Antioxidants:
Antidote to Aging? The secret to lasting youth may not lie in a pill or potion, but in produce! Carrots, spinach, and broccoli—among other vegetables—contain compounds known as antioxidants, which research suggests may be powerful weapons in the war against the effects of aging. “I think the evidence is very compelling, although not definitive, that as you increase your intake of certain antioxidants, you do increase the benefits,” says Dr. Jeffrey Blumberg, chief of the Antioxidant Research Lab at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. As the body uses oxygen, byproducts called free radicals (oxygen molecules that are missing electrons) are formed. These free radicals steal electrons from healthy cells, causing damage to these cells. This cell damage is thought to be cumulative, and scientists theorize that this may lead to aging and disease. Everything from cancer and heart disease to wrinkles and cataracts might be attributed to the action of free radicals. Environmental factors such as exposure to radiation and tobacco smoke may also increase the number of free radicals in the body. Antioxidants are compounds that work to deactivate free radicals, thus preventing cell damage. The three best-known antioxidants are vitamins E and C and beta carotene, but there are many others, including selenium, lutein, and lycopene. Research Shows Mixed Results Positive findings A study involving 30,000 participants in China demonstrated that over the course of five years, those participants who received a daily supplement containing vitamin E, selenium, and beta carotene had a 13% lower rate of cancer than those study participants who received a placebo (or sugar pill). In the United States, a study of 1,795 nurses who had a history of heart problems showed that those nurses who consumed larger amounts of vitamins C and E and beta carotene showed the greatest cardiac improvement and reduced their chances of further heart damage. A study reported in the May 20, 1993 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine reported a significant decrease in the incidence of coronary artery disease in men and women who consumed 100 international units (IU) of vitamin E daily. The current recommended intake for vitamin E is 15 mg per day (22.5 IUs). Although it’s
tempting to take these kinds of results to heart, some critics have argued that studies
like these have not ruled out other reasons for the study subjects’ improvements,
such as increased exercise or other dietary changes. In other words, maybe the effect is
entirely unrelated to the supplement. (Very likely.) Inconclusive findings
Why do these results contradict the results from other studies? The researchers themselves note that perhaps the study wasn’t long enough to demonstrate any effect. They also suggest that perhaps the findings were influenced by the fact that they used vitamin E supplementation alone, without any other antioxidants. It may be that vitamin E requires other factors to have a beneficial effect. Too
much of a good thing? Some studies have
suggested that for certain people, over-consumption of antioxidants can be harmful.
Studies of beta-carotene in humans were stopped in 1994, after results suggested that
people at risk for cancer were at even greater risk after taking high doses of synthetic beta-carotene. A
2005 meta-analysis (an analysis of the results of multiple studies) suggests that taking
more than 400 IU/day of vitamin E may also be harmful to health. (Maybe if they had studied it better, they would have found out that
Vitamin E must be taken in conjunction with Vitamin C to be of best use and without any
harmful effects.) Benefits
of Dietary Changes Are Clear Dr. Blumberg cautions that research is ongoing. He cites new studies of the benefits of lesser-known antioxidants such as lycopene, which may reduce prostate cancer risk, and lutein, which is strongly associated with a decrease in age-related macular degeneration and prostate cancer. Studies of high-risk groups, such as the nurses with heart disease, suggest the greatest benefit from increased consumption of antioxidants is realized by those at the greatest risk of disease. Though the jury is still out on the role of antioxidant supplements as disease and age fighters, consuming more antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables has well-documented benefits in improving health, aside from their antioxidant contents.
(Personally, I
believe the required amounts are higher, but…) Are
Supplements Necessary? The problem for many
people lies in consuming enough of these foods to receive any kind of benefit. “Few
people meet the recommended intakes for all nutrients,” Dr. Blumberg says. “And
people eat less as they grow older. As their appetite decreases, they don’t change
how they eat, they just eat less.” Instead of adding more fruits and vegetables to
their diets, many older people eat smaller portions of the same kinds of foods they’ve
eaten for years, which are often high in fats, starches, and sugars. (Three items we should all avoid, if possible.) Smokers, heavy drinkers, people with impaired immune systems, and those on calorie-restricted diets may also have difficulty getting the nutrients they need from food alone. For these people in particular, supplements may be the only way for them to fulfill their nutrient needs. In addition, vitamin E is found in a limited number of foods, making it difficult to get enough of it in the average diet. While consuming more vegetables and fruits is still the best way to get essential nutrients, a good multivitamin can fill in any nutrient gaps. The American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society do not endorse antioxidant supplements for the general population, but they do recommend a diet with plenty of antioxidant-rich fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Sources: Food and Nutrition Information Center. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/.
