[jn.nutrition.org]

This 2005 study indicates that a strict raw vegan diet increases heart attack/cardiovascular disease risk over raw vegetarian or omni diet despite typically low cholesterol levels, and shows the reason why to be B-12 deficiency that manifests primarily by increasing homocysteine.
What do you think?
I think it's time to spread the word about supplementing!
It would seriously suck to lose lots of raw vegans to heart disease and blame it on detox or residue from old habits, when it's shown to be something fixable!

The people in the study were not all raw vegan. Here is the breakdown of participants:


Baseline characteristics and food consumption. The mean ± SD age of raw food dieters was 46 ± 11 y and mean BMI was 20.8 ± 2.5 kg/m2. The median time of practicing a raw food diet was 3.5 y (minimum 2.2 y, maximum 38 y). Participants adhered to different variants of the raw food diet (Table 1). The majority consumed a mixed raw food diet including raw meat and fish (58%), 21% were ovo-lacto-vegetarians, and 21% consumed a vegan raw food diet. In terms of the proportion of raw food consumed, the majority of participants (75%) adhered to a strictly raw food diet, defined as >90% of total amount of food consumed raw.

Yep! I know! I'm confused as to why you'd point that out?

You said the raw vegans had an elevated homocysteine levels. The study actually said the raw foodists who participated in the study had higher homocysteine levels. 21% of the participants where raw vegan, the 79% others ate animal products. So elevated homocysteine levels were found among the raw foodists in the study, meaning that veganism was not a cause of this issue.

celastrus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [jn.nutrition.org]
> 72?ijkey=fc9f26a02ac2d0eb665bcebda7416b6e4062c890
>
> This 2005 study indicates that a strict raw vegan
> diet increases heart attack/cardiovascular disease
> risk over raw vegetarian or omni diet despite
> typically low cholesterol levels, and shows the
> reason why to be B-12 deficiency that manifests
> primarily by increasing homocysteine.
> What do you think?
> ...

celastrus,
Did you see table 4? [jn.nutrition.org] The study kept the raw vegan data separate from the raw omnis and tabulates a variety of blood work numbers. The data in the study is extensive and speaks for itself. 186 of 201 participants do not supplement B12. About 40 of the participnatns are raw vegan. Here's what they write in the Discussion--

"this finding is less relevant for raw food diet adherents, considering the overall low health risk and the low total cholesterol concentrations in this specific population. Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that the severity of the formation of atherosclerotic lesions in humans is inversely related to HDL cholesterol concentrations (56)."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 02:45AM by loeve.

interesting study, and good point prana, although, at least for me, the study still raises some interesting questions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

loeve,

The discussion by the researchers reflects the data in table 4 rather well. Lower B-12, higher homocysteine, with the vegans having the worst ratio there. Seems pretty clear to me? The "something like that" about low risk is in reference to, among the general population, increased fruit and vegetable consumption being correlated to lower risk. This study highlights a hidden risk and I think it seems pretty obvious, and fairly important if one wishes to avoid heart disease. Homocysteine is a strong predictor.

Prana,

Please see the table provided by loeve.

The study correlates B-12 and homocysteine, and that's all that is important out of it to me. That the vegans had lower levels is alarming, considering all the literature out there speculating that dirty vegetables or lots of intestinal bacteria and whatnot provide sufficient amounts. I don't know about anyone else here, but I would rather play it safe by supplementing, and getting all the other benefits from eating high raw at the same time.

celestrus,

The study mentions the "overall low health risk" of cardiovascular disease in these raw food adherents and then attempts to build a case that they have more than a low health risk. It's a bit contradictory for my taste. I still like the study and have referenced it several times on this board as the Giessen Germany study.

This is a what they write again with a little more context --

"When the cardioprotective effects of HDL cholesterol are attributed to its role in reverse cholesterol transport, this finding is less relevant for raw food diet adherents, considering the overall low health risk and the low total cholesterol concentrations in this specific population. Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that the severity of the formation of atherosclerotic lesions in humans is inversely related to HDL cholesterol concentrations (56)."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2010 03:14AM by loeve.

Just wanted to point out that many people suffer from B12 deficiencies, not just vegans. I suggest checking out the book Could it Be B12?



Swayze
[www.fitonraw.com]

Many people do its just more common in vegans as they dont intake any dietary b12, where as with meat eaters its always because of absorption problems and other disorders rather than lack of dietary intake.

I think the study raises a good point and supplementation is necessary for vegans, i like sublingual b12, although if i could get shots i would. Are the shots intramuscular, ive never had IM shots before and if so where do they do them and do they hurt?

