4 ms·

Years ago (10ish) I read an article (that I've tried to find a few times since, but failed) by a researcher that tried to find the studies that said antioxidant

• niels_olson 11y ago
  The basis of the observation that oxidative stress is hard on cells comes from the observation that many cell lines fail to grow in standard conditions (20 C, atmospheric pressure, normal atmosphere), and that the oxygen tension in most tissues is actually well below atmospheric. These same cell lines survive when incubated in low oxygen conditions. This sort of difference, 21% [O2] vs 3% [O2] is massive to a biologic system, but observable results show up in hours to days. The idea was that, over a lifetime, similar oxidative stress, at far lower levels, would necessarily build up in cells over a lifetime. However, certain disease conditions, like G6PD deficiency, give us a window into human physiology with limited antioxidant capacity and a moderately sized study in Sardinia has shown they may actually have a somewhat lower cancer risk overall. Antioxidants fall into the giant pool of "meh" for most issues.
• bduerst 11y ago
  Antioxidants play a role in absorbing free radicals, which are unpaired electrons sitting on organic compounds inside the cell. Free radicals are not entirely stable, and are mutagenic when they attach and break the phosphate molecules in the backbone of DNA (possibly leading to cancer).[1] These are dangerous because they can form reaction chains, which break molecule after molecule before finding a resting state. The antioxidants tend to give a more-stable resting state for the free radical, which makes it easier for your body to clear it. Hence if your body has enough free-radical fighting antioxidants, it is more equipped to metabolize cancer-causing compounds. [1] http://www.ijpsr.info/docs/IJPSR10-01-03-04.pdf http://www.ijpsr.info/docs/IJPSR10-01-03-04.pdf
• Outdoorsman 11y ago
  Distilled, the article basically offer the contention that: >.... it “could be that while antioxidants might prevent DNA damage—and thus impede tumor initiation—once a tumor is established, antioxidants might facilitate the malignant behavior of cancer cells..."< Then immediately says this: >The medical advice for people at this point is tentative. More studies need to be done to bolster this hypothesis and understand exactly how antioxidants affect cancer cells in humans. < My takeaway is this: Antioxidants may help prevent the sorts of DNA damage that contribute to cancers forming... Antioxidants may contribute to the health of cancer cells, once formed, in much the same way...but that's not certain yet, even though it certainly seems plausible... In actual practice--everyday life--we have no idea at any given time whether we have active cancer cells growing in our body, or not...symptoms are what lead us to suspect that such is the case and seek medical advice...with certain types of cancer symptoms can take months, years, to appear...if the contention is true it's possible that people are going out of their way (with supplements), or being obsessive (with diet), all the while unknowingly contributing to their undoing... I think I'll just keep eating a healthy blend of foods, avoid all supplements unless they've been prescribed because a diagnosed deficiency, and get plenty of exercise...
• resoluteteeth 11y ago
  That link states, "While it’s true that the package of antioxidants, minerals, fiber, and other substances found naturally in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains helps prevent a variety of chronic diseases..." However, has even that much been proven? We know eating fruits and vegetables is good for you, and we know that in vitro, antioxidants help prevent damage to cells from free radicals. But considering that experiments with antioxidant supplementation have failed, do we really know that it's the antioxidants in fruits and vegetables that make them good for you?