106 replies to this topic

[stevei]

If anti-oxidants reduce the benefits of exercise, is it possible that a pro-oxidant supplement could actually increase the benefits of exercise?

Might the body be able to adapt to the presence of a pro-oxidant, in the same way as it adapts to training, and perhaps an athlete might experience a temporary period of increased performance if they stop ingesting the pro-oxidant? (because their body will have excess capacity to deal with free radicals for a period of time before adjusting to the new reduced stress level)

Edited by stevei, 15 May 2009 - 12:14 PM.

[tunt01]

If anti-oxidants reduce the benefits of exercise, is it possible that a pro-oxidant supplement could actually increase the benefits of exercise?

this is how resveratrol, curcumin, cocoa, and other hormetic substances work.

it is the essence of exercise itself -- pro-oxidation, stimulating the immune system, and building up a tolerance.

search the forums for the words: hormesis, hormetic


there are a lot of articles on the topic, you can search google for hormesis. here is one:

http://www.scipub.or...AJPT3127-40.pdf

it covers exercise, radiation, foods, hypergravity, etc. all these things in small harmful doses, increase lifespan.

Edited by prophets, 15 May 2009 - 12:50 PM.

[zawy]

Smart question stevei and good answer prophets. I wonder if heavier doses of RESV every other day like weight lifting would be good. I would guess some chemical stressors shouldn't be more than 10% of the time, maybe 5%, so that 2 hours stress every day or every other day would be good.

Antioxidants might be best beginning 4 to 6 hours after exercise.

CR would be different than taking a "toxin" or physical exertion. We know chronic CR works well and i doubt it can be improved upon much. There are mechanical and theoretical reasons chronic and not periodic CR works: less cellular turnover from the "candle" burning slower (eat 30% less, live 30% longer) is the mechanical explanation and evolution wanting animals to survive through hard times to eventually reproduce is a theoretical explanation.

I don't see how Co-Q10 can be a periodic stressor. It doesn't leave the body that quick does it? It seems to generally make cells more energy efficient which would imply less oxidation. Several papers say it increses superoxide and H2O2.

Vitamin C has also been theorized to partly cause benefit by increasing H2O2 oxidation, which could be more of a periodic stressor. This is especially the theory in why the NIH is currently giving massive I.V. vitamin C 3 times a week to cancer patients (and getting good results).

We kind of know how to apply exercise as a periodic stressor (changing routine and supersets are important and newer refinements to the standard every other day routine), but it may be a long time before we know how other stressors should be applied. For example, maybe RESV every other day and then skip 3 days every 10 days. Any simple, closely-spaced periodic stressor could cause chronic damage, or at least prevent achieving maximum benefit compared to an "aperiodic" (shifting) routine.

[stephen_b]

I'm trying to get a handle on some of these concepts. How is one's GSH/GSSG ratio related to antioxidant levels, and is it possible like with vitamin C to have too high a GSH/GSSG ratio such that it becomes counterproductive?

StephenB

[tunt01]

Stephen:

Your first question:

http://www.pnas.org/...8/7094.full.pdf

This article is a good example of a study which directly examines the GSH/GSSG ratio, in its look at Glucoraphanin (aka Sulforaphane or broccoli sprout extract) and how it inhibits inflammation/oxidative stress.

"The hypothesis initiating this research was that animals on a Grn [glucoraphanin] diet would have decreased oxidative stress. This hypothesis was upheld. An index of oxidative stress is the GSH
/GSSG ratio."

GSH is Glutathione (an antioxidant). GSSG is oxidized GSH.

As the ratio improves, the antioxidant levels are improved.

second question:

I personally think it becomes counter productive when it's directly generated by an external product like Vitamin C, rather than indirectly generated by a substance like the broccoli extract. the broccoli extract works upon your body to naturally accomplish the task of balancing the GSH/GSSG ratio.

this viewpoint is in the context of a "normal" person.


rgds

pro

Edited by prophets, 18 May 2009 - 05:07 AM.

[outsider]

Stephen:

Your first question:

http://www.pnas.org/...8/7094.full.pdf

This article is a good example of a study which directly examines the GSH/GSSG ratio, in its look at Glucoraphanin (aka Sulforaphane or broccoli sprout extract) and how it inhibits inflammation/oxidative stress.

"The hypothesis initiating this research was that animals on a Grn [glucoraphanin] diet would have decreased oxidative stress. This hypothesis was upheld. An index of oxidative stress is the GSH
/GSSG ratio."

