In other words, it depends whether the antioxidants you're taking are fighting against the good, normal oxidation in your body or the bad oxidation. "The devil's in the details in a lot of these things," says Andrew Shao of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association in Washington, D.C., representing supplement manufacturers. "If you were to take all the marketing at face value, you might think that the ideal situation is to have no oxidation whatsoever. That is not what you want. It's part of normal biochemistry, part of the immune system."
"Most [antioxidants] don't work alone," he adds. "They're not drugs."
Like Cook, Shao recommends a diet high in antioxidants and a healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise. "That may run counter to what you see in some marketing," he says, although he refused to say which ads he meant.
Marketing also makes it difficult for consumers to know what they are getting. "Is the product on the shelf the same one that was studied in clinical trials?" Shao asks. For foods, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission monitor claims made on the label or in advertising, but "it very much depends on the strength and specificity of the language in the claim," he says. A product that claims "antioxidant support" will raise less ire than one that claims to lower the risk of a particular disease.
In any case, the research is clear: Large, carefully controlled studies and trials have consistently found no benefit to antioxidant supplements, says Alice Lichtenstein of Tufts University.* "You have to take the totality of the data, and that's what we normally do [in science]," she says. "Why are they popular? I don't know. Maybe because it sounds like the easy answer."
With reporting by Willa Austen Isikoff
* Note (7/7/08): This sentence has been modified since the original posting.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentSince when has scientific evidence had anything to do with how people eat? We pay premium money for filtered tap water that's not as pure or as tasty as tap water. Then we spray our homes with tons of "disinfectants" that create super-germs while causing our children to have asthma and allergies. Humanity was the dominant scavanger on the plains for 6 million years (or longer) eating half rotted meat and chewing on dandelion leaves and doing pretty well, thank you. This, my friends, is getting out of hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by jacomus d'paganus-fatuus at 06/06/2008 5:16 PM
If Buddha is right, and life is suffering, who wants to live longer anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by jacomus d'paganus-fatuus at 06/06/2008 5:17 PM
As the baby boom lives longer, the freeways will fill with little old men and little old women driving at 45 mph in the passing lane with their right blinkers on. Who needs this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by jacomus d'paganus-fatuus at 06/06/2008 5:19 PM
Most of the studies that contradict the health benefits of antioxidants use synthetic antioxidants, such as vitamins a and e. If you take an extensive look into studies & clinical trials conducted with Polyphenol antioxidants, those derived from plants, you'll see an interesting pattern. Polyphenol antioxidants, such as EGCG and Resveratrol, offer a plethora of health benefits with little if any adverse effects. If you decide to take an anti-oxidant supplement, you're better off with one containing polyphenols, such as Green Tea extract, Grape Seed extract Pomegranate extract, Cinnamon extract, Milk Thistle extract, etc. in addition to a general purpose multivitamin. Such supplements should be taken in addition to a well-balance diet and regular exercise, and not as a substitute for the latter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by quantumcipher at 06/08/2008 7:47 PM
" not only supplement antioxident but also certain coenzymes are required such as CoQ10 which rectifyed the malfunctioning of mitochondria i.e. controlling of free radical generation"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrcdohare25@yahoo.co.in
Before you change your life from reading a headline, read a rebuttal at
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcerpt:
"This negative report attacking supplements is fatally flawed because it:
Omitted 91% of the studies that measured the effects of these vitamins on human subjects including all studies for which there was no mortality!
Included studies that used doses far below or far above what health conscious people actually supplement with.
Chose to bias the reporting of the results by emphasizing one type of statistical model that showed a significant effect rather than another statistical model that did not show a significant effect.
Failed to account for the 14 mechanisms involved in aging and premature death. For example, it is absurd to think that taking 1,333 IU to 200,000 IU of vitamin A is going to have meaningful impact when there are more than one hundred individual components to a science-based death reduction program.
The final shocker is that this meta-analysis report attacking vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin E is not new. It was in fact published last year and drew a lot of criticism for the obvious flaws it contains. Perhaps the reason this story was quickly removed from media websites on the day it appeared is that the broadcasters realized they were not relaying “newsâ€, but instead regurgitating anti-supplement propaganda."
Needless to say, even this brief exposure was a public relations score for pharmaceutical interests, as millions of people worldwide may be frightened away from supplements that could reduce their future need for expensive prescription drugs."
That's interesting, Kua, and something I've suspected since I began reading these sensationalistic headlines regarding the 'dangers' of antioxidants. Though I would still think twice before taking Vitamin A or Vitamin E supplements again, as I have in the past, unless of course you have a deficiency of those specific vitamins and require them. You also have to remember too much of anything can cause deleterious effects, even water or oxygen. It's best to consume a balanced variety of antioxidants, rather than a mega-dose of just one or two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as I stated previously, Polyphenol antioxidants generally have more health benefits and fewer if any risks. EGCG & Resveratrol are still at the top of my list, particularly if you're looking to extend one's lifespan and increase one's overall health & well-being. Of course, as I also previously stated, if you do decide to take such supplements it's essential that you take them with a well balanced diet and exercise regularly and not use them as a substitute for the two. It's also best to research any supplements extensively prior to taking them and to discuss them with your primary care physician to ensure that they do not interact with any medications you're currently taking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdone..
Thank you. This was very helpful, and an answer to my question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am interested in hearing from anyone knowledgeable about the efficacy of a supplement sold by Pharmanex, "lifepak nano" dietary supplement. It is expensive!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks
Pharmanex markets a dietary supplement named "lifepak nano". Are there any independent scientific studies regarding the efficacy of this supplement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf so, please suggest where I might find these.
Thanks
absolutelu rtue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi guys! to answer your concerns regarding antioxidants visit this site to help add to your knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bloom.tophealthproductsreview.com/