4 ms·
My almost certainly incorrect chronology of events, cobbled together from pop science headlines I've read: 1) Free radicals are bad because they cause oxydatio
by notafraudster 7y ago
My almost certainly incorrect chronology of events, cobbled together from pop science headlines I've read:
1) Free radicals are bad because they cause oxydation (oxydization?) and this is bad for our cells?
2) Thus, anti-oxidants are good, because they prevent this process
3) People recommended more dietary anti-oxidants
4) It turns out that ingesting anti-oxidants doesn't actually produce the antioxidants necessary to combat free radicals, the same way eating dietary fat doesn't create human fat. Dietary sources of anti-oxidants largely are not absorbed and are useless.
5) Instead, we should look for foods that stimulate production of anti-oxidants in... the liver? the spleen? Wherever those are made in your body? But no one knows which foods are good for that?
- aprao 7y agoI recall reading in 'The Vital Question' (also by Nick Lane) that free radicals (produced when a cell is unable to meet energy production demands) signals the replication of mitochondria. Antioxidants suppress this signal which leads to cell death. Interestingly an increase in free radicals themselves beyond a certain threshold also result in programmed cell death
- goodcharles 7y agoAlso should add - some molecules like Nitric Oxide act as both an antioxdiant and free radical. The vitamin sellers often use the browning of a cut apple as an easy-to-explain example of the effects of oxidation.