Carnitine chemical, not fat, may explain link between red meat and heart disease

[www.cbsnews.com]

You beat me to the post!
My concern is GPLC it has L-Carnitine
So is this another supplement we've been taking doing harm?

I have the same concern. This nutrition science is in its infancy. Someone (a doc) was pushing acetyl-l-carnitine as a great enhancer to ubiquinol. So today even docs who are paleo are saying "uh oh"?

Who the hell knows how arteries are getting stuffed or whether Lysine et al reverses it.

Until Dr Spock is real and a simple arm scan shows all, what to believe?

One of the red flags that has been waiving in my face for some time is that Dr Sinatra is such an unabashed huckster of the products he recommends. I always have one eye brow raised in regards to the protocol from his book "Metabolic Cardiology" (carnitine, ribose, coq10) and wonder if the profit motive may have impacted: a) the supplements being recommended, and/or; b) the quantities being recommended.

In my quest for a more natural way of healing, it is always in my mind that, whether all of these supplements are healing or not, they are mostly contrived and/or isolated substances based on some level of knowledge, much of which will be found to be somewhat off track in the future. They are another pharmaceutical under a different guise.

That being said, I liken it to the two old and damaged elm trees in my yard. When I moved in 1992 they were on their last legs, overrun with elm scale and aphids. I contracted an arborist for a year round program of supplements and nutrition, some of which are very strong and not at all "natural". And the trees came back to life and thrived for many years.

I am seeking, but not with my head in the sand.

Here's another, while having breakfast (eggs and bacon) I was reading the NY Times Science section after reading pages about the Iron Lady's legacy.

"Thinking twice about calcium supplements"



Americans seem to think that every health problem can be solved with a pill. And certainly many are, especially infectious diseases that succumb to antibiotics, antifungals and, increasingly, antivirals.

But that leaves a medical dictionary full of ailments that continue to plague people despite the best efforts of Big Pharma. Most are chronic health problems related to how Americans live, especially what we eat and drink, and don’t eat and drink, and how we move or don’t move. In our aging society, these ailments have pushed the annual cost of medical care into the trillions of dollars and threaten to break Medicare.

Osteoporosis is one of these increasingly prevalent and costly conditions. Although there are drugs to stanch the loss of bone and the debilitating fractures that often result, the remedies are costly, difficult to administer and sometimes have side effects that can be worse than the disease they are meant to counter.

This makes prevention the preferred and more cost-effective option. But efforts to prevent bone disease have focused on a pill, namely supplements of calcium, the mineral responsible for creating bone in youth that must be maintained throughout adult life, which now routinely extends to the 80s and 90s.

But as with many other pills once regarded as innocuous, the safety and efficacy of calcium supplements in preventing bone loss is being called into question.

In February, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that postmenopausal women refrain from taking supplemental calcium and vitamin D. After reviewing more than 135 studies, the task force said there was little evidence that these supplements prevent fractures in healthy women.

Moreover, several studies have linked calcium supplements to an increased risk of heart attacks and death from cardiovascular disease. Others have found no effect, depending on the population studied and when calcium supplementation was begun.

The resulting controversy has left countless people, especially postmenopausal women, wondering whether they should be taking calcium. Given the conditional evidence currently available, the answer is not likely to be greeted enthusiastically by anyone other than dairy farmers, who supply the foods and drinks that are the country’s richest dietary sources of calcium.

The one indisputable fact is that the safest and probably the most effective source of calcium for strong bones and overall health is diet, not supplements. But few American adults, and a decreasing proportion of children and teenagers, consume enough dairy foods to get the recommended intakes of this essential mineral.

Milk consumption has taken a steady nose-dive in the last four decades, largely supplanted by sugared soft drinks that are now under fire as major contributors to obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Beyond age 20, when bone loss can begin to overtake bone formation, the typical man and woman in this country consumes less than one cup of milk a day. Likewise for teenage girls, who should be striving to maximize bone formation so that there is more in reserve when bone loss begins.

Yogurt, which ounce for ounce is an even better source of calcium than fluid milk, has achieved unprecedented popularity in recent years, but few consume it more than once a day, which doesn’t come close to meeting dietary needs. Frozen yogurt, which threatens to supplant ice cream as the nation’s most popular frozen dessert, has about half the amount of calcium as regular yogurt and only slightly more than ice cream. Both are far more caloric than nonfat milk.