GSH is Glutathione (an antioxidant). GSSG is oxidized GSH.

As the ratio improves, the antioxidant levels are improved.

second question:

I personally think it becomes counter productive when it's directly generated by an external product like Vitamin C, rather than indirectly generated by a substance like the broccoli extract. the broccoli extract works upon your body to naturally accomplish the task of balancing the GSH/GSSG ratio.

this viewpoint is in the context of a "normal" person.


rgds

pro

If I remember correctly Glutathione is the most important antioxidant in the body.

Vitamins are useful but herbs are great because they work on your natural antioxidants anzymes which are many times better antioxidants than simple vitamins.

[fargevoli]

quite enjoying the back and forth between zawy and those of differing viewpoints. please continue, if not helpful, it is at least informative and entertaining.

i say not helpful because, as a non-scientist and someone relatively new to many of these ideas, i feel even less able to make decisions regarding my health after reading these posts. whereas before i could ignorantly pop my vitamin c pills with the 'knowledge' that they were 'healthy', i now am left seriously questioning any decision to use anti-oxidant supplements. it seems as if there is no clear and unbiased information available, and yet i greatly enjoy following this thread, even if i am left confused. i suppose for the time being, i will take a conservative approach and refrain from supplementing, instead forcusing on a balanced and well-rounded diet and lots of exercise. please, continue with the compelling arguments so that perhaps i can eventually make an informed decision.

what do you guys have to say about B vitamins (i will go search the forums as well)? also, is there any consensus on taking other kinds of supplements such as omega-3?

[niner]

quite enjoying the back and forth between zawy and those of differing viewpoints. please continue, if not helpful, it is at least informative and entertaining.

i say not helpful because, as a non-scientist and someone relatively new to many of these ideas, i feel even less able to make decisions regarding my health after reading these posts. whereas before i could ignorantly pop my vitamin c pills with the 'knowledge' that they were 'healthy', i now am left seriously questioning any decision to use anti-oxidant supplements. it seems as if there is no clear and unbiased information available, and yet i greatly enjoy following this thread, even if i am left confused. i suppose for the time being, i will take a conservative approach and refrain from supplementing, instead forcusing on a balanced and well-rounded diet and lots of exercise. please, continue with the compelling arguments so that perhaps i can eventually make an informed decision.

what do you guys have to say about B vitamins (i will go search the forums as well)? also, is there any consensus on taking other kinds of supplements such as omega-3?

This is an unfortunate state of affairs, but I guess it's the best we can hope for under the circumstances. My advice is to not take antioxidants on days that you work out, but take them if you wish on other days. There is a pretty solid consensus that if you do nothing else, you should supplement vitamin D3 (2000IU), Fish Oil, and Magnesium.

[Dmitri]

quite enjoying the back and forth between zawy and those of differing viewpoints. please continue, if not helpful, it is at least informative and entertaining.

i say not helpful because, as a non-scientist and someone relatively new to many of these ideas, i feel even less able to make decisions regarding my health after reading these posts. whereas before i could ignorantly pop my vitamin c pills with the 'knowledge' that they were 'healthy', i now am left seriously questioning any decision to use anti-oxidant supplements. it seems as if there is no clear and unbiased information available, and yet i greatly enjoy following this thread, even if i am left confused. i suppose for the time being, i will take a conservative approach and refrain from supplementing, instead forcusing on a balanced and well-rounded diet and lots of exercise. please, continue with the compelling arguments so that perhaps i can eventually make an informed decision.

what do you guys have to say about B vitamins (i will go search the forums as well)? also, is there any consensus on taking other kinds of supplements such as omega-3?

This is an unfortunate state of affairs, but I guess it's the best we can hope for under the circumstances. My advice is to not take antioxidants on days that you work out, but take them if you wish on other days. There is a pretty solid consensus that if you do nothing else, you should supplement vitamin D3 (2000IU), Fish Oil, and Magnesium.

What's the best form of magnesium?

[zawy]

fargevoli, I take their research to mean that I can expect to be able to endure harder workouts if I take vitamins C and E. This is a good thing. Did the vitamin C/E groups have it easier since they were not under as much oxidative stress? They didn't say. Since the vit C/E was protects, could they have done more activity on equal effort? It's interesting that they measured VO2, fat, and BMI before the test and compared them, but they did not compare these parameters at the end.

This one study is too little to change a wise supplementation plan. I believe 1,000 mg vit C 4 times a day, with or without workouts, is a good idea. I've been taking 4,000 to 15,000 mg vit C per day for 12 years and some people say I could pass for someone close to 30 now at the age of 42. Staying thin and lack of sun has probably helped. Only started exercising a few years ago. Brother and sister are getting old a lot faster.

