19 replies to this topic

[renfr]

Just read that on the news :
http://www.dailymail...-DNA-study.html

According to the guy who discovered the structure of the DNA, depleting ROS through antioxidant supplementation can in fact become more deleterious than beneficial.

‘In light of recent data strongly hinting that much of late-stage cancer’s untreatability may arise from its possession of too many antioxidants, the time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer.’

That seems quite weird and even surprising to me, personally I don't even agree one second with such statements.
It's in fact rather the contrary, people don't eat enough antioxidants and vitamin C as ascorbic acid can be pro-cancer due to its extreme acidity while as sodium ascorbate it is protective.
Plus with industrialization of food production, less and less vitamins and minerals are found in fruits and legumes which means less antioxidants. Also some people have managed to reduce their cancer or eliminate it with high dose vitamin C or glutathione supplementation, IV vitamin C has also shown some benefits in treating cancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCBRMFBVzi0
However it is true that high dose antioxidants can become pro-oxidant but pro-oxidant and cytotoxic to cancer cells not healthy cells.

Edited by renfr, 09 January 2013 - 04:35 AM.

[InquilineKea]

http://www.scienceda...30108201639.htm

http://rsob.royalsoc...4.full.pdf html

Thoughts?

[Mind]

This should come as no surprise to LongeCity members who have been discussing it for years.

Also, many antioxidants (in isolation and combination) do not extend life in mice.

Vitamins and minerals are essential, of course, but mega-dosing seems counterproductive.

[joelcairo]

http://www.scienceda...30108201639.htm

http://rsob.royalsoc...4.full.pdf html

Thoughts?

"He proposes that the cell-killing ability of currently used anti-cancer therapies -- toxic chemotherapeutic agents such as Taxol as well as radiation treatment -- is mainly due to the action of ROS to induce apoptosis"

Huh? Watson PROPOSES this? Everybody already knows this is the exact purpose of most cancer therapies.

And while it's true that in theory substances that can have an antioxidant effect might interfere with such therapies, this is eminently testable. It turns out that in some cases there does indeed seem to be a conflict (especially with respect to NAC, which is antagonistic to almost every type of cancer treatment). But in many other cases there can be a synergistic anticancer effect, for example with EGCG, curcumin, sulforaphane, etc.

Honestly in my opinion it's less about the pure "antioxidant" capacity of the substance and much more about how it interacts with the different intracellular proteins and signaling pathways that lead a cancer cell towards, or rescue it from, apoptosis.

Edited by joelcairo, 09 January 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[hav]

It's pretty common knowledge that not all substances that are anti-oxidants are necessarily good for you at any dosage level. That's probably why they did toxicity studies on c60. A good example is colchicine. It's an antioxidant with some medical applications in extremely low dosages, like to treat gout and protect against ccl4 and arsenic poisoning. At higher doses, however, it's as strong a poison as arsenic itself. In fact, one of its botanical applications is to stress seedling DNA, in those few seeds that survive the treatment, to artificially induce the creation of polyploid varieties... which has a long history in wheat and hemp breeding.

Howard

[joelcairo]

I should add that depleting the cell's primary antioxidant, glutathione, is a well-established way of enhancing the killing effect of chemotherapy or radiation. I honestly don't know how often this is done in clinical practice, but there are ways to accomplish this and the effect has been demonstrated again and again. So Watson is right about that, although this is hardly new.

However this is a double-edged sword. It's likely beneficial during treatment and for some period afterwards, but oxidative stress is also one of the main drivers of cancer progression -- genetic and epigenetic changes that induce multidrug resistance, downregulation of tumor suppressor genes, a more invasive phenotype, and other adaptations that make them fitter to survive.

During primary cancer, in the early stages of metastatic cancer, and maybe even during late-stage cancer, this is an important consideration. IMO it makes more sense to reduce inflammation, inhibit growth hormone signaling and use moderate demethylation and HDAC inhibition to promote normal healthy gene expression as much as possible, both in healthy cells and in cancer cells. ROS will continue to be an issue for cancer cells anyway, but I don't see the point of deliberately targeting ROS unless you can bring overwhelming force. Simply triggering an adaptation response could be counterproductive, if not disastrous.

Not everyone will agree with that strategy, but it's the current state of my thinking anyway. (In fact to a certain degree I'm thinking out loud and trying to create a synthesis in my own mind; thanks to Longecity for providing a forum for doing so.)

[dear mrclock]

This should come as no surprise to LongeCity members who have been discussing it for years.

