Antioxidants are almost worthless

[cosmicalstorm]

Taking various pills to ensure longevity seems to be a lousy idea.

Organic compounds and structures composed of them are thermodynamically unstable in an oxygen-containing atmosphere. Molecular oxygen, in its triplet basal state, is rather unreactive due to the spin restriction. However, formation of oxygen free radicals and other reactive oxygen species (ROS) opens the gate for potentially deleterious oxidative reactions of oxygen. Seen from that perspective, the "Free Radical Theory of Aging" (FRTA), now more commonly termed the oxidative damage theory of ageing, seems to address a key facet of intrinsic biological instability of living systems. The basic idea of the FRTA is that free radicals and other ROS, formed unavoidably in the course of metabolism and arising due to the action of various exogenous factors, damage biomolecules, and accumulation of this damage are the cause of age-related diseases and aging.

If FRTA is true, antioxidants should slow down aging and prolong lifespan. This apparently obvious conclusion has stimulated enormous number of studies aimed at finding a relationship between levels of endogenous antioxidants and lifespan of various organisms on the effects of addition of exogenous antioxidants on the course of aging and lifespan of model organisms. Pubmed provides more than 13300 hits for conjunction of terms "antioxidant" and "aging or ageing." However, in spite of the plethora of studies, the answer to the question if exogenous antioxidants can prolong life is far from being clear.

Generally, the effects of antioxidant supplementation in model organisms are disappointing. Many studies showed no effect or even negative effects on the lifespan. Only in some cases considerable prolongation of lifespan was obtained and in organisms which are evolutionarily quite distant from mammals. In some cases, mean but not maximal lifespan was affected, which may be caused by reduction of mortality due to diseases rather than interference with the aging process itself. An apparently obvious conclusion from the plethora of studies could be that antioxidants cannot be expected to prolong significantly the lifespan, especially of mammals, which does not support the FRTA.

In summary, while beneficial effects of antioxidant supplements seem undoubtful in cases of antioxidant deficiencies, additional studies are warranted in order to design adapted prescriptions in antioxidant vitamins and minerals for healthy persons.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/404680/

[Broomstick]

In other words, the best approach to long-term health and maximizing the odds of a long and healthy old age are:

1) Eat a variety of minimally processed foods, preferably fresh, heavy on vegetables and fruit (unless you live in some high specialized environments, but you'll still want your muktuk fresh).
2) Exercise
3) Refrain from bad habits like smoking and excessive drink

Sorry, folks, it really is that easy, and that hard. No magic pills that allow you to treat your body like shit and get away with it.

Admittedly harsh, but really, that's what a lot of the science boils down to. It's a WAG on my part, but I'm assuming that we do best when eating a lot of fresh vegetables and fruit, along with some other stuff, because it's a package deal: vitamins, minerals, fiber, antioxidants, and probably a bunch of other stuff that each one by itself doesn't make much difference but together provide what a body needs. Maybe we do best because we evolved to extract it from such foods. Maybe some other reason.

No magic bullets, folks.

[K. A. Pital]

You forgot flavonoids - too many of them, and too many we know nothing about. So yes, eating food matters. Soylent isn't the answer, although people can survive on processed food for many years.

[Magis]

In other words, the best approach to long-term health and maximizing the odds of a long and healthy old age are:

1) Eat a variety of minimally processed foods, preferably fresh,

The part of your comment that I bolded is a claim for which I've never heard anyone offer any real scientific justification. And that's not even addressing the very ambiguous nature of the term "processed".

[Broomstick]

It's shorthand for "probably best if you eat food that hasn't been extensively heat treated, manipulated, subjected to preservative chemicals, bits of them removed, dyed, flavored, and otherwise altered from their original state".

That doesn't mean absolutely never ever touching processed food, just not making it the main feature of your diet. Some foods do need "processing" of some sort to become edible, such as cooking legumes or grinding maize or (very important) cooking tapioca or taro, I'm not referring to that, or such cooking as a person is likely to do at home. But scraping all the bran off wheat, removing the fiber and a lot of nutrients, then putting back just a few vitamins and minerals, does result in a less nutritious foodstuff than if you merely ground the whole wheat and left the bran and germ in with everything else.

