Question:
But if you want to believe, go right ahead. People are free to choose their own church. Yes they certainly seem to be free to choose. Knowledge is something you can use, belief is something that uses you. Belief in Science is no different than belief in the Easter Bunny.
Believing that there is no difference in science and the Easter bunny is the same thing as seeing pink elephants and little green men.
Response:
The other factor is the quality of the antioxidant taken. If it is low in bioavailability, measuring the input will not indicate levels required. Soemething of higher bioavailability will yield better results with less. For example, I read a Japanese study in which a 1000mg Vit C caps was compared to eating an apple, with typically 10mg Vit C. The measured result was the blood level of Vit C. The apple casued a greater increase in Vit C than the Vit C capsule. David
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Before starting, I want to thank you for posting this research. I’ll take this post to respectfully point out what I think are some "holes" in your argument. ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake… If there’s no effect at 272 mg, which is over 4.5 times the US RDA, We can leave the US RDA out of this discussion. Because the criteria is based on scurvy, not antioxident properties. The RDA is the amount that in the average person will prevent the deficiency disease scurvy, plus 50% more. However, the Food and Nutrition Board (that calculates the RDAs for nutrients) make something clear in their official publication: the RDA is not the amount that provides optimal health. what makes you think an effect will show up at some higher dose? At least there should be some small effect at 272 mg, right? But there isn’t. This report only indicated that statistically significant increased effects were not measureable at these dosages by these researchers using this study’s protocols. As is often the case in studies like this, there are limiting facotrs which can significantly dictate results. I discuss the limiting factors in my conclusion. There’s no data to suggest an effect exists at higher doses, and in the absence of such data it’s just wishful thinking to believe there is such an effect. Maybe not for that population under those protocols. There certainly is data that the body needs higher doses under different protocols. For example, see Int J Sport Nutr 1994 Sep;4(3):253-64 But if you want to believe, go right ahead. People are free to choose their own church. The researchers would not agree with your blanket conclusion that "antioxidant supplements are worthless". They might say that "antioxidant supplements for healthy young men with low fruit and vegetable intakes don’t demonstrate reduced oxidative damage using our method for measuring oxidative damage." (Which is just to paraphrase what they actually said.) The limiting factors for this study are: 1. young men. 2. healthy 3. specific population sample. 4. Low fruit and vegetable intakes. Deviation outside of these bounds may significantly increase your need for antioxidant supplements. For example, this could potentially include: women, older population, ethnic population, illness, atheletes, etc. Regards, Thunder9 NOSPAM is antispam
Response:
J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes.
[snip] ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C…
[snip] In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake… Thunder9 NOSPAM is antispam
Response:
<< Wrong. You don’t understand the study. And obviously you did not understand my post, as I typed it.
Obviously, Mark was correct. You didn’t understand the study. Grow up Thorson…..you might think you are superior…but that’s your problem…you equal to everyone else.
Say that exact same thing in front of a mirror, subsituting Thorson with "Little Doobie". This is what I wrote. Here, from Medline Plus is some information about Antioxidant Supplements being beneficial.
Here is what the article said: "The findings suggest, the authors conclude, that boosting the antioxidant defenses of asthma patients could be "beneficial." " There is a suggestion that there could be a benefit to ASTHMA sufferers. Further study is needed to determine if that is indeed accurate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – http:/ /www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_11686.html
Response:
<< Wrong. You don’t understand the study. And obviously you did not understand my post, as I typed it. Grow up Thorson…..you might think you are superior…but that’s your problem…you equal to everyone else.
I was just pointing out that you were wrong in what you said. If you’d bothered to read the actual study abstract (and understand it, which might not have been possible for you), it was clear that the study DID NOT provide evidence that antioxidant supplements are beneficial. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is what I wrote. Here, from Medline Plus is some information about Antioxidant Supplements being beneficial.
Response:
….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake…
If there’s no effect at 272 mg, which is over 4.5 times the US RDA, what makes you think an effect will show up at some higher dose? At least there should be some small effect at 272 mg, right? But there isn’t. There’s no data to suggest an effect exists at higher doses, and in the absence of such data it’s just wishful thinking to believe there is such an effect. But if you want to believe, go right ahead. People are free to choose their own church.
