Tag Archives: research

Research And The Fat Burning Amino Acid Leucine.

Posted on by
Reply

There are several components to our inch loss regime – one, is the ingredient Leucine.

It is found in our meal replacement and snack bars

Leucine is an essential amino acid, which cannot be manufactured in the body and is part of the three branched-chain-amino-acids.

Supplements and protein powders that contain leucine are used extensively by bodybuilders and other athletes to promote muscle recovery.

Among the most beneficial and effective supplements in any sports nutrition program are the branched chain amino acids which includes the essential amino acids leucine, isoleucine, and valine.

Leucine deficiencies are often to blame for the buildup of subcutaneous fat - the adipose tissue that adds extra layers to the surface of the body!!

Increased leucine levels signal the body to shed this stubborn surface fat!!!

Are you deficient of this amino acid??

Leucine deficiencies include: fatigue, muscle weakness, cramps, headaches, dizziness, blue moods, irritablity, brain fog, frequent infections, slow wound healing.

Hypoglycemia symptoms may appear if the diet is deficient and could include dizziness, fatigue, headaches, irritability etc.

Leucine may benefit body composition.

Researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign noted in a review that part of the benefit of a higher protein diet for weight loss may be due in part to increased intake of the branched chain amino acid (BCAA), leucine.1

A small study of five lean women compared to five women with abdominal obesity found lower rates of leucine release in obese women following a 22-hour fast, indicating preservation of body protein during weight loss. 2

1. Layman DK, Baum JI. “Dietary protein impact on glycemic control during weight loss.” J Nutr. 134, 4:968S-73S, 2004.

2. Patterson BW et al. “Regional muscle and adipose tissue amino acid metabolism in lean and obese women.” Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 282, 4:E931-6, 2002.

Killer Cells Are Not Particular.

Posted on by
Reply

The summary below was shared in a field email sent from our highly regarded sales leader and Professer of Biochemistry & Biophysics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   Dr. Stephan Chaney

While clinical studies are the gold standard for determining the effectiveness of a drug or a nutrient, it is sometimes difficult to avoid animal studies if you want to determine how that drug or nutrient works. Those those basic “mechanism of action” studies are often a necessary prelude to the clinical studies.

That is why my companies commitment not to use any animal studies in the testing of their products is so important.

If you are passionate about reducing the use of animals in research, you will be particularly impressed with my companies latest research project.

My company wanted to do some basic research on how our natural interferon works to prevent viral infections in the lung. So they contacted scientists at Cornell University to do those experiments.

They contacted those particular scientists to do the experiments because they were world experts in thefield of immunology, and they were world experts in the development of model systems that can be used in the place of animal studies.

The scientists asked our company if they would first support their research in developing an animal-free model system for determining how the airway epithelium (in layman’s terms this refers to the layers of cells that line the lungs and windpipe) responds to viral infections.

We of course agreed to support the research at Cornell in developing a model of the human airway epithelium – even though that research itself did not involve any of our wellness products and was, therefore, of no direct benefit to our company.

The Cornell scientists have published their first paper using this human airway epithelium (HAE) model system.
(Palmero et al., Journal of Virology, 83: 6900-6908).

That particular paper showed how the lungs respond to a particular type of parainfluenza virus that is responsible for croup and bronchitis in children

Our companies support in the development of the HAE model system was acknowledged in that paper and will be acknowledged in all future papers using that model system.

Of course, the research didn’t stop there. Our company also supported a research project by the same scientists to determine how our natural interferon helps the lungs resist infection by flu viruses.

I can’t release all of the results of that study yet because the study has not yet been published. But I can tell you that the study showed that our natural interferon activates “natural killer cells” when a flu virus
infects lung tissue.

This is a significant finding because, as their name suggests, natural killer cells play an important role in “killing” the flu virus.  We already knew that our natural interferon helped fight viral infections, but we didn’t know how. This research is an important part of the proof that our product is effective.

In Summary:

1) My company has supported fundamental research at Cornell University into the development of a model system that allows scientists to test how human lung tissue responds to viral infections – and without the use of animals.

2) This study is significant in itself because it will allow scientists across the world to answer important scientific questions that can not be addressed in
clinical trials – and the lives of many thousands of laboratory animals will be spared in the process.

3) This is yet another example of our companiescommitment to supporting research that advances scientific knowledge - not just research that can be used in the marketing of their products. This commitment to true
science is unique among food supplement companies.

4) These same scientist went on to use this model system to show that our natural interferon protects human lung tissue from viral infection by activating natural killer cells which destroy the virus.

5) This provides even stronger evidence of the effectiveness of our product by showing how it works.

