HealthBeat News

Author: Wellness Club

  • Ubiquinone (CoQ10) versus Ubiquinol: Which Is Better?

    Ubiquinone (CoQ10) versus Ubiquinol: Which Is Better?

    by Dr. Myatt

     

    Ann wrote Nurse Mark recently to ask:

    Mark

    A friend asked if the body can process coq10 or do we need to get the ubiquinol instead? I could not really find an answer.

    Thank you

    Ann

     

    Most everyone has heard of CoQ10, an important antioxidant produced by the body. CoQ10 benefits everything from the heart function, high blood pressure, the immune and neurological systems to athletic performance and male fertility. It is surely one of the most important antioxidants in the body and levels decline with age. (What doesn’t?! ;-)). Learn about the many crucial functions and benefits of CoQ10, and if you would benefit from taking supplemental CoQ10, here CoQ10: Super-Energizer and Potent Antioxidant.

    Ubiquinone and ubiquinol exist together in the body; the body converts ubiquinone into ubiquinol.

    Current marketing strategies promote the idea that the ubiquinol form of CoQ10 is much more absorbable and therefore preferable, which is what Ann’s question is about.

    Here’s the scoop.

    CoQ10 as ubiquinone is the “old” form of CoQ10 (by “old” I mean the form that has been commercially available for a long time). The ubiquinol form is “new” in the commercial sense, and the form touted as being much more absorbable.

    The “old” CoQ10 (ubiquinone) is quite absorbable, especially when taken with food. There is evidence that oil-based forms might have some additional absorption advantage over powdered forms.[1-3]

    There have been literally hundreds of human studies on CoQ10 in it’s ubiquinone form — the “old” form — but literally only a couple of studies on the ubiquinol form in humans. Check out our descriptive page about CoQ10 and you’ll see dozens of references. All of those references refer to the “old” form of CoQ10, the form that 99% of all studies have used.

    One study cited by everyone selling the “new” form showed improvement in heart patients (4). However, it was not a comparative study looking at ubiquinol versus ubiquinone. So the “new” stuff worked in one heart study and I can’t find any other human studies. The “old” stuff has been proven in dozens of human heart studies, it works amazingly well and is quite safe. (5-18, to list only a few of the many studies)

    Studies showing the effectiveness of CoQ10 in heart disease, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, Parkinson’s, AIDS, cancer, migraine, muscular dystrophy, fatigue and chronic fatigue, male infertility and other conditions have been done using the “old” form of CoQ10. This is the form that we KNOW works. The safety and efficacy of ubiquinone has been well-established; the safety and efficacy of the “new” ubiquinol form is largely unstudied.

    Remember that people selling supplements are always on the lookout for a marketing angle — as in “my CoQ10 is better than your CoQ10.” It’s about trying to sell supplements in a competitive market. Marketers look for a “new and improved” or “more bioavailable” angle because it sounds important and helps sell product. Sometimes these claims are true, but many times they are just marketing hype.

    When the body of evidence shows that the “new” ubiquinol form of CoQ10 works better and is just as safe as the older form, I’ll switch. Until then, I’m sticking with the well-proven “older” form of CoQ10 known as ubiquinone, and that is what we continue to recommend and offer here at The Wellness Club.