The only other notable calcium-rich foods are tofu (when prepared with calcium); calcium-fortified orange juice, soy milk and rice milk; canned salmon and sardines (but only if you eat the bones); almonds; kale; and broccoli. But few people consume enough of these foods to obtain the calcium they need.

Calcium was long thought to protect the cardiovascular system. It helps to lower blood pressure and the risk of hypertension, a major contributor to heart disease. The Iowa Women’s Health Study linked higher calcium intakes in postmenopausal women to a reduced risk of heart disease deaths, though other long-term studies did not find such an association.

Controversy over calcium supplements arose when a combined analysis of 15 studies by Dr. Mark J. Bolland of the University of Auckland found that when calcium was taken without vitamin D (which enhances calcium absorption), the supplements increased the risk of heart attack by about 30 percent.

Dr. Bolland then reanalyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative and found a 24 percent increased risk of heart attack among women who took calcium with or without vitamin D. In this case, the increased risk occurred only among those women assigned to take supplemental calcium who had not already been taking it when the study began.

Yet last December, in a report published online in Osteoporosis International, a team at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle reported that among 36,282 postmenopausal women participating in the Women’s Health Initiative, those taking 1,000 milligram supplements of calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D experienced a 35 percent reduced risk of hip fracture, and no increase in heart attacks during a seven-year follow-up.

In February yet another study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that among 388,229 men and women initially aged 50 to 71 and followed for an average of 12 years, supplemental calcium raised the risk of cardiovascular death by 20 percent among men — but not women. The increased risk was observed only among smokers.

Adding to these confusing results is the fact that none of the studies was specifically designed to assess the effects of calcium supplements on the chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke. This can cause unexpected aberrations in research findings.

One possible explanation for a link, the JAMA researchers said, is that a bolus of calcium that enters the blood stream through a supplement, but not gradually through dietary sources, can result in calcium deposits in arteries. Indeed, this is a known complication among patients with advanced kidney disease who take calcium supplements.

All the researchers agree that, given the widespread use of supplemental calcium, better studies are needed to clarify possible risks and benefits, and to whom they may apply.

Until such information is available, consumers seeking to preserve their bones would be wise to rely primarily on dietary sources of the mineral and to pursue regular weight-bearing or strength-building exercises, or both. Walking, running, weight lifting and working out on resistance machines is unquestionably effective and safe for most adults, if done properly.

Furthermore, the National Osteoporosis Foundation maintains that the findings of current studies and advice about supplements should “not apply to women with osteoporosis or broken bones after age 50 or those with significant risk factors for fracture.” For them, the benefits of calcium supplements are likely to far outweigh any risks.

As the article says this is one study and it needs to be replicated before we can take it seriously.

Magnesium, boron, vit D are good for bone health, but I agree that we should try to get as much as possible from our food. Taking a supplement that is high in a certain mineral or vit. can cause problems if that high a nutrient is not needed. My brother died last year from prostrate cancer, he had been inundated with all kinds of vitamin supplements that was going to cure him, I get his mail now and it is absolutely sickening to see all of the supplement hype coming from this doctor, PH, etc. promising cures, I have come to see these people as leeches, none of their stuff will cure anything. You have to eat correctly, a few supplements but people are going overboard, there is no quick cure, if you have had a bad diet, no exercise then of course a good diet and exercise will help greatly, a few supplements should help as well.

Liz

On the topic of the thread:
Red meat and carnitine... the bacteria fed by carnitine that are reported to cause problems might easily be discouraged by routine, daily use of targeted antimicrobials or high, therapeutic-dose probiotics. Many people who have used probiotics for years for GI health, seem not to suffer from the typical cardiovascular problems that commonly plague others. Remember the ancient adage: Heal the Gut, Heal the Patient. I'm betting that as a result of this news, very soon we'll see a patented product to replace statins that will be prescribed as a replacement now that statins will now be relegated to the obsolete shelves (where they should have been years ago). That said, it's certainly easy enough to eliminate red meat from one's diet and hope the body can make enough on its own. It will be interesting to see how Big Pharma makes Carnitine the villan since Carnitine is listed in the Physician's Desk reference and indicates need for supplementing in various circumstances.

In The Healing Nutrients Within (Braverman), the chapter devoted to Carnitine is titled... "Carnitine: The Heart Tonic. ". If your body is unable to make enough of its own carnitine and intake is not adequate from food, then supplementing has been the recommendation. Signs of a carnitine deficiency: confusion, muscle weakness, obesity, heart pain and aging.