The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators,
Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high-risk women. New England
Journal of Medicine. 2000;342: 154-160 Luchsinger JA, Mayeux R. Dietary factors and Alzheimer’s
disease. Lancet Neurol. 2004 Oct;3(10):579-87. (Abstract of this article can be
found at: Meydani M. Nutrition interventions in aging and age-associated
disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Apr;928:226-35. Miller ER 3rd, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LJ,
Guallar E. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause
mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Jan 4;142(1):37-46. Stanner SA, Hughes J, Kelly CN, Buttriss J. A review of the
epidemiological evidence for the ‘antioxidant hypothesis’. Public Health Nutr.
2004 May;7(3):407-22. Allopaths
against Antioxidants? Another Rich Rant. Just in time to counter all those good foods we have been pushing,
the Allopaths are waging war against you deciding how to structure your own diet. The
latest starts out with: Tired of trying to keep track of all the so-called superfoods you’re supposed to eat? You know, oregano that packs 42 times more antioxidants than apples, cooked tomatoes that may prevent prostate cancer, and chocolate and wine that may or may not be health foods? Then here’s the
good news — you can stop trying. (Don’t listen to
advice like this – never stop trying to improve your health!) Leading researchers
say all those breathless headlines, food packaging claims and seemingly contradictory
studies about what antioxidants can and can’t do have fostered a faulty silver bullet
mind-set that can hinder health more than help. (I doubt it
hinders, but a lot of the advertising on packaged foods is bogus. They won’t
do what is claimed.) Instead, experts
advise focusing on balance, moderation and variety, and leaving the phytochemicals,
flavanols and phenolic acids to scientists. (Now that is a
clear statement for staying out of their playground, isn’t it? If you choose to leave the research to others, then
you must also choose to abide by their findings – even when their findings are not
true. So what are you going to do? Some scientists say this is good and other
scientists – often under the influence of the big pharma pocketbooks – say it is
bad for you.) Researcher Jeffrey
Blumberg acknowledges that “doesn’t seem to be a very sexy message. People would
rather be told there is a super food, a term I hate because in fact there is no such
thing.” (I whole-heartedly agree here. Sheeple are lazy
and they are looking for a magic pill. Our message does not offer you that solution
either. We say you need to get educated and make your own decisions.) Foods labeled as antioxidant-rich — everything from bottled tea to bags of frozen berries — have become a $526 million industry that continues to grow. Even foods that
otherwise have seen sales slump are getting a boost from antioxidant claims, says Phil
Lempert, a food industry analyst and editor of SupermarketGuru.com. Sales of blueberry
preserves, for example, are up, though overall jam sales are down. (Here’s another agreement – blueberry preserves will do you
no good because they have more sugar than anything else. But fresh blueberries – and
fresh frozen – will do you a lot of good.) “It’s clear that regardless of whether or not people understand what ‘rich in antioxidants’ means, it is certainly a logo or a stamp that says ‘Buy me! I’m going to help you live forever,’” Lempert says. Maybe. Maybe not. Experts aren’t suggesting
antioxidants aren’t important or that people shouldn’t eat foods that
contain them. Instead, they’re saying not enough is known about how they work to
justify focusing one’s diet on any particular antioxidant or food. (Yes, you should study it more so you’ll know more, but
do so with an open mind, not one closed tight by big pharma’s wallet. Then perhaps
you also will know, as we do, that antioxidants are also antifungal.) It’s all about
quashing free radicals, harmful chemicals produced by the body and found in the
environment that damage cells. That damage has been linked to a host of chronic
conditions, from heart problems to cancer, even aging. (To me,
it is not about free radicals at all. It’s about squashing fungi.) Diets rich in
antioxidants — which are in countless foods — seem to minimize this damage. What’s not clear is whether that
benefit is due to the antioxidants themselves or to the overall diet and the way the
antioxidants and other nutrients in it interact. (So
keep that phrase in mind the next time any big pharma promoter suggests one of their new
pills is the expected miracle of the 21st Century. Nothing works all by
itself. Everything should be done in moderation and within the scope of a