So yes, it's an ill-defined term but that's because there isn't a set way to define this thing. There's a range between "absolutely fresh, just off the tree/shrub/whatever" and "flavored cardboard with vitamins added".

[cosmicalstorm]

It's funny that the same people who worry about big pharma often embrace what is essentially "big antioxidant snake oil".

[bilateralrope]

It's funny that the same people who worry about big pharma often embrace what is essentially "big antioxidant snake oil".

It's been that way with alternative 'medicine' for years. The evidence says it doesn't work, but they can't accept that, so they invent conspiracies to explain why it's not part of standard, evidence based, medicine.

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know, for many people out there I don't think it was a mater of trying to find a "Magic Bullet" so much as something just to help out. I know I drank lots of pomegranate juice (aside from it being tasty) was to help my insides, not as any sort of magic cure all.

[Isolder74]

I think the important thing to note here is that the nutrients that they are focusing on are laboratory produced versions of these nutrients rather then the natural ones actually produced by plants and animals in their tissues, the ones usually removed as part of food processing. Those are then added back by later enriching those processed foods in order to make those new foods match the nutrition of the unprocessed version.

So the difference here is wonder bread vs whole or fresh baked bread made with either whole wheat flour or unbleached high protein bread flour. Interesting, natural nutrition is better then artificial substitutes.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ok that is good to know, I drink a lot of juice that is basically liquified pomegranate. All the pulp skin and stuff left in

[His Divine Shadow]

Just keep eating bilberries, cloudberries and lingonberries, free to pick in the forest if you live in Finland. We pick many liters worth every year.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Nitpicking caveats Ho!

In other words, the best approach to long-term health and maximizing the odds of a long and healthy old age are:

1) Eat a variety of minimally processed foods, preferably fresh, heavy on vegetables and fruit (unless you live in some high specialized environments, but you'll still want your muktuk fresh).
2) Exercise
3) Refrain from bad habits like smoking and excessive drink

Sorry, folks, it really is that easy, and that hard. No magic pills that allow you to treat your body like shit and
get away with it.

You forgot 4) genes. Lots of them
(Or altering genetic or protein expression. Try to stay alive until we figure out which effectors from mouse models are really clinically relevant in humans, and are safe to overexpress using gene therapy or the like, while not understanding the underlying systems or causes + interactions.
Good luck with that).


Additionally, as I recall there were some studies that mentioned an effect. The problem is that the effects are not huge, and they affect only certain cumulative aspects from this one route to cellular damage in some areas. It's rather like using a different type of grease on gears in a brake, and seeing if it helps prevent crashes. It might, in some cases of skidding sustained braking, if the grease really is better (and the differences are not large between greases), and in a case where it would make a difference, in that type of accident, and etc'etc'.
(I should dig up one such study, as I recall, it mentioned how the vast majority indeed lacked statistical significance save for ~2 antioxidants. Pomegranates I think (It was mentioned by an alzheimers researcher , with a focus on ROS).
[All this means to say that antioxidants should be useful and healthy, the problem is finding foods or substances that work as antioxidants in a useful fashion, and in the areas of the body where we most need them - Particularly the brain. Neurons produce some toxic shit yo!].


Sidenote -
Supplements are even more likely to be inneffective or useless, than even the foods found to be useless anyway though, in my personal (this part isn't backed up) opinion. (But that's just gut opinion).

Ok that is good to know, I drink a lot of juice that is basically liquified pomegranate. All the pulp skin and stuff left in

Good idea . Yum yum nom. (And other berries)

[Broomstick]

Pomegranate juice? >snort!< I prefer to actually eat the things, even if they do stain my fingers.

[Lagmonster]

Nitpicking caveats Ho!

In other words, the best approach to long-term health and maximizing the odds of a long and healthy old age are:
1) Eat a variety of minimally processed foods, preferably fresh, heavy on vegetables and fruit
2) Exercise
3) Refrain from bad habits like smoking and excessive drink

You forgot 4) genes. Lots of them

Also money. Have money. Money won't make you immortal, but I'll bet there's a strong link between "has money" and "didn't die of mundane natural causes or accidents".

