Dr Paul Clayton 2013<\/p>\n
Regular readers of my newsletter know my position on supplements by now. Unlike the
\nnutritionists and medics who insist, against all the facts, that we can obtain all the micro- and
\nphyto-nutrients we need in a well-balanced diet, our position is science-based. There is a
\nwealth of evidence that most people are depleted in most nutrients(1-3) and that this is a
\ncause of widespread ill health, and health care costs of \u20ac170 billion a year in Europe alone.(4)<\/p>\n
A tragedy \u2013 but utterly predictable and easily avoidable. Today\u2019s low-energy lifestyles mean
\nthat most folk do not consume more than 2,000-2,500 calories a day, but we were not
\n\u2018designed\u2019 to live at such low energy levels. New calculations show it takes 3,000-3,500
\ncalories of a nutrient-dense and well-balanced diet (full of chicken liver, oily fish, wheatgerm
\nand 7 or more portions of fruit and vegetables every day) to get everything needed for
\nsustained good health(5). This is manageable if you are an athlete or a manual worker with a
\nhealthy appetite and a strong stomach! But for the great majority of us whose occupations and
\nlifestyle make such a diet unsustainable, the case for supplements is overwhelming.<\/p>\n
The basic arguments were laid out in a series of three papers, published in the Journal of the
\nRoyal Society of Medicine back in 2008,(6-8) which indicated that improved diet could cut
\nthe burden of chronic degenerative disease by up to 90%. The authors are currently working
\nwith a team of med-economists on a fourth paper which derives the public health savings
\nthat would be made by improving our diet; the preliminary findings indicate that public health
\ncosts could be cut by over 50%.(9)<\/p>\n
These figures are staggering, but a new report from industry experts Frost & Sullivan goes a
\nlong way to substantiating them.(10) This focuses mostly on North America but its
\nimplications are almost universal. The research team conducted a systematic review of
\nhundreds of scientific studies on eight dietary supplement regimens across four diseases to
\ndetermine the reduction in disease risk from these preventive practices. The group then projected the rates of medical events across the high-risk populations and applied cost benefit
\nanalyses to determine the cost savings if people at high risk took supplements at preventive
\nintake levels.<\/p>\n
The supplement regimes they screened are outlined in the table below.<\/p>\n
FROST & SULLIVAN TABLE OF POTENTIAL SAVINGS BY SUPPLEMENT USE<\/strong> These items alone amount to total annual savings of $12.5 billion \u2013 a considerable sum, To begin with, most micro- and phytonutrients exert multiple protective effects. Omega-3, for More seriously, the above supplement regimes are out of date and sub-optimal.<\/p>\n If you really wanted to reduce coronary heart disease, you would be foolish indeed to rely on SUPPLEMENTS FOR CORONARY HEART DISEASE updated<\/strong> Such a regime would cost more, but the overall savings would likely be an order of magnitude And if you were to cut out fast foods\u2014cooked at high temperatures, which produces higher Similarly, a supplement to reduce the risk or impact of diabetes would include not just It\u2019s noticeable that the Frost & Sullivan report does not mention or calculate the potential REFERENCES<\/p>\n 1. Krebs-Smith SM, Guenther PM, Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Dodd KW. Americans do not meet federal dietary recommendations. J Nutr. 2010 Oct;140(10):1832-8
\nSupplement – For disease – Savings per year
\nCalcium + Vitamin D – Osteoporosis – $ 1.08 billion
\nMagnesium – Osteoporosis – $ 530 million
\nLutein + Zeaxanthin – Age-related eye disease eg. AMD, cataract – $ 930 million
\nOmega 3 – Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) – $ 930 million
\nB vitamins B6, B12, Folic Acid – Heart disease – $ 560 million
\nDietary fibre eg. psyllium – Heart disease – $ 2.3 billion
\nPhyto-sterols – Heart disease – $ 3.3 billion
\nChromium picolinate – Diabetes-induced Heart disease – $ 970 million<\/p>\n
\neven in these inflationary times. How accurate is this accounting? There is a good deal of
\nuncertainty with the figures, but I submit that they are actually a gross under-estimate of the
\nsavings that could be made.<\/p>\n
\nexample, not only reduces cardiovascular deaths but also depressive illness and self-
\nharm, up to and including suicide.<\/p>\n
\njust Omega-3s, B vitamins, psyllium and phytosterols. If you based your cardioprotective
\nregime on up-to-date science you would replace the phytosterols and psyllium
\nand extend your supplements to the following.<\/p>\n
\nOmega 3 from fish oil – Helps lower blood pressure, reduce blood fat levels, cut risk of heart attacks.
\nB vitamins B6, B12, Folic Acid – B-complex vitamins are essential to produce energy and repair DNA
\nPolyphenols plant-derived compounds in fruit and vegetables, such as green tea, grapeseed, curcumin
\nMixed tocopherols and tocotrienols – Compounds with powerful vitamin-E activity, but each with a different biological action
\nCarotenoids and xanthophylls – Anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant eg. beta carotene, lutein, lycopene
\nSoy isoflavones – Associated with improved glucose metabolism
\nVitamins C, D, K2 Selenium – K2 is especially important for cardiovascular health<\/p>\n
\ngreater.<\/p>\n
\nlevels of pro-inflammatory toxins\u2014your level of protection would be even higher.<\/p>\n
\nchromium, but also many of the above, as they all have powerful anti-inflammatory benefits,
\nand we know that diabetes is driven by chronic inflammation.<\/p>\n
\nimpact of supplements on cancer health care costs. While this is possibly to avoid being
\ncontentious, recent research indicates that chronic inflammation in tissues creates the
\nconditions in which cancer is far more likely to spread. So\u2014again\u2014a truly comprehensive
\nsupplement should produce significant reductions in cancer care costs too.<\/p>\n
\n2. Fulgoni VL 3rd, Keast DR, Bailey RL, Dwyer J. Foods, fortificants, and supplements: Where do Americans get their nutrients? J Nutr. 2011 Oct;141(10):1847-54
\n3. Troesch B, Hoeft B, McBurney M, Eggersdorfer M, Weber P. Dietary surveys indicate vitamin intakes below recommendations are common in representative Western countries. Br J Nutr. 2012 Aug;108(4):692-8
\n4. MNI Report. ESPEN, Barcelona 2012
\n5. Clayton P. Out of the Fire (PharmacoNutrition Press, October 2013)
\n6. Rowbotham J, Clayton P. An unsuitable and degraded diet? Part three: Victorian consumption patterns and their health benefits. J R Soc Med. 2008 Sep;101(9):454-62.
\n7. Clayton P, Rowbotham J. An unsuitable and degraded diet? Part two: realities of the mid-Victorian diet. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jul;101(7):350-7.
\n8. Clayton P, Rowbotham J. An unsuitable and degraded diet? Part one: public health lessons from the mid-Victorian working class diet. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):282-9.
\n9. Clayton P, Rowbotham J. Personal communication 2013
\n10. Shanahan C, de Lorimier R. 2013. Smart Prevention\u2014Health Care Cost Savings Resulting from the Targeted Use of Dietary Supplements. www.crnusa.org\/CRNfoundation\/HCCS\/chapter\/CRNFrostSullivanfullreport0913.pdf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"