Response:
You call 31 milligrams of racemic vitamin e is moderate? What laugh. Racemic vitamin e has shorter biological half life than d-alpha E. I get twice that from my diet in weigh. Basically, they were giving one supplement, a moderate dose of C. The antioxidant defense system declines with age and advancing pathology. Folate greatest benefit is in the upkeep of DNA. And what was their usual diet?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes. Jacob RA, Aiello GM, Stephensen CB, Blumberg JB, Milbury PE, Wallock LM, Ames BN. U.S. Department of Agriculture/ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616-8683, Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111 and Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA 94609. The link between high fruit/vegetable intake and reduced chronic disease may be partly explained by antioxidant protection. To determine the effect of moderate antioxidant intake on biomarkers of oxidant damage, we assessed in vivo lipid and protein oxidation in 77 healthy men whose typical diet contained few fruits and vegetables (mean of 2.6 servings/d). The 39 nonsmokers and 38 smokers, age 20- 51 y, were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C, 31 mg all-rac-alpha-tocopherol, and 400 micro g folic acid), or placebo, for 90 d with their usual diet. Blood and urine were taken at baseline and the end of the study for determination of lipid peroxidation products, including F(2)-total and 8-isoprostanes, and protein carbonyls. Urine thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was the only oxidant damage marker that was significantly higher in smokers compared to nonsmokers (P < 0.05). Supplementation increased plasma ascorbate and tocopherol, but had no effect on the oxidant biomarkers. In healthy young men, the endogenous antioxidant defense system and a modest intake of dietary antioxidants are adequate to minimize levels of in vivo oxidant damage such that they cannot be differentiated by current methods.
Response:
But if you want to believe, go right ahead. People are free to choose their own church.
Yes they certainly are…
Response:
But if you want to believe, go right ahead. People are free to choose their own church.
Yes they certainly seem to be free to choose. Knowledge is something you can use, belief is something that uses you. Belief in Science is no different than belief in the Easter Bunny.
Response:
Before starting, I want to thank you for posting this research. I’ll take this post to respectfully point out what I think are some "holes" in your argument. ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake… If there’s no effect at 272 mg, which is over 4.5 times the US RDA,
We can leave the US RDA out of this discussion. Because the criteria is based on scurvy, not antioxident properties. The RDA is the amount that in the average person will prevent the deficiency disease scurvy, plus 50% more. However, the Food and Nutrition Board (that calculates the RDAs for nutrients) make something clear in their official publication: the RDA is not the amount that provides optimal health. what makes you think an effect will show up at some higher dose? At least there should be some small effect at 272 mg, right? But there isn’t.
This report only indicated that statistically significant increased effects were not measureable at these dosages by these researchers using this study’s protocols. As is often the case in studies like this, there are limiting facotrs which can significantly dictate results. I discuss the limiting factors in my conclusion. There’s no data to suggest an effect exists at higher doses, and in the absence of such data it’s just wishful thinking to believe there is such an effect.
Maybe not for that population under those protocols. There certainly is data that the body needs higher doses under different protocols. For example, see Int J Sport Nutr 1994 Sep;4(3):253-64 But if you want to believe, go right ahead. People are free to choose their own church.
The researchers would not agree with your blanket conclusion that "antioxidant supplements are worthless". They might say that "antioxidant supplements for healthy young men with low fruit and vegetable intakes don’t demonstrate reduced oxidative damage using our method for measuring oxidative damage." (Which is just to paraphrase what they actually said.) The limiting factors for this study are: 1. young men. 2. healthy 3. specific population sample. 4. Low fruit and vegetable intakes. Deviation outside of these bounds may significantly increase your need for antioxidant supplements. For example, this could potentially include: women, older population, ethnic population, illness, atheletes, etc. Regards, Thunder9 NOSPAM is antispam
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 … It would be interesting to know who funded this research. Who do you think would be interested in getting this result? The standard argument is that studies showing no benefit for vitamin supplementation are funded by the big pharmaceutical companies, who view vitamins as competitors to their drugs and want to suppress them because they wouldn’t be able to make money off of vitamins because they aren’t patentable. There’s only one problem with this theory: the big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest manufacturers (as opposed to marketers) of vitamin supplements.
Thanks, Eric. I always find it amazing that your research institutions are looked on with such suspicion by so many in America. Sure, there is the rare "fixing" of results, but when the merde hits the ventilateur, the culprit loses all. I would have thought that as vitamins do nothing and drugs do a little, that it would be a lay down misere for the drugs, but I suppose the cash register talks loudest. In Australia, most of the good drugs are heavily subsidised by our health scheme. Vitamins are not. If a company gets its snout into the approved trough, who cares about vitamins? In USA, with a free-for-all on prices for everything, the drugs would certainly have much more competition from vitamins. Do Italy and Canada have cheaper vitamin prices?
