ADVERTISEMENT
See Inside Scientific American Volume 308, Issue 6

Readers Respond to "The Myth of Antioxidants"

Letters to the editor from the February 2013 issue of Scientific American


ANTIOXIDANTS AND HEALTH

Although I would not go so far as to say Melinda Wenner Moyer's “The Myth of Antioxidants” established “myth” status for antioxidants, it was an eye-opening account of recent experimental evidence demonstrating that an increase in free radical levels in living systems does not consistently correlate with shorter life spans and that the aging process contains more uncharted territory than initially believed. More important, however, no reader should come away feeling that vitamins from food products are in any way overrated or are “killers.”

The studies that are mentioned in the article repeatedly made use of unnatural (and often unmeasured) vitamin sources, which of course will have the potential to do more harm than good to an organism. As a chemist in the pharmaceutical industry, I can state with considerable certainty that a drug product's formulation, inert substances and potency are equally as critical to its overall safety and efficacy as the active pharmaceutical ingredient, per se.

Case in point, a broccoli floret is a presentation of vitamin C and beta-carotene that the body digests and systemically disperses in a manner more natural and evolved than that of the exact same vitamins presented in tablets and capsules. Ingestion of supplements charges the body with concentrated vitamin doses lacking the beneficial delivery components that broccoli and other vegetables provide in well-received quantities. The generation and buildup of harmful oxidants is thus more likely to occur.

This may seem like a roundabout way of stating the obvious: a diet including foods rich in vitamins and other antioxidants is more beneficial than the routine consumption of vitamin supplements.

John J. Walsh
Cleveland

The article states that roundworms genetically engineered to not produce naturally occurring antioxidants lived as long as worms that produced them, implying that antioxidants are worthless at best. Yet length of life is not the only criterion we should go by. If it were, then you could say that my father-in-law, who never took antioxidants and subsisted almost entirely on candy bars, lived a good life. In fact, he lived to the same age as Jack LaLanne (97). But LaLanne was fit, active and in command of his faculties at the end of his life, whereas my father-in-law spent his declining years in a long, slow descent into the abyss of dementia.

David Blair
via e-mail

Wenner Moyer correctly points out that some studies of the effects of high doses of antioxidant supplements such as beta-carotene or vitamin E have found that they are associated with increased mortality. She fails to mention, however, that those studies were inspired by many others showing that higher levels of such dietary antioxidants in the blood are strongly linked with lower overall mortality and lower death rates from cancer and cardiovascular disease. This is particularly true of the carotenoids, the family of antioxidants related to vitamin A.

Because humans lack the ability to synthesize carotenoids, those measured in the blood must come from diet—especially from fruits and vegetables. Thus, it appears that antioxidant carotenoids derived from natural sources in diet do increase life span, whereas individual carotenoids given in high doses do not.

Will Lassek
University of Pittsburgh

“THE LEFT” AND SCIENCE

Michael Shermer appears to be reaching in his Skeptic column this month [“The Left's War on Science”]. He says that “there is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives,” yet his examples aren't antiscience at all. “Liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem,” he says. So are most people—that's why Yucca Mountain hasn't been approved as a repository. “Anti–fossil fuels because of global warming.” Global warming is occurring, in large part, because of fossil fuels. “Antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems.” Well, yes, they do (ask any ichthyologist how North American native fishes are doing; ask coastal cities why they are running out of beach sand). “Anti–wind power because of avian fatalities.” Again, is this antiscience? No, birds do die in wind turbines (and because of other unnatural structures like mirrored skyscrapers).

Share this Article:

Comments

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Scientific American MIND iPad

Give a Gift & Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now >>

X

Email this Article

X