Vitamin Information Center

Being recently discovered by the modernized Western world, Acai Berry has long been consumed by the native people in the inner parts of Brazil. It hasn’t been long since the physicians and nutritionists have discovered the helpful affects of acai and have decided to change them into pill shape with the help of advances in technology; so now not only Brazil but the rest of the world may make use of its amazing advantages.

Although acai berry is now available to the Western world (in pill form), many of them have not yet realized the potential conveyed by those pills.

But you haven’t missed anything because here we list the features and benefits of acai berry pills; the benefits of which can change your life.

- Stops you feeling hungry. Acai berry contains fiber and protein content, which sends your brain messages and makes it believe you are full and don’t want to eat more. If you take acai pills you will feel full longer.

- Your metabolism works faster. Even when you are sitting at your table in the office and doing regular things it is possible to lose weight because acai berry pills enables your metabolism work faster, burning extra calories.

- You recover faster. Since acai berry moves the toxins out of your body fast due to its anti-toxident characteristic you won’t suffer from diarrhea, stomach problems and fever for long. That is why Brazilians call Acai Berries ‘God’s Gift’.

- You digest quicker. Your digestion system works more effectively as it is supported with the fiber and protein content in the Acai Berries.

- Cleaner Intestines. It is common that you sometimes suffer from sicknesses resulted from blocked intestines. Acai berry cleans those blocked parts and avoids both intestine related problems and putting on weight.

- Less cancer risk. In addition to its cancer risk free composition, acai berry also has the capacity of decreases the cancer risk.

- Lessens your cholesterol level. Acai berries do not contain harmful cholesterol for you body and this automatically increases the risk of cholesterol related problems such as heart attacks.

As you can see the Acai berry strongly deserves its label as a super food, bringing many health benefits to those that consume them With technology now able to reduce these berries into long lasting pill form it is no longer just those in Brazil that are able to reap the benefits of these berries, but anyone who cares to try the Acai berry pills for themselves.

To sum up, one can easily get the advantages of using such a helpful and healthy food. Take advantage of acai pills and start realizing real health benefits today.

There are many acai berry pill retailers on the internet but none offer a deal like Viva Caps Acai currently they are offering a free trial of acai berry pills. This is gives the perfect chance to try acai berry weight loss pills totally free.

Launched a decade ago, the federal program requiring folic acid to be added to widely consumed foods has been hailed as one of the great public-health success stories. Harnessing a seemingly harmless vitamin, it helped slash the number of babies born with spina bifida and other devastating “neural-tube” defects.

But scientists are beginning to debate whether Canadians’ growing consumption of the nutrient may also be taking a terrible, unplanned toll, triggering hundreds of extra cancers annually, even as it makes pregnancies safer.

One Canadian specialist says the federal government should now consider abandoning fortification altogether, and focus folic-acid efforts more narrowly on the young women who unquestionably benefit from the vitamin.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” said Young-In Kim, a gastroenterologist and folic-acid researcher at the University of Toronto.

“It was meant to prevent neural-tube defects, and it did a wonderful job. [But] for people with pre-cancerous cells, or undiagnosed colon cancer tumours, giving high-dose folic acid or having high folate levels might actually make their condition worse.”

Other experts, though, argue that fortifying food offers well-proven health advantages, while evidence of any cancer risk is inconclusive at best. In fact, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has advocated higher intake of folic acid supplements for some women, while the March of Dimes and American Medical Association in the United States have called for doubling the level of folic acid - or folate - that must be added to flours and other raw grains.

“You need more substance to show harm [from folate fortification], and there has been a clear absence of substance,” said Dr. Joel Ray, a scientist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto who has studied folic acid. “We shouldn’t backtrack and change the direction of the program right now.”

Health Canada has reviewed what it calls the “inconsistent” evidence on the issue, and has no plans to alter or cancel the program, said Alastair Sinclair, a department spokesman.

“It is not possible to conclude that fortification has increased the rates of colorectal cancer incidence in Canada,” he said.