[The Grim Squeaker]

Nitpicking caveats Ho!

In other words, the best approach to long-term health and maximizing the odds of a long and healthy old age are:
1) Eat a variety of minimally processed foods, preferably fresh, heavy on vegetables and fruit
2) Exercise
3) Refrain from bad habits like smoking and excessive drink

You forgot 4) genes. Lots of them

Also money. Have money. Money won't make you immortal, but I'll bet there's a strong link between "has money" and "didn't die of mundane natural causes or accidents".

Eh. It's better to be dirt stinking poor in a western country, than upper middle class in a country with a worse health system.
And genes are still much more important, particularly for outliers. (All those little islands of olive farmers in Greece, and centennarians in Japan..)

[Kitsune]

1) Eat a variety of minimally processed foods, preferably fresh, heavy on vegetables and fruit (unless you live in some high specialized environments, but you'll still want your muktuk fresh).

Can you give some examples (products) of what you mean by "processed foods?"

[His Divine Shadow]

Processed food is pretty much everything that is not the produce itself as it came out of the ground or off the tree.

[Broomstick]

Right. Just cooking something is processing it.

Some foods must be processed, like taro, tapioca, pokeweed, etc. because they contain natural toxins and will otherwise make you sick or even kill you if not properly treated. Fortunately, doing so isn't particularly difficult and usually involves using lots of boiling water to remove the bad stuff.

Some foods are processed to preserve them, like pickles, cheese, and sausage.

Moderate consumption of processed foods is OK, except that most people these days don't seem to understand the word "moderate".

Processing, like fat, salt, and sugar, is not inherently bad but you shouldn't eat a diet composed solely of processed food any more than you should to live on a diet of fat.

The more and more processing that goes into making a food the less you should probably eat of it on a regular basis. A frozen dinner of, say, kung pao chicken will have been cooked, preservatives and flavor enhancers added, and frozen. During transport it might thaw slightly and refreeze multiple times. Then you cook it again by heating it. That's quite a bit done to the food with the potential to lose nutrients along the way. Contrast this with a serving of kung pao chicken made from fresh ingredients and cooked just before you sit down to eat it. A lot less done to the food, you see.

Then we get into things like gummy fruit snacks, where you have fruit juice (maybe - might just be some sort fo sugar syrup) that is dyed, perhaps artificially flavored, mixed with dyed sugar syrup, heated up, set in a mold, dusted with something to keep it from being sticky, and... well, there's not a heck of a lot there other than just sugar and coloring. Not the ideal food by a long shot, and very far from actual fruit. It's not poison, but it's not nutrition, either.

As a general rule, the less processing the better. On the other hand, quite a few processing techniques were invented to preserve foods, from smoking meat to pickling things to making cheese to canning foods to modern frozen meals and MRE's. That's a good thing, really, as starving to death is really bad for your health. You can certainly live a long time on such foods. It's that you'll do better with a lot of fresh stuff in your diet. People have spent a good part of the 20th Century trying to come up with a pill or juice that's somehow a super food but none of them seem to be as good for you as eating fruit. Or eating actual vegetables.

[Kitsune]

The more and more processing that goes into making a food the less you should probably eat of it on a regular basis. A frozen dinner of, say, kung pao chicken will have been cooked, preservatives and flavor enhancers added, and frozen. During transport it might thaw slightly and refreeze multiple times. Then you cook it again by heating it. That's quite a bit done to the food with the potential to lose nutrients along the way. Contrast this with a serving of kung pao chicken made from fresh ingredients and cooked just before you sit down to eat it. A lot less done to the food, you see.

I don't know of any studies that actually look at Kung Pao chicken
There have been studies comparing frozen vegetables to fresh vegetables.
Most studies indicate that frozen is essentially the same as fresh.
Assuming the same initial ingredients, I suspect that it will be the same with Kung Pao chicken

[Esquire]

It's the preservatives/flavor enhancers that are really the problem, not the freezing.

[Broomstick]

^ This.

Also, repeated thaw/freeze cycles can cause flavor to deteriorate even if not nutrients, so additional flavorings/spices/salt/etc. might be added as a preemptive measure against taste loss. Again, it's not that any of these are inherently bad, it's quantity that may be good or bad.