    References

    1.) Bhagavan HN, Chopra RK. Plasma coenzyme Q10 response to oral ingestion of coenzyme Q10 formulations. Mitochondrion. 2007 Jun;7 Suppl:S78-88. Epub 2007 Mar 27.
    2.) Chopra RK, Goldman R, Sinatra ST, Bhagavan HN. Relative bioavailability of coenzyme Q10 formulations in human subjects. Int J Vitam Nutr Res 1998;68:109–13.
    3.) Weiss M, Mortensen SA, Rassig MR, et al. Bioavailability of four oral coenzyme Q10 formulations in healthy volunteers. Molec Aspects Med 1994;15:273–80.
    4.) Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen AM. Supplemental ubiquinol in patients with advanced congestive heart failure. BioFactors. December 2008;32:119-128.
    5.) Kumar A, Kaur H, Devi P, Mohan V. Role of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in Cardiac disease, Hypertension and Meniere- like syndrome. Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Jul 25. [Epub ahead of print]
    6.) Langsjoen PH, Folkers K, Lyson K, Muratsu K, Lyson T, Langsjoen P. Pronounced increase of survival of patients with cardiomyopathy when treated with coenzyme Q10 and conventional therapy. Int J Tissue React. 1990;12(3):163-8.
    7.) Langsjoen PH, Folkers K, Lyson K, Muratsu K, Lyson T, Langsjoen P. Effective and safe therapy with coenzyme Q10 for cardiomyopathy. Klin Wochenschr. 1988 Jul 1;66(13):583-90.
    8.) Langsjoen P, Langsjoen A, Willis R, and Folkers K. The Aging Heart: Reversal of Diastolic Dysfunction Through the Use of Oral CoQ10 in the Elderly. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics. Klatz RM and Goldman R (eds.). Health Quest Publications. 1997;113-120.
    9.) Langsjoen PH, Langsjoen A, Willis R, Folkers K. Treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with coenzyme Q10. Mol Aspects Med. 1997;18(S):s145-s151.
    10.) Langsjoen PH, Vadhanavikit S, Folkers K. Response of patients in classes III and IV of cardiomyopathy to therapy in a blind and crossover trial with coenzyme Q10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Jun;82(12):4240-4
    11.) Mabuchi H, Higashikata T, Kawashiri M, Katsuda S, Mizuno M, Nohara A, Inazu A, Koizumi J, Kobayashi J. Reduction of serum ubiquinol-10 and ubiquinone-10 levels by atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients. Journal of Atheroscler Thromb. 2005;12(2):111-9.
    12.) Molyneux SL, Florkowski CM, George PM, Pilbrow AP, Frampton CM, Lever M, Richards AM. Coenzyme Q10: an independent predictor of mortality in chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Oct 28;52(18):1435-41.
    13.) Mortensen S.A., Vadhanavikit S., Muratsu K., Folkers K. (1990) Coenzyme Q10: Clinical benefits with biochemical correlates suggesting a scientific breakthrough in the management of chronic heart failure. In: Int. J. Tissue React., Vol. 12 (3), pp 155-162.
    14.) Rosenfeldt F, Hilton D, Pepe S, Krum H. Systematic review of effect of coenzyme Q10 in physical exercise, hypertension, and heart failure. Biofactors. 2003;18(1-4):91-100.
    15.) Silver MA, Langsjoen PH, Szabo S, Patil H, Zelinger A. Effect of atorvastatin on left ventricular diastolic function and ability of coenzyme Q10 to reverse that dysfunction. Am J Cardiol. 2004 Nov 15;94(10):1306-10.
    16.) Singh RB; Wander GS et al Randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of coenzyme Q10 in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther, 12(4):347-53 1998 Sep.
    17.) Singh RB; Wander GS et al Cardiovasc Drugs Ther, 12(4):347-53 1998 Sep.
    18.) Weant KA, Smith KM. The role of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure. Ann Pharmacother. 2005;39(9):1522-6.

  • I’m Not Afraid Of Cancer Any More!

    Dr. Myatt and Nurse Mark have just returned from a 3-week tour of the western states where they saw patients (making “The Ultimate HouseCall”) and spoke and taught at the fifth annual NW Herb Fest in Eugene, Oregon on a variety of subjects, including cancer. Her lectures were enthusiastically received – one participant approached Dr. Myatt at the end of the conference to say “After hearing you speak this weekend I’m not afraid of cancer any more!”

    Dr. Myatt’s lectures included:

  • The Urgent Care Herbalist: Where she discussed how with a small but powerful collection of herbal remedies, an herbalist can deal with medical “urgencies” from heart attack and hemorrhage to food poisoning, diarrhea, abdominal pain (even when the cause is unknown), anxiety attacks and more.
  • The Urgent Care Herbalist, Part II: Where she taught participants how to treat everything from pneumonia and upper respiratory infections to lymphadenitis, external infections, poisonous bites (including brown recluse spider bites), moderate to severe intestinal distress (infection, N/V, diarrhea, colic); kidney stones and gallbladder attacks and more. She taught the preparation and use of mustard plasters, charcoal poultices, castor oil packs, and essential oil inhalants. Corresponding internal herbal treatments include cayenne/lobelia, kava kava, bromelain, goldenseal, peppermint and more.
  • Botanical Prevention & Adjuvant Treatment of Malignancy: Dr. Myatt taught the underlying mechanisms of cancer initiation and progression, and discussed which herbs are the most important and powerful allies in treatment of this challenging disease. The talk included dietary intervention using common foods and herbs.
  • Black Salve Intensive: Dr. Myatt taught this 3 hour intensive class on Sunday night, discussing how the “Black salve,” consisting of a variety of botanical substances, has been used successfully in the treatment of melanoma and other external and internal cancers.