Moosh:)
Response:
There are many reasons why more of something could work when a moderate dose has no effect. There could be limiting thresholds, or missing catalysts to name a few. These people were already on low fruit diets, and it wasn’t a large population sample.
Occham’s Razor. Where are the missing catalysts (enzymes) going to come from when you supply several fold of this alpha tocopherol? Moosh:)
Response:
J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 … It would be interesting to know who funded this research. Who do you think would be interested in getting this result?
The standard argument is that studies showing no benefit for vitamin supplementation are funded by the big pharmaceutical companies, who view vitamins as competitors to their drugs and want to suppress them because they wouldn’t be able to make money off of vitamins because they aren’t patentable. There’s only one problem with this theory: the big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest manufacturers (as opposed to marketers) of vitamin supplements.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes. [snip] ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… [snip] In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake… Typical response. Note that this attitude carries over to pesticide and fertiliser usage in the garden. If a cupful works, then a couple bucketsful will work wonders. Bugger the collateral damage (to coin a phrase
Moosh:) Incorrect analogy Moosh. This was not "if some works, then more will work better." My response was "if some is not proven to work, then I will take more because some must not have been enough." Why on Earth would you assume this? Why must more of something "work" when a more than moderate dose has no effect?
There are many reasons why more of something could work when a moderate dose has no effect. There could be limiting thresholds, or missing catalysts to name a few. These people were already on low fruit diets, and it wasn’t a large population sample. Thunder9 NOSPAM is antispam
Response:
J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 … It would be interesting to know who funded this research.
Who do you think would be interested in getting this result? Are you suggesting that: "U.S. Department of Agriculture/ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616-8683, Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111 and Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA 94609." can be bought? Moosh:)
Response:
The other factor is the quality of the antioxidant taken. If it is low in bioavailability, measuring the input will not indicate levels required.
Alpha tocopherol? Soemething of higher bioavailability will yield better results with less.
You’re joking :) For example, I read a Japanese study in which a 1000mg Vit C caps was compared to eating an apple, with typically 10mg Vit C. The measured result was the blood level of Vit C. The apple casued a greater increase in Vit C than the Vit C capsule.
What was this study? Moosh:)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes. [snip] ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… [snip] In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake… Typical response. Note that this attitude carries over to pesticide and fertiliser usage in the garden. If a cupful works, then a couple bucketsful will work wonders. Bugger the collateral damage (to coin a phrase
Moosh:) Incorrect analogy Moosh. This was not "if some works, then more will work better." My response was "if some is not proven to work, then I will take more because some must not have been enough."
Why on Earth would you assume this? Why must more of something "work" when a more than moderate dose has no effect? Anyway, 20 odd international units of alpha tocopherol works fine. This was a subtle parody on the original posters extreme stance that "if a single study suggests that some doesn’t work, that proves that more will never be a good thing."
Have you heard of a dose-response curve? What’s this "single study" bit? That’s what much of the banter is on this group. If you show me your study, I’ll show you mine"
Moosh:)
Response:
J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 …
It would be interesting to know who funded this research. -a
Response:
You call 31 milligrams of racemic vitamin e is moderate?
Yep, according to three bottles of "extra large dose" supplements that I have with screws in. That’s about smack in the middle of the three doses. What laugh. Racemic vitamin e has shorter biological half life than d-alpha E.
What does that mean? You do know what racemic means don’t you? Do you mean the laevo-rotatory stereoisomer is denatured quicker? I get twice that from my diet in weigh.
