This is a new supplement that claims to take a different approach to antioxidants. Instead of ingesting antioxidants such as vitamins E and C, or CoQ10, this product claims to stimulate the body naturally to produce more antioxidants itself. It claims to reduce oxidative stress to the level normally found in a 20 year old.

It claims to be extensively tested, and the company is a publicly traded company called Lifeline Therapeutics.

Does anyone know anything about this? Their website address is http://www.protandim.com/html/lifeline.htm

Test results can be found here: http://www.protandim.com/html/about_the_science/protandim_solution.htm

I find it pretty intriguing, Dave. Thanks for posting the links! I don't know a whole lot about it, but I do know that reliably and permanently increasing SOD levels is indeed supposed to be the holy grail of anti-aging medicine. SOD can't be synthesized effectively for ingestion, I don't think, and I've heard that SOD supplementation is essentially a waste of time and money. The bod needs to have the tools to make it on its own. Copper, zinc, etc.

Based on what I read I don't think I'd throw out my whole supplementation regimen for it. It's too new. But I'd sure invest in a few bottles if I had some discretionary cash hanging around!

What is your initial reaction, based on the website?

I'm buying the stuff, although it's pretty pricy. It has been online for months, maybe more than a year, although I've only known about it for months. I just got my first bottle today. The thing is, there is no way to tell whether it's working of just a waste of $50 each month.

The company has taken its time and done a lot of testing before releasing the product. They also have some of the top names in antioxidant research either on their board or under contract with the company, so they're at least spending the money to line up credibility.

I'm still going to take my supplements, but I know that the oral antioxidants are pretty much useless.

Dave--LMAO --dear Dave--don't you know how very provoking it is when you say something like "I know that the oral antioxidants are pretty much useless." ??!! LOL

I'm sorry...I mean that in the best possible way. I just can't stop chuckling and I had to say that... LOL

Seriously, you're entitled to that opinion. But I'm sure some evidence to the contrary could be scrounged up from somewhere reliable.

I for one would be interested to hear about any effects you feel might stem from the use of this product. Energy increase, hair growth, etc. Are you planning on having any bloodwork done to track possible effects?

AmyLou

Here's what I mean by that statement: people who take oral antioxidants regularly do not live longer than those who do not. In fact, studies have shown that those who take 400 IU or more daily of vitamin E have shorter lifespans than those who do not. Or rather, they have a 5% higher death rate during the time span of the studies. Here's another example. You would need to take more CoQ-10 than you can ingest to make a difference. It is simply impossible to take enough antioxidants orally to even make a dent in replacing what is lost naturally due to aging, and there is evidence that some of them are actually harmful when taken orally.

That said, I still take CoQ-10, although I have backed off my intake of vitamin E. I take less of it now, perhaps about 100 IU's daily, although I have increased the amount of almonds and walnuts I eat to make up for it.

There is no doubt that antioxidants are helpful. My point is that taking them orally does very little if anything to actually replace what the body loses naturally due to aging.

It's not that the study is flawed, you just have to understand what it means.

A meta-study is really a summary of other studies. To say that it's flawed because there are different populations, durations etc. of the studies being summarized really misses the point and is irrelevant to analyzing the results reported. What the summary brought to light is that in several different studies, the population that took 400 IUs or more of vitamin E daily had a higher rate of death than the population that did not take vitamin E. Those are real results, replicated over a variety of study populations, so we have to ask ourselves why did the studies get those results, which even the researchers admitted were surprising?

One answer is that the people in the study groups were older than the general population and sick and so were more prone to die anyway. However, this answer is a poor one because the same can be said of the control groups, and their death rates were lower. Therefore, this answer doesn't explain the difference.

A better answer is that the studies isolated vitamin E, and therefore tell us little or nothing about taking vitamin E in conjunction with other things, especially other antioxidants. This is a more promising answer, for the reasons cited in the quote you posted, Deb, that vitamin E by itself produces more free radicals.