    • For those unable to be in attendance at the NW HerbFest, Dr. Myatt is making much of this information available online: information for those attending the Black Salve Intensive has been placed on the Wellness Club website and there is more to come – so stay tuned! For those who were there, Dr. Myatt is looking forward to seeing you again next year – so be sure to ask the Herb Fest organizers to have Dr. Myatt lecture about your favorite subject then!

  • Would You Like Some Pneumonia With Your Acid Blocker Pill?

    By Nurse Mark

     

    Regular readers are well aware that neither Dr. Myatt nor I have any good thoughts about the current state of conventional treatment for GERD or heartburn despite the fact that Big Pharma would have us believe that their patented drugs such as PPI’s (Proton Pump Inhibitors) like Prevacid, Prilosec and Nexium are not only perfectly safe, but should be included in the diet of almost every human being. PPI’s are now being pushed for children, and even infants!

    Well, it looks like the jig is up, and the cat is getting let out of the bag. Even conventional researchers are daring to stand up to the might of Big Pharma: Papers are being published calling into question the safety of these drugs and discussing some of the “unintended consequences” of their willy-nilly use.

    Here is one such article (actually, this is not the full article – that would be mind-numbing and I wouldn’t do that to someone I like – this is just the abstract of the article) taken from the federal government’s National Institutes of Health website PubMed service: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19149516

    Curr Drug Metab. 2009 Jan;10(1):84-9.

    The effect of proton pump inhibitors on the human microbiota.

    Vesper BJ, Jawdi A, Altman KW, Haines GK 3rd, Tao L, Radosevich JA.

    Center for Molecular Biology of Oral Diseases, Department of Oral Biology, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.

    Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used to treat acid-related diseases, most notably gastroesophageal reflux disease. PPIs are designed to shut down the gastric proton pump (H+/K+-ATPase) of parietal cells, thereby raising the pH of the stomach. While effective, a number of side effects have been associated with PPI use. Naturally occurring bacteria, some of which are acid-producing and contain ATPase enzymes, have also been found within the stomach, upper gastrointestinal tract, and oral cavity. Likewise, a number of fungi are known to inhabit the human body; some of these fungi contain H+-ATPase enzymes. Recent literature has suggested that PPIs may be inadvertently affecting these bacteria and fungi in two different ways: 1) PPIs may directly target the proton pumps of the bacteria and fungi, and/or 2) PPIs may indirectly affect the microenvironment of the flora via changes in pH. These unintended interactions are exasperated by the systemic distribution of PPIs throughout the body and may potentially lead to some of the side effects observed with PPI use. Herein we summarize what is currently known about the interactions between the PPIs and the natural human microbiota.

    PMID: 19149516 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    I’m guessing that Big Pharma is not happy about this article… but what does it mean? What’s the bottom line?

    Well, it means that these PPI’s are messing with bacteria and fungus that normally and naturally inhabit our bodies (but are normally kept in check) by 1) affecting the bacteria and fungi directly, presumably making it easier for them to grow and 2) affecting the normal pH of our bodies that helps to suppress the growth (or expression in medspeak) of these bugs.

    Why should we care? Because this is resulting in some very serious increases in the rates of pneumonia in people taking these drugs!

    Consider the following conclusion drawn by a noted (conventional) researcher and published in JAMA – The Journal of the American Medical Association (not a place that you would expect to find something this critical of the offerings of Big Pharma!).

    Conclusions:  In this large, hospital-based pharmacoepidemiologic cohort, acid-suppressive medication use was associated with 30% increased odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia.

    Source: Acid-Suppressive Medication Use and the Risk for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia
    Shoshana J. Herzig, MD; Michael D. Howell, MD, MPH; Long H. Ngo, PhD; Edward R. Marcantonio, MD, SM
    JAMA. 2009;301(20):2120-2128.

