Antioxidant Insanity

Based on all my lingering around the forum, I've put together a pretty substantial list of supplements that I want to add to my regimen.

But what I've noticed is that I have so many antioxidant supplements that I started asking questions about how much is really enough. I'm considering EGCG, quercetin, curcumin, resveratrol, ellagic acid, liposomal vitamin c, vitamin E, ecklonia cava, alpha lipoic acid...

Is there a point where too many antioxidants becomes a negative? Or, considering high stress levels and high toxicity, is there really no limit on the benefits? Would it be sufficient to take one or two each of water soluble and fat soluble antioxidants, or does a list like the above sound like a solid one?

It just seems like the oxidative process (to a certain extent) is vital to the body and actually beneficial at points. The body destroys invaders and cancer cells with oxidative means. I mean, converting our food into energy releases oxygen radicals. I guess what I'm asking is should I be pumping myself full of antioxidants or is there a limit that we shouldn't try to exceed?

(Its difficult for me to wrap my head around that a process as basal and primal as the oxidative reactions that give us energy from our food are constantly producing damaging radicals. I suppose this is why we evolved endogenous antioxidant systems, so to what extent do we have to supplement these systems?)

anthonyspencer54 - Some of those antioxidants, particularly green tea and vitamin C and donate or take away electrons as needed. Modulators.

In the scheme of things, it is the boosting of endogenous antioxidants that count the most, such as glutathione and others.

The only time to avoid taking certain antioxidants would be vitamin C during a workout. Most others are fine during this process.

CS-
What do you think though about this article though
http://gettingstronger.org/2011/03/the-case-against-antioxidants/

It speaks to anthony spencer's point that in terms of anti-oxidant supplementation its not the case "if some is good ....more is better"

Very interesting. Based on the article it would appear that supplementing with our own endogenous
antioxidants down-regulates our body's production of them. For example, vitamins C and E.
But plant chemicals (which I thought had their effects because they were antioxidants) have their
effect by up-regulating our antioxidant response.

CS, what do you think? Do the studies listed in the article really have any bearing? Is
taking phytochemicals exclusively more beneficial?

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Very interesting. Based on the article it would appear that supplementing with our own endogenous
antioxidants down-regulates our body's production of them. For example, vitamins C and E.
But plant chemicals (which I thought had their effects because they were antioxidants) have their
effect by up-regulating our antioxidant response.

CS, what do you think? Do the studies listed in the article really have any bearing? Is
taking phytochemicals exclusively more beneficial?

Our body produce vitamin C ???

Hey blueway,
Good looking out sir. I am not sure why I wrote vitamin C. We definitely do not produce our own vitamin C. I guess I should be referring more to the fat soluble antioxidants. The article seems to say that
taking antioxidants that we produce endogenously, such as E and CoQ10, will down regulate our own production of these.

In general I am curious about this theory. I have considered taking mucuna pruriens as part of a T boosting program. But applying the same logic as in the article, would taking L-Dopa to boost our dopamine production just down regulate our natural production?

If there is any truth to this, then I need to be more cautious about my supplementation. But
I've heard that this is not true, however, and that taking something like L-Dopa simply maximizes
our "tanks" of that compound so to speak and the body will use it preferentially.

I would think some variability in ones regimen is important.

when can i take vitamin C if i lift weights??? thanks guys

I read the article and this is the kind of thing that I get deluged with--and have been deluged with over the years.

Rather than pick apart every detail, because I have in the past numerous times, I'll just say that the studies listed in the article in question have serious flaws. All of these have been throughly examined and pulled part by many organizations. Also myself.

(1) Some studies use antioxidants that are not natural, and can cause deficiencies of others.
(2) The study on NAC does not have the same effect in human metabolism.
(3) Many of the antioxidants discussed here boost endogenous levels of antioxidant enzymes, and
the benefits are so numerous it would fill up libraries.
(4) Having worked with actual patients in a clinical setting with real pharmacological doses of these substances,
the evidence of benefit over periods of time is very evident to me.