The folic-acid story revolves around birth defects, specifically those where the fetus’s neural tube, which becomes the brain and spinal cord, develops improperly, sometimes resulting in major disabilities. Folic acid seems to have a powerful preventive effect. A 2007 study concluded that rates of spina bifida and other neural-tube defects fell by about 50% - or about 110 babies a year - in the wake of the fortification program.

Adding the vitamin to food started on a voluntary basis in this country in 1996, and became mandatory for white flour, enriched pasta and cornmeal in late 1998. Evidence had shown that many women of child-bearing age did not heed expert advice to take folic acid pills, which have limited effect if started after a woman becomes pregnant.

The target was younger women, but the fortification program, following on the heels of one in the U.S., led to a doubling on average in the level of folic acid in all Canadians. Some experts suggest that is not a bad thing: There is evidence that it actually protects people against certain cancers.

Two hotly contested studies published last year, however, have fuelled concerns that elevated levels in North American bloodstreams may be having the opposite effect. A trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine had been designed to test whether folic acid prevented pre-cancerous colorectal polyps. In fact, it found that those subjects taking folate supplements were slightly more likely to have multiple polyps and to develop prostate cancer.

Animal studies, meanwhile, have suggested that the vitamin can prevent colorectal cancer in healthy individuals, but can also make it more likely that pre-cancerous polyps will convert into malignancies and that existing cancers will develop faster.

Then there is the history of folate. In the 1940s, physicians experimented with giving it to children suffering from leukemia, only to find that it accelerated the disease. That discovery led to the development of the first chemotherapy drugs - ones that actually countered the effects of natural folate, said Kim.

He was among the experts consulted by U.K. officials recently as they considered implementing fortification. The British decided last year to put the plan on hold.

Another 2007 study, meanwhile, noted that colorectal cancer rates rose suddenly in both Canada and the U.S. in the years after folic acid fortification started, and suggested there could be a link. The rates here climbed to almost five extra cases per 100,000 annually, before sliding back to a level that was still somewhat higher than before fortification.

That means that as many as 1,500 additional Canadians were diagnosed with colorectal cancer yearly after folate levels started to soar.

Dr. Joel Mason of Tufts University in Boston, who spearheaded the study, said there is not yet enough evidence to justify actually cancelling the fortification program, but called for more research on the possible cancer connection. He also suggests that anyone who is not a woman in her reproductive years think twice about taking folic acid supplements, which only add to the levels provided by fortification.

“We don’t know whether taking vitamin supplements and fortifying food [with folic acid] … actually accelerates cancer risk among susceptible people, but there is certainly a scientific basis for that possibility,” Mason said.

“We can’t afford to ignore it. It’s not a trivial phenomenon.”

Yet his and the New England Journal study have both come under stiff criticism.

British experts on spina- bifida argued in a letter to The Lancet last year that the trial published in the New England Journal showed no significant evidence that folate can be carcinogenic. And, like Ray, they said the increased cancer rates identified in Mason’s study were likely just a result of stepped-up screening for colorectal cancer.

In the meantime, a study published last month in the World Journal of Gastroenterology offered a much rosier view of the vitamin. It found that after three years, patients who took folic acid supplements actually had a third as many of the polyps that can lead to colorectal cancer as those taking a placebo.

Experts are increasingly pushing for higher daily recommended intakes of vitamin D, saying that while current amounts may prevent signs of deficiency, they are insufficient to provide a protective benefit against cancer.

Vitamin D is an essential nutrient produced by the body when ultraviolet radiation from sunlight strikes the skin. In northern latitudes, however, when sunlight is dim for significant parts of the year, many people cannot get enough sun to synthesize sufficient levels of the vitamin. This problem is particularly pronounced among those with darker skin. Few foods are rich in vitamin D. Fish oil and fortified food sources, such as milk or non-dairy milk substitutes, provide the most common dietary sources.

The United States and Canadian governments recommend a daily vitamin D intake of 200 IU. But vitamin D and cancer experts warn that this value is far too low.

Recently, the Canadian Cancer Society advised that light-skinned people take a 1,000 IU vitamin D supplement daily during fall and winter months, and that dark-skinned people or those who regularly keep all their skin covered while outdoors take a supplement year-round.