Also, many antioxidants (in isolation and combination) do not extend life in mice.

Vitamins and minerals are essential, of course, but mega-dosing seems counterproductive.

megadosing is the only way to ever get either positive or negative result in an important clinically significant form. so basically, if you take too little (unless deficiency is present) you actually do nothing positive to yourself. and if you want to have something positive, you have to take mega doses which will cause side effects regardless !

this is a philosophical situation we have here.

Edited by dear mrclock, 10 January 2013 - 12:44 AM.

[niner]

Watson is just making the standard hormetic argument. If you suppress ROS with antioxidants, you'll downregulate endogenous antioxidant defenses. Watson is totally just speculating here, and it's not a hell of a lot different than the random speculations of anyone else. Just because he and Crick sorted the structure of DNA sixty years ago doesn't mean he has any special insight on cancer and dietary "antioxidants". edit: Actually, Watson does know a thing or two about cancer, having headed the Cold Springs Harbor Lab and turning its attentions toward the disease. The paper upon which The Mail's report is based is a thoughtful treatment, but in the end I still think Watson is speculating, albeit not without basis, when he says that antioxidants may have caused more cancers than they've prevented. He might actually have a point with respect to things like vitamins E, C, beta carotene, etc. For The Mail to suggest that blueberries or broccoli "cause" cancer is irresponsible. The Daily Mail is not known to be a reliable source for scientific information, but it's pretty good for pictures of hot women not wearing many clothes.

Edited by niner, 10 January 2013 - 03:33 AM.

[joelcairo]

My earlier comments were a response to the article in Science Daily. I just finished reading Watson's article, which is freely available at the Open Biology journal.
http://rsob.royalsoc...content/current

It is an overview of the state of cancer research, with a focus on those steps required to develop a true "cure" for cancer. Very interesting, very impressive. I am making a lot of notes.

FWIW, here are several drugs he considers to be highly promising tools in the eradication of cancer cells, and especially cancer stem cells:
- JQ1 (MYC inhibitor, in testing)
- 3-bromopyruvate (the scandalously unavailable drug that blocks ATP production)
- 2-deoxyglucose (a drug that blocks glycolysis)
- Metformin (a common diabetes drug that is especially toxic to cancer stem cells)

Strangely, his comment about the general use of antioxidants being cancer-promoting is not intrinsic to the article and I am not convinced he is correct. Since Watson points out that cancer cells tend to have disproportionately high levels of antioxidants already, one could ask whether dietary antioxidants really do much to protect cancer cells further. He even specifically mentions that vitamin C can ENHANCE the ROS-mediated killing of cancer cells, as it can be converted into an oxidative form. So IMO this is an area that must be studied but his conclusion is not a given.

[ironfistx]

Here's a (long) article suggesting that antioxidant supplements may be hazardous to your health. I'd post the article but it's quite long:

http://gettingstrong...t-antioxidants/

[PWAIN]

I saw something about this and the message I got was basically that cancer cells need lots of antioxidants and this is seen by the fact that they have so many antioxidants. Adding more is adding fuel to the fire.

We are trying to kill the cancer cells but at the same time we are helping them by feeding them antioxidants. Of course what we are really trying to do is feed the non cancerous cells antioxidants to keep them healthy thru chemo but apparently that is not the net affect.

Doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me. The question is then, what can we do to help kill the cancer cells, maybe not eat as much, eat very nutrient poor food, smoke or other activity that burns thru antioxidants?

I wonder if any mice trials would be helpful.

[Spinlock]

Here's a (long) article suggesting that antioxidant supplements may be hazardous to your health. I'd post the article but it's quite long:

http://gettingstrong...t-antioxidants/

Nice article. Also explains why fruits and vegitibles work without going into antoxidants. Antoxidants appear to be a very delicate balance where too many is as bad as too few. Another intersting link from that artical shows radiation can bee good for you. It's all about keeping the dosage small.

Clues from Ionizing Radiation

One of the more curious things that has been reported in the scientific literature is that although high-dose ionizing radiation (such as X-rays) is clearly harmful, leading to cancer, premature aging and other problems, under some conditions low-dose ionizing radiation can actually decrease cancer risk and increase resistance to other stressors (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). It does so by triggering a protective cellular response, increasing cellular defenses out of proportion to the minor threat posed by the radiation itself. The ability of mild stressors to increase stress resistance is called "hormesis." Exercise is a common example. I've written about this phenomenon in the past (6).