To me, the upshot of this is that we should be careful how much vitamin E we take. I used to take 445 IUs daily, 45 IUs in my multivitamin, 400 IUs in a separate vitamin E supplement. I now still take my multivitamin, but I take the 400 IU vitamin E supplement only about three times a week, and I have increased my intake of CoQ-10 and vitamin C. I have also started trying to get additional vitamin E in foods by eating more almonds and walnuts, rather than ingesting vitamin E in isolation.

To me, that's a sensible reaction to a plausible interpretation of the study results. Don't throw out the studies, but also don't quit taking vitamin E, attempt to determine what is the likely explanation for the results that were replicated over a number of studies, and avoid the problems that those studies may have exposed.

BTW, take with a grain of salt anything posted by a company that makes its living selling you what it is discussing. Vitacost may be a reliable supplier, but after all they do make their living in part by selling vitamin E supplements. So it is appropriate to be skeptical of their attempts to pooh-pooh study results that suggest that perhaps we don't want to order something quite as often as we had thought.

http://fantastic-voyage.net/ReaderQandA.htm
Many vitamin E users were upset to read the headline from the November 11, 2004 issue of USA Today -- “Study: High dose of vitamin E may increase death risk.” This has led to a storm of controversy about the safety of Vitamin E supplementation. This concern is largely the result of a recent scientific paper by Miller et al entitled “Meta-Analysis: High-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality” that was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.”

What the researchers from Johns Hopkins found was that people who took 400 units or more of what they describe as “vitamin E” had a 5% greater risk of premature death than people who took lower doses. Therefore, the researchers concluded “High dosage vitamin E supplements may increase mortality and should be avoided.”
There are several flaws with this “meta analysis.” According to Steven Milloy of FOXNews.com's "Junk Science," “The researchers didn’t study any vitamin E-users first-hand; instead they simply reviewed data from 19 earlier vitamin E clinical trials, including 11 ‘high dose’ trials. But 10 of the 11 ‘high-dose’ trials didn’t make any statistically significant correlations between vitamin E use and premature death.”

The research in the paper was a meta study, meaning that it combined data from other studies. While results of meta studies can be valid, there are methodological challenges in combining studies that have different control guidelines.
The biggest problem with this paper, however, was its confusion of the terms “vitamin E” and “alpha tocopherol.” It used these terms interchangeably, and did not take into account that vitamin E is not the same thing as alpha-tocopherol, but contains several other components such as beta-, delta-, and gamma-tocopherol in addition to alpha. Rather, the generic term “vitamin E” was used throughout the paper:

According to Huang and Appel, we know that “Vitamin E is a collective term for eight naturally occurring compounds, four tocopherols (?-, ?-, ?-, and ?-) and four tocotrienols (?-, ?-, ?-, and ?-).” Yet, by equating alpha-tocopherol with vitamin E, the authors of the meta analysis arrived at seriously flawed conclusions about vitamin E. Their conclusions only apply to alpha-tocopherol.

In addition “these eight forms of vitamin E are not interconvertible in humans.” According to Huang and Appel, when people supplement their diets with alpha-tocopherol alone, they reduce their blood levels of gamma- and delta-tocopherol. This is important because gamma- and delta-tocopherol are critical to health.
Many researchers now believe that gamma-tocopherol is the most important fraction in vitamin E, contributing to vitamin E’s well-known anti-oxidant benefits. In fact, gamma-tocopherol constitutes 70% of the vitamin E consumed in the average American diet.

Therefore, we can draw the following conclusions:

1) People who take alpha-tocopherol alone may have a slightly increased risk of death. (Five per cent is barely “statistically significant.”).
2) Alpha-tocopherol is not the same thing as vitamin E, as Vitamin E is really composed of multiple subfractions.
3) Gamma-tocopherol is a critically important form of vitamin E in terms of anti oxidant benefit.
4) Gamma-tocopherol is the most common dietary form of vitamin E.
5) Alpha-tocopherol supplementation decreases gamma-tocopherol levels.

Therefore, the primary conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that you might have a slightly increased risk of premature death if you take alpha-tocopherol alone. We recommend, therefore, that you do not take alpha-tocopherol as a stand-alone vitamin E supplement. Instead, you should take a blend which contains all of the vitamin E subfractions.

