Free radicals and antioxidants
75Your body already has it covered
Go to any website talking about diet and you will find an enormous amount about free radicals and antioxidants, long lists of foods which you should eat, and those which you should avoid. But in almost all cases, these sites present misinformation based on a very hazy understanding of human biology.
Almost universally, free radicals are considered a bad thing, and antioxidants are thought of as good. But the biochemistry tells a very different story which undermines the marketing message of these diet gurus.
What is a free radical?
Free radicals are molecules that have somewhere in their structure an unpaired or spare electron which makes them highly reactive. Most free radicals will react with whatever they can to adopt a more stable state. But not all free radicals are unstable. Two atoms of oxygen together form a free radical which is perfectly stable.
The reactivity of free radicals is essential for some of our biochemical reactions including those involved in the breakdown of the cell walls of harmful bacteria. They are also involved in nerve transmission. So just as almost anything we eat can be considered harmful in certain circumstances, we have to think a little deeper before classifying free radicals as either good or bad.
Why are people worried about free radicals?
Partly the foodie hype is the problem - so many sites pushing misinformation based on a very incomplete understanding of the chemistry. If enough people latch onto free radicals as a problem, then many people will start to believe it even if there's no explanation.
But there is evidence that uncontrolled free radicals can be a problem. For example, free radicals have been associated with the ageing process, with some cancers, and with Parkinson's disease. But note, that doesn't mean that free radicals cause these processes and illnesses.
In science, experiments are conducted to find statistical associations so the fact that free radicals are found associated with these conditions does not imply causality, but instead indicates the need for more research. But advertisers don't appreciate this. Instead they immediately identify free radicals as a problem, and sell something that they claim will counteract it.
How does the body control free radicals?
The body has a remarkably effective means of controlling free radicals. We have a number of enzymes to do the job very well: glutathione peroxidase, glutathione reductase, and superoxide dismutase.
In addition, there are vitamins, particularly vitamins A, C and E, which act as antioxidants, neutralising the effects of the free radicals. By eating a balanced diet supplying the necessary vitamins, our bodies have no problem dealing with free radicals.
Why is there so much stress on antioxidants?
People who don't understand the biological role of free radicals latch onto the scare factor and promote the antidote. It sells products to people who don't understand the science.
In scientific papers it is common to see a statement saying that some chemical is associated with some illness. For example, "elevated sodium levels are associated with heart disease". Taken at face value, the naive reader might interpret it to mean that elevated sodium causes heart disease which isn't the case.
Instead, we'd need to look at the levels involved, check the statistical significance, evaluate the other associated factors, consider the known causal mechanisms, and check the methodology of the experimental work. That takes some scientific skill which more often than not, the websites and article writers do not possess.
Scientists make very guarded statements because they are aware of the tentative nature of the knowledge they produce. They also understand the difference between correlation and causation. An example will illustrate the point.
We know that increased sales of ice creams are associated with higher levels of drowning. When ice cream sales are up, so are drownings. A little thought will tell us that ice cream does not cause people to drown. This is a correlation, things that appear together. In the same way, free radicals are associated with lots of medical conditions but we don't know how they might relate to causes.
Can you have too many antioxidants?
Adding antioxidants to your diet might affect the body's own balance. Since free radical activity is essential for health, limiting it unnecessarily can cause some effects. People who take excessive amounts of vitamins A and E are statistically associated with higher death rates - remember, that doesn't show causality, but does indicate an association which deserves further study.
On balance, most scientists agree that the hype over antioxidants was misguided. However, it's a multi-billion dollar industry and they prefer to ignore the science.
CommentsLoading...
Just as holiday makers eating lots of icecream does not correlate with the increased number of deaths from drowning because figures were up at the same time. Nor does being told that scientists do not agree that using antioxidants will make you healthier hold any credence at all since most scientists will follow the standard line in order to obtain their next funding from the powers that be who do not want people to know how to keep healthy thru their own means.
How could they carry on pulling in the big bucks thru drugs companies if people became empowered with their own health.
UL:
Although there is a tendency for scientists to try to get funding, they cannot do it by producing results that are not evidenced and justified. There is a process of peer review which exposes poor data, poor methodology, insufficient evidence, and other reasons for distrusting conclusions.
Scientists are skeptical about the claims of other scientists and therefore accept the peer review process. For that reason, causal claims are subjected to rigorous examination and regardless of the views of scientists, it's the evidence that has to speak.
In the case of antioxidants, these are subjected to double blind clinical trials which analyse the effect on certain conditions of increasing doses of antioxidants. The evidence, such as it is, shows that they do not improve health and that high quantities, particularly of vitamins A and E, are associated with a worsening of health.
Your cynicism about big pharma is entirely justified - they have every reason to manipulate science and present biased results and they typically run their own laboratories, and sometime publish biased research. By subsidising publications they sometimes can exert influence on editorial policy as well. But the peer review process is the best way of countering that bias.
The best way to find out about this research is to look through the papers on PubMed. Since the research is open to public scrutiny and challenge, it is far more trustworthy that the claims made by diet marketers and food supplement suppliers.
And the light-hearted reference to ice cream and drowning is precisely a CORRELATION. They occur together. The fact that these events occur together doesn't imply causation. But in the case of excessive vitamin A and E, there IS a causal mechanism which impairs health. And it's peer-reviewed science that makes the evidence trustworthy.
There is definately a correlation between scientists, funding and what they are likely to back. This system has held up public science for decades.
Private science has been different they are around 100 years ahead with the technology that is available behind the scenes in the block ops, aka Magestic 12, MK Ultra, project bluebeam, project paper clip, etc etc. If you dont let yourself look at the information you are never going to know what is there. All of these projects now have many, many whistleblowers, this is now in the public domain, you are way behind on this. Public science is now irrelevant.
I have devices myself that go way beyond what public science says are possible.
Linda at UNIVERSAL LAWS
UL:
If you really have devices that are way beyond what public science says is possible, then presumably you can produce convincing controlled trials to demonstrate them and their effects. It won't be long then before you pick up the Nobel Prize. We both know that won't happen and it won't be because science is biased (the perennial claim of conspiracy theorists) but because your contraptions don't work.
A brief look at the content of your site and your hubs shows that you have less than a rudimentary understanding of science. You appear to have a business promoting unevidenced assertions but science doesn't work like that because it needs to be able to demonstrate the truth of what it claims - all you seem to need to do is find credulous buyers.
You obviously enjoy conspiracy theories and promoting outlandish ideas but in the practical real world, before we can accept a theory, we need to test it to show it works. Assertions are not enough.
Before making such claims you would be better off reading a school science book, getting an understanding of the elementary laws of physics, some understanding of how science obtains and questions results, and the rudimentary principles of experimental work.
I found many of your claims in your hubs embarrassingly uninformed and hopelessly devoid of any consistency or real scientific content. It's clearly good business but anyone who has sat through even a few school science classes couldn't possibly accept it as rational.
I've looked at a great deal of Woo over the years including your variety. But I've also taken science degrees so I do understand the science. You are working in a fantasy market.
nice and very informative hub!
PDH: thanks. Glad you dropped by.
KellyEngaldo 2 years ago
Excellent article. And you covered all of my questions - too many antioxidants. Rated it UP! Thank you! And welcome to Hub Pages!