Consumer

Green Tea is derived from the same plant as oolong and black tea, Camellia sinensis. The resulting difference between these teas are a simple result of how the leaves are prepared: green tea undergoes minimal oxidation and is not fermented, so the active constituents inherent in the leaves remain unaltered.

All Camellia sinensis teas are Chinese in origin, and their popularity for medicinal and social use has spread across the world. Lowering cholesterol, reducing risks for influenza and cancer, and promoting weight loss are just a few of the manifold medical uses of this herbal drink.

According to Chinese legend, green tea was discovered by Shennong, Emperor of China and mythical hero in equal measure. Shennong, the founder of Chinese agriculture and medicine, is said to have happened upon the drink in a rather fortuitous fashion: the Emperor was drinking some boiled water (the only safe way to drink water at the time -- undoubtedly he was a very wise man) and a leaf fell into his cup. He went ahead and tasted the result, and the rest is history.

Buddhists believe that the Buddha himself discovered tea, and another Chinese legend has it that the god of agriculture would chew various plants to discover medicinal herbs -- if the god would happen upon a poisonous plant he would chew tea leaves to detoxify the poison. Over the next week or so we'll go into detail over this mysterious and ancient beverage, so please check back in the coming days. In the meantime, please kick back and enjoy a cup of tea!

By Jim Roza

The latest controversy regarding Phillies’ pitcher J. C. Romero's use of 6-OXO (a designer type quasi-steroid which is sold in some health food stores) begets the question, “When is a compound a steroid or a supplement?” Clever chemistry has created many steroid-like compounds that supposedly provide the same benefits as the banned substances that FDA allows only by prescription. Through the manipulation of molecules, new compounds that have never before been seen can be put onto the market with little or no oversight.

A recent article in ESPN’s ezine entitled, “Steroid Nation: Wait and Watch”, illustrates how entrepreneurial individuals can seemingly evade FDA jurisdiction under the guise of dietary supplements. But what about the provisions of DSHEA? Aren’t new compounds marketed as dietary supplements prior to 1994 suppose to be submitted to FDA as new dietary ingredients for their review? Apparently, these individuals and companies are not fulfilling the requirements set forth in this law.

Sadly, I have not seen nor read one comment about this issue as it applies to new dietary ingredient submissions as prescribed by DSHEA. That’s unfortunate because the brunt of criticism that our industry is taking for these sins could easily be eliminated if more emphasis was based on exercising this requirement.

DSIB: Supplements at the Olympics

DSIB: Supplements and Doping at the Olympics

A new study conducted by Scandinavian researchers suggests that drinking coffee may dramatically decrease Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. The Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE) study, begun in 1972, has recently found that individuals who drank between three to five cups of coffee each day when they were middle aged were 65% less likely to develop dementia and Alzheimer's in later life. Over 26 million people worldwide are afflicted with Alzheimer's, and that figure could grow four-fold in the next forty years, leaving 1 out of every 85 people on the planet affected. The direct and indirect care costs for Alzheimer's, the most common form of dementia, is currently well over $100 billion dollars in the US alone.

"We aimed to study the association between coffee and tea consumption at midlife and dementia/AD risk in late-life, because the long-term impact of caffeine on the central nervous system was still unknown, and as the pathologic processes leading to Alzheimer's disease may start decades before the clinical manifestation of the disease," said lead researcher, Miia Kivipelto.

While drinking coffee produced a dramatically lessened risk, tea consumption has not yet shown a significant effect on dementia risks. Previous studies have noted that coffee consumption may help reduce dementia, as in the case of Parkinson's disease.

“[These findings need] to be confirmed by other studies, but it opens the possibility that dietary interventions could modify the risk of dementia/Alzheimer's Disease. Also, identification of mechanisms of how coffee exerts its protection against dementia/AD might help in the development of new therapies for these diseases," said Kivipelto.

(Ivana Kobilca, Kofetarica, 1888)

Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
DSIB: Alzheimer's Disease
WebMD: Moderate Coffee Drinking Reduces Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s by 65%
NutraUSA: Coffee may decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s

Today we would like to highlight an excellent article by Christiane Northrup, MD: Statins are not a panacea.

