聊维生素永远不会结束，你无法得到它的正确答案！加州理工学院两次诺贝尔奖得主莱纳斯 · 鲍林，每日剂量为 1 克维生素 , 活到 93 岁。在他的影响力和赚钱机器的推广， 维生素制造业取得了巨大的金钱利益。今天，你知道谁不服用维生素补充剂？ 然而，今天发表的新的研究表明，大剂量维生素，导致癌症和心脏疾病！ ( Linus Pauling Institute) 多么悲哀：科学不能回答对人体健康问题。你能为自己的健康相信科学家吗？在一天结束的时候，你控制自己的健康的身体：你知道你的身体需要什么，不需要什么原因！听你的身体，作出明智的决定！科学解决不了所有的问题！因为当你阅读下面，你会得到，维生素是一个移动的目标，不断变化，没有定论！ Linus Pauling From Wikipedia, the freeencyclopedia Linus Carl Pauling Born February 28, 1901 Portland, Oregon , USA Died August 19, 1994 (aged 93) Big Sur , California , USA Residence United States Nationality American Fields · Quantum chemistry · Biochemistry Institutions As faculty member Caltech (1927–1963) UC San Diego (1967–1969) Stanford (1969–1975) As fellow Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (1963–1967) Alma mater · Oregon State University · California Institute of Technology (Caltech) Doctoral advisor Roscoe G. Dickinson Other academic advisors · Arnold Sommerfeld · Erwin Schrödinger · Niels Bohr Doctoral students · Jerry Donohue · Martin Karplus · Matthew Meselson · Edgar Bright Wilson · William Lipscomb Known for Notable awards · Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1954) · Nobel Peace Prize (1962) · Lenin Peace Prize (1968–69) · Lomonosov Gold Medal (1977) Signature Notes The only person to win two unshared Nobel Prizes. Photo of Herman HenryWilliam Pauling, Linus Pauling's father, taken c. 1900. Linus Carl Pauling (February 28, 1901 – August19, 1994) was an American chemist , biochemist , peace activist , author, and educator. He was one of the mostinfluential chemists in history and ranks among the most important scientistsof the 20th century. Pauling was one of thefounders of the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology . For his scientific work, Pauling was awardedthe Nobel Prize inChemistry in 1954. In 1962, for his peace activism, hewas awarded the Nobel Peace Prize . This makes him the only person to beawarded two unshared Nobel Prizes. He is one of only four individuals to havewon more than one Nobel Prize (the others being Marie Curie , John Bardeen , and Frederick Sanger ). Pauling is also one of only two people tobe awarded Nobel Prizes in different fields, the other being Marie Curie(Chemistry and Physics). Don’t Take Your Vitamins SabineDowek By PAUL A. OFFIT Published: June 8, 2013 PHILADELPHIA— LAST month, Katy Perry shared her secret to good health with her 37 millionfollowers on Twitter. “I’m all about that supplement vitamin LYFE!” the pop star wrote , posting a snapshot ofherself holding up three large bags of pills. There is one disturbing factabout vitamins, however, that Katy didn’t mention. Derivedfrom “vita,” meaning life in Latin, vitamins are necessary to convert food intoenergy. When people don’t get enough vitamins, they suffer diseases like scurvyand rickets. The question isn’t whether people need vitamins. They do. Thequestions are how much do they need, and do they get enough in foods? Nutrition experts argue that peopleneed only the recommended daily allowance — the amount of vitamins found in aroutine diet. Vitamin manufacturers argue that a regular diet doesn’t containenough vitamins, and that more is better. Most people assume that, at the veryleast, excess vitamins can’t do any harm. It turns out, however, that scientists have known for yearsthat large quantities of supplemental vitamins can be quite harmful indeed. In astudy published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1994, 29,000 Finnishmen, all smokers, had been given daily vitamin E, beta carotene, both or a placebo. The study found thatthose who had taken beta carotene for five to eight years were more likely todie from lung cancer or heart disease. Two yearslater the same journal published another study on vitamin supplements. In it, 18,000 people who were at anincreased risk of lung cancer because of asbestos exposure or smoking receiveda combination of vitamin A and beta carotene, or a placebo. Investigators stopped the study when they found that the risk of death from lung cancerfor those who took the vitamins was 46 percent higher. Then, in 2004, a review of 14randomized trials for the Cochrane Database found that the supplementalvitamins A, C, E and beta carotene, and a mineral, selenium, taken to preventintestinal cancers, actually increased mortality. Anotherreview, published in 2005 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that in 19trials of nearly 136,000 people, supplemental vitamin E increased mortality . Also that year, astudy of people with vascular disease or