This study was a bit of a mixed bag to me. We know that B12 deficiency can lead to congestion of homocysteine in the bloodstream, but you cannot reasonably extrapolate that as predicting a particular incidence of vascular events with regard to a raw food diet. Also, you cannot compare raw omnis with raw vegans(it isn't a surprise to me that those eating raw animal products would have elevated markers, as those foods are inflammatory regardless of serum B12 levels) to derive a strict conclusion. Could this be co-opted for the vanguard of a new "Eating meat raw lowers risk of heart disease!" campaign? God, I hope not, but in any case, this study would be more useful if it included a larger population, evaluated for a longer time, and under considerably restricted parameters, IMO. Thanks for posting.

There is a wild apple tree in the neighbourhood, full of apples with worms. The apples taste great. Now, all I need to do is close my eyes and eat them - there is my B12. So, foraging resolves the B12 problem. Eating clean and perfect food is the problem.

Vitamin B-12 deficiency is a prevalent problem among vegans in general (raw or cooked diets). [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. And this appears to be true irrespective of the length of time adhering to a vegan diet in spite of what I've heard that the body can store years worth of B-12 after turning vegan.

At the same time, a pilot study among vegans showed that blue-green algae from Klamath Lake suggested that a whole food plant source could improve their B-12 status. Unfortunately, that suggests an increase from baseline but does not tell me whether or not they remain deficient. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. Chlorella has proven to be helpful with pregnant women as a source of B-12, folate and iron [note: not all are vegan, but as a vegan source, it helped this groups b-12 status]. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] and in general [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov].

That said, I can't find a single study using the MMA "gold standard" that Norris requires. And he's kicked both chlorella and blue green algae out the door at Veganhealth.org. Also, Davis and Melina commented in "Becoming Raw" that nutritional yeast b-12 isn't as useful as supplements for getting blood normal B-12 levels. Oh well, I'm willing to bet that this isn't the end of the story.

Paul

No, that isn't "Chuck Norris", B-12 is afraid of him!!! It's Jack Norris!!! lol at [www.veganhealth.org].

Klamath lake algae is toxic though so a no go there.

Chlorella and spirulina are fine though im just not sure the b12 analogues and such are helpful.

I agree about the Klamath lake algae being toxic. Probably any supplement that delivers an energy boost is toxic, as one feels stimulated when the body is hard at work removing some recently consumed toxic material.

Klamath lake algae is meant to contain a neurotoxin similar to cocaine which is where it derives its energy boost from. Not to mention microcystins and other toxins present.

But i dont agree with any supplement which delivers an energy boost is toxic as adaptogenic herbs are proven non toxic in massive doses.

Why are toxins delivered in an herbal form considered "adaptogenic", while toxins delivered in an algae form is simply considered toxic?

As far as I know, everything has a toxic level, even the best water, or the best food. Toxicities are manifested differently for each substance. Typically, a substance that has a toxic level (a level at which negative effects are noted) that is much greater than would typically be consumed, is considered non-toxic to greater or lesser degrees. Adaptogenic herbs, some of them can be eaten like food with no toxicity, and most certainly in amounts much greater than the level at which positive effects are noted. I know astragalus can be eaten like food.
All foods, consumable liquids and herbs have profound effects on the body, negative and positive. I am confused by the desire to draw a line between plants edible in large amounts, and plants edible in small amounts, and calling the latter "toxic" and the former something else.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2010 01:12AM by celastrus.

> The discussion by the researchers reflects the
> data in table 4 rather well. Lower B-12, higher
> homocysteine, with the vegans having the worst
> ratio there. Seems pretty clear to me? The
> "something like that" about low risk is in
> reference to, among the general population,
> increased fruit and vegetable consumption being
> correlated to lower risk. This study highlights a
> hidden risk and I think it seems pretty obvious,
> and fairly important if one wishes to avoid heart
> disease. Homocysteine is a strong predictor.

celastrus,

Table 4 shows elevated homocysteine for all 201 participants of the study, which seems odd considering the size of this study of people trying to eat healthy, though maybe true anyway.

Plasma tHcy, umol/L
Raw Omni 14.7 (11.9–18.3)
Raw Lacto/ovo 17.1 (13.1–20.2)
Raw Vegan 18.5 (13.5–28.9)

[jn.nutrition.org]

A wikipedia article says -- "A high level of blood serum homocysteine "homocysteinemia" is a powerful risk factor for cardiovascular disease.", and "Common levels in Western populations are 10 to 12 and levels of 20 umol/L are found in populations with low B-vitamin intake".

[en.wikipedia.org]

The reported incidence of homocysteinemia -- "International-
Reported incidence of homocystinuria varies between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 200,000."

[emedicine.medscape.com]

I'm having trouble seeing the rationale behind the Giessen Raw Food Study Discussion linking high tHcy amoung rawists with possible risk of cardiovascular disease, considering homocysteinemia seems to be such a rare condition. Maybe they are talking about another condition or risk scenario?

..so it seems "elevated" homocysteine (tHcy) (>10.4 umol/L, women: >11.4 umol/L, men) is common [en.wikipedia.org] . However the disease "homocysteinemia" is very rare. The Wikipedea article seems to me to equate the two, elevated tHcy and homocysteinemia, or at least to confuse them for me.

The Giessen Raw Food Study is written by nutritionists, not medical doctors. Maybe that's why the Discussion linking elevated tHcy with possible risk of cardiovascular disease does not quite resonate with me.

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why are toxins delivered in an herbal form
> considered "adaptogenic", while toxins delivered
> in an algae form is simply considered toxic?


Because the toxins found in algae are actually toxins whilst what alkaloids in adaptogenic herbs arent toxic and have been tested in massive doses to be proven non-toxic.

To be classed as an adaptogen the herb or substance has to have a non specific response, a modulating effect on the body system and be non toxic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2010 10:58AM by powerlifer.

so powerlifer - what adaptogen would support my adrenals? - assuming they need it which I am doing. Or can you suggest what might correct the autoimmune response I am having which is causing my thryoid to be very signifigantly underactive. I am on the full replacement dose of thyroxin.

Seriously looking for help here but wary of chasing rainbows

Klamath Lake algae is not toxic in small amounts, which hardly matters because we're supposed to be eating it in massive amounts! Much of the toxicity of Klamath Lake algae results from agricultural runoff from north of the lake; the algae blossoms because of poor oxygen levels due largely to runoff(there was a thread about this last year, I think, but I'm too lazy to do a search!).

Do not agree that anything that stimulates the metabolism or vascular system, including herbs, is toxic; excitotoxins, adaptogenic herbs, and plain old toxins aren't all the same chemically.

loeve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ..so it seems "elevated" homocysteine (tHcy)
> (>10.4 umol/L, women: >11.4 umol/L, men) is common
> [en.wikipedia.org] .
> However the disease "homocysteinemia" is very
> rare...

-"Hyperhomocysteinemia" is yet another medical term concerning tHcy levels. The raw vegans in the opening post referenced Giessen Raw Food study fall within the "moderately hyperhomocysteinemic" category (Raw Vegan 18.5 micromol/L (13.5–28.9) - Giessen study table 4) .


"Hyperhomocysteinemia is a blood disorder marked by an excess amount of the amino acid homocysteine in the blood stream. While healthy levels of homocysteine in the blood are thought to help regulate metabolism and insulin absorption, high levels of this amino acid significantly strain the heart and damage the bones.

"Homocysteine levels are measured with a fasting blood test (a test where the patient does not eat or drink for a period of time before the test). Here is how doctors read the levels of homocysteine in the blood to determine whether or not a patient suffers from hyperhomocysteinemia:

Test results / Diagnosis

5 to 15 mmol/L Normal levels

15 to 30 mmol/L Moderate hyperhomocysteinemia

30 to 100 mmol/L Intermediate hyperhomocysteinemia

Over 100 mmol/L Severe hyperhomocysteinemia


"While severe hyperhomocysteinemia is a rare condition, 5 percent to 7 percent of the population lives with mild hyperhomocysteinemia. In general, the older people get, the higher levels of homocysteine they will have in their blood.
Hyperhomocysteinemia Causes and Risk Factors"

[www.coagulation-factors.com]

Hyperhomocysteinemia might be considered 10% of the total risk factors for cardiovascular disease --

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

It's interesting that they say 5-7% of the population lives with "mild" hyperhomocysteinemia yet they only have "normal" and "moderate" levels in their table. Maybe they mean "moderate" when they say "mild"?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2010 02:30PM by loeve.

loeve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's interesting that they say 5-7% of the
> population lives with "mild" hyperhomocysteinemia
> yet they only have "normal" and "moderate" levels
> in their table. Maybe they mean "moderate" when
> they say "mild"?

Maybe. In this study patients with "mild hyperhomocysteinemia" had "(tHcy) levels (i.e., RTR range=14.2-23.6 micromol/L; HD range=14.4-24.9 micromol/L)..." This tHcy range sounds similar to the Giessen Raw Food study raw vegan tHcy levels, 18.5 micromol/L (13.5–28.9), from table 4.


"BACKGROUND: Mild hyperhomocysteinemia is common among maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients and renal transplant recipients (RTR) and may contribute to the excess incidence of arteriosclerotic outcomes experienced by both patient groups. Relative to their RTR counterparts, the hyperhomocysteinemia of HD patients seems to be considerably more refractory to treatment with high-dose folic acid (FA)-based B-vitamin supplementation regimens, although controlled comparison data are lacking. METHODS: We compared the relative responsiveness of (n=10) RTR and (n=39) HD patients with equivalent baseline total homocysteine (tHcy) levels (i.e., RTR range=14.2-23.6 micromol/L; HD range=14.4-24.9 micromol/L)..." [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2010 02:59PM by loeve.