    Folks, that is how I would like my odds to run if I were playing the slots in Las Vegas – but not if I was trying to avoid getting a pneumonia!

    We’ve said it before in HealthBeat News articles (see Help – I’m Hooked On Acid Blocking Drugs! ) – these drugs are nasty: they are dangerous, addictive, and just plain bad medicine. Now we have research that shows that these drugs are acting like “fertilizer” for bacteria and fungus that can cause pneumonia and other serious, even life-threatening illnesses.

    It looks like maybe conventional medicine is beginning to wake up to these facts too.

  • Soy, Phytoestrogens, And Cancer – A Bad Combination?

    By Dr. Myatt

     

    Cancer, diet, hormones, drugs – individually these are incredibly complex subjects, and when one has to consider them all together – well, then things get really complicated!

    This looked at first sight to be a fairly straightforward question, but the answer actually required several hours of intensive research and fact-checking. Now you, dear reader, are the beneficiary of that! 

    Question:
    I have a question about Cal-Mag Amino supplements.  I have just purchased and received this item for the first time (since my old supplements are no longer available).  After opening the first bottle, I noticed on the label under “other ingredients” that the supplement tablets contain soy.  Under ordinary circumstances, this would not be a problem for me.  However, I have a history of estrogen 3+ / progesterone 1+ positive,  tubular breast cancer.  I am currently taking Arimidex and have completed 3 years of adjuvant therapy.  I was unaware that the Cal-Mag Amino contained soy, and now that I have several bottles I am concerned with how much soy is in the product.  I have an appointment with my medical oncologist in August and I would like to discuss this with her.  It would be helpful to know how much soy is in the product so that I may discuss this with my doctor. Could you please address this question for me? 
    Thank you,
    Sharon

    Dr. Myatt’s Answer:

    Phytoestrogens and Breast Cancer

    “Phytoestrogens” (literally, “plant estrogens”), are substances found in many foods and plants including flax seeds, soy and soy products (tofu, etc.), sesame seeds, garlic, apricots, squash, green beans and more. Here is a list of common phytoestrogen-containing foods. http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/phytoestrogen.php

    Phytoestrogens are not true estrogens and cannot be converted in the body into estrogens. Because of molecular similarities between human estrogens and phytoestrogens, the phytoestrogens are able to bind to estrogen receptors where they have weak estrogenic effects.

    Because of these weak estrogenic effects, some people theorize that phytoestrogens should be avoided in the treatment of hormone-responsive cancers such as breast cancer. In my opinion, this hypothesis is partly correct and partly incorrect. Here’s why.

    First, phytoestrogens are widespread in plants. In order to avoid all phytoestrogenic substances, one would need to stop eating a wide variety of foods, including such things as flax seed which have proven anti-cancer effects (1-3).

    Soy isolates including MSG and “hydrolyzed protein” are not necessarily listed on food labels — they are “stealth ingredients” — which means that if you eat ANY processed foods, you are likely consuming phytoestrogens. The best advice is to avoid processed foods, for this and many other reasons.

    Second, there are studies which show that phytoestrogens may actually be protective against hormone-related cancers by blocking more potent estrogenic substances from occupying estrogen receptors. Though not all studies agree (they never do!), the preponderance of epidemiological evidence shows that Southeast Asian women, who typically consume high amounts of soy (10-50 g/day), have a four to six-fold decreased risk of breast cancer compared to American women who typically consume negligible amounts of this legume (1-3 g/day).(4-5) The difference in these cancer rates is believed due to the phytoestrogens in soy.

    Aromatase Inhibitors (estrogen-blocking drugs) Vs. Phytoestrogens

    Although the verdict is still out on this issue, I wouldn’t recommend taking concentrated soy or other phytoestrogen substances on a daily basis if I had a hormone-sensitive cancer NOR would I make a big deal out of avoiding all phytoestrogen containing foods.

    Aromatase inhibitors (estrogen blockers) such as Arimidex work (we think) by blocking the body’s formation of estrogen. Phytoestrogens appear to work, at least in part, by actually blocking the estrogen receptors. The end result is similar: decrease the ability of strong estrogens to bind to estrogen receptors, either by blocking their production (the drugs) or blocking their receptor (phytoestrogens). Some studies have shown that use of phytoestrogens has a similar effect as the drugs (1-5) but without the long list of negative side effects.