diabetes found that vitamin Eincreased the risk of heart failure. And in 2011, a study published in theJournal of the American Medical Association tied vitamin E supplements to anincreased risk of prostate cancer. Finally,last year, a Cochrane review found that “beta carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality,and so may higher doses of vitamin A.” What explains this connection betweensupplemental vitamins and increased rates of cancer and mortality? The key wordis antioxidants . Antioxidationvs. oxidation has been billed as a contest between good and evil. It takesplace in cellular organelles called mitochondria , where the body converts food to energy — a processthat requires oxygen (oxidation). One consequence of oxidation is the generation of atomic scavengerscalled free radicals (evil). Free radicals can damage DNA, cell membranes andthe lining of arteries; not surprisingly, they’ve been linked to aging, cancerand heart disease. Toneutralize free radicals, the body makes antioxidants (good). Antioxidants can also befound in fruits and vegetables, specifically in selenium, beta carotene andvitamins A, C and E. Somestudies have shown that people who eat more fruits and vegetables have a lower incidence of cancer andheart disease and live longer. The logic is obvious. If fruits and vegetablescontain antioxidants, and people who eat fruits and vegetables are healthier,then people who take supplemental antioxidants should also be healthier. Ithasn’t worked out that way. Thelikely explanation is that freeradicals aren’t as evil as advertised. (In fact, people need them to killbacteria and eliminate new cancer cells.) And when people take large doses of antioxidants inthe form of supplemental vitamins, the balance between free radical productionand destruction might tip too much in one direction, causing an unnatural statewhere the immune system is less able to kill harmful invaders. Researchers callthis the antioxidant paradox. · 1 · 2 NEXT PAGE (Page 2 of 2) Because studies of large doses of supplemental antioxidants haven’tclearly supported their use, respected organizations responsible for thepublic’s health do not recommend them for otherwise healthy people. So why don’t we know about this? Why haven’t Food and Drug Administrationofficials made sure we are aware of the dangers? The answer is, they can’t. In December 1972, concerned that people were consuming larger and largerquantities of vitamins, the F.D.A. announced a plan to regulate vitaminsupplements containing more than 150 percent of the recommended dailyallowance. Vitamin makers would now have to prove that these “megavitamins”were safe before selling them. Not surprisingly, the vitamin industry saw thisas a threat, and set out to destroy the bill. In the end, it did far more thanthat. Industry executives recruited William Proxmire, a Democratic senator fromWisconsin, to introduce a bill preventing the F.D.A. from regulatingmegavitamins. On Aug. 14, 1974, the hearing began. Speaking in support of F.D.A. regulation was Marsha Cohen, a lawyer withthe Consumers Union. Setting eight cantaloupes in front of her, she said, “ You would need to eat eightcantaloupes — a good source of vitamin C — to take in barely 1,000 milligramsof vitamin C. But just these two little pills, easy to swallow, contain thesame amount.” She warned that if the legislation passed, “one tabletwould contain as much vitamin C as all of these cantaloupes, or even twice,thrice or 20 times that amount. And there would be no protective satietylevel.” Ms. Cohen was pointing out the industry’s Achilles’ heel: ingestinglarge quantities of vitamins is unnatural, the opposite of what manufacturerswere promoting. A little more than a month later, Mr. Proxmire’s bill passed by a vote of81 to 10. In 1976, it became law. Decades later, Peter Barton Hutt, chiefcounsel to the F.D.A., wrote that “ it was the most humiliating defeat” in the agency’s history. As a result, consumersdon’t know that taking megavitamins could increase their risk of cancer andheart disease and shorten their lives; they don’t know that they have beensuffering too much of a good thing for too long. » Paul A. Offit is the chief of the infectious diseases divisionof the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the author of the forthcomingbook “Do You Believe in Magic?: The Sense and Nonsense of AlternativeMedicine.” A version of this op-ed appeared in print onJune 9, 2013, on page SR4 of the New York editionwith theheadline: Don’t Take Your Vitamins.
