9 replies to this topic

[The Ripper]

So I was reading an article that claims the body has its own built in mechanisms for antioxidants, and basically by taking supplements it disrupts this process and causes lifespan to be reduced. It could be summed up as saying orthomolecular research is bunk. 

The link is here: http://gettingstrong...t-antioxidants/

Could someone please either refute or defend this? I lack the scientific credentials to do so myself, however I am scepitcal of the claims given that numerous studies have demonstrated health improvements after supplementation, and these types of correlatory studies on multivitamins tend to be random and poorly done. 

[Turnbuckle]

There are a number of threads here on this subject. A couple--

 

http://www.longecity...ammalian-lives/

http://www.longecity...ifespanin-mice/

 

And of course, the favorite around here, C60--

 

http://www.longecity...ic-discussions/

 

 

 

 

[sthira]

Here's a review from 15-years ago about "Oxidants, oxidative stress, and the biology of ageing" which concludes that: "Nearly a century after the rate-of- living hypothesis was first proposed, the answers to these and related questions remain largely unknown. However, given the rapid rate at which our knowledge in this area has increased over the past few years, it is likely that answers to many of these questions will be forthcoming within this first decade of the new century. These answers will undoubtedly help determine whether ROS are merely peripheral targets that correlate with longevity, or instead, are finally established as a central regulator of human ageing."

http://www.longecity...ach&attach_id=5

Is it fair to conclude that "the rapid rate at which our knowledge in this area has increased over the past few years" wasn't rapid enough to include the past 15-years?

When IBM's Watson computer graduates from medical school maybe we'll learn which -- if any -- supplements are good for longevity?

http://www.ibm.com/s...mwatson/health/

[joelcairo]

I have felt for decades that "antioxidants" is the wrong paradigm. There is so much more to the machinery of life than free radicals and the quenching of same.

 

[niner]

The relationship of antioxidants to aging is confused by the use of excessively broad descriptions of what constitutes an "antioxidant".  A compound that acts as a reductant in a test tube assay might be called an antioxidant, but the substances that fall under this broad category can be as different as night and day when you put them in the body.  If we restrict the discussion to mitochondrial antioxidants, then everything changes.

[The Ripper]

The relationship of antioxidants to aging is confused by the use of excessively broad descriptions of what constitutes an "antioxidant".  A compound that acts as a reductant in a test tube assay might be called an antioxidant, but the substances that fall under this broad category can be as different as night and day when you put them in the body.  If we restrict the discussion to mitochondrial antioxidants, then everything changes.

 

Fair point. How do you believe something like a multivitamin works in humans then? Is it doing harm? 

The way I think of it now would be like supplements can fill in gaps in a diet, or achieve optimal levels of certain vitamins and minerals, which in turn can improve health or reduce risk of disease and illness, but probably won't extend maximum lifespan. Would that be accurate in your opinion? 

Thing is, if that article is accurate then I would be wrong and supplements would still be destructive. I just find that hard to understand when there are so many studies showing how deficiencies in certain vitamins and minerals cause X,Y,Z problems and that improving that improves the symptoms. 

[niner]

 

The relationship of antioxidants to aging is confused by the use of excessively broad descriptions of what constitutes an "antioxidant".  A compound that acts as a reductant in a test tube assay might be called an antioxidant, but the substances that fall under this broad category can be as different as night and day when you put them in the body.  If we restrict the discussion to mitochondrial antioxidants, then everything changes.

 
Fair point. How do you believe something like a multivitamin works in humans then? Is it doing harm? 

The way I think of it now would be like supplements can fill in gaps in a diet, or achieve optimal levels of certain vitamins and minerals, which in turn can improve health or reduce risk of disease and illness, but probably won't extend maximum lifespan. Would that be accurate in your opinion? 

Thing is, if that article is accurate then I would be wrong and supplements would still be destructive. I just find that hard to understand when there are so many studies showing how deficiencies in certain vitamins and minerals cause X,Y,Z problems and that improving that improves the symptoms.

 

Here's a pretty good thread about multivitamins and the evidence that they are helpful. I think that you have the right idea about multis-- they will fill in gaps in micronutrient levels, and in so doing, will tend to optimize function. A multi by itself isn't going to change the maximum lifespan of humans, but it might increase your personal odds of getting closer to the max LS. 

 

The lay press is full of articles that claim various supplements are bad for you.  The blog that you linked is written by a chemical engineer / philosopher, and this guy is particularly enamored of hormesis.  The hormetiphilia is probably why he latched onto the "antioxidants are bad" idea.   He's not entirely wrong, but I think he's taking it to extremes and perhaps isn't familiar with all the research on this.  Absent any other information, I wouldn't pick someone with his background to give me health advice, FWIW. 

 

[Mind]

Here is a good long running discussion about this topic: http://www.longecity...harm-than-good/

 

Seems the consensus around here is that low-dose multi-vitamin/mineral supplements are probably the best, if you are going to take them.

 

The thing is, the science of rejuvenation is rapidly moving past "vitamins". A decade or two ago, essential nutrient optimization was worthy of discussion. It should be clear to everyone by now, that modifying our diet, while helpful, is not going to gain us many additional years of life.

 

Exercise, eat a balanced diet, maybe supplement with low-dose multi's. Get regular sleep. Do these simple things to optimize your health and then focus your efforts, time, money on more advanced rejuvenation technologies, such as those that the Methuselah Foundation and SENS are developing.

[aribadabar]

It should be clear to everyone by now, that modifying our diet, while helpful, is not going to gain us many additional years of life.

While not many, I think definitely SOME.

And those extra some years will be healthier than the average. It is worth it even if the total lifespan is only slightly increased while the healthspan is significantly expanded.

[proileri]

 

It should be clear to everyone by now, that modifying our diet, while helpful, is not going to gain us many additional years of life.

While not many, I think definitely SOME.

And those extra some years will be healthier than the average. It is worth it even if the total lifespan is only slightly increased while the healthspan is significantly expanded.

 

 

The healthspan part is pretty important. No point of expanding the lifespan of those who reach 100, if most people are still dying to diseases before reaching that age. While there seems to be no 'magic pill' when it comes to nutrition, I'm thinking that every small step helps if it affects the chance of getting a serious disease. 

 

I'm still waiting to see more results of the current lifestyle factors, though. How long is the 'lag phase' connected to adapting new lifestyle choices, anyway? I mean, for example, if most new lifestyle trends would be adapted before the age of 65, we still have to wait 35 years to see how they affect survival in centenarians. The people who are 100 today would have been 65 in 1980 - how were the lifestyle factors back then for older folks? 

 

Could be interesting to do some research on lifestyle magazines, about which lifestyle trends surfaced to major magazines at which point, and then see if they have had any effect on people who are 80+ now.

Edited by proileri, 16 December 2015 - 04:39 AM.