By Jonny Bowden, PhD, CNS

In Part I of this two-part article, we’ll talk about vitamins. In Part II, we’ll tackle minerals and some of the superstar nutrients (like omega-3’s) that don’t fit into either category.

Part I: Vitamins

Ah, it was so simple back in 1941. That’s when the first RDAs (Recommended Daily Allowances) for vitamins first came out. Clear little easy-to-understand numbers that let you know how much of a vitamin you needed to prevent a deficiency disease (like rickets or beri-beri). It was the vitamin equivalent of having three television stations to choose from. I like to call the RDAs “Minimum Wage Nutrition”.

Then people began to get the idea that vitamins might do more than just prevent scurvy and rickets. They might actually have a role in preventive medicine and general health — helping to stave off cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis… actually, just about any condition you can name.

And all hell broke loose.

First we had the revised RDAs which morphed into the RDIs (Reference Dietary Intakes) and the DRIs (Dietary Reference Intakes). And let’s not forget the AIs (Adequate Intakes) and the ULs (tolerable upper limits). My head spins just thinking about it.

And don’t forget that, like any government approved recommendation, these numbers represented averages and compromises. They changed depending on your sex, your age, and whether or not you were pregnant. And there was hardly unanimity of professional opinion about them in the first place.

I thought you should know all that because coming up with a new and improved list of vitamin and mineral recommendations is a job worthy of a PhD thesis. (In fact, it’s harder. One of the brightest nutritionists I know actually tried to do his PhD thesis on creating a consensus for modern vitamin and mineral recommendations and ultimately threw up his hands — it was just too staggeringly a difficult a task. I think he ultimately decided to do something a little easier, like astrophysics.)

Even the most brilliant list of new and improved recommendations would have enough asterisks for exceptions, cautionary notes, medical conditions, and special cases to make the number of earmarks in the average 900-page congressional bill look like a pittance.

Virtually every disease I can think of will have special requirements different from those below (usually higher, but sometimes lower!). Under a lot of stress? It’s a different ballgame. Got kidney stones? Heart disease? Liver problems? Cognitive impairment? PMS? Are you breastfeeding? Menopausal? The list goes on. And on. And on…

So with that said, here’s my best guess about how to put together a daily vitamin and mineral regimen for general health. I’ll leave out the asterisks — but understand that everyone is different and different conditions or situations demand different combinations.

I’m also leaving out the tremendous number of herbal remedies that might be useful, but in Part II, I’ll throw in a couple of “designer nutrients,” some trace minerals, and an herb or two that aren’t on any of the RDA, RDI or DRI lists but would make good sense to take anyway.

Vitamin A: You rarely have to take this by itself because it’s found in most multi-vitamins. It’s a great immune system booster and important for the reproductive function and the eyes. Look for between 3000-5000 IUs daily.

Vitamin B Complex: The B’s include thiamin (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), and vitamins B6 and B12. Each has different strengths and overlapping circles of influence in the body. I consider a 50-mg B complex (or equivalent in a multi) to be a really good insurance policy.

There are many times you might want to use an individual B vitamin therapeutically, in which case it’s still best to take the B complex and then take the “therapeutic” B separately at a different time. For example, PMS responds really well to a higher dose of vitamin B6, usually along with magnesium and evening primrose oil. But 50 mg across the board is a good basic intake.

Folic Acid: Folate (or folic acid, which is the synthetic version of folate) is grouped with the B vitamins. The folic acid form you see in supplements is actually better absorbed by the body than the kind found in food. I can’t overstate enough the importance of this vitamin, which not only helps prevent birth defects, but can improve mood and brain function — and has virtually no toxicity. It also helps lower a toxic compound called homocysteine. In my view, the absolute daily minimum should be 800 mcg, but you can certainly take more.

Vitamin C: Don’t make the mistake of believing the bad press vitamin C got recently because it didn’t cure the common cold. That would be like thinking golf clubs were useless because you can’t play tennis with them. The number of metabolic functions this powerful antioxidant and cancer-fighting nutrient performs has filled more than a few books. The human body can’t manufacture its own vitamin C so we must get it from the diet. Take at least 500 mg a day, but you won’t go wrong with up to 2,000.

Vitamin D: Even the conservatives are beginning to realize they underestimated this powerhouse vitamin when they put together the recommendations. It has anti-cancer properties, enhances performance, and helps get calcium into the bones.

Vitamin D deficiency — which is epidemic — plays a role in causing 17 varieties of cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, and periodontal disease. Take at least 1000 IUs a day (which is what the Canadian Cancer Society recommends during the winter).

Vitamin E: Ignore the negative reports and badly designed studies which have been completely discredited. This is a powerful antioxidant with multiple benefits. For most purposes 400 IUs is a good dose to aim for. But note well: vitamin E has eight components, and up till now most supplements have contained only one of them — alpha-tocopherol — which may turn out to be one of the least important.