[BioFreak]

I think he has spent too much time with chemo therapy, and that is where his opinion comes from. Let me explain: Chemotherapy is based on depleting gluthatione and inducing oxidative damage in the hope that cancer cells are way more susceptible to it then healthy cells.
Now if you are getting chemo, and taking a shitload of antioxidants, then you will do nothing less then make chemo less effective.

But as long as you are healthy, high antioxidant levels are a must to prevent damage to dna which results in cancer. Somehow he didn't get that part right. There are lots of studies about nac preventing cancer.

However, there are differences between antioxidants, vitamin c in high dosages can act as a prooxidant because it reacts with iron. Many other antioxidants have the same fate in high dosages. Basically the body needs at least 2 types of antioxidants - those that react with oxidants, and those that react with oxidative metals.

And then there is the problem with adaption to oxidative stress - when cells are being attacked with short high oxidative stress, they adapt to be protected better next time (i.e. cardio training). As long as there are enough antioxidants, there will be less adaption. The question is, if we care for adaption, or rather protect the cells.

I am sure the antioxidant story is more complex then this, but I didn't digg deeper - yet.

[moleface]

I saw this article awhile back and its flawed reasoning immediately jumped out at me. I'm not normally one to accuse a news source of having an agenda just because their stance clashes with my own ideology, but I have to wonder how they were able to make such a ridiculous illogical leap -

Chemo is anti-cancer. Antioxidants prevent chemo from damaging cells, including the cancer cells. Therefore antioxidants are pro-cancer.

If anything, this could be interpreted as hard proof that antioxidants prevent cellular damage.

[majkinetor]

Delusions, I see.
I personally know Bjelakovic (which study is the main argument of Watson) and I know how he publish garbage studies that condemn antioxidants.

The study is rebuted anyway, which means that whole "antioxidants are damaging" hype is BS as per usual with pharma:
Antioxidants: The Real Story

Even the famous "antioxidants prevent adaptation to exercise" is settled (guess on which side)
http://ajpendo.physi...#pageid-content

and vitamin C as ascorbic acid can be pro-cancer due to its extreme acidity while as sodium ascorbate it is protective.

Nonsense. First of all, C is mild acid. Second, all animals would have cancers if so. Third, acid base balance is still fringiest of all fringe theories.


I expected people on this forum to be more into science and less into hype...

Edited by majkinetor, 16 May 2013 - 08:10 PM.

[renfr]

Delusions, I see.
I personally know Bjelakovic (which study is the main argument of Watson) and I know how he publish garbage studies that condemn antioxidants.

The study is rebuted anyway, which means that whole "antioxidants are damaging" hype is BS as per usual with pharma:
Antioxidants: The Real Story

Even the famous "antioxidants prevent adaptation to exercise" is settled (guess on which side)
http://ajpendo.physi...#pageid-content

and vitamin C as ascorbic acid can be pro-cancer due to its extreme acidity while as sodium ascorbate it is protective.

Nonsense. First of all, C is mild acid. Second, all animals would have cancers if so. Third, acid base balance is still fringiest of all fringe theories.


I expected people on this forum to be more into science and less into hype...

Cancer likes acidity, alkaline diet has been shown to bring some improvement in cancer elimination. The acidity that matters most is not sheer acidity of ascorbic acid but how acid it becomes when processed in the gut.
This is no about hype or whatever, ascorbic acid treatment has been shown to be detrimental to lyme patients and cause even more degeneration (http://www.lymeneteu...s-friend-or-foe) on the other side sodium ascorbate is beneficial against lyme and one of my friends was successfully treated from lyme by reducing acidity in his diet and using massive doses of sodium ascorbate.
I don't say acidity is a bad thing, the gut needs acidity to make specific enzymatic reactions however too much is harmful and you know how SAD is very acidic and poorly alkaline.
The key is about balancing acid and alkaline and in people with specific conditions a more alkaline environment is beneficial.

[majkinetor]

Its simply not true that you have to balance acidity based on the current knowledge. Body has its own buffering system and you don't have to do anything but provide resources (minerals and some vitamins).

The site you provided is... well ... anybody can write anything anywhere. Find real paper from medical journal or don't talk about it. The notion that doing 2g vitamin C per day which is defined as UL and as such acceptable for 99% of people is just ridiculous.

The only "bad" thing few grams of C in the stomach can do is kill and prevent h. pylori.

Even the author states "These are fairly broad speculations", and even that is euphemism.

[renfr]

Its simply not true that you have to balance acidity based on the current knowledge. Body has its own buffering system and you don't have to do anything but provide resources (minerals and some vitamins).

