The experimenters took two groups of young men, previously trained with endurance exercise, and previously untrained. Each group in turn was randomized to receive antioxidant supplements in the form of 400 IU vitamin E and 1000 mg vitamin C daily, or placebos. Then the men underwent 4 weeks of training, 5 days a week, including biking, running, and circuit training.
The result: those who had taken antioxidants saw no, repeat, no health benefits from exercise. The measurements done were of insulin sensitivity, TBARS (a measure of oxidative stress), and several others. In each of them, those who exercised, and did not take antioxidants, regardless of whether they had trained previously or not, saw an increase in insulin sensitivity, a decrease in TBARS, and so on, while these effects were abolished in those who took the antioxidants. Further, the promotion of muscle antioxidant defenses which is normally promoted by exercise was prevented by supplementation.
From the paper:
Most importantly, these changes in gene expression and the increase in insulin sensitivity following physical exercise are almost completely abrogated by daily ingestion of the commonly used antioxidants vitamin C and vitamin E. Thus, antioxidant supplementation blocks many of the beneficial effects of exercise on metabolism.What are the larger implications here? What about that high fruit and vegetable intake that we are constantly told is so good for us? this is where it gets very interesting:
If transient increases in oxidative stress are capable of counteracting insulin resistance in humans, it is possible that preventing the formation of ROS by, for example, antioxidants might actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of type 2 diabetes. While this remains to be determined, one metaanalysis of previously published studies (27) suggests that high dietary intake of fruits and vegetables, a source of antioxidants but also of numerous other bio-active compounds, may actually decrease the risk for type 2 diabetes. Nevertheless, and as stated by Hamer and Chida (27), all larger intervention trials evaluating the diabetes-preventive potential of defined antioxidant supplements have been unable to find any positive effects of supplementation (28–30). Moreover, antioxidant use in type 2 diabetics has been linked to increased prevalence of hypertension (31) and use of antioxidant supplements has recently been proposed to increase overall mortality in the general population (32). Taken together, these previously published findings tentatively suggest that fruits and vegetables may exert health-promoting effects despite their antioxidant content and possibly due to other bio-active compounds. [...]Reference was made above to nematodes, in this case the famous Caenorhabditis elegans, the subject of Cynthia Kenyon's longevity experiments. In the study referenced above:
Free radicals causing oxidative stress are an inevitable by-product of mitochondrial metabolism and have been proposed to exert repetitive damage to individual cells of the body promoting increased disease prevalence and aging (33). However, and in specific regard to exercise, antioxidants were incapable of further extending exercise-induced lifespan extension in rats (26). Repeated exposure to sublethal stress has been proposed to cumulate in enhanced stress resistance and ultimately increased survival rates due to a process named hormesis. By analogy, for sublethal ROS-dependent processes emanating from the mitochondria, the term “mitohormesis” was recently proposed on a hypothetical basis (34). Evidence for this novel concept has been provided in model organisms such as nematodes (15) and rats (17), and the current study would extend the concept of mitohormesis to the amelioration of insulin resistance in humans, suggesting that potential harmful ROS may exert health promoting effects via defined molecular intermediates (Fig. 3). [...]
Taken together, we find that antioxidant supplements prevent the induction of molecular regulators of insulin sensitivity and endogenous antioxidant defense by physical exercise. Consistent with the concept of mitohormesis, we propose that transiently increased levels of oxidative stress reflect a potentially health-promoting process at least in regards to prevention of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. [My emphases.]
Reduced glucose availability promotes formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), induces catalase activity, and increases oxidative stress resistance and survival rates, altogether providing direct evidence for a hitherto hypothetical concept named mitochondrial hormesis or "mitohormesis." Accordingly, treatment of nematodes with different antioxidants and vitamins prevents extension of life span. In summary, these data indicate that glucose restriction promotes mitochondrial metabolism, causing increased ROS formation and cumulating in hormetic extension of life span, questioning current treatments of type 2 diabetes as well as the widespread use of antioxidant supplements. [Link.]My takeaway on all this: low carb diets promote health and longevity by, among other things but perhaps mainly, increasing insulin sensitivity, and along with it, decreasing inflammation. This is the lesson from Kenyon's worm experiments, in which insulin signaling is disrupted, causing the worms to have up to a 6-fold increase in longevity. But antioxidants appear to completely abolish this activity related to insulin signaling.