P. S. I’m sure that some of you are going to ask me about the swine flu.

This study was not done with swine flu virus, so it does not provide direct evidence that natural inteferon will protect against the swine flu.

However, you should know that natural killer cells are not particularly choosy. They destroy every virus that they come across.

Thus, I consider our natural interferon to be an important part of everyone’s health plan to reduce the risk of coming down with the swine flu.

Marketing Or Borrowed Science?

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Stephen Chaney, PhD is part of our illustrious field team.

His credentials include:

BS in Biophysics Duke PHD, Biochemistry UCLA

Prof Biochemistry & Biophysics in Dept of Nutrition,

UNC Chapel Hill teaches Med Students. Runs an active Cancer Research Program

Published 95 Peer reviewed studies ( found in Medical journals plus 2 reviews & 2 chapters of one of the leading biochemical textbooks used by medical students today. )

Teacher of year, Medical Alumni Distinguished Teacher Professorship

What I enjoy most about Dr Chaney is the way he explains things.

The information below is sourced from one of his emails - thank you Dr Chaney for the resource that you are to the field

It’s really hard to know who to trust in the food supplement industry.

Everyone claims that their product is backed by solid science.  But most companies rely on “borrowed science”or “marketing science” to back their product.

What do I mean by ” borrowed science”?

Simply put they are citing references that show that an ingredient in their product has a desired effect.  They aren’t actually doing studies with their product

Why is that important?

In some cases the reports are simply wrong.

There have been several times that our Scientific Advisory Board have recommended that our company do their own studies before marketing the product.

They did.   Products didn’t work, and they never marketed it.

Examples include chromium picolinate and policosanol.

In each case studies showing that those ingredients didn’t work were eventually published.

In the meantime many other companies were making lots of money marketing products that didn’t work.

We won’t do that. We don’t rely on borrowed science. We only market products that have been proven to be both safe and effective. That’s part of our company difference.

So what do I mean by “marketing science”? By that I mean that when most companies actually do a clinical study with their products, they design the study solely with marketing in mind. They don’t really care about the science. They just want to be able to make a marketing claim.

Again this is where our company stands head and shoulders above their competitors. We design our studies in such a way that they actually advance scientific knowledge.

The vitamin D study recently presented at the annual National Lipid Association meeting in Miami is a perfect example.

Several previous studies had suggested that vitamin D lowered the risk of heart disease, but nobody knew quite why.

Our scientists hypothesized that vitamin D might have a beneficial effect on HDL levels (which reduces the risk of heart disease) and metabolic syndrome (which increases the risk of heart disease).

We worked with Dr. Kevin Maki of Provident Clinical Research in Glen Ellyn IL to test that hypothesis.

The Landmark Study, the first independent long term (20 year) study done by U Cal Berkeley, had already shown that people taking quality nutritional supplements on a regular basis generally had adequate levels of vitamin D in the blood.

Our company took blood samples from attendees at their 2008 New Orleans conference so that the study would have a large number of subjects with adequate vitamin D levels.

Dr. Maki then  recruited a number of non- quality supplement users from local clinics so that the study would also contain a significant number of subjects with low levels of vitamin D in their blood.

The results were striking!

HDL levels increased as the blood levels of vitamin D increased and markers of metabolic syndrome decreased as blood levels of vitamin D increased.

This study cannot be used for marketing purposes because a claim that our supplements increased HDL levels would be a health claim.  However, this study did advance the science around vitamin D and heart disease risk.  We now have a better understanding of how vitamin D reduces heart disease risk.  This is what I call “real science” as opposed to “marketing science”,

Dr. Maki said: “Results from population studies suggest that a low serum vitamin D concentration is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular mortality, but this is the first study to evaluate the relationship between vitamin D status and cardiovascular risk factors in a group that includes a large number of vitamin D supplement users.”



Studies Support Folic Acid For Your Pregnancy

Posted on by
Reply

Below is an article written by Dr Steve Chaney, who is a high level sales leader in our field, remarkable published researcher and professor in the department of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of North Carolina’s Medical School.

I have always appreciated Dr Chaney’s way of explaining things and after reading this felt it would be a great addition to the 2 posts I wrote about prenatals, especially for the role folic acid plays in preventing birth defects.

A few comments:

As long as I have explored research as a tool for understanding or prooving the validity of one nutrient or another – I often find more than one opinion and often opposing sides.  I find articles come and go – the best always rise to the top.  There is also plenty of really bad research.  This is why I appreciate the perspectives of others to help me understand.

I remember when my company touted the importance of folic acid, especially for the prevention of birth defects.  After testing many brands most didn’t deliver any folic acid to the blood stream.  I found that appalling.  My company equally horrified, explored the remarkable value of folic acid and said what can we do differently.  Now our B Complex has its folic acid in it’s exterior coating The ever important folic acid is the first nutrient to hit the blood stream. This process is now patented. Isn’t that cool??