__________________________________________________________________________________________
LE Magazine March 2005

False and Misleading
The Media's Unfounded Attack on Vitamin E

On November 10, 2004, researchers at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine released a study that startled the world. According to this report, vitamin E not only is ineffective, but also shortens the lives of those who use it.1

Since vitamin E is a popular dietary supplement, the media turned this negative report into one of the day’s top news stories.

Life Extension received numerous calls seeking a rebuttal to this report that appeared to discredit the value of vitamin E. Instead of issuing an uninformed reactionary response, however, Life Extension researchers meticulously examined every detail of the report.


What we found reveals that this attack on vitamin E is baseless. The main reason the media fell for this charade is that the authors of this negative report work at Johns Hopkins, a bastion of establishment medicine.

Life Extension Foundation researchers were not the only ones to identify numerous flaws in the report. Other nutritional scientists inundated us with their critiques demonstrating that the claims and conclusions of this vitamin E study were unfounded.

Why We Are Not Biased
The basis for the negative attack on vitamin E was an analysis of 19 final studies evaluating the effects of various doses of alpha tocopherol on population groups. Many of the study subjects had already developed serious disease.

For the past seven years, we at Life Extension have suggested that those who take only alpha tocopherol (vitamin E) might encounter health problems because alpha tocopherol displaces critically important gamma tocopherol in the body.2

In fact, since January 1, 1998, we have promoted the benefits of gamma tocopherol and have strongly urged our members to consume this form of vitamin E.3 From a standpoint of bias, it would have been in our interest to say, “look at this negative report on alpha tocopherol—we told you to take gamma tocopherol a long time ago.”

While a tremendous amount of data substantiates the importance of gamma tocopherol, the negative report on alpha tocopherol emanating from Johns Hopkins still has no basis in fact.


Although scientists at Johns Hopkins concur that gamma tocopherol may be an essential form of vitamin E, this does not in any way lend credence to the horrendously flawed alpha tocopherol report released by researchers working at this same institution.

Flagrant Omissions
The Johns Hopkins vitamin E report contains so many technical flaws that its conclusions have no basis in fact.1

One of these flaws is so apparent that even someone with no understanding of molecular medicine or statistical analysis could readily recognize it. Of the thousands of human studies on vitamin E archived in the National Library of Medicine, the authors of the negative report selected just 36 studies.


When they could not attribute enough deaths to vitamin E in 17 of these 36 studies, they further reduced the number of studies to be included in their analysis to only 19. Had the omitted studies been included, the Johns Hopkins researchers would not have been able to attack vitamin E as being “life shortening.”

The basis for attacking vitamin E was the analysis of the remaining 19 selected studies. Based on these hand-selected studies, the Johns Hopkins researchers proclaimed that supplemental vitamin E was not effective in extending life span and may have slightly shortened it in seriously ill people. Omitted were all the positive studies showing decreases in disease risk in those taking supplemental vitamin E.4-23

Instead of raising questions about the omitted positive studies on vitamin E, the media hyped this seriously flawed report by proclaiming that experts say that vitamin E supplements should be avoided.

What Experts?
The Johns Hopkins report was not a new study of humans and vitamin E. Instead, it was a review of selected past studies primarily evaluating the effects of varying doses of alpha tocopherol. The majority of study subjects had already developed chronic disease, with some confined to nursing homes.


The report was published in the on-line edition of Annals of Internal Medicine, a respected medical journal. Less than a month later, however, some of the world’s best scientists had unleashed a fire-storm of criticism and rebuttals, challenging the study’s design, methodologies, selection bias, findings, and conclusions. Al-though rebuttals debunking the Johns Hopkins report were posted on the Annals of Internal Medicine’s website,1 they were completely ignored by the news media. Perhaps the media did not want the world to find out that their sensationalized reports of just a few weeks prior were baseless. Here is an excerpt from the very first rebuttal found on the Annals of Internal Medicine’s website:

“The meta-analysis by Miller et al has become part of the public landscape, because of the sensational headlines in newspapers around the world: “High Doses of Vitamin E Deadly,” “Vitamin E’s Fatal Flaw,” “Lethal Consequences of Vitamin E Overdose.” The wall-to-wall press makes it seem like one of the most important health warnings of our era, but this meta-analysis is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot brewed from a statistical study that many epidemiologists would not give much credence to.