There have been many arguments on both sides of the antioxidant debate, but this one I find very convincing, enough so that it appears that antioxidants are bad for your health.
All these arguments, to and fro, but people are living longer than ever. So what's the problem?
ReplyDeleteLet's not confuse supplements with real natural food.
ReplyDeleteOur bodies are the products of millions of years of evolution, including co-evolution with fruits.
Fruit evolved to be eaten by animals, which then spread their seeds. In order for fruit to be successful, they must be nutritious for the animals that are their seed dispersers. That nutrition would include many necessary vitamins and anti-oxidants.
Trying to isolate one or a few fruit components makes very little sense. Of course a fruit-in-a-pill would not be as beneficial as eating the whole fruit in its fresh, raw, natural state.
Skip the pills. Eat the fruit.
Wait....so does this mean that eggs are bad for me this week?
ReplyDeletepeople are living longer than ever. So what's the problem?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to experience typical old age, be my guest.
In order for fruit to be successful, they must be nutritious for the animals that are their seed dispersers.
Fruit as it exists today is hardly the same that animals or are paleo ancestors ate. Now, they're domesticated bags of sugar.
I can see that neither of you read this post very carefully.
Dennis, I did read it thoroughly, and we don't disagree.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the typical fruits today are little more than candy, and I try to eat non-sweet fruit that more closely resemble what our ancestors ate.
From that no-sweet category, I eat lots of avocados, tomatoes, and red/orange/yellow bell peppers.
And before you point out that those are all South American fruits that most of our distant ancestors would not have eaten, let me stress that they are among the few non-sweet fruit available today, and therefore somewhat similar to ancient fruit.
Avocados are an interesting case, because they apparently evolved to be eaten by much larger animals than any that exist today. In fact, that may make avocados almost a perfect food, because they had to be nutritious enough to keep very large animals alive.
Jim, what still needs to be shown is that such fruits are good for humans. In a paleolithic environment, humans probably would have eaten fruit only in season, and even then, they were much smaller than the domesticated fruit today, thus making them an insignificant source of calories. (Avocados may be an exception, I don't know how long they've been around.) When you've got to ingest over 3000 calories a day or die, fruit isn't the place to look. Therefore I think we need a better argument before we can conclude that fruit is healthy in any quantity. The five-a-day dictum appears to be a myth, so far as I can tell. Furthermore, fruit is almost entirely carbohydrate, and carbs are not required nutrients, another reason to think that primitive man would have looked elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteDennis, I'm enjoying this exchange, even if we may have to agree to disagree. I'm going to have to read more of your blog, so that I can better understand your views.
ReplyDeleteIf you really think about it.....the typical hunter-gatherer would have eaten mainly meat and nuts.
ReplyDeleteI suspect man learned that there were fish in the water way on back and would have added fish to various meats.
Milk isn't something he would have ingested after being a baby.
Fruit, as Dennis said, probably would have only been eaten "in season", like apples, pears, peaches, oranges, and banannas. EurAsians and Africans didn't have avacodos, so most of our ancestors didn't have those, as well as tomatoes or corn.
Vegetables, other than root veggies are something he wouldn't have had much at all.
Berries are something he would have had, but again only in season. In the winter it would have had to have been meat and stored nuts, and perhaps some fish.
I know Ive brought this up here a few times, but I'll never forget that ABC television program (might have been Nightline) that highlighted that tribe in the Western Amazon. They looked pretty damned healthy. ALL THEY ATE, I mean ALL they ate were fish and one specific root that they ground up into a paste. I didn't see any cavities, I didn't see any acne, I actually saw a little obesity, I saw good skin, "stout" builds, some natural muscularity and good hair............on all of them.
Maybe our bodies are capable of making a lot more of the nutrients than we know about with excercise, some sunshine, water, natural meats, and decent amounts of sleep. Even those folk's oldsters looked a hell of a lot more healthy than our oldsters do.
