Antioxidants

T

Tanizaki

0
I read the "smart supplementation" sticky and saw that it advocated antioxidant supplements. I was amazed to learn that there were still people who thought this was wise or even useful.

The fact remains that in two decades of studies of peopel taking antioxidant supplements, none have found that they are beneficial. In fact, some found that they were harmful. For example, in 1992 the US National Cancer Institute did a study of beta carotene. They took people with high risk of developing lung cancer, and gave some of them beta carotene supplements. The trial was supposed to run for six years, but the researchers cut it short at four years after discovering that those taking supplements were faring worse than the controls. Their lung cancer rate was 28% higher, and the overall death rate was up 17%.

So long as we breathe oxygen, we will be inhaling free radicals. However, there is no empirical evidence that ingesting antioxidants somehow improves health or longevity.
 
The study you speak of is well known. And it has been recommended that smoker do not exceed the RDA for Vitamin A. Though, you saying NO study has said other wise is completely wrong. Studies that show little affect of a SUPPLEMENT get wildly publicized while those that praise them do not.

I could go on by showing 100's of studies that show the positive affect of anti-oxidants. Maybe not in supplement form but from food form.

Now, what is the main problem with MOST studies done on anti-oxidant supplements? One. They ALWAYS use synthetic vitamins when applicable. Two. They ALWAYS use such a small amount that there could be no beneficial affect.
For instance a study just came out recently saying there is no point to vitamin E supplementation. HOWEVER, when looking at the dosages given to the studies participants It was found to be about HALF of the MINUMUN requirement for the vitamin. The RDA itself is designed to prevent deficiency NOT offer health benefits. If you want to truly study the possible benefits then the dosage will have to be raised DRAMATICALLY. And until researchers start to understand that simple little fact there will be no sound study done on these supplements.
 
(Silent) said:
The study you speak of is well known. And it has been recommended that smoker do not exceed the RDA for Vitamin A. Though, you saying NO study has said other wise is completely wrong. Studies that show little affect of a SUPPLEMENT get wildly publicized while those that praise them do not.
Click to expand...
I stand by my statement. The empirical evidence for antioxidant supplements simply isn't there.

Beta carotene is not Vitamin A, by the way.

I could go on by showing 100's of studies that show the positive affect of anti-oxidants. Maybe not in supplement form but from food form.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not really relevant to my post, which is about supplements. But, if you have access to such studies, please cite just a few of them. Peer-reviewed preferred, of course.

Now, what is the main problem with MOST studies done on anti-oxidant supplements? One. They ALWAYS use synthetic vitamins when applicable.
Click to expand...
And this matters why? Synthetic or "natural", they are chemically identical.

Two. They ALWAYS use such a small amount that there could be no beneficial affect.
Click to expand...
That statement begs the question. It presupposes that there is a known number which is of beneficial effect. Well, if you know it, what is it?

For instance a study just came out recently saying there is no point to vitamin E supplementation. HOWEVER, when looking at the dosages given to the studies participants It was found to be about HALF of the MINUMUN requirement for the vitamin. The RDA itself is designed to prevent deficiency NOT offer health benefits. If you want to truly study the possible benefits then the dosage will have to be raised DRAMATICALLY. And until researchers start to understand that simple little fact there will be no sound study done on these supplements.
Click to expand...

You didn't bother to cite the study so I cannot respond to it. However, I find it hard to believe that all of the scientists in the world who are studying this issue have fundamentally flawed experiments while a non-expert forum poster knows the correct experimental design. Frankly, it smells the same to me as when creationists say that carbon dating is flawed.

Your knowledge is simply out of date. Some years ago, I would have agreed that antioxidants were beneficial, but that's no longer the mainstream view.
 
Lol, Beta carotene is the precursor for Vitamin A. It is converted to A.

I have to be going soon so I can not sit and discuss this topic right now. THOUGH, I will agree supplements are over-hyped, at least most.
 
Its already obvious consuming things in a diet is far more beneficial than supplements. If your saying antioxidants dont prevent cancer your kidding youself, nice study you shot but to bad those subjects already had cancer and for a normal study there would be to many variables to contain. Fact is antioxidants nuetralise fee radicals in the body thus lowering the risk of developing cancer..
 
matt182 said:
Its already obvious consuming things in a diet is far more beneficial than supplements. If your saying antioxidants dont prevent cancer your kidding youself, nice study you shot but to bad those subjects already had cancer and for a normal study there would be to many variables to contain. Fact is antioxidants nuetralise fee radicals in the body thus lowering the risk of developing cancer..
Click to expand...

There is no such disease as "cancer". There is lung cancer, brain cancer, pancreatic cancer, and so on. They are all different diseases. That is why there will never be a "cure for cancer", and by the same token, you cannot say "X prevent cancer". The best you can do is say "X prevents Y cancer".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top