Edited by zawy, 21 May 2009 - 05:23 AM.

[yoyo]

quite enjoying the back and forth between zawy and those of differing viewpoints. please continue, if not helpful, it is at least informative and entertaining.

i say not helpful because, as a non-scientist and someone relatively new to many of these ideas, i feel even less able to make decisions regarding my health after reading these posts. whereas before i could ignorantly pop my vitamin c pills with the 'knowledge' that they were 'healthy', i now am left seriously questioning any decision to use anti-oxidant supplements. it seems as if there is no clear and unbiased information available, and yet i greatly enjoy following this thread, even if i am left confused. i suppose for the time being, i will take a conservative approach and refrain from supplementing, instead forcusing on a balanced and well-rounded diet and lots of exercise. please, continue with the compelling arguments so that perhaps i can eventually make an informed decision.

what do you guys have to say about B vitamins (i will go search the forums as well)? also, is there any consensus on taking other kinds of supplements such as omega-3?

This is an unfortunate state of affairs, but I guess it's the best we can hope for under the circumstances. My advice is to not take antioxidants on days that you work out, but take them if you wish on other days. There is a pretty solid consensus that if you do nothing else, you should supplement vitamin D3 (2000IU), Fish Oil, and Magnesium.

What's the best form of magnesium?

pretty much anything that isn't oxide or carbonate. i used citrate.

[Bix]

Great discussion. I've read this study, and others.

I think the mechanism is biologically plausible, that ROS would act as a signal, would provide feedback - for more mitochondria, more endogenous antioxidants, that sort of thing. And you do see this mechanism playing out in more studies.

A little off-topic, but here's an interesting one, albeit small, on the antioxidant mineral selenium. Men who took in ~300mcg selenium/day increased body weight and fat mass, and lowered thyroid hormone (T3) compared to low consumers (~14mcg):

Dietary Selenium Intake Modulates Thyroid Hormone and Energy Metabolism in Men
http://jn.nutrition....ull/133/11/3443

(Sorry if you've discussed it, I'm brand new here.)

Each of these vitamins have other (discrete) functions in the body besides acting as antioxidants, though. So lumping them is problematic, I agree. More research.

[Happy Gringo]

zawy,
I am understanding this to mean that the C/E prevents the adaptations your body makes due to the oxidative damage. That means that you don't grow or improve your endurance when you have antioxidants in your body after exercise. This would be a separate issue from whether the antioxidants would improve performance for a specific exercise session.

[zawy]

Summary of my objections:

1) If you don't take antioxidants then you are being oxidized more during the workout AND the other 24 hours. You will age faster.
2) By their reasoning you should not eat fruits and vegetables because they contain too many antioxidants.
3) With C/E you can do harder workouts to generate the oxidation that is supposedly beneficial and you'll get stronger faster.
4) The study is interesting but it might be completely whacky by missing the big picture in 1) 2) and 3) above.
5) They don't adjust for the positive insulin effects of vitamin C.
6) One largely theoretical study with flawed methodology is not enough to throw out all antioxidant theory.

Edited by zawy, 21 May 2009 - 03:33 PM.

[nowayout]

1) If you don't take antioxidants then you are being oxidized more during the workout AND the other 24 hours. You will age faster.

No, I believe their hypothesis is that the upregulation of endogenous antioxidants you get from exercise (in the absence of supplementation) will cause an overall lower resting rate of oxidation during the rest of the day, and that you can block this benefit by supplementation.

This is not a new idea by any means. There is a growing body of research that indicate that antioxidant supplementation can negatively affect a range of exercise benefits. See for example the thread http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=27399 for a list of articles.

[zawy]

The first one didn't appear to use an antioxidant and seemed to just jump to the conclusion that antioxidants are bad. I don't know if less vasodilation during exercise and preventing post-exercise reduction in blood pressure is a good or bad thing. This was the topic of two of them. Is a 1 hour lowering of blood pressure worth anything? Doesn't vit C's preventing vasodilation place the body under some sort of safe stress (like making less oxygen available) that could cause an improvement? If given the choice of exercising at altitude or increasing the oxidation in my body, I'll choose altitude. What was the long term effect on resting blood pressure in the two groups? Did one group see more gains in reps or weight? They don't say. I don't know if decreasing the need for heat shock proteins is good or bad, but I do know massive vit C reverses an in-process case of heat stress, so it doesn't surprise me that you would need fewer heat shock protiens when taking vitamin C. I couldn't evaluate the meaning of the one on "vitamin C and N-acetyl-cysteine increases oxidative stress". So none of these, except this last one I can't evaluate, seem to address the issue at hand. I agree with all of them that Vitamin C will reduce the stress you experience when exercising. I propose that protecting the body from too much stress is a good thing. None of these reference evaluate if it is a good or bad thing in the larger 24 hour or 3 month context, except for the one I can't evaluate, and the one in this thread concerning insulin sensitivity (which had a big error).