Also, simply freezing vegetables is a case of minimal processing, not maximum. As noted, there is little if any distinction from fresh. Likewise fresh-frozen fish or meat.

[Kitsune]

It's the preservatives/flavor enhancers that are really the problem, not the freezing.

All of these chemicals, and yes I have no problem with calling them chemicals, are monitored by a number of government organization.
Not just the United States FDA but the Canadian FIA, United Kingdom FSA, and the European ENVI to name just a few.

From the US FDA
http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspack ... 094211.htm
Food ingredients have been used for many years to preserve, flavor, blend, thicken and color foods, and have played an important role in reducing serious nutritional deficiencies among consumers. These ingredients also help ensure the availability of flavorful, nutritious, safe, convenient, colorful and affordable foods that meet consumer expectations year-round.

Food and color additives are strictly studied, regulated and monitored. Federal regulations require evidence that each substance is safe at its intended level of use before it may be added to foods. Furthermore, all additives are subject to ongoing safety review as scientific understanding and methods of testing continue to improve. Consumers should feel safe about the foods they eat.

Now what is your source on arguing that preservatives/flavor enhancers are actually a problem?

[Broomstick]

They're a problem when they are over-used to make products that predominantly bleached carbs and sugar taste like other things so those "empty calories" are eaten to the point they crowd out other varieties of food.

Again, it's the QUANTITY of an item that matters, not some inherent "good" or "bad" quality.

A diet composed of 75% bleached wheat products (noodles, pasta, white bread), 15% meat, and 5% sugar leaving only 5% for fruits and vegetables is NOT a healthy diet. This would be basically living on noodle bowls and bologna-on-white-bread sandwiches, but that does happen with people.

Flavor enhancers may also be high in sodium which is a problem for some people, or high in some other thing that could be a problem for some people (my doctor has warned me off potassium-containing salt substitutes due to high than normal potassium levels in my system for example). Food labels are your friend, but they're only helpful if people actually read and understand them.

Now, none of those items - wheat, meat, sugar, etc. - are bad things but humans do best on a varied diet with a substantial addition of fruits/vegetables in the mix. You wouldn't be healthy subsisting on nothing but oranges, bananas, and apples, either. A diet too high in lean meat and not enough other things can lead to rabbit starvation that, in extreme cases, can be fatal.

So, it's not a matter of proving an item to be bad, not at all, it's that you should not eat an excess of any one item, or too much of just one or two items, such that it crowds out other types of food you need to stay healthy. How much is "excess" is open to some interpretation, and is going to vary by gender, age, and activity level.

Thus, I propose the rule of thumb that one should strive to eat a varied diet of fresh or minimally processed foods. It is totally OK to have something like blue-frosted ice-cream cake for your birthday followed by gummy bear assortments, you just should eat like that rarely, as a special occasion.

Hey, I buy gummy-type fruit snacks for the household once or twice a month, but most of the time we snack on that big bowl of raw carrots, celery, bell peppers, turnips, radishes, and cauliflower I keep in the fridge (exact contents vary with season and what the garden is producing). Which might be why we're decently healthy despite heading into middle age. Granted, the spouse is diabetic, but eating that way keeps his blood sugar under control along with his weight. He still gets gravy on dinner, just not every day. Nothing is forbidden, but some items are special occasion.

[Kitsune]

I don't know if we actually disagree with you but what I would argue is this:
First, there is a lot of "woo" around not eating prepared food. Much of it is complete bullshit. I have people say "prepared foods" as a negative without really knowing what they are talking about.
Second, if you ate frozen foods (such as the better TV Dinners which do not have huge amount of salt added) almost exclusively as long as you got a reasonable mix of vegetables, you will be fine. Some people are always on the go and that is the best that they can do as far as meals.

[Simon_Jester]

I think her overall point is simply that while there's nothing wrong with additives and food processing as such, it is common for foods that make heavy use of additives and processing to be bad for you nutritionally. And for a diet that focuses on mass consumption of one or two things to be bad for you.

It would be silly for us to fixate on her saying "eat fresh food" to the point where we ignore everything else she's saying about what constitutes a good diet.