For physicians (or their patients) unable to read past the alarming headlines, here’s the story: The authors combined the findings in 19 previously published studies on vitamin E over the last 12 years. Virtually all of them failed to show any statistically significant harm—much less any increase in deaths. However, by combining the 19 old studies, the authors believe they have found a statistically significant increase in deaths from all causes of mortality.

I believe the authors’ bias is clear when they cite an apparent 0.4% increase in all-cause mortality at doses over 400 IU vitamin E while providing almost no comment on hundreds of excellent studies that show no increase in all-cause mortality—while also demonstrating benefits of vitamin E supplementation. Certainly as physicians assess the risk of vitamin E, its documented benefits must be factored into the equation. Yet the authors fail entirely to acknowledge the benefits of vitamin E that were reported in the very same studies that they included in their own meta-analysis: Reduction in the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, heart and blood vessel disease, age-related macular degeneration and several forms of cancer.

How narrowly informed is this meta-analysis? I believe the overwhelming fact is that the increase in mortality was just 39 out of 10,000 for those taking 400 IU of vitamin E or more. That’s less than a one half of one percent increase in all-cause mortality, which may include floods, famine, earthquakes, homicides, suicides and accidents!”1

Note the significance of the last sentence above: because the Johns Hopkins study authors considered “all-cause mortality,” if a vitamin E user was murdered or died in an accident, this would have counted as a person whose life was shortened because he took vitamin E. When we say this Johns Hopkins study is baseless, we are not exaggerating!


Some Hopkins Researchers Endorse Vitamin E
Johns Hopkins is a huge institution whose scientists have varying opinions about the value of supplements. Johns Hopkins, for instance, was an early pioneer in discovering the benefits of gamma tocopherol, and continues to publish research showing that this may be the preferable form of vitamin E.

On January 23, 2004, the media reported that “Johns Hopkins Endorses Vitamin E for Age-Related Macular Degeneration.” This report was based on a study showing that daily doses of 400 mg of vitamin E along with vitamin C, beta-carotene, and other nutrients reduced the likelihood of the progression of a blinding eye disease. Until this study was released, there was no proven treatment to slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).24,25

In a report published in the Archives of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins researchers concluded, “if every American with intermediate AMD took these vitamins and minerals, more than 300,000 people could avoid AMD-associated vision loss over the next five years.”25

More than 1.6 million Americans over the age of 60 have age-related macular degeneration, which is the most common cause of visual impairment and blindness in the US.

Clearly, not all Johns Hopkins scientists are opposed to vitamin E supplements.

Deb, what do you think the right brand of vit E is? I could find very few choices of 200 IU vit E on Vitacost.

Oh, and I looked at the vit E that our local grocery store chain (Meijer) carries, and it's all the alpha variety, nothing else. So although the warnings should be more specific perhaps, there is some validity to warnings about being careful with vitamin E supplementation.

Just got this message from Protandim. This show might settle whether this is based on hype or substance...

The revolutionary anti-aging product, Protandim, will be featured tonight on ABC News’ PrimeTime Live.



10 PM (East Coast and West Coast)

9 PM (Central and Mountain)



Tune in to learn more about how to defend yourself against aging.

This in about vitamin e and protandim. First I have a question about my specific vitamin e. I is not alpha tocopherol but d-alpha tocopherol. do I trash it or keep it it is 400 IU and the protandim on telvision last night I am wondering do I need that stuff. Sounds like it can't hurt, but then I read where a guy said that it is being marketed with the companies results from another mixture that is not even close to what is in protandin. Any suggestions or do you people know anything about this?