CS-
Thanks for your input Before i move i don't want to come off this point because i do think its important in how we view supplementation.

Just from a theoretical view I do believe the human body is an adaptable/resilient organism. The reason why ultra-endurance marathoners are so skinny is because the human body has "adapted" toward their particular chronic stresser and deemed much of their lean muscle mass to be superfluous toward their goal.
Similarly i have heard this being the case with hormonal trans dermal creams...where men applying testosterone cream feel amazing in the first application but slowly as time progresses they find they need to apply more and more to get the same feelings as their body has down-regulated its endogenous production.

Do you subscribe at all or in any way to this view? IN your experience with your clients have you've witnessed such a thing in anyway through bloodtests or anecdotal evidence?

granger451 - The principle you mentioned does apply to many things, however it largely depends on the activity.

For example, if one takes pharmacological doses (these are above and beyond physiological doses, the amounts the body produces on their own normally in healthy individuals), if it is a hormone, then there will be feedback loop mechanisms and will downregulate or shut off endogenous production of those hormones.

So on the level of hormones specifically, physiological doses should be the aim, rather than pharmacological doses.

In terms of herbs, there are certain benefits that may produce transient benefits and will subside with continued use. Most of the time, these are unusual and the body will compensate to even things out.

On an antioxidant level, many things say, such as green tea extract have continued benefit continuously. There are specific benefits that apply to specific dosages for specific purposes, where more is not necessarily better. For example, for increasing fat metabolism, 300 mg of EGCG is optimal every two hours. Take more than that and the body will reduce the oxidation rate somewhat, yet will still be faster than taking no green tea.

Antioxidant performance will depend on many factors, such as type, quality, is it a fraction of the whole spectrum. For example a recent study, which in my opinion is shotty science attempts to prove that vitamin E is 'bad' for the prostate. They used a synthetic form of vitamin E, in the alpha fraction only. What actually happens is that it suppresses the natural gamma form of vitamin E, which is the most potent. I say, take all of the fractions as it is found in nature, such as alpha, beta, delta and gamma and never in synthetic form.

What is known is that single vitamins do not work well in isolation, especially if they are synthetic. Also, antioxidants that help boost endogenous antioxidant enzymes are the real value. The media will not even touch this, unless they can somehow find fault in it--usually a spurious study.

What they omit from the public is shameful to be polite.

Ecklonia cava typically boosts growth hormone levels initially, yet it will not continuously do this, so it is a short-lived effect, although a nice one. It's coagulation benefits, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant benefits continue to work.

Many are not aware that taking about 2,000 mg of vitamin C per day for men will add an extra 5 to 6 years to their life, allowing men to catch up with women.

Albert Szent-Györgyi who discovered of vitamin C took both vitamin C and plenty of iodine. He lived to be in his 90's.

Linus Carl Pauling lived to be 93 and he took mega doses of vitamin C every day, usually 10,000 mg per day.

Jack LaLanne took a lot of supplements (not even the best ones in my opinion) and he lived to be 96.

One of the foremost experts on antioxidants (Lester Packer, PhD) has said that vitamins C and E, along with less familiar antioxidants such as Alpha Lipoic Acid, Coenzyme Q10 and Tocotrienols are vital.

These antioxidants interact in a network to recycle and regenerate each other and to counteract the age associated decline in gene functions which can leave us vulnerable to infection and disease. He goes on to say that taking a variety of antioxidant cocktails are markedly more effective than taking single antioxidants.

CausticSymmetry wrote:I'll just say that the studies listed in the article in question have serious flaws.

But do the ones, saying that supplements do work, have flaws too?

Antioxidants, as with any other supp are only necessary/positive because of the toxic load we carry. In this case we talk about heavy metals, radiation and superoxidizers.....

One example of a bad anti-oxidant(in some respects) is bufferd vitamin C.......the small amount that continiously circles our blood turns iodine into iodide, canceling all positive aspects of iodines oxidation capabilities. Certain tissues/parts of our body only accept iodine and therefor never get saturated.