I'm sure we're all aware of the irony that all these major benefits of vitamin C are being twisted around and used as some sort of evidence of harm. I imagine an old grandfatherly dude looking at this and saying "You guys are thinking too much. Why don't you go get a glass of orange juice after your workout?"

Not using antioxidents during exercise certainly appears to increase the body's adaptive response including more anti-oxidant abilities. Let's assume increasing these abilities does not cause aging via higher cell turnover to create these abilities. OK, so its seems to be a good thing for the other 24 hours when the excess oxidation only lasts maybe 2 hours after exercise. But I believe having the supplements in your blood stream will provide more of an overall antioxidant effect and 24 hour benefit.

Edited by zawy, 21 May 2009 - 06:08 PM.

[stevei]

No, I believe their hypothesis is that the upregulation of endogenous antioxidants you get from exercise (in the absence of supplementation) will cause an overall lower resting rate of oxidation during the rest of the day, and that you can block this benefit by supplementation.

I see this as analagous to what happens with heart rate during exercise. Heart rate is elevated during exercise, which might be expected to shorten lifespan, but exercise gives you a lower resting heartrate such that if you exercise, your heart will actually use fewer beats per day in total, which might be expected to lengthen lifespan.

[nowayout]

I don't know if less vasodilation during exercise and preventing post-exercise reduction in blood pressure is a good or bad thing. This was the topic of two of them. Is a 1 hour lowering of blood pressure worth anything?

No, you are interpreting it wrong. When they say "post-training" they do not mean post-exercise blood pressure is lower. I believe they are comparing resting blood pressure before and after 4 weeks of training (give them some credit for not being totally silly). Antioxidants prevented a quite significant lowering of resting blood pressure otherwise obtained by 4 weeks of training.

So none of these, except this last one I can't evaluate, seem to address the issue at hand.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on the relevance.

Edited by andre, 21 May 2009 - 07:09 PM.

[zawy]

No, you are interpreting it wrong. When they say "post-training" they do not mean post-exercise blood pressure is lower. I believe they are comparing resting blood pressure before and after 4 weeks of training (give them some credit for not being totally silly). Antioxidants prevented a quite significant lowering of resting blood pressure otherwise obtained by 4 weeks of training.

The study doesn't make any sense. There are only 6 men being studied with no control group. They undergo some tests with C/E/ALA and then are subjected to 6 weeks aerobic workouts with no C/E/ALA until the end. Blood pressure comes out lower, but then a single(?) dose of C/E/ALA cancels all the benefit? They only give one set of numbers for "pre" and "post" which indicates they are discussing only 1 group, not seperating the 6. Statistical error on 3 would be enormous. It would be nice to see the full article but the abstract doesn't make it look like a useful study.

"However, antioxidant administration after [6 week] exercise training negated these improvements, returning subjects to a hypertensive state and blunting training-induced improvements in FMD. "

[nowayout]

No, you are interpreting it wrong. When they say "post-training" they do not mean post-exercise blood pressure is lower. I believe they are comparing resting blood pressure before and after 4 weeks of training (give them some credit for not being totally silly). Antioxidants prevented a quite significant lowering of resting blood pressure otherwise obtained by 4 weeks of training.

The study doesn't make any sense. There are only 6 men being studied with no control group. They undergo some tests with C/E/ALA and then are subjected to 6 weeks aerobic workouts with no C/E/ALA until the end. Blood pressure comes out lower, but then a single(?) dose of C/E/ALA cancels all the benefit? They only give one set of numbers for "pre" and "post" which indicates they are discussing only 1 group, not seperating the 6. Statistical error on 3 would be enormous. It would be nice to see the full article but the abstract doesn't make it look like a useful study.

"However, antioxidant administration after [6 week] exercise training negated these improvements, returning subjects to a hypertensive state and blunting training-induced improvements in FMD. "

On rereading I agree that the abstract is unintelligible. I wish medical research articles were all publicly available like those in Physics (my field). It should be required for reasons of decency and ethics. If Physics can do it I do not see why other fields can't.