When I was learning about the value of B Complex I was taught that most companies skimp on Biotin and Folic acid because they are expensive.  Time and time again I would see these two nutrients poorly represented  on other brands labels.  Sometimes Biotin would be completely missing. Additionally I was taught how all eight b vitamins need to be present and in balance to each other in order to assimilate well into the body.  Yet so many competitors would have very high doses of one b, none of another and most of the time not in balance to each other

Dr. Chaney speaks to the concept of isolating nutrients, and how that’s NOT how it works.  Nature is a symmetric project.  Plants need air, water, soil and sunshine in order to grow – remove part of the equation and a plant will wither. The same for our bodies human.

I will add one more thought and that is that it doesn’t say what type of folic acid was used in the studies that had negative impact.  If it was a low quality or petroleum derived product could that have impacted the study?

Here is what Dr. Chaney has to say:

The news about folic acid or folate seems to be decided mixed of late, so many of you may be asking whether you should supplement with folate or not.

Let me start first with a review of some of the recent studies, and then I’ll help you put those studies into perspective.

Most of you are probably aware of the studies initiated by Dr. Smithells in England showing that supplementation with RDA levels (400 mcg per day) of folic acid prior to conception significantly reduced the risk of giving birth to babies with birth defects.

These were paradigm-shifting studies because they provided the first really good evidence that supplementation in advance could actually prevent a disease from occurring.

The data was so overwhelming that the United States now mandates enrichment of flour with 140 mcg of folic acid per 100 gm of flour – meaning that most Americans now are assured of getting at least 100 to 200 mcg per day of folic acid from their diet.

There were also a number of well done studies showing that supplementation with RDA levels of folic acid decreased levels of homocysteine, an amino acid byproduct thought to be associated with increased risk of heart disease and cognitive decline as we age.

However, the role of homocysteine in these and other diseases has become murkier in recent years.

So what do the recent studies show?

On the positive side, a recent Swedish study has shown that people who consumed RDA levels of folic acid from food and supplements were 44% less likely to develop invasive breast cancer than those consuming 160 mcg per day or less.

Two recent studies, one of which used supplements delivering 800 mcg of folic acid per day and a second in which participants were getting at least 400 mcg of  folic acid a day from food and supplements, showed that those receiving the highest amount of folic acid had less cognitive decline than those consuming lower amounts.

Finally, a recent report showed that older women in the Nurses Health study who got 1,000 mcg of folic acid a day from food and supplements were 18% less likely to develop high blood pressure, and another study showed that supplements providing at least 500 mcg a day of folic acid lowered the risk of stroke by 18%.

On the negative side a recent study reported that people receiving at least 1,000 mcg of supplemental folic acid a day were more likely to develop pre- cancerous colon polyps than people on the placebo. Another study reported that women consuming over 1,000 mcg of folic acid a day were 32% more likely to develop breast cancer than women consuming around 250 mcg of folic acid a day.

Of course, this study is in obvious contrast to the study showing that 400 mcg of folic acid per day decreased the risk of breast cancer by 44%.

Because of this sort of conflict between studies, it is clear that more studies need to be done before we can be sure that high dose folic acid has any detrimental effects.

But even if high dose folic acid has detrimental effects, what would this mean to you?

It is yet another example of the recent paradigm shift from the “magic bullet” approach to a holistic approach to supplementation.

In the 60s, 70s and 80s whenever an article appeared showing a beneficial role for a particular nutrient in reducing the risk of a certain disease, it would inevitably be followed by recommendations to take high potency supplements containing that nutrient.

Now we know that those recommendations can be counterproductive, possibly even dangerous.

Most likely, this is because a single nutrient at high doses can interfere with the body’s ability to absorb and utilize other, similar nutrients.

Thus, a high potency supplement containing a single nutrient can actually create deficiencies of other essential nutrients.

For folic acid my recommendation is to get no more than 400 mcg of folic acid per day from supplements unless that folic acid is in balance with all of the other essential B vitamins.

We have heard similar reports in recent years about the potential side effects of high dose pure alpha- tocopheral and high dose pure beta-carotene.

Many experts now recommend no more than 200 IU per day of alpha-tocopherol unless it is provided in balance with all of the other naturally-occuring tocopherols and tocotrienols or no more than 2,500 IU of beta- carotene unless it is provided in balance with the other carotenoids and fat soluble antioxidant nutrients.

Thank you Dr Chaney for your perspective.

Other Research about B Complex.


artist rendition of birth flickr image credit