Dr. Braverman notes: "Carnitine supplements have improved angina. Could be useful in muscle weakness. Has been shown useful in cases of heart muscle disease. Hearts undergoing severe arrhythmia quickly deplete their stores of carnitine. European articles show carnitine supplements improve athletes endurance and may improve muscle building by improving fat utilization.

I'm sure this will remain a hot topic. As I passed by the meat counter at the market today, two people were enlightening each other about the news that red meat is called out again as not healthy... they went on and on about but missed the point that it was the bacteria causing the problem. I'm sure the media will be obsessed for weeks about the news.


On the use of supplements:
Some of my success for reversing the very long bouts of daily afib I was experiencing six months prior to my ablation in 2003 came from adding the d-ribose and much more as a result of strong emphasis on the electrolyte balance...specifically magnesium, potassium and taurine. Carnitine prior to ablation was always too stimulatory and ended up promoting an event. But I went from daily afib to zero and reduced flecainide from 300 mg to 50 mg a day. I doubt if I could have achieved that without supportive supplements since for the 8 years prior to that, I my afib progressed from once every six months to daily... even though I had begun to supplement significantly more about 3 years prior. The key was the strong focus on electrolytes and how that actually works and at the time, I didn't fully appreciate the fine points of how that worked.

Even though I continued with supplements, four years after the (Natale) ablation, I had periodic breakthroughs... in years 4, 5 and 6 - j(about 6 events in 3 years). Annoying and a concern. I had become a bit complacent, thinking that ablation was the total answer. It was not. So, again... focusing on the emphasis for careful balance of the electrolytes but more specifically, the sodium/potassium ratio with regard to making sure heart energy production was optimized because when it's all said and done, if you don't have enough or are not able to produce enough heart energy (read voltage), you're heart will be prone to a shortened refractory period - low potassium, typically - and after that comes ectopy and afib. Additionally, I added the carnitine as suggested in Metabolic Cardiology (Sinatra) and higher doses of CoQ10 in the ubiquinol form after listening to several teleconferences on how to support heart energy. Coupled with the added supplements, I maintained a strong focus on monitoring tissue pH since again, an acidic body is low in voltage.

That worked well, and once again, reversed the afib trend; otherwise, I'd have probably been placed on a list for the second ablation.
My success is documented in The Strategy and I have helped many others enjoy the same successes. I will be updating and revising slightly, The Strategy to include an emphasis on the energy/voltage connection so it is documented and so to emphasis on the importance of tissue pH and the role of Alkalinity in the healing process and it's role in maintaining voltage in maintaining a healthy body.

Everyone is different in health status and nutrient adequacy or deficiencies. Testing is useful to determine where deficiencies lie so that biochemical interferences or inadequacies can be highlighted and steps taken to get back into appropriate functional ranges. If deficiencies continue, then eventually, the symptoms show up as various ailment or chronic conditions that may often lead to more than just annoying symptoms. A body that continues to be low in voltage cannot support health.

It's well known that the US diet is in general, woefully deficient in the basic nutrients. Typical SAD food is just empty calories and lacks the essential nutrients unless a concerted effort is made make sure what goes in has optimal nutritional value.

Nutritional supplements do work when they are targeted for specific needs and when lifestyles don't work against the whole plan. Lifestyle interferences encompass a wide range of influences that are highly individualized although general commonalities occur.

Jackie

Hi Jackie,

You said, " if you don't have enough or are not able to produce enough heart energy (read voltage), you're heart will be prone to a prolonged refractory period - low potassium, typically - and after that comes ectopy and afib."

Actually a prolonged refractory period is what we want. This is because the cells won't fire on their own during this period, and firing on their own leads to ectopy and afib. A shortened refractory period is a problem.

Regards,

George

Hi George - yes, of course, you're correct... that's a stupid error... I had intended to say we want to extend it and then got distracted... I'll correct the post.

Thanks so much.

Jackie

Latest “Red Meat Study” Doubly Flawed
Posted By ANH-USA On April 16, 2013

No, meat is not unsafe—nor is L-carnitine.

A recent study [1] published in the journal Nature Medicine associates the amino acid L-carnitine, found in red meat, supplements, and sports supplements, with the risk of heart disease. Here are some examples of what the media said about it: The Daily Mail (UK) [2]: “Red meat nutrient used in weight-loss and muscle-building supplements could cause heart disease”! The Dallas News [3]: “Put down that steak! (and energy drinks, too); the carnitine in these foods may increase risk of cardiovascular disease”!