The site you provided is... well ... anybody can write anything anywhere. Find real paper from medical journal or don't talk about it. The notion that doing 2g vitamin C per day which is defined as UL and as such acceptable for 99% of people is just ridiculous.

The only "bad" thing few grams of C in the stomach can do is kill and prevent h. pylori.

Even the author states "These are fairly broad speculations", and even that is euphemism.

Alkaline diet is not a myth, it has been studied in parts and is shown to provide several health benefits including potentiation of chemotherapeuthic treatments : http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3195546/
And yes it is true that you have to balance acidity, I don't see where you even read that, if the body's pH drops 0.2 you're already going in acidosis.
Our body is much more complex than just providing resources, minerals or vitamins.

I am researching about lyme and ascorbic acid, I have already found a document published by a MD known in the Lyme disease field who is not recommending ascorbic acid but other alkaline forms of vitamin C : http://www.lyme-dise...pproach-DAN.pdf
If you research thoroughsly you will find that an alkaline diet is often recommended in lyme disease patients.

[majkinetor]

I am researching about lyme and ascorbic acid, I have already found a document published by a MD known in the Lyme disease field who is not recommending ascorbic acid but other alkaline forms of vitamin C : http://www.lyme-dise...pproach-DAN.pdf
If you research thoroughsly you will find that an alkaline diet is often recommended in lyme disease patients.

I reasearch thorughsly
Try this in Schoolar: intitle:"lyme" AND (intitle:"ascorbic acid" OR intitle:"ascorbate" OR intitle:"vitamin c")

What happens is 0 hits, which means there is none. What one MD thinks or one blogger, is really not a proof.

I don't see where you even read that, if the body's pH drops 0.2 you're already going in acidosis.

No, bodys pH doesn't drop like that because you have bicarbonate system doing its job. Its the same as saying that you have to jump around to move your blood because if the blood stops you will go extinct. Luckily we have heart to pump it up.

Here are some papers that will maybe change your mind. I did read them all and there is nothing remotely close to practical conclusion in them.

Fenton, Tanis R, Suzanne C Tough, Andrew W Lyon, Misha Eliasziw, and David A Hanley. “Causal Assessment of Dietary Acid Load and Bone Disease: a Systematic Review & Meta-analysis Applying Hill’s Epidemiologic Criteria for Causality.” [i]Nutrition Journal[/i] 10 (2011): 41. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-10-41.
Manz, F. “History of Nutrition and Acid-base Physiology.” [i]European Journal of Nutrition[/i] 40, no. 5 (October 2001): 189–199.
Riond, J L. “Animal Nutrition and Acid-base Balance.” [i]European Journal of Nutrition[/i] 40, no. 5 (October 2001): 245–254.
Vormann, J., and T. Goedecke. “Acid-Base Homeostasis: Latent Acidosis as a Cause of Chronic Diseases.” [i]Bone[/i] 18, no. September (2006): 255–266.

For instance:

'Acid-Base Homeostasis: Latent Acidosis as a Cause of Chronic Diseases'

]
Even slight deviations from this value may lead to severe disturbances in metabolism which may even be life-threatening. It is for this reason that the body`s exten-sive buffer systems ensure that the blood pH is maintained between the very narrow limits of 7.37 and 7.43. These buffer systems bind and neu-tralize the additional protons respec-tively associated with excessive acidity or alkalinity and thereby prevent them from immediate and marked influ-ences on metabolism. In order to maintain the optimal metabolic func-tioning and therefore the buffering capacity on a long-term basis, the organism is also dependent on the con-stant regeneration of the buffer sys-tems
[size=4]

What is there is some suspicion, nothing more, nothing of practical value. SAD diet is junk for so many reason, acid base balance perhaps being only minor issue.

Edited by majkinetor, 17 May 2013 - 01:46 PM.

[fiftyyy]

This should come as no surprise to LongeCity members who have been discussing it for years.

Also, many antioxidants (in isolation and combination) do not extend life in mice.

Vitamins and minerals are essential, of course, but mega-dosing seems counterproductive.

megadosing is the only way to ever get either positive or negative result in an important clinically significant form. so basically, if you take too little (unless deficiency is present) you actually do nothing positive to yourself. and if you want to have something positive, you have to take mega doses which will cause side effects regardless !

this is a philosophical situation we have here.

Not sure if serious. Megadosing IMO is just stupid. Ive been experiemnting with several supplements for the last several months and i am getting positive resultss from recommended doses not FDA recommended but vendor recommended.