[kilgoretrout]

This is total hysterical invented misinterpreted hypothetical-misapprehension BS!

Back when I was working out 2-4 times per week, I was also continuing the mega-dosing of antioxidants (and other supplements) I had started when I was 18 and had read Pearson/Shaw's seminal "Life Extension" ... it certainly did not prevent me from making rapid, gains in mass and definition and aerobic capacity.

I am sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millons of people who are simultaneous supplment (including mega-dose antioxidants) AND gym junkies who will give you their personal testimony that the antioxidants never stopped THEM from seeing the benefits of exercise and looking 1000% better than 99% of every other person they pass in the street.

Poppycockl!!!

[kismet]

This is total hysterical invented misinterpreted hypothetical-misapprehension BS!

Back when I was working out 2-4 times per week, I was also continuing the mega-dosing of antioxidants (and other supplements) I had started when I was 18 and had read Pearson/Shaw's seminal "Life Extension" ... it certainly did not prevent me from making rapid, gains in mass and definition and aerobic capacity.

Well, no one claimed anything to that effect to begin with. What people are saying is that the evidence shows once again that antioxidants may counteract some benefical effects of exercise (to some degree).

[VespeneGas]

This is total hysterical invented misinterpreted hypothetical-misapprehension BS!

Back when I was working out 2-4 times per week, I was also continuing the mega-dosing of antioxidants (and other supplements) I had started when I was 18 and had read Pearson/Shaw's seminal "Life Extension" ... it certainly did not prevent me from making rapid, gains in mass and definition and aerobic capacity.

I am sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millons of people who are simultaneous supplment (including mega-dose antioxidants) AND gym junkies who will give you their personal testimony that the antioxidants never stopped THEM from seeing the benefits of exercise and looking 1000% better than 99% of every other person they pass in the street.

Poppycockl!!!

They see me trollin', they hatin...

If on the other hand, you are being serious, you must acknowledge that your anecdotal experience doesn't tell us anything. You can't know whether you'd have made more or less rapid gains without antioxidant megadosing. This is also true of all those 'hundreds of thousands if not millons [sic] of people" who would swear by their antioxidants. In my experience (as a former bodybuilder and a student of bodybuilding culture) bodybuilders and, to a lesser extent, aerobic athletes will take anything that the supplement industry tells them is anabolic based purely on anecdotal evidence (see NO boosters, http://www.supplemen...views/methyl_1d which is really just DHEA, etc, etc).

The only way to argue this issue is to present clinical evidence, or at the very least, a reasoned scientific argument.

[niner]

This is total hysterical invented misinterpreted hypothetical-misapprehension BS!

Back when I was working out 2-4 times per week, I was also continuing the mega-dosing of antioxidants (and other supplements) I had started when I was 18 and had read Pearson/Shaw's seminal "Life Extension" ... it certainly did not prevent me from making rapid, gains in mass and definition and aerobic capacity.

I am sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millons of people who are simultaneous supplment (including mega-dose antioxidants) AND gym junkies who will give you their personal testimony that the antioxidants never stopped THEM from seeing the benefits of exercise and looking 1000% better than 99% of every other person they pass in the street.

Poppycockl!!!

kilgore, I call your anecdote and raise you one. I've worked out for many years, and also took antioxidants during that time. I was on a very long term plateau. Recently I changed my regimen to skip C, E, and ALA on days that I work out. I experienced rapid strength gains. That doesn't mean that my earlier antioxidant-laced workouts weren't doing me some good. It's just that they are better now.

[shuffleup]

This is total hysterical invented misinterpreted hypothetical-misapprehension BS!

Back when I was working out 2-4 times per week, I was also continuing the mega-dosing of antioxidants (and other supplements) I had started when I was 18 and had read Pearson/Shaw's seminal "Life Extension" ... it certainly did not prevent me from making rapid, gains in mass and definition and aerobic capacity.

I am sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millons of people who are simultaneous supplment (including mega-dose antioxidants) AND gym junkies who will give you their personal testimony that the antioxidants never stopped THEM from seeing the benefits of exercise and looking 1000% better than 99% of every other person they pass in the street.

Poppycockl!!!

They see me trollin', they hatin...