Here is the gist of the study:
• a diet high in L-carnitine promotes the growth of certain bacteria that metabolize the amino acid;
• during that metabolization, an organic compound called trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) is produced in the blood; and
• this compound increases risk of heart disease.

The study further states that vegetarians and vegans have different gut bacteria, which do not produce a burst of TMAO after consuming L-carnitine.

There is a lot to find fault with in this study.

First, there’s the question of the study participants. Most of the study was done on mice, though there was a human component—a tiny sample of only six people, five meat-eaters and one vegan. That’s right, their conclusion that vegetarians and vegans have different gut bacteria that don’t produce a burst of TMAO after consuming L-carnitine was based on just one individual.

We also don’t know how healthy the five meat-eaters were in this study. The study found that the red meat eaters did not produce TMAO after a course of antibiotics. This suggests that these subjects’ immune systems were already damaged—not that all meat eaters’ are. At the same time, it is still unclear whether TMAO production is caused by eating red meat at all (this was just an assumption), and whether raised TMAO levels actually cause heart disease.

Second, the idea that L-carnitine causes heart disease conflicts with other, better evidence. A large and recent meta-analysis [4], published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings, suggests that L-carnitine is helpful for heart disease, not a cause. This meta-analysis specifically tested L-carnitine on hard outcomes in humans who had already experienced acute myocardial infarction, and found that L-carnitine was associated with significant reduction in death from all causes and a highly significant reduction in ventricular arrhythmias and anginal attacks following a heart attack, compared with placebo or control. In other words, L-carnitine, far from being harmful to the heart, actually heals it!

None of the media reports we saw bothered to mention any of the positive effects of L-carnitine—even those mentioned in the study itself. Its essential function is to transport fatty acids into our mitochondria, which may be why it is so beneficial to heart patients. It also helps with kidney disease and male infertility, reduces fat mass, increases muscle mass, and reduces fatigue. In elderly patients, it also helps energy metabolism and improves neurotransmitter function in the brain.

And if L-carnitine is actually good for us, what about meat? That’s still controversial. But other studies don’t support the conclusion that it harms us. An extremely large meta-analysis published by Circulation (over 1.2 million participants) found that fresh and unprocessed red meat consumption was not associated with increased heart disease risk, stroke, or diabetes.

In addition, this one, much-hyped study makes no differentiation between different types or sources of meat. As we have discussed frequently in the past[5], industrialized factory farm meat is very different from organic, local, grass-fed meat in its nutrient composition. Meat from CAFOs [6]—that is, confined animal feeding operations—contains twenty times the amount of omega-6 fatty acids (which are associated with inflammation, arthritis, and cancer) than healthier omega-3 fatty acids, have much more fat marbling, and may be full of antibiotics.

Grass-fed beef has nearly seven times more omega-3s than omega-6s, so eaten in moderation, it offers healthier levels of essential fats. Moreover, grass-fed beef is lower in total fat, and higher in vitamin E complex, beta-carotene, thiamin, riboflavin, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and CLA—and these differences may have a tremendous impact on both the types of bacteria in the gut and the levels of TMAO produced. But of course, we won’t know about that, because this was never even thought about in the study.

What none of these overhyped media reports—not to mention the study itself— take into account is the reality of bioindividuality. No one diet, and no one selection of supplements, should be advocated for everyone. Only a balanced diet tailored to each individual body’s personal needs will ensure one’s health in the long run.
________________________________________
Article printed from The Alliance for Natural Health USA: [www.anh-usa.org]-
URL to article: [www.anh-usa.org]

URLs in this post:
[1] study: [www.nature.com]
[2] The Daily Mail (UK): [www.dailymail.co.uk]
[3] The Dallas News: [www.anh-usa.orgThe] Dallas News
[4] recent meta-analysis: [www.medpagetoday.com]
[5] As we have discussed frequently in the past: [www.anh-usa.org]
[6] Meat from CAFOs: [www.nrdc.org]
Copyright 2012 Alliance for Natural Health - US. All rights reserved.

The Pulse of Natural Health.
This newsletter is copyrighted material (© 2012 by Alliance for Natural Health USA) but we hope you will forward, copy, or reprint it without prior authorization. Just remember to note the source and date, and please link to original content on the ANH-USA website.

The information in The Pulse of Natural Health is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified professional about any issue regarding their health and well-being.

ANH-USA Vice President Deborah Ray has been bringing quality health information to radio listeners since 1982 and has been consistently named among the top 100 most important talk radio hosts in America by Talkers Magazine. Visit her blog on the ANH-USA website.

Thank you Jackie for doing the real research!