Look for supplements that have plenty of gamma-tocopherol, or at least contain what’s called “mixed tocopherols”. That way you’ll know you’re getting some gamma. Leave the exclusively alpha-tocopherol version alone.

Vitamin K: This vitamin has a huge role in maintaining healthy bones. It’s found in all the green vegetables, and the body actually makes it, so this is one of the ones you don’t need to worry too much about supplementing with. It’s nice when it’s included in a multiple and you’ll often see it in the better bone formulas. For once, the RDIs are accurate: 80 mcg is fine.

Next article: minerals, omega-3’s and “specialty” nutrients. Stay tuned!

[Ed. note: Dr. Bowden is a nationally known expert on weight loss, nutrition and health. He's a board certified nutrition specialist with a Master's degree in psychology and the author of five books including The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth. His latest book is The Most Effective Cures on Earth. For more information, click here.]

“This article appears courtesy of Early to Rise’s Total Health Breakthroughs, offering alternative solutions for mind, body and soul. For a complimentary subscription, visit http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com“

Related posts

• Turbulence Training Original 4-Week Bodyweight Program (0)
• HealthForLife20.com Blog Finally Online (0)

Hey guys. My friend and partner Tom Venuto sent an article to me that I immediately needed to post on my HealthForLife20.com blog.

This is absolutely a MUST READ!

By Tom Venuto, NSCA-CPT, CSCS
www.BurnTheFat.com

A news media feeding frenzy erupted recently when a new diet study broke in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Almost all the reporters got it wrong, wrong WRONG! So did most of the gloating low carb forumites and bloggers. Come to think of it, almost everyone interpreted this study wrong. Some valuable insights came out of this study, but almost everyone missed them because they were too busy believing what the news said or defending their own cherished belief systems …

The new study, titled, “Weight Loss With a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet” was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in issue 359, number 3.

I quickly read the full text of the research paper the day it was published. Then, I shook my head in dismay as I scanned the news headlines.

I found it amusing that the media turned this into a three ring circus, putting a misleading “low carb versus high carb,” “Atkins vindicated” or “Diet wars” spin on the story. But that’s mainstream journalism for you, right? Gotta sell those papers!

Just look at some of these headlines:

“Study Tips Scales in Atkins Diets Favor: Low Carb Regimen Better Than Low Fat Diet For Weight And Cholesterol, Major Study Shows. “

“Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets Face Off “

“Unrestricted Low-Carb Diet Wins Hands Down”

Some of these headlines are hilarious! I wonder if any of these reporters actually read the whole study. Geez. Is it too much trouble to read 13 pages before you write a story that will be read by millions of already confused people suffering the pain and frustration of obesity?

Here’s a quick look at the study design.

The low fat restricted calorie diet was based on American Heart Association guidelines. Calorie intake was set at 1500 for women, 1800 a day for men with 30% of calories from fat, and only 10% from saturated fat. Participants were instructed to eat low fat grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high fat snacks.

The Mediterranean diet group was placed on a moderate fat, restricted calorie program rich in vegetables and low in red meat, with poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. Energy intake was restricted to 1500 calories per day for women and 1800 calories per day for men with a goal of no more than 35% of calorie from fat. Added fat came mostly from nuts and olive oil.

The low carb diet was a non-restricted calorie plan aimed at providing 20 grams of carbs per day for the 2 month induction phase with a gradual increase to 120 grams per day to maintain the weight loss. Intakes of total calories, protein and fat were not limited. However, the participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of protein (more on that bizarre-twist shortly).

The study subjects were mostly male (86%), overweight (BMI 31) and middle age (mean age 52)

Here were the study results:

There were some health improvements in cholesterol, blood pressure and other parameters in the Mediterranean and low carb group that bested the high carb group. That was the focus of many articles and discussions that appeared on the net this week. However, I’d like to focus on the weight loss aspect as I’m not a medical doctor and fat loss is the primary subject matter of this website.

All three groups lost weight. The low carb group lost 5.5 kilos, the Mediterranean group lost 4.6 kilos and the low fat group lost 3.3 kilograms…. IN TWO YEARS! Whoopee! 

My conclusion would be that the results were similar and that none of the diets worked very well over the long term!

Amanda Gardner of the US News and World Report Health Day was one of the few reporters who got it right:

“Diet plans produce similar results: Study finds Mediterranean and low-carb diets work just as well as low fat ones.”

Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times also came close with her headline:

“Long term diet study suggests success is hard to come by: In a tightly controlled experiment, obese people lost an average of just 6 to 10 pounds over two years.”

Even this headline wasn’t 100% accurate. The study was HARDLY tightly controlled. Tightly controlled means metabolic ward studies where the researchers actually count and control the calorie intake.

