8 replies to this topic

[Skötkonung]

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7754644.stm

I was wondering what people thought of this?

[desperate788]

http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/7754644.stm

I was wondering what people thought of this?

There is much controversy about supplements whether they are antioxidants or not, I don't know which one to believe, this is just an other example.

[kismet]

This is ridiculous. C. elegans, yeast and drosophilia are useless for anything else than very, very, very basic aging research. Think pre-pre phase I trials.
Mitochondria targeted catalase has been shown to increase max life span in mice (!). It's all about a targeted approach, popping antioxidant pills won't do anything to slow down aging per se. This is common knowledge I think.
The headline is sensationalist btw, they're jumping to the conclusion that antioxidant creams (or other topicals) are useless from one study on nematode worms? C+E+Ferulic has been proven to work over and over again. Dermatology is certainly not one of their strengths.

[FunkOdyssey]

I don't think anyone here still held the belief that you could simply load up on antioxidants and stave off the aging process. That is early-mid 1990's thinking, but like the low-fat craze, it can take a long time for these ideas to die out among the common folk.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 02 December 2008 - 03:05 PM.

[biknut]

I think the answer is yes and no. Taking conventional Antioxidants like C, E, or eating blueberries and fruits probably have so little effect that you'll never notice much benefit other than being healthy. Being healthy's not to bad.

On the other hand if you can up-regulate your body's natural Antioxidants, SOD, CAT, and glutathione I think it might have more benefit. That's why I take Protandim, but not a multi.

[kismet]

The common antioxidants may or may not help with increasing avg life span, reducing/compressing morbidity, "squaring the curve" or whatever we want to call it. Still they're not truely retarding aging.
What I found outright careless is their contemptuous comment on "antioxidant creams". I did not expect such sensationalism (and misinformation) from the BBC...

[Anthony_Loera]

This just came out at GRG:

http://mcb.berkeley....c...&name=amesb

Magnesium Deficiency Accelerates Cellular Senescence (531). Magnesium inadequacy affects over half of the US population and is associated with increased risk for many age-related diseases, yet the underlying mechanisms are unknown. Altered cellular physiology has been demonstrated after acute exposure to severe magnesium deficiency, but few reports have addressed the consequences of long-term exposure to moderate magnesium deficiency in human cells. Therefore, IMR-90 human fibroblasts were continuously cultured in magnesium-deficient conditions to determine the long-term effects on the cells. These fibroblasts did not demonstrate differences in cellular viability or plating efficiency, but did exhibit a decreased replicative lifespan in populations cultured in magnesium-deficient compared to standard media conditions, both at ambient (20% O2) and physiological (5% O2) oxygen tension. The growth rates for immortalized IMR-90 fibroblasts were not affected under the same conditions. IMR-90 fibroblast populations cultured in magnesium-deficient conditions had increased senescence-associated beta-galactosidase activity and increased p16INK4a and p21WAF1 protein expression compared to cultures from standard media conditions. Telomere attrition was also accelerated in cell populations from magnesium-deficient cultures. Thus, the long-term consequence of inadequate magnesium availability in human fibroblast cultures was accelerated cellular senescence, which may be a mechanism through which chronic magnesium inadequacy could promote or exacerbate age-related disease. A paper on increased mitochondrial DNA protein crosslinks on Mg deficiency is in preparation.

I thought it was appropriate to this discussion.

A

[edward]

I think the answer is yes and no. Taking conventional Antioxidants like C, E, or eating blueberries and fruits probably have so little effect that you'll never notice much benefit other than being healthy. Being healthy's not to bad.

On the other hand if you can up-regulate your body's natural Antioxidants, SOD, CAT, and glutathione I think it might have more benefit. That's why I take Protandim, but not a multi.

My thoughts exactly though I prefer hormetic and other mechanisms by which your body ramps up its internal antioxidant and protective systems/genes (diet, exercise and specific supplements such as resveratrol, milk thistle, turmeric etc.) I take all the stuff that is in protandim but I don't endorse protandim as you can get the ingredients much cheaper and still have money left over for some even better stuff, the companies concept is sound though I came to the same conclusion before ever reading theirs.... I think I wrote about it somewhere...maybe I should claim royalties... I swear some of the fertile ideas discussed on this board are making people rich we should get ours LOL

edit: though I still take a half dose of a premium multi 5-7 days a week just to get those nutrients whether the be antioxidants or not that ones body needs at a certain amount as coenzymes/cofactors and what not.

Edited by edward, 04 December 2008 - 03:13 AM.

[lucid]

I don't think anyone here still held the belief that you could simply load up on antioxidants and stave off the aging process. That is early-mid 1990's thinking, but like the low-fat craze, it can take a long time for these ideas to die out among the common folk.

Are you kidding? The anti-oxidant media crazy really just got its engines going a couple of years ago. Its hard to walk down the store aisle without seeing some anti-oxidant drink. Fortunately a lot of the anti-oxidant containing foods are otherwise particularly healthy: blueberries, cocoa, broccoli... But yes I agree with your point.

And the packing of foods with tons of vitamin C and yelling about its anti-oxidant capacity is just silly.

Edited by lucid, 04 December 2008 - 05:29 AM.