5 replies to this topic

[frederickson]

i know some posters here eat tomato paste, at least in part, for the skin benefits that were uncovered in the study below:

http://www.vrp.com/a...art2320&zTYPE=2

i found this study to be interesting, in that they not only noticed an increase in collagen production, but provided an interpretative step rarely seen in calculating an estimated spf associated with eating tomato paste (SPF 1.3). though it is a concentrated source of the carotenoid lycopene, there would seem nothing magical about tomato paste that would afford it skin protective properties above and beyond those of other very nutrient-dense foods. in fact, i would surmise other foods may provide an even greater spf because there are MUCH stronger food-based antioxidants than lycopene.

since the carotenoids and other antioxidants (vitamins c & e, selenium, polyphenols, flavonoids, etc.) work synergistically, i would expect one could attain an spf that could have substantial benefits from diet alone.

though it would be pure conjecture, in addition to eating tomato paste, what kind of spf do you think might be associated with a diet in which one regularly consumes foods/spices in the list below? there are others that could be added of course, but i picked these as they have some of the best orac scores and are among the most nutrient-dense foods on earth.

kale, blueberries, pomegranate, cranberries, very dark (85%+) chocolate, green/white tea, tomato paste, nuts, black beans, turmeric, cinnamon, ground cloves, etc.

it would seem that if tomato paste alone could provide an spf of 1.3, incorporating large amounts of these kinds of foods together could seemingly get you to a substantially higher spf. i know heliocare (which is a great concept) has been shown to give an spf of 3, but what kind of spf do you think such a varied diet would provide?

[mustardseed41]

Probably no more than 2-3 spf

[kismet]

I can see several pitfalls to this, first most nutrients and antioxidants are not mainly distributed to the skin, with many of those you'd risk systemic side-effects before experiencing any meaningful protection for your skin (even beta-carotene can be problematic). Actually I wouldn't expect many antioxidants to be syngeristic, so the SPFs will not necessarily add up like SPF(A)+SPF(B)+...
Depending on the type of oxidative damage certain antioxidants are bound to be more effective than others, for instance antioxidants from different sources, but working in a smiliar way, would not simply add-up as soon as their maximum concentration is reached. Strength does not matter if it does not apply to damage occurring and certain imbalances in antioxidant defenses are actually known to increase oxidative stress.

I'd expect an SPF <5, but it's just a guess.

Edited by kismet, 24 December 2008 - 06:44 PM.

[jessicantique]

imbalances in antioxidant defenses are actually known to increase oxidative stress.



i think i am one of those addicted in supplements, i take lots of different types of antioxidant supplement everyday, i read somewhere that too much can be overkill and will induce negative effects. how i am living under a lot of stress, then i assume i need more antioxidant to neutrualize the oxidant in my body, but how can i know how much is the appropriate amount?

i also make diy skincare, dissolve those antioxidant capsules and put on my skin, don't know if it works, but anyway, many of those antioxidants are used by nowadays many cosmeceutical companies, with much higer price tag...

[frederickson]

I can see several pitfalls to this, first most nutrients and antioxidants are not mainly distributed to the skin, with many of those you'd risk systemic side-effects before experiencing any meaningful protection for your skin (even beta-carotene can be problematic). Actually I wouldn't expect many antioxidants to be syngeristic, so the SPFs will not necessarily add up like SPF(A)+SPF(B)+...
Depending on the type of oxidative damage certain antioxidants are bound to be more effective than others, for instance antioxidants from different sources, but working in a smiliar way, would not simply add-up as soon as their maximum concentration is reached. Strength does not matter if it does not apply to damage occurring and certain imbalances in antioxidant defenses are actually known to increase oxidative stress.

I'd expect an SPF <5, but it's just a guess.

i think it's pretty well accepted that many antioxidants do work synergistically... alpha lipoic acid regenerates vitamin c, which regenerates vitamin e, etc. this is one of the reasons many experts believe the clinical trials of single antioxidants have failed (and even small groups like the SELECT trial). these are just the antioxidants that have been studied, i would suspect interaction occurs between the various flavonoids, polyphenols, etc.

i think one would be less likely to incur the imbalances to which you refer (which ARE most likely occurring in the recent poorly designed clinical trials of synthetic alpha tocopherol) from the diet. i think that as we age, sufficient oxidative damage is occurring that would suggest benefit from intake of a variety of antioxidants.

btw, though i wish there were more studies, my guess for an extremely nutrient-dense diet would be somewhere around an spf of 5 or so. especially in light of the fact that the fern extract (heliocare) has been shown to carry an spf of 3 by itself. considering the fact that this protection would be full body (including the eyes), there are no absorption issues/reapplication issues or synthetic chemicals that may be deleterious in many sunscreens... this would seem to be of considerable benefit.

[kismet]

I can see several pitfalls to this, first most nutrients and antioxidants are not mainly distributed to the skin, with many of those you'd risk systemic side-effects before experiencing any meaningful protection for your skin (even beta-carotene can be problematic). Actually I wouldn't expect many antioxidants to be syngeristic, so the SPFs will not necessarily add up like SPF(A)+SPF(B)+...
Depending on the type of oxidative damage certain antioxidants are bound to be more effective than others, for instance antioxidants from different sources, but working in a smiliar way, would not simply add-up as soon as their maximum concentration is reached. Strength does not matter if it does not apply to damage occurring and certain imbalances in antioxidant defenses are actually known to increase oxidative stress.

I'd expect an SPF <5, but it's just a guess.

i think it's pretty well accepted that many antioxidants do work synergistically... alpha lipoic acid regenerates vitamin c, which regenerates vitamin e, etc. this is one of the reasons many experts believe the clinical trials of single antioxidants have failed (and even small groups like the SELECT trial). these are just the antioxidants that have been studied, i would suspect interaction occurs between the various flavonoids, polyphenols, etc.

Your point is more similar to my point about "imbalances". Ok, some do and some don't work well together. Maybe we could even say that many do work syergistically in some way, but there are still many others that don't. However, I believe that in the case of photodamage their synergism is further limited. They are required at different concentrations to work in unison anyway, which may be a problem with diet (= in no way controlled). Then we'd have to consider the nature of synergism, do they increase each other's duration, or the SPF per se, do they help to repair the relevant damage or some other damage, which does not show up after sunburn (synergism = 0 in such a case).
In the end there is only that much that can be done using antioxidants (e.g. C+E+ferulic, even though they are the most abundant/important/synergistic antioxidants we know of, they offer only an SPF of 8 after topical application). If antioxiants really worked that well in synergy we would have much more empirical data about diets providing great sunprotection.