More on antioxidants and pro-oxidants

[Guest guest]

I would like to take another look at the whole antioxidant issue

versus the " pro-oxidant " benefits of flaxseed (and other omega 3)

oils.

This is a big issue because there seems to be two opposing camps in

alternative cancer therapies -- those that believe strongly in

antioxidants (including supplementation) and those that do not. The

former group includes the whole orthomolecular group, Linus ing

and Co., the Life Extension people, and a lot of vitamin vendors.

In the latter group are the Budwig purists, those that follow Dr.

Lorraine Day, and possibly the raw food / Wigmore crowd, who believe

firmly (I think) that all nutrients should come naturally from raw

foods.

But most specifically, I want to look at whether antioxidants defeat

the pro-oxidant benefits of unsaturated omega 3 oils.

First, what is an antioxidant? I believe the name arose originally

from substances that were found to prevent the oxidation of fats and

oils -- in other words, substances that would keep fats and oils from

going rancid. The three vitamins that are the most famous for this

are vitamins A, C, and E, although other preservatives, such as BHA

and BHT, are also powerful antioxidants.

But I think the underlying mechanism of " oxidation " involves the loss

of an electron by any substance, which makes that substance reactive,

turning it into a " free radical " . Antioxidants donate an electron

back to the free radicals, eliminating the damage potential of the

free radical. The antioxidants themselves can become oxidized, but I

believe they have less potential to cause damage than the free

radicals they neutralize. There are also complex chains of chemical

reactions that de-oxidize the oxidized antioxidants, recycling them

for further use, but I don't fully understand these cycles.

Now, the issue with the omega 3 oils is that they actually obtain

their anti-cancer benefits by having that missing electron. I guess

they could be called pro-oxidants. These omega 3 oils are needed by

the membranes of cells, and in their pro-oxidant states, benefit and

enable cell respiration. When they become rancid, they get bound up

oxygen and hydrogen molecules from the missing electon link, making

them worse than useless to cell membranes. In fact, fats and oils in

the rancid state clog up cell walls, preventing normal cell

respiration. I think the Budwig theory (and others) on cancer is

that cells whose respiration has been damaged turn cancerous, revert

to anerobic respiration, and the cell mitochondria turn off, which

also turns off programmed cell death. By reverting cell respiration

back to normal, the mitochondria wake back up, and the cells go back

to normal, or commit aptosis.

So the issue becomes whether antioxidants can interfere with the pro-

oxidant qualities of good unsaturated omega 3 oils.

Interestingly, mitochondria health, a major underlying goal of the

Budwig approach (even if they don't say so) does depend on some

powerful anti-oxidants. C, E, alpha lipoic acid, and selenium are

vitally important for the production of glutathione, the master

antioxidant operating in every cell, keeping it (and the

mitochondria) healthy and operating. But these very antioxidants are

prohibited (in excessive synthetic forms) by Budwig, because they

theoretically interfere with the pro-oxidant beneficial omega 3 oils.

I know, I know -- Budwig, Dr. Day, and the Wigmore people say that

you can get more than adequate amounts of these nutrients naturally

from a good diet, and that in lower doses, they do not interfere with

the beneficial omega 3's.

But do they interfere with the omega 3's even at higher doses, in

synthetic form?

From a theoretical viewpoint, it would seem that only oil-soluable

vitamins could interfere with the omega 3's. So that would include

vitamins A and E, ascorbyl palmate, coenzyme Q10, and alpha lipoic

acid, but not normal vitamin C, any B vitamins, NAC, and any other

water soluable antioxidants (especially melatonin). But maybe I'm

wrong! I am not a chemist.

Now, what I've read is that Q10 and alpha lipoic acid are mainly of

benefit due to their intra-cellular electron transporting

facilitation, and would probably not interfere with omega 3's.

If true, that leaves vitamins A and E as vitamins of real concern.