    Arimidex side effects:

    Possible Side Effects of ARIMIDEX.

    • Based on information from a study in patients with early breast cancer, women with a history of blockages in heart arteries (ischemic heart disease) who take ARIMIDEX may have a slight increase in this type of heart disease compared to similar patients who take tamoxifen.
    • ARIMIDEX can cause bone softening/weakening (osteoporosis) increasing the chance of fractures. In a clinical study in early breast cancer, there were more fractures (including fractures of the spine, hip, and wrist) with ARIMIDEX (10%) than with tamoxifen (7%).
    • In a clinical study in early breast cancer, some patients taking ARIMIDEX had an increase in cholesterol.
    • Skin reactions, allergic reactions, and changes in blood tests of liver function have also been reported.
    • In the early breast cancer clinical trial, the most common side effects seen with ARIMIDEX include hot flashes, joint symptoms (including arthritis and arthralgia), weakness, mood changes, pain, back pain, sore throat, nausea and vomiting, rash, depression, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, fractures, swelling of arms/legs, insomnia, and headache.

    “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”

      … from the manufacturer’s website: http://www.arimidex.com/arimidex-about/index.aspx

    Several studies have found that the isolated soy phytoestrogen genistein, but not other phytoestrogens, countered the effect of aromatase inhibitors. (6-8)

    On the other hand, though I would not take concentrated genistein with Arimidex, neither would I be concerned about eating small amounts of phytoestrogens that occur naturally in many foods. Again, there are studies which show phytoestrogens to be PROTECTIVE in hormone-sensitive cancers. I wouldn’t take concentrated forms of soy products or soy powder with estrogen-blocking drugs but neither would I avoid normal dietary amounts of phytoestrogen-containing foods. Since soy has the largest concentration of genisteins, I would not eat this every day; on the other hand, I wouldn’t skip my favorite tofu and veggie stir-fry when eating at The China Wok, either!

    Finally, the “soy” that occurs in Cal-Mag amino is the isolated amino acids from same, used as protein chelators of the minerals to increased absorption. The phytoestrogen component of whey has been removed; only the amino acids (protein fractions) are used in Wellness Club Nutritionals.

    Far more important than fussing about small amounts of phytoestrogens in food, a ketogenic diet is the single most important “treatment” that a person can use to both prevent and treat cancer. A brief description of the benefits of this diet, as written for doctors, can be found in this previous HealthBeat News article.

    One final note. Asking your conventional oncologist about the advisability or non-advisability of a natural or nutritional substance is usually like asking your acupuncturist about brain surgery: it is outside their scope of practice, meaning they don’t have the information to be able to give you a good answer.

    What does a conventional doctor do when they don’t know? Do they say “I don’t know”? Rarely. Instead, the thought is “If I don’t know the answer, then don’t do it.” Unfortunately, this mindset isn’t just “erring on the side of caution” and has in fact often steered people away from helpful treatments.

    I wouldn’t look to a conventional oncologist for sound advice on diet (most say it doesn’t matter, eat anything you want and just “keep up your weight”), supplemental nutrition or herbs for cancer unless they have done some serious extra-curricular studies on the subject. Most are not even aware of the numerous references and benefits of a ketogenic diet on cancer.

    I find no justification for avoiding phytoestrogens as found in food in instances of breast or prostate cancer, but I DO recommend avoiding concentrated genisteins and soy products with a history of breast cancer, especially when taking estrogen-blocking drugs.
    ____________