The problem is, you can’t lock people in a hospital or research center ward for two years. So in this study, they used a food frequency questionnaire. Sure, like we believe what people report about their eating habits at restaurants and at home behind closed doors! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

“No! I swear Dr. Schwarzfuchs! I swear I didn’t eat those donuts over the weekend! I stayed on my Mediterranean diet. Honest!”

One of the most firmly established facts in dietetics research is that almost everyone underreports their food intake BADLY, sometimes by as much as 50%. I’m not saying everyone “lies,” they just forget or don’t know. In fact, this underreporting of calorie intake is such a huge problem that it makes obesity research very difficult to do and conclusions difficult to draw from free-living studies.

Another blunder in the news reports is that this study didn’t really follow Atkins diet parameters OR even the traditional low fat diet for that matter, so it’s not an “Atkin’s versus Ornish” showdown at all.

If you actually take the time to read the full text of the research paper it doesn’t say ANYTHING like, “Atkins is the best after all.” That’s the spin that some of the news media cooked up (and what the Atkins foundation was hoping for).

It says, “The diet was based on the Atkins diet.” However, the sentence right before that says, “The participants were counseled to choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein.” Vegetarian Atkins?

The chart on page 236 says the low carb diet provided 40% of calories from carbs at 6, 12 and 24 months. If I’m reading that data properly, then the only low carb period was a brief induction phase in the very beginning.

Does that sound like Atkins? 40% carb sounds more like the Zone diet or my own Burn The Fat program to me.

The Atkins Foundation, which partially supported this study, told reporters, “We feel vindicated.” HA! They should have paid the reporters and told the researchers they felt
ripped off and they wanted a refund for misuse of their research grant!

After carefully reading the full text of this study, there are many interesting findings we could talk about, from the differences in results between men and women to the improvements in health markers. Here’s what the study really says that stood out to me. It’s what I would have talked about if the newspapers or TV stations had called me:

1. “Mediterranean and low carb diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets.”

I can agree completely with that statement. All three diets created a calorie deficit. All three groups lost weight. Low carb lost a little more, which is the usual finding because low carb diets often control appetite and calorie intake automatically (you eat less even if you don’t count calories). Also, if body composition is not indicated, there’s an initial water weight loss that makes low carb diets look more effective in the very early stages.

2. “Personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions.”

Absolutely! Nutrition should be individualized based on goals, health status, body type, activity level and numerous other factors. Different people have different phenotypes. Some people are more predisposed to thrive on a low carb approach. Others feel like crap on low carbs and do better with more carbs or a middle of the road approach. Those who dogmatically follow and defend one type of diet or the other are only handcuffing themselves by limiting their options. Iris Shai, a researcher in the study said, “We can’t rely on one diet fits all.” Hmm, far cry from “Atkins wins hands down,” wouldn’t you say?

3. “The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years.”

THIS was the part of most interest to me. When I read this, immediately I could have cared less about the silly low carb versus high carb wars that the news reporters were jumping on.

I wanted to know WHY the subjects were able to stick with it so well. Of course, that’s boring stuff to journalists… adherence? What does that word mean anyway? Yawn - not interesting enough for prime time, I guess.

But it was interesting to me, and I hope YOU pay attention to what I found. The authors of the study wrote:

“This trial suggests a model that might be applied more broadly in the workplace. Using the employer as a health coach could be an effective way to improve health. The model of group intervention with the use of dietary group sessions, spousal support, food labels, and monthly weighing in the workplace within the framework of a health promotion campaign might yield weight reduction and long term health benefits.”

Hmmmmm, lets see:

* Dietician coaching
* Group meetings
* Motivational phone calls
* Spousal support
* Workplace monitoring (corporate health program)
* Food labels - calorie monitoring
* Weigh-ins (required and monitored)

Wow, everything helpful to long term fat loss that sticks. Can you say, ACCOUNTABILITY? These factors help explain the better adherence.

By the way, the adherence rate for the low carb group was the lowest.

90.4% in low fat group
85.3% in the Mediterranean group
78% in the low carb group

Here’s the bottom line, the way I see it:

First, please, please, please learn how to find and read primary research and take the news media stories with a grain of salt. If you want to know who died, what burned down or what hurricane is coming, tune in to the news – they do a GREAT job at that. If you want to know how to lose weight or improve your health, look up the original research papers instead of taking second hand information at face value.

Second, those who prefer a low carb approach; more power to them. Most studies, this one included, show at the very least that low carb is an option and it’s not necessarily an unhealthy one if done intelligently. I also have no qualms with someone claiming that low carb diets are slightly more effective for weight loss, especially in the short term, free living situations. Is low carb superior for fat loss in the long haul? That’s STILL highly debatable. It’s probably superior for some people, but not for others.