这个文章在6月12日被接受。是我们的第6篇，是世界上的17篇文章。目前全世界这个领域已经达到18篇论著。 文章采用最常规的方法：制备心肌梗死动物模型（这个比较麻烦一些），给氢盐水，观察功能、梗死体积和细胞损伤等常见指标，结合氧化损伤指标测定。 而且这个方面日本已经有论文发表，我们新在给氢方式上，审稿专家给的意见比较好。可惜杂志的发表周期很长，否则早就发表了。我们是去年的实验。 到目前我们已经发表了4篇采用注射方法的论文，也是目前唯一发表的4篇。 氢气饱和盐水可保护（大鼠）心肌的缺血/再灌注损伤 摘要 此前的研究表明，H2在心肌的缺血/再灌注损伤中具有保护作用。本研究旨在验证如下假设――价廉物美、操作简单的氢气饱和盐水可保护大鼠心肌受缺血（30分钟）/再灌注（24小时）所致的损伤。成年雄性SD大鼠夹闭左冠状动脉30分钟/再灌注24小时。在再灌注前，腹腔注射氢气饱和盐水后能明显降低大鼠血浆及心肌中的丙二醛（MDA）浓度、减少心肌细胞的凋亡和降低AAR区的8羟基鸟嘌呤核苷水平、抑制caspase－3的活化和减少梗死面积。再灌注24小时后，包括LVSP、LVDP的+(dP/dt)及－(dP/dt) 最大值等反映心功能的参数也明显改善。结论：（给药）氢气饱和盐水是一种新型、简单、安全、有效的缓解心肌缺血/再灌注损伤的方法。 关键词：再灌注，氧化应激，富含H的盐，凋亡 Hydrogen-rich saline protects myocardium against ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats Qiang Sun 1, Zhimin Kang 1, Jianmei Cai 1, Wenwu Liu 1, Yun Liu 1, John H Zhang 2, Petar J Denoble 3, Hengyi Tao 1, and Xuejun Sun 1* 1 Second Military Medical University 2 Division of Neurosurgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, USA 3 c Divers Alert Network-an associate of Duke University Health System * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: sunxjk@hotmail.com. Abstract Protective effect of hydrogen (H2) gas on cardiac ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury has been demonstrated previously. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that hydrogen-rich saline (saline saturated with molecular hydrogen) which is easy to use induces cardioprotection against ischemia (30 min) and reperfusion (24 h) injury in rats. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent 30 minute occlusion of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery and 24 hour reperfusion. Intraperitoneal injection of hydrogen-rich saline before reperfusion significantly decreased plasma and myocardium malondialdehyde (MDA) concentration, decreased cardiac cell apoptosis and myocardial 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) in area at risk zonesAAR, suppressed the activity of caspase 3, and reduced infarct size. The heart function parameters including left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP), left ventricular diastolic pressure (LVDP)+(dP/dt)max and -(dP/dt)max were also significantly improved 24 h after reperfusion. It is concluded that hydrogen-rich saline is a novel, simple, safe and effective method to attenuate myocardial I/R injury. Key Words: reperfusion, oxidative stress, hydrogen-rich saline, apoptosis 全文
标签: 心脏疾病