Dennis is very correct about what the quality of life is for our aged. They are walking corpses hooked up to IV's or have to take 10 pills a day. No thanks.
Miles
Jim, thanks. Up until fairly recently, less than a year ago, I believed and defended the standard low-fat dogma, but I saw the error of my ways. My view now is that I just want to find the truth or truths about nutrition and diet, and because I had such a radical shift of views recently, I now feel that nearly every mainstream piece of nutritional wisdom out there is totally open to question, including the belief that five servings of fruits and vegetables daily are healthy. There is some evidence and other reasons to doubt this.
ReplyDeleteFor example, nearly at random, I found this:
"Fruit and vegetable consumption and pancreatic cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.
Hazard ratios (95% CI) for the highest versus the lowest quartile were 0.92 (0.68-1.25) for total fruit and vegetables combined, 0.99 (0.73-1.33) for total vegetables, and 1.02 (0.77-1.36) for total fruits. Stratification by gender or smoking status, restriction to microscopically verified cases, and exclusion of the first 2 years of follow-up did not materially change the results. These results from a large European prospective cohort suggest that higher consumption of fruit and vegetables is not associated with decreased risk of pancreatic cancer." (PMID 19107929)
Or this: "Since no long-term effects of GTE were observed, the study essentially served as a fruit and vegetables depletion study. The overall effect of the 10-week period without dietary fruits and vegetables was a decrease in oxidative damage to DNA, blood proteins, and plasma lipids, concomitantly with marked changes in antioxidative defence." (PMID: 12064344)
When I first came across stuff like this over the last year, I was shocked.
Miles, it's interesting how quickly these ideas are spreading. People want to get control of their health, and the old ways aren't working. It seems like low carb/paleo is quickly becoming the new conventional wisdom.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am interested in is avoiding impairment in old age because the people in my family live extremely long. The clean-living men and women to about 100 and the ones who wantonly abused their health to about 85. However, those who abused their health suffered many years.
ReplyDeleteI am both open minded and skeptical. Generally I fear weird food additives more than food. Also, I would like to see long term studies because it seems things develop over some years and there could be more variables yet to be discovered and accounted for.
Sillygirl wrote:
ReplyDelete"Generally I fear weird food additives more than food"
Its my understanding that (believe it or not) one of the very most inflammatory things we can eat are artificial sweeteners like "Sweet-n-Low". I wish this were not so. I understand that there is some sort of completely natural sweeterner (Stevia or whatnot) that is kinda pricey. m
My triathlon running uncle now has late-term cancer. After a diet of Coke and coffee and cigarettes, he became very careful about his diet, eating a low-fat diet, avoding milk and butter, and running marathons. I can't help but think that the low-fat diet, and the vegetable oils (the margarine and salad dressing), may have even hurt him.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem is that fat is considered a low-class food. Low carb yes, high fat no. It will be very hard to convince people of the benefits of sausage and whole milk.
I have recently cut out wheat and vegetable fats, and my face hasn't been clearer in years (unfortunately, I'm one of the 3% with adult acne).
Dennis, I'm late to this party. So how does this relate to anti-oxidant effects of NAC? Should I reconsider using it? I still think it works for endurance. Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteJim, since the study dealt only with vitamins C and E, and since NAC is used not directly as an antioxidant but as a constituent of the body's internal antioxidant defenses, I'd say NAC still looks good. NAC is more like a medical food than an antioxidant supplement - you should be good to go. These things are tough to call, new studies come out constantly, but I think the study here makes a pretty good case against C and E supplementation. I'm giving it a try - doing without C and E, that is.
ReplyDeleteHi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to what your opinion is on the health benefits of green tea, given that is is rich in antioxidants.
Respectfully,
starfrost
Hi Dennis,
ReplyDeleteWhile doing more research, I found the following: http://community.advanceweb.com/blogs/ha_1/archive/2010/10/18/do-vitamin-c-e-reduce-insulin-sensitivity.aspx
I thought you might find it interesting. Now I'm really confused, hah.
Sincerely,
starfrost
Starfrost: green tea appears to be health-promoting, but probably not due to antioxidants, rather a hormetic effect.
ReplyDelete