well-rounded diet and lifestyle.) The evidence increasingly suggests the latter, says Howard Sesso, a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. That means eating patterns make a difference, but probably not eating particular foods or taking supplements. Diets rich in beta carotene, for example, have been found to help prevent heart disease and cancer, but studies of beta carotene supplements alone have been mostly disappointing. And there is little evidence that one antioxidant is better than another. Also unknown is
whether quantity counts. Manufacturers brag about the amount of antioxidants in their
products, but studies have yet to establish that more is better, or whether the body can
even absorb the amounts contained in most foods. (Just FYI,
antioxidant pills are probably a wasted effort – it is the combination of the
antioxidants in a specific food and the other natural chemicals of that food that causes
the antioxidants to function as Mother Nature intended. Note the use of as “Nature
intended” in my claim. Nature also did not intend that you eat Big Macs and
greasy French fries and Twinkies and pre-packaged foods full of gross amounts of unhealthy
man-made chemicals. You won’t get health from a bottle of anything unless you also
manage your lifestyle and diet.) Blumberg, a
scientist at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition, worries that the hype
about antioxidants creates a false sense of security. Eating a daily handful of almonds
— believed good for heart health — won’t make up for a diet otherwise laden
with saturated fat and cholesterol. (And I agree with that
statement 100%.) So how should people work antioxidants into their diets? Think big picture. Healthy diets are
like healthy investment portfolios — diversified, says John Erdman Jr., a professor
of internal medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Eating a variety of produce and
whole grains ensures the best mix
of all nutrients. (Notice I did not highlight the whole
grains. I would have if our storage methods did not induce mold and mycotoxins. Nature’s
grains – properly processed and properly stored – are good for you. Man’s
methods are not.) There’s
probably not much harm in eating a lot of blueberries, but that can’t be said of all
antioxidant-rich foods. The calories in fruit juice and alcohol, for example, add up
quickly and obesity negates the benefits of even the healthiest foods. (That statement is valid – except they left out the danger they
have never even heard of: mycotoxins. Alcohol is mycotoxins. And high sugar foods
feed fungi, which makes more fungi and mycotoxins.) Even people trying to address specific health problems would do better to eat a broad mix of foods than to tailor their diets around certain ingredients, the experts say. (Agreed.) “When people
get prostate cancer, all of the sudden they make all the changes in their diet,”
Erdman says. “We don’t even know if those changes make a difference then. But we
know that if people eat that diet before getting cancer, you don’t tend to get it.”
(Duh! So when are you guys going to say that as loud as the
allopaths who say, “Eat all the crap you want because we have a pill for that”?) Consumers also must be critical of companies’ health claims about antioxidants, many of which are unregulated and unsupported by science. And studies often are funded by the industries that benefit when products are dubbed super foods. (Agreed.) Bottom line: Eat a
balanced diet and don’t get hung up on the particulars. (Do
pay attention, however, to the particulars about how much poison is put in your foods in
order that the manufacturers, whether that’s General Mills or GlaxoSmithKline, make
the biggest profit for the least expenditure, all at your expense.) Product
Updates Capsule Stuffing: I thought I’d update you on our capsule-stuffing adventure, in
case any of you are interested in maybe trying this. It’s extremely easy, although it
does take a little bit of time to make a few bottles’ worth. I was comparing
the costs today and this is what I came up with: Pau d’Arco, 1 lb. powdered herb
$5.00 840 empty capsules @ $22.00/thousand
18.50 Total for 1 pound of stuffed caps
$23.50
1 pound of 400 mg. store-bought caps
$93.65
Savings: $70.15 Olive leaf, 1 lb. cut herb (we grind)
$7.00 1,455 empty capsules @ $22.00/thousand
32.01 Total for 1 pound of stuffed caps
$39.01
1 pound of 450 mg. store-bought caps
$335.00
Savings: $295.99 Chaparral, 1 lb. powdered herb
$10.87 840 empty capsules @ $22.00/thousand
18.50 Total for 1 pound of stuffed caps
$29.37
1 pound of 500 mg. store-bought caps
$79.75
Savings: $50.38 OK, so that’s a lot of capsules – a little over a year’s
worth for one person. But would you rather pay $500.00 for your year’s supply of
antifungals, or would you rather pay $92.00? It’s worth it to me to spend a few hours
time every month stuffing capsules to save that much money, and to also know that what’s in my capsules is what is
supposed to be in them. Of course, none of the above comparisons include the
initial cost of the capsule-stuffing gadget, which is $13.00. That’s just a one-time