Third, low carb people, listen up! Even if low carb is superior, that doesn’t mean calories don’t count. Deny this at your own peril. In fact, this study shows the reverse. The low carb group was in a larger negative energy balance than the high carb and Mediterranean group (according to the data published in this paper), which easily explains the greater weight loss. Posting the calories contained in foods in the cafeteria may have improved the results and helped with compliance in all groups.

When energy intake is matched calorie for calorie, the advantage of a low carb diet shrinks or disappears. For most people, low carb is a hunger management or calorie control weight loss advantage, not metabolic magic (sorry, no magic folks!)

Fourth, choose the nutrition program that’s most appropriate for your personal preferences, your current health condition, your genetics (or phenotype) and most important of all… the one you can stick with. Then tend your own garden instead of wasting time criticizing how the other guy is eating. Your results will speak for themselves in the end. Take your shirt off and show us.

If I were forced to choose only one approach (and thank god I’m not), I would recommend avoiding the extremes of very low carb or very low fat or very high fat or very high carbs. Balance makes the most sense to me, and the research suggests that this helps produce the highest compliance rate. That’s not rocket science either, it’s common sense. If you have a serious fat loss goal, as when I compete in bodybuilding, then a further reduction in carbs and increase
in protein makes perfect sense to me as a peaking diet.

If an extremely low or extremely high carb diet worked for you, great. But generalizing your experience to the entire rest of the world makes no sense. Arguing from extremes is the weakest form of argument.

The reason I have THREE nutrition plans (three phases) in my own fat loss program
is because programs with flexibility and room for individualization beat the others hands down in the long term. In fact, I wrote an entire chapter in my e-book about unique body types, how to determine yours and how to individualize your nutrition – it’s THAT important.

If you have more choices, you have more power. The people who are shackled by dogma and narrow thinking are stuck. They also risk missing what’s really important. Things like:

Personalization
Adherence
Long-term Maintenance
Accountability
Social Support

and…

CALORIES!

Train hard and expect success,

Tom Venuto CSCS, NSCA-CPT
Fat Loss Coach

www.BurnTheFat.com

PS. If you want to learn more about a balanced, flexible and proven approach, which teaches nutritional individuality and which can produce similar weight loss in one month, month after month, that the subjects of this study produced in TWO YEARS, (if you ADHERE to it!), then visit my fat loss website.

About the Author:

Tom Venuto is a natural bodybuilder, certified personal
trainer and freelance fitness writer. Tom is the author of “Burn the Fat, Feed The Muscle,” which teaches you how to get lean without drugs or supplements using secrets of the world’s best bodybuilders and fitness models. Learn how to get rid of stubborn fat and increase your metabolism by visiting: www.burnthefat.com

Related posts

• Turbulence Training Original 4-Week Bodyweight Program (0)
• 7 Secrets Of Permanent Fat Loss & Fitness (0)

Here’s anaother great free e-book for you. It’s the “Turbulence Training Original 4-Week Bodyweight Program”. Sculpt your body without the need for any fancy equipment or even a set of dumbbells. This 4-week program contains beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels so that no matter what your fitness level, you can get a complete Turbulence Training work anytime, anyplace. Take this one when you travel for work or holidays, and you won’t come home with any extra “baggage”.

http://www.healthforlife20.com/partners/tt/index.html

If you want different results - act differently, but ACT!

Holly

Related posts

• 7 Secrets Of Permanent Fat Loss & Fitness (0)
• HealthForLife20.com Blog Finally Online (0)
• What The New “Low-Carb” Study REALLY Says (0)
• Are US Vitamin Recommendations Hopelessly Out of Date? (0)

I’ve found a great free e-book about the “7 SECRETS OF PERMANENT FAT LOSS & FITNESS”. Downloaded by tens of thousands of people all over the world, you’ll learn how you can triple your fat loss results by cutting your workout time in half or more. You’ll also discover the most powerful secret in eating for a lean body. Plus you’ll steal 5 more secrets of permanent fat loss and that fit, lean & sexy look in this 40+ page eBooklet.

http://www.healthforlife20.com/partners/fbf/index.html

If you want different results - act differently, but ACT!

Holly

Related posts

• Turbulence Training Original 4-Week Bodyweight Program (0)
• What The New “Low-Carb” Study REALLY Says (0)
• HealthForLife20.com Blog Finally Online (0)

Hello All!

The HealthForLife20.com blog is finally online. In this blog I will publish information about health, fitness, nutrition and personal development. You can be sure that I personally review everything and only include information that I find of value to the health community out there.

Just visit http://www.healthforlife20.com

If you want different results - act differently, but ACT!

Holly

Related posts

• Turbulence Training Original 4-Week Bodyweight Program (0)
• Are US Vitamin Recommendations Hopelessly Out of Date? (0)
• 7 Secrets Of Permanent Fat Loss & Fitness (0)