Re: Antioxidant Benefits (????)

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And following on from the below ............. while it does seem

clear that many foods (that happen to contain substances known to be

antioxidants) do protect against cancer, it seems it is not the known

antioxidants in them that are responsible for the benefits.

So some other trace compound, presumably, is the source of the

benefit. So the destruction of the 'antioxidant' theory would not

have to be inconsistent with the known benefits of various foods,

especially vegetables.

**If** this is the case then are ORAC values irrelevant?

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Is anyone else getting the same impression I am from some of the

> stuff (studies) that have been posted here recently, that maybe

> the 'antioxidant story' is gonna be largely discredited in the not

> too far distant future?

>

> After all, a lengthening line of antioxidant supplements - vitamin

C;

> beta carotene; vitamin E - while each labelled at one time or

another

> the 'miracle supplement du jour' have all been sort-of discredited

> lately, at least in terms of any miraculous benefits.

>

> So does (might) this seem to suggest that the whole idea of

benefits

> from antioxidants in general may be flawed? Any thoughts?

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And following on from the below ............. while it does seem

clear that many foods (that happen to contain substances known to be

antioxidants) do protect against cancer, it seems it is not the known

antioxidants in them that are responsible for the benefits.

So some other trace compound, presumably, is the source of the

benefit. So the destruction of the 'antioxidant' theory would not

have to be inconsistent with the known benefits of various foods,

especially vegetables.

**If** this is the case then are ORAC values irrelevant?

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Is anyone else getting the same impression I am from some of the

> stuff (studies) that have been posted here recently, that maybe

> the 'antioxidant story' is gonna be largely discredited in the not

> too far distant future?

>

> After all, a lengthening line of antioxidant supplements - vitamin

C;

> beta carotene; vitamin E - while each labelled at one time or

another

> the 'miracle supplement du jour' have all been sort-of discredited

> lately, at least in terms of any miraculous benefits.

>

> So does (might) this seem to suggest that the whole idea of

benefits

> from antioxidants in general may be flawed? Any thoughts?

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

My take on "antioxidants" is it was a reaction to the known process of oxidation, which was described as causing fats oxidation. Dr. Proctor, I think wrote a book describing the process.

But the reaction is sales hype, IMO.

I was told by a doctor about 25 yrs ago that the oxidants do a job on bacteria and viruses in the system. In chemotherapy there are warnings to not use antioxidants, because they interfere with the ROS which the therapy is trying to excite to kill the cancer.

Summation is it's another of those things we don't know enough about to practice it.

In reality, people have been drinking orange juice in FL since I was a child to ward off all kinds of things. Now I see on the OJ labels, claiming heart benefits.

[ ] Antioxidant Benefits (????)

Hi folks:Is anyone else getting the same impression I am from some of the stuff (studies) that have been posted here recently, that maybe the 'antioxidant story' is gonna be largely discredited in the not too far distant future?After all, a lengthening line of antioxidant supplements - vitamin C; beta carotene; vitamin E - while each labelled at one time or another the 'miracle supplement du jour' have all been sort-of discredited lately, at least in terms of any miraculous benefits.So does (might) this seem to suggest that the whole idea of benefits from antioxidants in general may be flawed? Any thoughts? Rodney.

[Guest guest]

My take on "antioxidants" is it was a reaction to the known process of oxidation, which was described as causing fats oxidation. Dr. Proctor, I think wrote a book describing the process.

But the reaction is sales hype, IMO.

I was told by a doctor about 25 yrs ago that the oxidants do a job on bacteria and viruses in the system. In chemotherapy there are warnings to not use antioxidants, because they interfere with the ROS which the therapy is trying to excite to kill the cancer.

Summation is it's another of those things we don't know enough about to practice it.

In reality, people have been drinking orange juice in FL since I was a child to ward off all kinds of things. Now I see on the OJ labels, claiming heart benefits.

[ ] Antioxidant Benefits (????)

Hi folks:Is anyone else getting the same impression I am from some of the stuff (studies) that have been posted here recently, that maybe the 'antioxidant story' is gonna be largely discredited in the not too far distant future?After all, a lengthening line of antioxidant supplements - vitamin C; beta carotene; vitamin E - while each labelled at one time or another the 'miracle supplement du jour' have all been sort-of discredited lately, at least in terms of any miraculous benefits.So does (might) this seem to suggest that the whole idea of benefits from antioxidants in general may be flawed? Any thoughts? Rodney.