EGCG is tea's caffeine ?

granger451 wrote:CS-
What do you think though about this article though
http://gettingstronger.org/2011/03/the-case-against-antioxidants/

It speaks to anthony spencer's point that in terms of anti-oxidant supplementation its not the case "if some is good ....more is better"

Drives me INSANE when people quote the first study he provides like its some sort of gospel that proves supplements are useless. Here is a decent link http://thatpaleoguy.com/2011/10/21/antioxidants-make-your-own/

When you've seen first hand the power of antioxidant therapy in real people, threads like this really derail good supplements.

Most of the good work that various antioxidants due is perform many actions that go well beyond just redox activity. Also many of them also chelate heavy metals to potentiate higher levels of antioxidant enzymes

I do not want to play the devil's advocate, but we have to admit that each time a study says supplements do not work, we say "there are flaws in it". But when a study says it does work, none of us ask "Is it reliable? Are there any flaws?". We just take it as it is.
The homeostatic compensation story is pretty interesting. I would like to hear solid arguments and evidence from the other side against this.

It certainly wasn't my intention to try and derail any strong supplements with this thread.
Not by any means. All of the research and work put into this by members here has helped me
immensely and I trust in it.

And I most definitely didn't want to raise any doubts about the phytochemical supplements, i.e. resveratrol, curcumin, etc.

Like directo said, it was the homeostatic compensation topic that interested me. Like CS said, most of these supplements have a plethora of positive benefits outside of their activity as antioxidants as well.
It simply piqued my curiosity to consider that in response to increased levels of antioxidants directly from supplementation that the body might lower its own production of these through feedback loops.
But based on CS' responses and going back over some of his older posts (which I should have done in the first place: lesson learned) I really have no doubts.

If there is some credible science that can point the other way, sure I'd read it. But like I said, I trust in the veterans of this forum more than I trust my own level of knowledge on these topics at this point in my life.

Directo wrote:I do not want to play the devil's advocate, but we have to admit that each time a study says supplements do not work, we say "there are flaws in it". But when a study says it does work, none of us ask "Is it reliable? Are there any flaws?". We just take it as it is.
The homeostatic compensation story is pretty interesting. I would like to hear solid arguments and evidence from the other side against this.

One can only argue against what you said from a personal perspective. I, and probably many other members, certainly don't just automatically dismiss studies that show no benefit. Certain supplements like vitamin e and d3 are proven beyound a doubt in my opinion both theoretically and clinically.



One way to evaluate published studies is to see whether they tell you everything you would need to know to replicate the experiment, and whether the information they provide is adequate for drawing the conclusions they draw, for example whether they compared the experimental subjects to proper control subjects. With just a few minimal critical principles of this sort, most "scientific" publications on nutrition, endocrinology, cancer and other degenerative diseases are seen to be unscientific. In nutritional experiments with fish oil, controls must receive similar amounts of vitamins A, D, E, and K, and should include fat free or "EFA" deficient diets for comparison.

In case anyone missed this thread:

https://immortalhair.forumotion.com/t6559-how-to-make-people-believe-any-anti-vitamin-scare-it-just-takes-lots-of-pharmaceutical-industry-cash

CausticSymmetry wrote:anthonyspencer54 - Some of those antioxidants, particularly green tea and vitamin C and donate or take away electrons as needed. Modulators.

In the scheme of things, it is the boosting of endogenous antioxidants that count the most, such as glutathione and others.

The only time to avoid taking certain antioxidants would be vitamin C during a workout. Most others are fine during this process.

CS why is it recommended to avoid vitamin c during a workout? Does that include all forms such as Acerola, Quercertin? Is there a certain time frame before/after a workout that you can take it?

Vitamin C and E will reduce the benefits of oxidative stress during exercise. Just about all the other antioxidants however, are beneficial before exercise, such as lipoic acid and plant based antioxidants.