Dr. Northrup sets her sights on statin drugs, a class of pharmaceuticals that are designed to lower cholesterol levels. The big news push of late concerning these drugs has been based on a recent study which reported that in addition to high cholesterol levels, inflammation is a independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This knowledge is not novel, but the spin put on its announcement has certainly presented it as such. The worrying factor involved here is that the study seems almost transparently a marketing ploy: the drug used in the study was manufactured by the company that funded the research. Additionally, the study suggested that physicians begin regular testing for C-reactive proteins (CPR); while tests for this measure have been available for some time, this particular recommendation comes now, from this study, whose head researcher happens to own a patent on a new CPR test.

Conflicting interests of this sort in the current research of pharmaceutical drugs are all too common, but what Northrup truly takes issue with is how these manufacturers are trying to stake out a larger market share. The drug in question, which was initially prescribed to lower cholesterol, is now trying to branch out—the study recommends statins for anyone with inflammation, even those who are healthy and not at risk for heart disease.

One of the large issues with this is that the saftey of statin drugs is not fully understood. What has been shown repeatedly though, is that statins lower CoQ10, an essential enzyme for many bodily systems. This alone can cause problems with heart disease, muscle weakness, liver, nerve, and brain damage, as well as cancer, all of which is detailed at some length by Dr. Northrup. And statins have yet to show that they are actually helping: some of the biggest (and least publicized) studies have concluded that there is no difference in cardiac and death rates for those taking statins for high cholesterol from those who are not. With that in mind, it would seem prudent to find some other measure for which statins could be marketed. The fact is though, that people at no risk of heart disease may find other ways to go about lowering inflammation, and prescribing relatively new, unproven drugs to those individuals who don't need them seems a bit of a careless swindle.

From Dr. Northrup's concluding remarks:

Don’t be sucked in by this study. Do some research and understand all the facts around this issue before taking statins. The press reported that the study was stopped because [the manufacturing company] felt that the benefits of [their statin] and insights from the study were too important not to share now. But when you dig deeper, you also find out that the study was halted after two years to inflate the alleged benefits of the drug. This combined with the fact that both the company who funded the study and lead researcher had much to gain from its results make it look suspect.

Dr. Northrup's suggestion: a good multi-vitamin/mineral high in antioxidants, a low-glycemic diet, and having an active, healthy lifestyle. For the full article, have a look here: Buyer Beware, by Christiane Northrup.

As we mentioned last year, the flood of positive literature surrounding vitamin D research has placed the supplement's popularity in a rapid ascendancy, and with good cause. The latest news about Vitamin D research concerns vitamin D levels and young type 1 diabetics.

Boston researchers have found that children and teenagers with type 1 diabetes have a very high rate vitamin D deficiency, with three-fourths lacking sufficient vitamin D levels. As a result, youths with type 1 diabetes are at great risk for bone and skeletal issues later in life, especially bone fractures. 61% of the young group had levels that are considered to be "insufficient", while 15% of the population were found to be vitamin D deficient. "To our surprise, we found extremely high rates of vitamin D inadequacy," said senior researcher Dr. Lori Laffel, of Harvard Medical School in Boston. "We didn't expect to find that only 24 percent of the study population would have adequate levels."

Research suggests that lowered levels of vitamin D may be inherent in type 1 diabetes, putting individuals at greater risk for bone-density loss. Elevated blood sugar, lowered calcium levels, and symptomatic inflammation are all thought to potentially contribute to the problem. As these are inherent difficulties of the condition, and because vitamin D is not naturally contained in most foods, the American Academy of Pediatrics and researchers have recommended that children and teenagers should take 400 International Units (IU) of vitamin D supplements each day.

DSIB: Vitamin D
Reuters: Vitamin D deficiency common in diabetic kids
Diabetes Health: Vitamin D Extremely Important for Young Type 1s
JPEDS: Significant Vitamin D Deficiency in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
JAPMA: A Comparison of Vitamin D Levels in Nondiabetic and Diabetic Patient Populations
Science Daily: Vitamin D Is The 'It' Nutrient Of The Moment