matthews wrote: > >> jwwright wrote: >> >> > so, is it your opinion that we should take carnitine to prevent >> > alzhemer's? >> >> ALC has been clearly shown to have brain enhancing (smart drug) effects >> and to be generally beneficial to brain health. Therefore it make sense >> to take it continuously from middle age on as a hedge against the >> natural deterioration of your brain with aging. >> >> > how do we know when to start? >> >> If you want the "smart drug" effects start any time, otherwise start >> when you are 40-50. >> >> --Tom >> Tom Matthews > > But Tom, isn't Dr. Steve Harris, "noted geriatiric specialist," >on your staff or editorial board or something and he admitted he takes >NO supplements and he is 40. No hormone supplements. Unless you count melatonin used occasionally on a rather pharmacologic basis to get me to sleep. I do take lots of vitamin and mineral and antioxidant supplements, as a matter of fact. The evidence for some of these is better than others, of course, and I do not recommend to the public everything I try myself. And my recommendations for patients are more conservative yet, since the patient-doctor relationship is somewhat more formal (as a whole) and requires a little more conservative approach to knowledge and advice. For all of that, I've already noted that I recommend hormone replacement to most (not all) women, and why. As a gerontologist I see women every single day suffering horribly with fracture immobility, dementia, incontinence, congestive heart failure-- all greatly modifiable with early hormone therapy. Breast cancer related suffering and death is way, way, down the line in terms of the horrors of aging, even through it is also a geriatric disease (incidence of breast cancer in women over 85 is highest of all age groups). > Why isn't he trying to take this "proven" smart drug? He seems to >prefer taking a "watchful waiting" approach to his own >aging health and body. Why is that? Oh, I've tried most of the "smart drugs" at one time or another, including ALC. I find the effects generally transient or unimpressive, with only a few mild exceptions for me (gingko, caffeine, ginseng). I'm happy that my brain seems to work efficiently at present. As I age, I don't expect this to remain true indefinately, of course. As to whether any of these drugs actually prevent brain aging, there isn't nearly the evidence for any of them which exists for estrogen's effect on the brain-aging of women. And even that is far from iron-clad. Steve Harris, M.D. From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Why Aren't Nutritional Supplements Given with Drugs Date: 3 Jul 1998 05:57:49 GMT In <5523838B1CFADE00.F504032E45F1BE0A.23D81700943E1F41@library-proxy.airnes.net> ttyler@XRemXairmail.net (//ryb) writes: >If it is already proven than antibiotics reduce intestinal flora and >some AIDS medications cause vitamin and mineral deficiencies, why >don't doctors give supplements to their patients? > >I have watched one person with AIDS devour drugs. The drugs get >switched and changed as time goes on. He has his problems, but at no >time has ANY of the many doctors he has seen recommended any >nutritional support. > >He gets 'filled up' taking medications. He doesn't always have a good >appetite, so his doctors give him megace. > >Giving nutritional supplements seems logical to me to someone on harsh >drugs. Why isn't it done? > >Mikeo Comment: Because nutritionists once upon a time spent a long time figuring out just what vitamins and minerals were in what foods, and just how to plan diets accordingly. Supplements took a lot of that away (in their perception), making all those years of training obsolete, and therefore they (nutritionists and dieticians) came out against supplements (while taking them, themselves, of course, more than half the time). Doctors got taught by nutritionists, and still do. They get told that eating a good planned diet in good amounts would give you all the nutrients you needed, without supplements being necessary. And that only sick people might need supplements (this not emphasized, and in a whisper). Than what happened? Doctors went out into practice, and practically all they SAW was sick people. And none of them eating all of some perfectly planned diets, either. And guess what? The doctors only remembered what they'd been told about supplements in the "well person" lecture. Because they really didn't get taught about supplements in the sick person lectures, because that part was left out (and there weren't any specialties that really had responsibility for it). Surgeons and ICU specialists (intensivists), to their credit, did learn a little about nourishing *very* ill people. And so did the hospital nutrition support teams. Outpatients who were very ill, however, were out of luck if what they had wasn't fixable by Ensure, and they could drink Ensure, and liked Ensure. Internists and their subspecialists like cardiologists and ID experts (who were later to inherit the AIDS care) learned very little about nutrition as THERAPY. And that's where it stands. The damned naturopaths know far more about it, and they learned some of it from pretty good scientific sources. It's a scandal. Things are changing now, but very slowly. One help is the influx of women into the ranks of attending physicians. Women are psychologically attuned to nutrition. I think there's some special wiring for it in their brains. We can use this. Comes the revolution, and nutrition will start every case of medical evaluation. And the nutritionists and dieticians will realize that even subtracting the vitamin and mineral knowledge, they still have PLENTY to do to insure good intakes of a lot of good things in fruits and vegetables (some known, some unknown) which are good for people. Let them get to work on phase II, then, and quit stalling on the vitamin/mineral therapy. Let every patient in every hospital have expensive urine, this I pray. The expense is tiny compared with all the rest. As a recent editorial in the New England Journal put it (in connection with folate): "Eat right and take your vitamin TOO." Steve Harris, M.D. From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,sci.med,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Why Aren't Nutritional Supplements Given with Drugs Date: 4 Jul 1998 02:28:23 GMT In <6nk1jd$q46@netaxs.com> mcompton@randomc.com (M. Compton) writes: >Doctor Harris, > >You put it in a nutshell. I know a couple doctors, and it is quite >distressing the lack of nutritional information they have. I actually >lectured a gastroenterologist one time about fiber content from natural >foods. All he ever prescribed for his patients was Metamucil. In my >opinion, it should be called the "Sickness" industry, rather than the >"Health Care" industry, because calling it the "Health Care" industry >denotes preventative care, and frankly, most doctors are only trained how >to take care of problems rather than preventing them. Even GI doctors are >not given that much nutritional education. Shame! The other side of the coin is that nobody's willing to pay us to, and we all have to make a living. People go to doctors to get absolution from their dietary sins. They're not terribly interested in paying $100 an hour to hear somebody preach repentance. Steve Harris, M.D. From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: supplements and nutrient absorption Date: 31 Aug 1998 08:57:27 GMT In <35EA0C79.18D5@california.com> barbara <rsgt@california.com> writes: >Some say that taking dietary supplements causes the body to loose its >ability to absorb nutrients from foods. > >Any ideas on this? > >Barbara I know of no data, but it does sound like the kinds of things the body does. It's a lazy son of a gun. To minimize the possibility, I suggest taking no nutrient for strictly preventive purposes, oftener than once a day. That gives you just one spike in the gut lasting an hour or two each day (10% of the time?) and several more meals each day where the body has to fend for itself. None of this time release stuff is necessary. The body stores vitamins, even water soluble ones, quite well enough not to show even early deficiency signs for weeks, and generally at least a month, after being repleted. These rules would not apply to nutrients being taken as pharmacologics to treat disease states (antioxidants for neuropathy, say). There, getting the job done might outweigh the problems of adaptation that can occur. It's the same with pain meds or any other drug. Steve Harris, M.D. |
|