Does anyone know, from perhaps the research findings if there could be any down-side to taking Protandim?
When one stops taking it, has the body become dependent on it and unable to stimulate its own?
Can any one suggest a link or literature that might address this concern?
Thanks,
lmcfarland

Dave, how was your experience with Protandim? I saw a profile about Protandim on ABC last night and now doing some research. I would like to hear from a person that actually bought & tried out this supplement.

Thanks. Scott

Just FYI, Protandim contains (I follow their order)675 mg of Milk Thistle extract, Bacopa Monnieri Extract, Ashwaganda Extract, Green Tea Extract & Turmeric Extract. They, of course, represent themselves as such:

Instead of pumping the body full of indigestible, uncertain, unproven mixes of outside compounds that are poorly absorbed and might react with each other to cause harm, Protandim is a breakthrough botanical formulation that turns on the body's system to naturally produce its key antioxidant enzymes at the sub-cellular level, where oxidative stress is the worst.*

Seems like a somewhat interesting mix of what we already know--ingestible antioxidants--how about that!

Yes--I can write sarcastically--$50 for 30 tablets allows me to do that. This reeks of drug company overpricing--but that's my opinion, right!?

For what it is worth, I found another supplement with virtually identical ingredients to those listed for Protandim. It seems to only lack the Calcium and Bacopa. It is called SuperTonic made by a company called Pioneer. All of the usual suspects sell it e.g., Whole Foods etc. But, many e-tailers sell it on-line for half the cost of Protandim. Manufacturer's Website: http://www.pioneernutritional.com

Please remain aware of a few observations--the Protandim compund uses a far different ratio than the Pioneer Supertonic. US manufacturers typically list even their "proprietary" blends in descending quantity order.

Bacopa Monnieri extract: value-wise--a little unproven in terms of research, somewhat speculative usefulness based on its Ayurvedic background.

And, finally, Protandim info from their website:

Calcium is included in the formulation as a binding agent.[/B]

Ciao--hope some of this proves useful!

ABC 7 in LA had a story & experiment with Protandim last night. John Quinones one of ABC's correspondent made himself a guinea pig for the study purpose if Protandim really did what it claimed. It claimed to raise the catalase and uric acid in the blood as measured by the TBARS method. After taking protandim for two weeks the blood test was compared to the one take originally and it did increase the catalase and uric acid in his blood by a significant margin.

Study
http://www.protandim.com/scientific-studies.htm
Story
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/print?id=814805
Blog
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000412.php

The doctor who is involved with Protandim development was also the one who discovered SOD, or superoxide dismutase, a well know anti-oxidant.
http://www.protandim.com/scientists/dr-joe-mccord.htm

The ingredients are shown here as tumeric, green tea, barcopa, milk thisle, and ashwagandha.
http://www.protandim.com/about-protandim.htm

Cost is $50 for 30-day supply. I sure would like to know the proportions of each ingredient so that i could make my own.
rws

quote:

Originally posted by scott402:
Dave, how was your experience with Protandim? I saw a profile about Protandim on ABC last night and now doing some research. I would like to hear from a person that actually bought & tried out this supplement.

Without doing a blood test, there is no way to know whether Protandim is doing anything for me. I take a lot of supplements, so even if it does what it claims, I have no way of knowing whether taken in the context of those other supplements would render it less effective.

I have been taking protandim for 25 days. I decided at the start to take it for 90 days. I can say that some things are different. I am sleeping better (all night without waking). My ability to concentrate and stay focused appears to be some better. I definately have increased energy.

Yes, I can also agree. I've been on it for one bottle and see healthy changes in my skin, energy level and recovery time from activities. I seem to sleep a little better and want to say I am having better hormonal responses.
So far, very good.

i've taken protandim since june 10th. i like it. the first thing i noticed after about one day is increased libido, as in wood in the mornings. when you're 51 you notice these things. i can't really say i have any more
energy, but i already had a lot of energy. i think most people might notice more energy. then after about a month my knees felt a lot better after hard workouts. another benefit that i'm liking a lot is that my hair is growing back on my bald spot and the top of my head. this may be in combination with nox3 that i'm also taking everyday. so far i give it two thumbs up.