Living Longer with
Properly Designed Formulations

… with High Potency Nutrients

V itamins … Americans love ’em; bureaucrats hate ’em; and “journalists” feed on sensationalized stories about them.

A recent Gallup poll makes it quite clear that Americans ignore the biased and uninformed press warnings, such as the recent flurry of the “if it bleeds, it leads” anti-vitamin coverage. That’s because half of all Americans take vitamins regularly (a number that could determine the results of a national election).

And wouldn’t you know, women are in the lead (54% v. 46% for men ).* Not coincidently, women live far longer than men and are far more likely to become supercentenarians. As of the latest date (December 6, 2013), 67 women are valid supercentenarians (older than 110 years) according to the principal originators of this information, the Gerontology Research Group. Only 1 man was validated! Moreover, in 2010, 82.8% of US centenarians (older than 100 years) were female. So women think it is a smart choice to take supplements, and the results seem to support that.

* http://www.gallup.com/poll/166541/half-americans-vitamins-regularly.aspx?utm_ source=WWW&utm_medium=csm&utm_campaign=syndication.


‡ Meyer J. Centenarians: 2010 [PDF]. United States Census Bureau. www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/reports/c2010sr-03.pdf. Published December 2012. Accessed: December 23 2013.

Yet, recent headlines conflict with popularity of supplements and herald such headlines as, “Multivitamin researchers say the ‘case is closed’ after studies find no health benefits.” This hysteria was caused by what must be considered an exploitable attack (three articles and an editorial) in the December 17, 2013 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. Here we are told, in a 2014 Advertising Card Rate Card, “Internists order approximately one billion prescriptions annually. Thus, Annals is an ideal venue for advertisers who wish to reach high-prescribing clinicians who treat adults.” In other words, they encourage pharmaceutical ad money. Is it unreasonable that they should support their advertisers? This is exactly what the recent anti-vitamin barrage does.

From the editorial (available at http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1789253), you can note that the principal study concerned “the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on the efficacy of vitamin supplements for primary prevention in community-dwelling adults with no nutritional deficiencies.”

Durk Pearson comments on this in a personal email: “Daily multivitamins have FDA RDA amounts, which are not adequate to produce noticeable effects, except to treat classical micronutrient deficiency diseases such as scurvy, beriberi, pellagra, rickets, etc. The RDA quantities were set to be adequate to prevent these deficiency diseases, not for improving health in any other respect. In the first world, few people have these deficiency diseases. In the third world, they are common.

“The paper[1] also cites a study regarding possible mortality increases with high doses of E. When dealing with a free radical induced pathology such as conversion of macrophages into foam cells in atherosclerotic plaques when their uptake of free radical oxidized LDL cholesterol exceeds their ability to catabolize it, taking a high dose of a single antioxidant vitamin is unwise.

“Why? Because free radicals are molecules or atoms with an unpaired electron. Electrons have a strong affinity for pairing because of the symmetry in the quantum mechanics wave equation that describes the behavior of particles with a spin of ½, which is the case for electrons. Free radicals are a problem because they react promiscuously. If you allow a vitamin E molecule (which has an even number of electrons) to interact with a free radical (which has an unpaired electron—that is, an odd number), guess what? When you add an even number to an odd number, you inevitably get an odd number. In this case, you get a tocopherol free radical. Getting rid of high energy dangerous free radicals is usually a multistep process involving multiple antioxidants which gradually reduce the energy (and increase the stability) of the of the free radical anti­oxidant adduct until two such stabilized free radicals can be reacted together to produce a non free radical end product. When dealing with free radicals, antioxidants should be used together in a carefully designed system.

“What they don’t cite is that their cited high dose E article had more subsequent published comments and objections than any other biomedical paper that I know of …

“Note also that the article that they cited on high dose E says: ‘LIMITATIONS: High-dosage (> or = 400 IU/d) trials were often small and were performed in patients with chronic diseases. The generalizability of the findings to healthy adults is uncertain.’

“Correlation is not causality. For example, people who have seen a doctor within the past year are more likely to have cardiovascular disease, cancer, or some other serious disease than those who have not seen a doctor within the past year, but that doesn’t mean that doctors cause these diseases.”

The press views on the matter coincide with those held by bureaucrats, especially when it comes to supplements: an unregulated industry is immediately suspected. But of course, where there’s really big time regulation, such as the amount ladled by the FDA on Big Pharm, the track record is abysmal. The more heavily regulated, the worse the results.

The pharmaceutical industry ($300 billion) is at least ten times larger than the supplement industry ($30 billion), and a heavy contributor to politicians who enable political institutions, the essence of which is their regulatory activity, which keep competition away (such as the supplement industry). Moreover, pharmaceutical companies need blockbuster drugs to survive, which they are not getting because regulators operate on the “Precautionary Principal.” They are afraid of the consequences.

As you would suspect, The New York Times published an excoriating article on the study (they like regulation there). But what you would not suspect, the comments on the article by readers were by and large critical, with huge kudos for supplements, and how they have been helped.

Back to blockbusters … At Life Enhancement, we’ve had quite a few recently, including Hydrogen Power, FoldRight, and SleepScape, to name a few … with more to come. Unlike the din of tabloid press, the bureaucrats, and the disgraceful behavior of some of the medical journals, Life Enhancement makes “music,” especially for our readers who truly are cognizant of good science.

To your health,

Will Block


  1. Fortmann SP, Burda BU, MPH, Senger CA, et al. Vitamin and Mineral Supplements in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Inter Med. 2013;159(12):824-34.
  2. Miller ER 3rd, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LJ, Guallar E. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 4;142(1):37-46.
  3. Rabin RC. Should We Toss Our Vitamin Pills? The New York Times, December 16, 2013.

FREE Subscription

  • You're just getting started! We have published thousands of scientific health articles. Stay updated and maintain your health.

    It's free to your e-mail inbox and you can unsubscribe at any time.
    Loading Indicator