Now, it would seem that if vitamin A could be obtained via veggies

only, then there wouldn't be a problem there. Now we are down to

only vitamin E as a concern.

There are other antioxidants that are largely herbal in nature --

tumeric, grape seed oil, resveratrol, green tea extract, chocolate,

bilberry, noni, pomegranate, rosemary, cinnamon, etc. Many spices

are powerful antioxidants. This is one reason they used to be so

valuable, because they could keep food from going bad (as well as

make it taste good).

Are these okay under Budwig and all natural approaches?

A very brief perusal of the internet uncovers dozens of references

saying that Budwig and antioxidants don't mix. But most are the same

statements, repeated over and over. I could find only one concrete

example -- the guy who started the Budwig forum years ago apparently

added ellagic acid (a powerful antioxidant found in berries and

pomegranates) to his Budwig regimen, and saw his PSA values go way

up, until he removed the ellagic acid, at which point his PSA values

dropped.

But this is odd -- ellagic acid is one of the most natural

antioxidants one could take. In addition, this is just one example,

and who knows if it wasn't something else that caused the PSA values

to rise?

Anyway, a lot to digest, but feedback is welcome.

[Guest guest]

I posted this 13 days ago, and nobody seems to have anything to say

about it. Is it because all of us don't have answers to the

questions raised?

I seem to reap tremendous benefits from FO/CC, even with a bit of

allergy to something there. I also seem to reap big benefits from

the supplements I take. But...

In all the alternative cancer treatment reading I've done, the

BIGGEST SINGLE CONFLICT I've run into is the conflict of the Omega

3's versus the antioxidants. HUGE CONFLICT.

I'd love to get it completely figured out...

>

> I would like to take another look at the whole antioxidant issue

> versus the " pro-oxidant " benefits of flaxseed (and other omega 3)

> oils.

>

> This is a big issue because there seems to be two opposing camps in

> alternative cancer therapies -- those that believe strongly in

> antioxidants (including supplementation) and those that do not.

The

> former group includes the whole orthomolecular group, Linus ing

> and Co., the Life Extension people, and a lot of vitamin vendors.

>

>In the latter group are the Budwig purists, those that follow Dr.

> Lorraine Day, and possibly the raw food / Wigmore crowd, who

believe

> firmly (I think) that all nutrients should come naturally from raw

> foods.

>

> But most specifically, I want to look at whether antioxidants

defeat

> the pro-oxidant benefits of unsaturated omega 3 oils.

>

> First, what is an antioxidant? I believe the name arose originally

> from substances that were found to prevent the oxidation of fats

and

> oils -- in other words, substances that would keep fats and oils

from

> going rancid. The three vitamins that are the most famous for this

> are vitamins A, C, and E, although other preservatives, such as BHA

> and BHT, are also powerful antioxidants.

>

> But I think the underlying mechanism of " oxidation " involves the

loss

> of an electron by any substance, which makes that substance

reactive,

> turning it into a " free radical " . Antioxidants donate an electron

> back to the free radicals, eliminating the damage potential of the

> free radical. The antioxidants themselves can become oxidized, but

I

> believe they have less potential to cause damage than the free

> radicals they neutralize. There are also complex chains of

chemical

> reactions that de-oxidize the oxidized antioxidants, recycling them

> for further use, but I don't fully understand these cycles.

>

> Now, the issue with the omega 3 oils is that they actually obtain

> their anti-cancer benefits by having that missing electron. I guess

> they could be called pro-oxidants. These omega 3 oils are needed

by

> the membranes of cells, and in their pro-oxidant states, benefit

and

> enable cell respiration. When they become rancid, they get bound

up

> oxygen and hydrogen molecules from the missing electon link, making

> them worse than useless to cell membranes. In fact, fats and oils

in

> the rancid state clog up cell walls, preventing normal cell

> respiration. I think the Budwig theory (and others) on cancer is

> that cells whose respiration has been damaged turn cancerous,

revert

> to anerobic respiration, and the cell mitochondria turn off, which

> also turns off programmed cell death. By reverting cell

respiration

> back to normal, the mitochondria wake back up, and the cells go

back

> to normal, or commit aptosis.