“We’re recommending 1,000 IU daily because the current evidence suggests this amount will help reduce cancer risk with the least potential for harm,” said Heather Logan, director of the society’s Cancer Control Policy.

“I have to commend the Canadian Cancer Society,” vitamin D researcher Joan Lappe said. “They’re right out in the lead there on changing the recommendations.”

Lappe was lead researcher in a recent study that found that women taking 1,100 IU of vitamin D per day showed a 60 percent reduced risk of developing cancer than women taking a placebo. Excluding women who developed cancer during the first year of the four-year study, the risk reduction from vitamin D was 77 percent.

In a paper published in the “American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,” a group of vitamin D experts recently advised that an upper daily limit of 10,000 IU be set for vitamin D exposure, making a break with the current, more cautious, government recommendations.

In recent years, as disappointing research cast a dark cloud over the hyped benefits of some vitamins and nutrients, vitamin D has been a ray of sunshine.

It’s partly because vitamin D is naturally produced in our skin when exposed to the sun’s ultraviolet rays.

But, it’s also because its reputation as a bone builder and disease fighter has been borne out by increasingly solid evidence.

“More studies are showing that vitamin D in the body is more diverse and more important than what we had thought,” says Cheryl Rock, a registered dietitian and professor of nutrition at the University of California San Diego Medical School. “We’ve known that it’s crucial for the absorption of calcium, but now we think it may relate to cancer because its biochemical activity is so diverse.”

In 2007, researchers from UCSD’s Moores Cancer Center found that people with high blood levels of vitamin D had half the risk of breast and colon cancer of those with low levels.

A review of dozens of studies and research in the American Journal of Public Health says that women with the lowest vitamin D levels are five times more likely to get breast cancer than those with the highest levels, and the vitamin slows the progression of the disease. Low levels of vitamin D also correlate with up to a 70 percent increase in the risk for prostate cancer and double the risk of colon cancer.

And in a Harvard School of Public Health study in 2006, researchers found that people who took in the highest amounts of vitamin D cut their risk of pancreatic cancer almost in half compared with those with the lowest intakes.

What’s the cancer link? Research has shown that vitamin D helps regulate cell growth, a fundamental biological process that goes haywire in cancer.

But it may be more than just cancer risk and bone health that benefit from increased vitamin D.

In a study published earlier this year, researchers at Harvard Medical School found a strong link between vitamin D deficiency and cardiovascular disease. Researchers followed more than 1,700 members of the Framingham Offspring Study (children or grandchildren of the original participants in the 1948 Framingham Heart Study) for more than five years. They found the rate of cardiovascular disease events such as heart attacks, strokes and heart failure were from 53 percent to 80 percent higher in people with low levels of vitamin D in their blood.

A study in the June 2007 edition of Archives of Internal Medicine found a “significantly higher” prevalence of hypertension, diabetes and high triglyceride levels in individuals with lower levels of vitamin D.

Scientists are not sure what mechanisms connect vitamin D with reduced risk of heart disease and diabetes, but some studies have shown that the vitamin can lower inflammation by increasing levels of anti-inflammatory messengers.

Researchers are careful to point out that this study does not prove that taking vitamin D supplements reduces heart attacks and strokes. That can only be done with a large clinical trial in which vitamin D is compared with a placebo.

A deficiency of the vitamin is also believed to weaken the immune system. Some research shows that increased vitamin D may also protect against multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, in which the immune system attacks the body’s own healthy tissue.

Vitamin D functions a bit differently from other vitamins. The inactive form of vitamin D, made by our skin as a result of sun exposure or obtained from food, is like a reservoir of raw material stored in our livers, fat tissues, muscles and blood. When needed, it’s converted to an active form, actually a hormone, that tells various parts of the body what to do.

While much of the research presents a positive and hopeful picture of how the sunshine vitamin can benefit us, it only works if we get enough of it. And, according to some medical and nutrition experts, many of us don’t.