    References:
    1.) Power KA, Thompson LU. Can the combination of flaxseed and its lignans with soy and its isoflavones reduce the growth stimulatory effect of soy and its isoflavones on established breast cancer?  Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jul;51(7):845-56.
    2.) Bergman Jungeström M, Thompson LU, Dabrosin C. Flaxseed and its lignans inhibit estradiol-induced growth, angiogenesis, and secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor in human breast cancer xenografts in vivo. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 1;13(3):1061-7.
    3.) Touillaud MS, Thiébaut AC, Fournier A, Niravong M, Boutron-Ruault MC, Clavel-Chapelon F. Dietary lignan intake and postmenopausal breast cancer risk by estrogen and progesterone receptor status.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Mar 21;99(6):475-86.
    4.) Messina MJ, Persky V, Setchell KD, Barnes S. Soy intake and cancer risk: a review of the in vitro and in vivo data. Nutr Cancer 1994;21:11331.
    5.) Birt DF, Hendrich S, Wang W. Dietary agents in cancer prevention: flavonoids and isoflavonoids. Pharmacol Ther. 2001;90:157-161.
    6.) Ju YH, Doerge DR, Woodling KA, Hartman JA, Kwak J, Helferich WG. Dietary genistein negates the inhibitory effect of letrozole on the growth of aromatase-expressing estrogen-dependent human breast cancer cells (MCF-7Ca) in vivo. Carcinogenesis. 2008 Nov;29(11):2162-8. Epub 2008 Jul 16.
    7.) Edmunds KM, Holloway AC, Crankshaw DJ, Agarwal SK, Foster WG. The effects of dietary phytoestrogens on aromatase activity in human endometrial stromal cells. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2005 Nov-Dec;45(6):709-20.
    8.) de Lemos ML. Effects of soy phytoestrogens genistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth. Ann Pharmacother. 2001 Sep;35(9):1118-21.

  • Life Line Screening – Is It Worth It?

    By Nurse Mark

     

    We are bombarded with sales-pitches and come-on’s daily, with various health care or health insurance or health improvement schemes preying upon the fears and uncertainties of Americans – especially older Americans – with well-written and compelling advertising copy.

    No wonder so many are confused. Fortunately there are also many like Jean who are skeptical.

    Jean writes:

    What do you think of the Life Line Screening?  We received a flyer through the Masons, but I read something on line that indicated it may be a scam.

    Here is Nurse Mark’s answer:

    Hi Jean,

    Regarding “Life Line Screenings” – I was unaware that Masonic Lodges were promoting this, or any company’s services, and a little surprised.

    I don’t think that it is actually a scam, but I’m not sure that it is all it’s promoted to be by the company. Their “screenings” look at a fairly small number of risk factors from a fairly narrow perspective. They do not offer their screenings as being diagnostic and they admit in several places on their website that these screenings are “limited” in nature. They do present their results in a rather “pretty” user-friendly (to the layperson) and colorful format however.

    If your concern is with Carotid Artery Disease, which Life Line Screening claims to detect and stroke, the thing that Life Line Screening claims to  prevent, Dr. Myatt has an newly-revised article here: Herbs for Stroke / Thrombophlebitis Prevention that will be very useful to you.

    For a fairly balanced look at the Life Line Screenings ultrasound service – written by a conventional doctor – check out this article: http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/life-line-screening-a-scambuster-report/

    Remember, as a conventional doc this fellow’s recommendation must be to lower both cholesterol and blood pressure in order to lower stroke risk – and as Dr. Myatt has written before, neither of those strategies is really beneficial to very many people other than the Big Pharmaceutical Companies.

    Here is another article, from the magazine Nurseweek: http://www.nurseweek.com/features/99-1/stroke.html

    They also promote their ultrasound screenings for the detection of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, Peripheral Artery Disease, and for Bone Mineral Density Screening.

    The company also offers fingerstick blood screening for a number of risk factors and limited ECG (electrocardiogram or heart rhythm monitor) testing in some of it’s locations.

    These tests are all well and good, but often unnecessary in the absence of any clear indication such as known risk factors or symptoms – and then, such testing should be recommended and interpreted by your doctor to ensure that you are getting the most “bang for your buck”. Remember, you always have the option of asking your doctor if he or she feels a certain test might be indicated, and if not, why not. If your doctor is unwilling to spend the time to discuss your concerns, well, then it’s time to find a new doctor!

    I personally see this service as fitting into the same category as those “head-to-toe” CAT scans that were promoted heavily a while back. My advice would be to pass on the Life Line Screening and save my money for the basic vitamins and supplements that have been well-proven to lower the risks of cardiovascular disease including strokes. Remember, it is easier and better to stay healthy than it is to play “catch-up” based upon the results of these “screening tests”.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,
    Nurse Mark