Posted on 02/20/2017 3:40:54 PM PST by cba123
BEIJING — Fear of mortality is one reason Americans spend so much on “antioxidant” products, including Vitamin C supplements and beta-carotene, which promise a longer healthier life. According to the National Institutes of Health, more than half of adults in the U.S. consume some kind of antioxidant product, spending $37 billion each year.
But a study conducted in China – where aging is akin to a national obsession these days – claims that antioxidants don’t work as billed. The study is published in the journal Redox Biology.
A new study finds that antioxidant supplements may be more harmful to the human body than believed.
Rather than extending longevity, researchers say they trigger a stress reaction which causes the body to age more rapidly.
In other words, those expensive life-enhancers may actually be killing you.
(Excerpt) Read more at studyfinds.org ...
I thought it was pretty good, myself. ROTFL!
It was even funnier then.
:-)
“What does this mean? You mean I’m still going to die after spending all that money??
Exactly. Perhaps you should demand a refund.
“But a study conducted in China”
i stopped reading right there.
i take a few supplements like Vit C, B-Complex, Magnesium-Taurate and Vit D.
Excepting the B-Complex, most Americans don’t get enough of the above in their diet.
I feel noticeably more lethargic and less sharp mentally if I stop taking them.
Supplement are food. I question the safety of any food coming from China.
There are lots of cheap supplements out there. The health establishment uses the cheapest supplements, in the wrong chemical forms for their studies, generally speaking.
I’m a cancer patient, and I went through chemo, immunotherapy, and surgery. I’ve been in remission for seven years. My doctor told me to take anti-oxidants, and I’ve been taking them for seven years. Probably a coincidence.
Whiskey and bacon.
That’s all l’m saying.
They weren’t clear about what antioxidants were studied. I know personally I wouldn’t ingest any Rustoleum product.
This is not the first recent study questioning the use of anti-oxidants as supposed helpers in preventing disease.
A recent very large study in Europe on finding no correlation between high-dosage use of anti-oxidants and improved health outcomes looked at the cellular workings of anti-oxidants, and some indicators in their study that suggested health outcomes were more negative with high anti-oxidant doses, and insignificantly different with moderate doses. They looked for why.
They looked at what exactly “positive” antioxidants do. Primarily they help inhibit cell death. They do that without discrimination of the cells or cell type. What about “bad” cells, like cancer or pre-cancer, or even slightly “bad” cells an organ would be better off if the cell died. Those too have “normal” cell death inhibited by antioxidants. In other words, good or bad, antioxidants are an equal opportunity life saver to cells - any kind, including some you’d be better off without.
Isn’t there already natural processes trying to extend cell life and permit proper cell death? Yes. Does it seem antioxidants improve those processes. No. Added to the bloodstream they provide signals that help decrease the bodies production of normal cell protection and normal cell death processes, as if THEY, the “antioxidants” were going to do more of that job.
Eat a good balanced and nutritious diet, and let the supplements industry survive without you.
Is he an antioxidant?
It was the splicing and doctoring that did it!
The theory is that the body responds to oxidants by producing anti-oxidants and concomitant cellular responses that are fundamental to combatting aging.
The introduction of anti-oxidants falsely lowers oxidant levels and these systems are not properly activated because the body does not see the insult due to artificially keeping oxidant levels low.
Normal processes involved in anti-aging are thus not turned on as they would be without the introduction of outside anti-oxidants.
It’s a finne theory, may have merit.
Personally I don’t think it makes a huge difference one way or the other.
“The human body used to have the gene that sinthesized its own vitamin C”
How would we know what genes the human body used to have?
That was certainly my take on this thread. I don't imbibe anything produced in China, if I can help it.
I am certified as a personal fitness trainer through ACE (The American Council on Exercise). For the ten years I have been a trainer, ACE has always advocated getting all necessary vitamins in food.
Well, Milo IS kind of a free radical.
Only if you buy your anti-oxidants from China.
Vitamin C and beta carotene? What is, this, 1990? Those are utterly useless (like Centrum, or toxic, such as E) and anyone with sense knows this, and takes more advanced supplements like CoEnzyme-Q (or better, its Ubiquinol form), Coconut oil, pro-biotics (NOT Dannon’s nonsense), Matcha (not standard useless) green tea (for its EGCG), and many others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.