Got Stress

If you're alive and breathing right now, I probably don't have to tell you about stress.

This is probably one of the most stressful times in our history. And you can't afford to ignore the significant impact stress can have on your health.

I'm just completing my 2010 book on living well and long, and one thing I can tell you is that stress is the enemy of a long and healthy life. The major stress hormones- like cortisol and adrenaline- serve important purposes in our body. In fact, we couldn't live without them. Without the signals they send to our body, we wouldn't be able to respond to emergencies. The stress hormones make it possible to run from a bear or fight off a wildebeest; they alert us when the teenager who's texting in the next lane is about to swerve into our car; they serve as an early warning system for danger, and prepare our bodies to either fight off an enemy or to run the other way. They're integrally related to our survival.

But our stress hormones were never meant to be "turned on" 24/7. While they're perfect for a quick response to an emergency, they also take a huge toll on our bodies when they're locked into the "on" position all the time. Cortisol, for example, sends signals to the body to break down muscle and store fat around the middle. Cortisol also shrinks an important part of the brain called the hippocampus, which is essential for memory and thinking. Stress can depress your immune system, make recovery from illness longer and more difficult, and can aggravate symptoms of a wide range of diseases.

Probably the single most effective way to bring down stress hormones is to meditate. Even deep breathing exercises, such as the Relaxation Response pioneered by Herbert Benson, MD at Harvard, can make a huge difference in lowering your stress hormones. (I discuss the Relaxation Response and how to do it in both "The Most Effective Natural cures on Earth" and in my latest book, "The 150 Most Effective Ways to Boost Your Energy".) A few carefully selected supplements may help as well.

One product recently introduced by Integrative Therapeutics is called Cortisol Manager, and it is an elegant formulation of herbs known to have stress reducing properties. Ashwaganda, for example, is known as a "vitalizer" or energizer for the body, and can be very helpful in fighting fatigue and exhaustion. Magnolia bark contains compounds that have demonstrated anti-anxiety properties, and L-theanine is the amino acid found in green tea that's known to be a great stress reliver.

One herb that has a terrific resume for stress is rhodiola rosea. A number of studies have demonstrated that rhodiola has an antifatigue effect, and it's also been shown to improve endurance exercise capacity. The prestigious (and conservative!) Physicans Desk Reference for Herbal Medicines says of rhodiola, "Most users find that it improves their mood, energy level and mental clarity". Rhodiola should be taken early in the day because it can interfere with sleep. Between 50-200 mg a day is recommended for clinical effectiveness.

Remember that stress eats up B vitamins and vitamin C. The adrenal glands require vitamin B5 (pantothenic acid) to do their job properly, so if you're under a lot of continual stress, you may feel better by supplementing with extra B and also with vitamin C.

Vitamins No Help in Heart Disease?

If you'd like a perfect example of the way the media reports on vitamins-- and why it makes me crazy-- look no further than the recent headlines proclaiming "Vitamins No Help in Heart Disease".

First here's what happened, as reported in the Nov 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers enrolled 14,641 male physicians in the study, all of whom were at very low risk for cardiovascular disease. The men were divided into four groups.

1. The first group took 400 IUs of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C every day.
2. The second took vitamin E and a placebo vitamin C.
3. The third, real vitamin C and a placebo vitamin E.
4. The fourth group took 2 placebos.

After 8 years the researchers found no difference among the groups in the incidence of heart attack, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

"There are no compelling reasons to take either vitamin E or C for cardiovascular disease prevention" said the lead author, Howard D. Sesso.

OK read that over carefully and see if you can spot the problems.

Number one, we have no idea what kind of vitamin E was given. From past experience, doctors- who know absolutely nothing about this stuff- tend to give alpha-tocopherol, the least effective of the 8 components of vitamin E. Number two, look at the dose. Four hundred IUs taken every other day. And if previous experience is any guide, they probably used an synthetic source, which is about half as effective as a natural source. On what planet do you dismiss any possible benefit from vitamin E based on a low dose of an ineffective form of the vitamin given to a population that wasn't at risk in the first place?

And while vitamin C at 500mg is a nice basic dose, no one seriously thinks that's enough to make a therapeutic difference.

So the first thing that's wrong here is that it's a lousy study that seems almost pre-destined to show little effect. In fact the cards were so loaded against the vitamins that they would have to be miracle pills- literally preventing any cases of heart disease at these low doses- before the researchers would give them any credit.

The second thing is that the press unanimously reported this study as another case showing that vitamins are "ineffective".

Never mind that just last year multivitamin and vitamin E use was found to be associated with lower mortality from cerebrovascular disease (CVD) in the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer. Never mind that vitamin E is the most potent fat-soluble anti-oxidant in the plasma and the tissues. And never mind that no less a source than the Physicians Desk Reference states that "The results of a very large number of studies, including in vitro and animal studies, epidemiological and intervention trails, support a role for vitamin E in the prevention of cardiovascular disease". And don't even get me started on the multiple benefits of vitamin C.

Look, I admit that some studies of single nutrients have been disappointing. And I'm certainly not saying that such studies shouldn't be reported. But is the message we really want to send here that vitamins are "ineffective"? Is that really what this study shows?

The moral of the story is this: Look a little deeper than the headlines. That's probably good advice in general, but it's certainly good advice in the field of health reporting.

Vitamin C and the Risk for Diabetes

In a recent issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers at the University of Cambridge reported an association between higher levels of vitamin C in the bloodstream and a lower risk of developing Type ll Diabetes.

The researchers looked at over 21,000 participants from 1993-1997 who did not have diabetes when the study started. Their vitamin C levels were tested, and the participants were given dietary questionnaires to fill out when they enrolled in the study. Then the researchers followed the participants till 2005.

Over the twelve years of follow-up, 423 men and 312 women developed diabetes. But those men and women who were in the top 20% of vitamin C levels had a whopping 62% lower risk of developing the disease compared with those in the bottom 20%.

There are a couple of things that are interesting here. One, vitamin C is often a "marker" for fruit and vegetable intake in the diet- people who eat more fruits and vegetables have more vitamin C in their blood stream, and in the Western diet, 90% of our vitamin C comes from fruits and vegetables. So the protection against diabetes may have come from the vitamin C, but it also may have come from fruits and vegetables and all their assorted protective vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.

So the authors did an interesting statistical analysis. They also evaluated fruit and vegetable intake independently of vitamin C in the blood. Not surprisingly, fruit and vegetable intake was also associated with a lower risk of diabetes (22% lower) but- perhaps surprisingly- fruit and vegetable consumption was associated with a lower reduction of risk against diabetes than high vitamin C levels in the blood.

"Higher plasma vitamin C level and, to a lesser degree, fruit and vegetable intake were associated with a substantially decreased risk of diabetes," the study authors wrote.

Never in the world would I recommend taking a vitamin supplement instead of eating vegetables and fruits. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of plant compounds found in the plant kingdom that probably have synergistic effects on our health, and many have specific health benefits besides the ones looked at in this study.

But the fact is that vitamin C is an incredibly important vitamin and most of us don’t get the optimal amount, even when we do eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. (Much vitamin C is lost between the time the fruit is picked and transported to your grocers shelf- more is lost once it’s cut.) My personal recommendation: Eat all the vegetables and fruits you possibly can- and also take a high quality vitamin C supplement such as Stellar C or Bio Fizz for added protection!