One-third to one-half of otherwise healthy, middle-aged to older adults have low levels of vitamin D in the United States, Harvard researchers say. A University of California San Diego study found that the average U.S. adult intake of vitamin D is only 230 international units (IU) daily. The government’s current recommendation for vitamin D is 200 IUs a day for people up to age 50, 400 IUs to age 70, and 600 IUs for people over 70.

Many experts say the government guidelines are too low, because we’re not getting enough of the vitamin from the sun or our food.

Although the conscientious use of sunscreen has successfully filtered out the harmful cancer-causing UV rays, it’s also reduced the amount of vitamin D we’d normally get from the sun. During winter when the sun is low and people are not outdoors as often, people’s vitamin D levels drop significantly.

The problem is particularly serious in colder parts of the world, in people with dark skin, the elderly and those who are diligent about avoiding sun exposure.

Some researchers say we need at least 800 to 1,000 units of vitamin D daily, probably taken in the form of a supplement, to reap the health benefits. The studies that showed a link between the vitamin and reduced cancer and cardiovascular disease risk used at least 1,000 units of vitamin D every day.

Not everyone agrees that the recommended dosage be increased. The American Cancer Society favors keeping the current recommendation of 200 to 600 IUs for now, cautioning that more than 2,000 units is viewed in the government nutritional guidelines as potentially dangerous.

“In excess, vitamin D can be very toxic,” says Rock, who admits that the recommendation may need to be increased to 800 units daily. “Taking 2,000 IUs is the highest dosage in which you don’t see adverse effects. Any more than that and all bets are off.”

Some medical/nutrition experts advocate going to the source for more vitamin D.

“Just 10 to 15 minutes of sun on your face, arms or back twice a week is enough to keep your blood levels of vitamin D up. As we get older, we make the conversion less efficiently, so as we age we may need to get a little more sun exposure, maybe 20 minutes instead of 15,” says Rock, who notes that people with dark skin don’t convert the sun to vitamin D as readily, so they may also need more sun time.

Researchers from UCSD point out that people living closer to the equator have lower incidences of some cancers, including colon, lung, breast, ovary and prostate.

“Just don’t get carried away,” Rock says, noting that prolonged sun exposure increases the risk of skin cancer significantly. “You don’t need to spend hours in the sun and look like Malibu Barbie to get enough vitamin D.”

Relying on food for an adequate supply of vitamin D isn’t as easy, because not that many foods contain the vitamin.

Oily fish like sardines, salmon, mackerel and tuna all have vitamin D. So does cod liver oil. And eggs have a little bit.

“The good news is that many more foods are fortified with vitamin D. Milk has been fortified with vitamin D by law (since the 1930s to prevent the bone-deforming disease rickets). Many cereals are fortified and so are some cheeses and margarines and orange juice,” Rock says.

It’s important to try to get the right kind of vitamin D.

The vitamin has two main forms, D-2 and D-3. Vitamin D-2 is from plant sources and is the type often contained in many multivitamins and fortified foods. Vitamin D-3 is from meat sources and is considered to be the more potent and accessible. It’s what we make when our skin is exposed to sunlight.

“D-2 is not as bio-available as D-3, and our body doesn’t absorb it as well. So, if you take 400 IUs of D-2, you might not be getting all 400 units,” says Linda Copp, a registered dietitian and instructor of nutrition at San Diego State University.

Word is getting out to the supplement and food industry that vitamin D-3, or cholecalciferol, is the preferred form, and more of them are starting to offer it in their products, noting it boldly on the label.

How do you know if you’re lacking in vitamin D? You probably don’t know for sure. But if you rarely get any time in the sun and don’t eat or drink foods containing or enriched with the vitamin, or if your skin color is dark, chances are you may not be getting enough.

However, instead of guessing and haphazardly increasing your vitamin D dosage, Rock suggests having a blood test, which usually runs $100 to $200.

“It’s possible to measure the amount of vitamin D you have in your blood. Your health insurance probably won’t pay for it, but it’s not that expensive. And if you’re really concerned, it probably is a good idea to ask your doctor about being tested,” Rock says.

Beth Wood contributed to this article.