If on the other hand, you are being serious, you must acknowledge that your anecdotal experience doesn't tell us anything. You can't know whether you'd have made more or less rapid gains without antioxidant megadosing. This is also true of all those 'hundreds of thousands if not millons [sic] of people" who would swear by their antioxidants. In my experience (as a former bodybuilder and a student of bodybuilding culture) bodybuilders and, to a lesser extent, aerobic athletes will take anything that the supplement industry tells them is anabolic based purely on anecdotal evidence (see NO boosters, http://www.supplemen...views/methyl_1d which is really just DHEA, etc, etc).

The only way to argue this issue is to present clinical evidence, or at the very least, a reasoned scientific argument.

I think he was using the anecdotal just to make the point that people who exercise still gain enormous benefit with or without antioxidants relative to the sedentary. If there is some better protocol with respect to use or timing of antioxidants, is there enough real world difference to say that "vitamins undo exercise efforts"?

[niner]

If there is some better protocol with respect to use or timing of antioxidants, is there enough real world difference to say that "vitamins undo exercise efforts"?

Yes. In my case it was quite significant. The published data is out there. "Vitamins" is a poor word choice, though, as only a couple vitamins cause problems.

[shuffleup]

If there is some better protocol with respect to use or timing of antioxidants, is there enough real world difference to say that "vitamins undo exercise efforts"?

Yes. In my case it was quite significant. The published data is out there. "Vitamins" is a poor word choice, though, as only a couple vitamins cause problems.

OK maybe it's in the interpretation of the title. If you go on the news and say that "vitamins undo exercise efforts" this will be interpreted by the mainstream as complete undoing of the benefits of exercise by vitamin intake. Like, if I take vitamins then exercising benefits are no longer there. That is a little extreme.

[niner]

If there is some better protocol with respect to use or timing of antioxidants, is there enough real world difference to say that "vitamins undo exercise efforts"?

Yes. In my case it was quite significant. The published data is out there. "Vitamins" is a poor word choice, though, as only a couple vitamins cause problems.

OK maybe it's in the interpretation of the title. If you go on the news and say that "vitamins undo exercise efforts" this will be interpreted by the mainstream as complete undoing of the benefits of exercise by vitamin intake. Like, if I take vitamins then exercising benefits are no longer there. That is a little extreme.

Health Science reporting in the media is often horrible and has done tremendous damage. No reason for that record to stop now...

[zawy]

This reminds me of the discussion on anti-oxidants "showing no benefit". These papers look like they throw a negative light on antioxidants, but after considering them carefully I see that they are "poppycock". The only one that I don't consider worthless is the one that started this thread, despite my complaints about not correcting for vitamin C's effects on insulin. It's time-consuming work finding flaws in the papers that make national headlines. I have had to investigate them in the past because they were suggesting that I would need to greatly modify my routine. It used to be 1 popular worthless paper per year. Examples: NIH says 200 mg Vit C is all that is needed and "Pauling didn't have access to this new data". Poppycock. Echinacea shows no benefit (complete B.S. that really showed major improvement). Vit C increases osteoarthritis in guinea pigs (the group with the lowest amount of "osteoarthritis" were restricted so badly from getting vit C that 3 of them died). Not a single lie in any of the papers (that was reserved for the universtiy press releases), but they are all so completely wrong-headed that public floggings need to be instituted to prevent researchers from generating destructive yet press-worthy abstracts. The last two years have been like a flood.

Unfortunately the words "research", "paper", and "study" carry too much weight. People who are able need to look at these things with a critical eye and when they discover a fatal error due to the paper completely missing the bigger picture, they need to let it solidify in their brains to counteract the fact that their mind knows it is a peer-reviewed paper by really smart people and a massive media supports the findings. Even after seeing how absurd the echinacea paper was, I still found myself believing less in echinacea. It took a couple of years, but now I am free of the propaganda. Once the media presses a paper along for the ride, it's hard to immune yourself from it. For those who can't critically review the papers due to lack of skill or time, it's a lost cause.

Some time ago I decided large doses (4 g) of vitamin C before or immediately after a workout just didn't seem right, so I don't do it, unless i feel particularly stressed from the workout. Now I wonder if that is from preventing vasodilation. So I should not say the papers are worthless.

Edited by zawy, 22 May 2009 - 03:23 AM.

[kismet]

Unfortunately the words "research", "paper", and "study" carry too much weight.

No, from my experience, they don't carry enough weight (if any at all). I've seen people toss out studies, heck, even long established consensus, for the most bizarre reasons. In the end it most often boils down to doesn't fit my worldview.
I don't know what is worse, believing the conclusion of such studies blindly or denying all studies. I think denialism is worse...