>

> So the issue becomes whether antioxidants can interfere with the

pro-

> oxidant qualities of good unsaturated omega 3 oils.

>

> Interestingly, mitochondria health, a major underlying goal of the

> Budwig approach (even if they don't say so) does depend on some

> powerful anti-oxidants. C, E, alpha lipoic acid, and selenium are

> vitally important for the production of glutathione, the master

> antioxidant operating in every cell, keeping it (and the

> mitochondria) healthy and operating. But these very antioxidants

are

> prohibited (in excessive synthetic forms) by Budwig, because they

> theoretically interfere with the pro-oxidant beneficial omega 3

oils.

>

> I know, I know -- Budwig, Dr. Day, and the Wigmore people say that

> you can get more than adequate amounts of these nutrients naturally

> from a good diet, and that in lower doses, they do not interfere

with

> the beneficial omega 3's.

>

> But do they interfere with the omega 3's even at higher doses, in

> synthetic form?

>

> From a theoretical viewpoint, it would seem that only oil-soluable

> vitamins could interfere with the omega 3's. So that would include

> vitamins A and E, ascorbyl palmate, coenzyme Q10, and alpha lipoic

> acid, but not normal vitamin C, any B vitamins, NAC, and any other

> water soluable antioxidants (especially melatonin). But maybe I'm

> wrong! I am not a chemist.

>

> Now, what I've read is that Q10 and alpha lipoic acid are mainly of

> benefit due to their intra-cellular electron transporting

> facilitation, and would probably not interfere with omega 3's.

>

> If true, that leaves vitamins A and E as vitamins of real concern.

> Now, it would seem that if vitamin A could be obtained via veggies

> only, then there wouldn't be a problem there. Now we are down to

> only vitamin E as a concern.

>

> There are other antioxidants that are largely herbal in nature --

> tumeric, grape seed oil, resveratrol, green tea extract, chocolate,

> bilberry, noni, pomegranate, rosemary, cinnamon, etc. Many spices

> are powerful antioxidants. This is one reason they used to be so

> valuable, because they could keep food from going bad (as well as

> make it taste good).

>

> Are these okay under Budwig and all natural approaches?

>

> A very brief perusal of the internet uncovers dozens of references

> saying that Budwig and antioxidants don't mix. But most are the

same

> statements, repeated over and over. I could find only one concrete

> example -- the guy who started the Budwig forum years ago

apparently

> added ellagic acid (a powerful antioxidant found in berries and

> pomegranates) to his Budwig regimen, and saw his PSA values go way

> up, until he removed the ellagic acid, at which point his PSA

values

> dropped.

>

> But this is odd -- ellagic acid is one of the most natural

> antioxidants one could take. In addition, this is just one

example,

> and who knows if it wasn't something else that caused the PSA

values

> to rise?

>

> Anyway, a lot to digest, but feedback is welcome.

>

[Guest guest]

Whoa, Jim! You're getting to be quite the researcher/scientist. Yeah, wouldn't

it be nice to get it all figured out so we can pass this onto to others and the

generations to come? We're the pioneers!

 

I have a similiar problem trying to figure out the anti-oxidants and taking

ozone. There are two camps as well--one saying, " Don't take anti-oxidants on the

day you have ozone and the other saying, " Oh, no you need the anti-oxidants to

absorb the ozone. " I decided to go with taking the antioxidants with the ozone.

I will get another opinion from the naturopath in Okie next week.

 

I don't have a clue about what to tell you. I'd have to study it myself.

 

Good luck and let us know.

 

> I would like to take another look at the whole antioxidant issue

> versus the " pro-oxidant " benefits of flaxseed (and other omega 3)

> oils..............