ORONO — Vitamin D has long been recognized for its role in making healthy bones, but a growing body of evidence now suggests that it can also significantly reduce the risk of developing several types of cancers.

That’s the promising message that a group of University of Maine researchers found when they reviewed medical research, from 1970 to 2007, that examined the protective effects of the “sunshine vitamin” against cancers of the breast, colon, prostate, lung and ovary.

There are receptors for the most active form of vitamin D, a steroid hormone called calcitriol, in many tissues in the body that are not related to bone development, says Betty Ingraham, a UMaine doctoral student in nutrition and a co-author of the paper. In the body, the genes that respond to active vitamin D are critical to maintaining the health of cells and in regulating cell growth and differentiation.

The UMaine team, which includes doctoral student Beth Bragdon and Anja Nohe, assistant professor of chemical and biological engineering, cited one especially encouraging randomized clinical trial in Nebraska as an example of the mounting evidence that has emerged in recent years regarding the health benefits of vitamin D.

The Creighton University study involved 1,179 postmenopausal women divided into three groups. One group took 1,400-1,500 milligrams of supplementary calcium a day, another took the same amount of calcium plus 1,100 international units (IU) of vitamin D � nearly triple the currently recommended intake for that age group. The third group took placebo pills each day. After four years, those women in the combined calcium-vitamin D group showed a 60-percent lower risk of developing cancer when compared to the placebo group. The calcium-only group had a reduced cancer risk of 47 percent.

When the researchers threw out the data from the study’s first year, on the chance that some women might have begun the study with cancers that had yet to be diagnosed, the results were even more remarkable. For the last three years of the study, women in the calcium-vitamin D group showed a 77-percent reduced risk of cancer compared to the placebo group. Risk for the calcium-only group was essentially unchanged.

As encouraging as that study and others may be, however, maintaining desirable levels of vitamin D in the body remains a challenge, especially for people living in northern latitudes. The most important source of vitamin D is the skin, which makes the nutrient quickly and in large amounts when exposed to bright sunlight. Yet in states such as Maine, ultraviolet-B radiation from the sun is not intense enough in winter to promote synthesis of vitamin D in the skin. Consequently, blood levels of vitamin D drop from November on, reaching their lowest levels by March.

Susan Sullivan, a researcher in UMaine’s Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, and doctoral student Monica Nelson recently studied 86 college-age women from the Bangor area and found that 38 percent had deficient levels of vitamin D  in winter. The young women were then put on vitamin D supplements of 800 IU a day, which, when added to the 140 IU they got from fortified foods such as milk, boosted their intake to nearly 1000 IU, or five times the currently recommended amount for that age group. By the end of the one-year study, only nine percent of the women remained deficient in vitamin D, and 80 percent had achieved optimal levels.

“But 80 percent is not good enough,” says Sullivan, who was not part of the review paper. “We want to optimize vitamin D levels in 97 percent of that population of women, which means they need supplements of more than 800 IU. Older people, who get less sun exposure, need even more.”

Sullivan’s earlier three-year study of 23 Bangor-area adolescent girls revealed that nearly half of them had insufficient levels of vitamin D in their blood by late winter. In September, when the nutrient is usually at its highest level after an abundance of summer sun, 17 percent remained deficient. Because puberty is a critical period in the development of bone mass, Sullivan says, a serious lack of vitamin D, the nutrient known to promote calcium absorption, could lead to health problems such as osteoporosis later in life.

In their review paper on vitamin D and cancer, the UMaine team says researchers are now studying physiological evidence and data from clinical trials in order to revise the recommendations on vitamin D intake for optimal health. Many nutrition experts, Sullivan among them, believe that the current dietary recommendations for vitamin D are too low.

Foods fortified with vitamin D are helpful, she says, but don’t provide nearly enough of the nutrient in a normal diet. In the spring, summer and early fall in Maine, getting five to 10 minutes of midday sun each day on bare arms and legs, followed by an application of sunscreen to avoid sunburn, can make a big difference in boosting vitamin D levels.

Sullivan also joins many other nutrition experts in suggesting that people should consider taking a daily vitamin D supplement of 1,000 IU in the winter, but only after consulting a physician.