expense, so I didn’t prorate it out with the capsule and herb costs. Xylitol: Recently, we saw an ad for an alternative sweetener called Xylitol. There are many different kinds of Xylitol, the most common being derived from corn syrup (don’t buy that one). Some companies are making it from birch bark, however, and because birch bark is inherently medicinal anyway, we decided to try some. It’s supposed to taste just like sugar, and is supposedly used in the same proportions. It is more expensive than sugar. A 1.5 pound container of Xylitol goes for $11.95. Because we hardly ever use sugar anymore (Rich likes it in his morning coffee and I like some kind of sweetener on my yogurt and berries), we decided to take the plunge and order some to see if it truly tastes like sugar. Normally, I use liquid stevia in my yogurt and berries, and that’s fine, but there is a slight aftertaste, even with the liquid stevia. I don’t really mind that aftertaste, but it would be nice if we could find something that tastes like what we’ve been used to. The big advantage? Instead of feeding yeast, it is antifungal instead. Yes, Xylitol is antifungal, too. According to the advertisement, you can use it in place of sugar for anything you would normally use sugar for, except making bread. The Xylitol kills the yeast, so the bread wouldn’t rise. But, if you could afford it, you could conceivably make cookies and cakes with it, because those don’t have yeast in them. We’re not able to buy Xylitol in the quantities necessary to be able to try that experiment, but we’ve kind of lost our taste for cookies and cakes anyway, so it’s no great loss. OK, folks, here’s my version of the Xylitol taste test. The jar
showed up yesterday and this morning was the day to try it out. Lannie made me a cup of
coffee with one heaping dessert spoon (the crystals heap higher than refined white sugar)
of Xylitol and some powdered creamer. She estimated that this was approximately the same
as my usual dose. Although it did not have the herby smell and flavor of the stevia, it
did have a hint of something that was almost Wintergreen in smell. I didn’t care too
much for that first cup, so we tried another. This time I put in two level teaspoons of
Xylitol and some Half & Half. It was still not the same taste as sugar, but I didn’t
have a problem with that and I am sure I can get used to the slight difference. I’m
not trying to sound like a commercial here, but it gave me the general sense of having a
morning cup of Joe while sitting in front of the camp fire in hunting camp. The barely
detectable plant-like smell (hey, it is made from birch bark) made me imagine I was
in a forest. We will still buy the stevia liquid for general sweetening (it’s
about 300x as sweet as sugar) and I will use up the stevia powder in the herbal tea (then
not buy anymore of that). The Xylitol, while advertised as 1-to-1 with sugar, I would
guess is ever-so-slightly more potent (at least to my mouth). So I am guessing I will get
several months of morning coffee out of that one container. Noni Juice: I gave up. Sorry that test didn’t go all the way to completion,
but that stuff tastes terrible. It was supposed to help relieve pain, but it was a pain to
drink one jigger of it. Oh well… you wins some and you loses some. Scratch the cost
of that bottle off to research. Given the Xylitol is made from birch bark, this looks like a good
place to drop in this little tidbit: The peeling white bark of the common birch tree (Betula alba) has inspired poets as one of the most beautiful sights, especially in northern climes. The Russians consider the birch their most beautiful tree. It also intrigues scientists, since it is an ancient tree, whose fossil forms go back to the upper Cretaceous period.
Dec.1995 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
And what they haven’t figured out is that birch is antifungal, and cancer is most probably caused by a fungus. The great majority of tumor biopsies show fungal cells, when they bother to look for them. Alternatively, some of the more potent mycotoxins, Aflatoxin B1 in particular, has the ability to “turn off” the P53 tumor-suppressor gene in humans and animals, as well as disrupting DNA replication in new cells, causing further damage which is then diagnosed as cancer. We need more antifungals and less chemo drugs. By the time Big Pharma is done with this, the drug will cost a
fortune and not work because they tried to isolate only one chemical so they could patent
it and get rich. Sigh… That is, if they even start.
Remember, this article is 11 years old. My guess is they couldn’t isolate a single
compound that worked, so it was garbaged, the same way they did the oleorupin studies back
in 1968. Whole olive leaf works wonders, but the single constituent, oleorupin, won’t
work all by itself in the human body. It takes the whole plant, just like Nature intended.
J |
||||||||||||||||||||||||