In what? The RDA of alpha tocopherol is 22 IU or 28 for lactating mothers. So a supplement of 46 IU is quite moderate. Moosh:)
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes. [snip] ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… [snip] In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake… Typical response. Note that this attitude carries over to pesticide and fertiliser usage in the garden. If a cupful works, then a couple bucketsful will work wonders. Bugger the collateral damage (to coin a phrase
Moosh:)
Incorrect analogy Moosh. This was not "if some works, then more will work better." My response was "if some is not proven to work, then I will take more because some must not have been enough." This was a subtle parody on the original posters extreme stance that "if a single study suggests that some doesn’t work, that proves that more will never be a good thing." Thunder9 NOSPAM is antispam
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes. [snip] ….were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C… [snip] In other words, if you don’t take enough antioxidents, it won’t do you any good. I’m upping my antioxident intake…
Typical response. Note that this attitude carries over to pesticide and fertiliser usage in the garden. If a cupful works, then a couple bucketsful will work wonders. Bugger the collateral damage (to coin a phrase
Moosh:)
Response:
J Nutr 2003 Mar;133(3):740-743 Moderate Antioxidant Supplementation Has No Effect on Biomarkers of Oxidant Damage in Healthy Men with Low Fruit and Vegetable Intakes. Jacob RA, Aiello GM, Stephensen CB, Blumberg JB, Milbury PE, Wallock LM, Ames BN. U.S. Department of Agriculture/ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616-8683, Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111 and Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA 94609. The link between high fruit/vegetable intake and reduced chronic disease may be partly explained by antioxidant protection. To determine the effect of moderate antioxidant intake on biomarkers of oxidant damage, we assessed in vivo lipid and protein oxidation in 77 healthy men whose typical diet contained few fruits and vegetables (mean of 2.6 servings/d). The 39 nonsmokers and 38 smokers, age 20- 51 y, were given a daily supplement (272 mg vitamin C, 31 mg all-rac-alpha-tocopherol, and 400 micro g folic acid), or placebo, for 90 d with their usual diet. Blood and urine were taken at baseline and the end of the study for determination of lipid peroxidation products, including F(2)-total and 8-isoprostanes, and protein carbonyls. Urine thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was the only oxidant damage marker that was significantly higher in smokers compared to nonsmokers (P < 0.05). Supplementation increased plasma ascorbate and tocopherol, but had no effect on the oxidant biomarkers. In healthy young men, the endogenous antioxidant defense system and a modest intake of dietary antioxidants are adequate to minimize levels of in vivo oxidant damage such that they cannot be differentiated by current methods.
Response:
Here, from Medline Plus is some information about Antioxidant Supplements being beneficial. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_11686.html God Bless America. "If you’re gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).
Response:
Here, from Medline Plus is some information about Antioxidant Supplements being beneficial. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_11686.html
Wrong. You don’t understand the study. The study did not look for and did not find any reduction in oxidant damage from using antioxidant supplements. They found elevated markers of oxidative stress in asthma, but that’s all they found. The authors do speculate that antioxidant supplementation may be helpful in asthma, but that’s pure speculation not backed up by any data. Here’s the abstract from the actual report: J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003 Jan;111(1):72-8 Increased oxidative stress and altered levels of antioxidants in asthma. Nadeem A, Chhabra SK, Masood A, Raj HG. Departments of Biochemistry, Cardiorespiratory Physiology, and Pharmacology, Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, University of Delhi, Delhi. BACKGROUND: Reactive oxygen species might play an important role in the modulation of airway inflammation. There is evidence of an oxidant-antioxidant imbalance in asthma. Although several oxidants and antioxidants are likely to be involved, alterations in only limited parameters have been studied in isolation. OBJECTIVE: We investigated changes in a wide range of oxidants and antioxidants to create a comprehensive picture of oxidant-antioxidant imbalance. METHODS: In the peripheral blood of 38 patients with bronchial asthma and 23 control subjects, oxidative stress was measured in terms of superoxide anion generation by leukocytes, lipid peroxidation products, total nitrates and nitrites, total protein carbonyls, and total protein sulfhydrils in plasma. Antioxidant status was evaluated by measuring red blood cell superoxide dismutase and catalase activity, total blood glutathione, and glutathione peroxidase activity in red blood cells and leukocytes and total antioxidant capacity in plasma. RESULTS: Asthmatic patients showed increased superoxide generation from leukocytes, increased total nitrites and nitrates, increased protein carbonyls, and increased lipid peroxidation products and decreased protein sulfhydrils in plasma, indicating increased oxidative stress. They also showed increased superoxide dismutase activity in red blood cells and increased total blood glutathione and decreased glutathione peroxidase activity in red blood cells and leukocytes. Red blood cell catalase activity and the total antioxidant capacity of plasma were not altered. CONCLUSION: There are alterations in a wide array of oxidants and antioxidants, with balance shifting toward increased oxidative stress in asthma. Therapeutic augmentation of the antioxidant defenses might be beneficial.
Response:
<< Wrong. You don’t understand the study. And obviously you did not understand my post, as I typed it. Grow up Thorson…..you might think you are superior…but that’s your problem…you equal to everyone else. This is what I wrote. Here, from Medline Plus is some information about Antioxidant Supplements being beneficial. <A HREF="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_11686.html"http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_11686.html</A God Bless America. God Bless America. "If you’re gonna walk on thin ice, you may as well dance." (Jessie Winchester).
Response: