Over the course of four years, researchers from Linkoping University in Sweden observed 443 healthy senior adults who took either a placebo or supplements containing CoQ10 (200 milligrams per day) in addition to selenium (200 micrograms per day). Data gathered from 181 participants over the course of an average of 12 years of follow-up following the conclusion of the intervention showed that those in the supplemented group had a cardiovascular mortality risk that was forty percent lower than that of those in the placebo group.
In addition to this, the size of these benefits is growing: the supplemented group actually started on a distinct life and health path after four years of supplementation. This is both fascinating and potent to consider.
The question therefore is: why do we not discuss this more?
Results that can’t be disregarded in any way?
Here at NutraIngredients-USA, we report on a great number of research that demonstrate the usefulness of dietary supplements; nevertheless, it is quite rare for the traditional media to report on studies of this nature. That trenbolone enanthate that do are frequently the result of a press release, issued by either the primary academic institution or a magazine (which makes sense because press releases make life easier for many journalists).
As far as I am aware, no press release of this kind has been made in relation to the most recent study, which is perhaps why there hasn’t been much coverage of it.
But what has shocked me is not the absence of coverage in the media; rather, it is the absence of discussion on this topic within the industry.
We have already reported on the findings of this study, so this won’t be the first time. In 2012, I presented the findings of this study’s 10-year evaluation (four years of intervention and six years of follow-up), and representatives from the Natural Products Association (NPA) and the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) expressed their satisfaction with the findings. “[These are] results that cannot be ignored,” I was told at the time.
However, these findings have been generally disregarded by a significant number of those working in the sector over the course of the past several years, and the most recent paper didn’t appear to receive the attention that it deserved. This is exactly the kind of study that our sector, which spends a significant amount of time reacting to negative feedback, ought to be talking about, and doing so in a very public manner.
Putting an end to the criticism
Dietary supplement detractors frequently present two lines of argument: 1. People who eat a diet that is balanced do not require dietary supplements, and 2. You should not waste your money on dietary supplements since either they do not actually help, or if they do work, the high quantities may be dangerous. (Whenever I think about this, I can’t help but crack a wry smile since, in the event that the “they don’t work” argument is refuted, people will then resort to the argument that “they work a bit too well,” but I digress.)
Now we have a study that shows that not only did the supplements lead to significant improvements throughout the intervention period of four years, but such advantages were remained present 12 years after the end of the randomized clinical trial! This is really exciting news!
In addition, it should be emphasized that these were well-characterized supplements, the participants were healthy seniors, we have data on them that spans over a decade, and the statistics show that the effects were not marginal; in fact, they were the kind of p values that many researchers can only dream about.
One of the few people to raise notice to this study with a commentary on LinkedIn was Dr. Mark Miller, principal of Kaiviti Consulting, LLC. When we inquired about his thoughts on the matter, he responded by saying, “The impacts are far too profound for mere nutrient substitution.” I believe that we need to use some creativity in this situation, and if I had to speculate, I would say that there has been a significant resetting of the drivers of disease and health.
“So, what kind of regulatory system produces consequences that are so long-lasting? Epigenetics is, in my opinion, the most promising candidate. It is well knowledge that modifying our genetic code might have destabilizing effects on our bodies in the long run. To be more specific, it is most likely an epigenetic regulation of mitochondrial function, oxidative stress, and inflammation.
It’s possible that the only drawback is the location: Sweden has low selenium intakes, and the mean selenium level for the study population was 67 micrograms per liter of plasma. This is below the reported 90 to 140 microgram/L concentration that’s needed for “full expression of the extracellular selenoprotein P.” However, the study did find that a higher selenium level was associated with a lower risk of cancer. In spite of this, selenium levels in the United States are not particularly low, and the average daily selenium consumption from food in the United States ranges from 93 micrograms in women to 134 micrograms in men. But did selenium work in conjunction with CoQ10 to produce these results, or did selenium work on its own? We do not know whether or not the findings would hold true in a population living in the United States.
In spite of this, the data is quite compelling: This is a solid study that contributes to the growing amount of scientific evidence about dietary supplements.
