Antioxidants and vitamin D
I actually bought the Lester Packer book called "The antioxidant miracle" a while back.
What struck me as I read it was how often his claims are based on test-tube experiments, the so-called "in vitro" experiments done in labs, rather than the so-called "in vivo" experiments done on rats, mice and monkeys. Occasionally, these tests are actually performed on humans. But, more often than not, they aren't.
The second "dodgy" thing about all these wild claims for the value of antioxidants is that the mindset of the scientists who came up with the whole idea of antioxidants as the next big thing is totally tainted by the anti-fat dogma.
They all go on and on about how great fruit and veg are, and spout the usual nonsense about keeping your intake of saturated fats and animal protein low. They all swallowed the "Big Fat Lie" about cholesterol, sat fats and red meat. As a result, they were simply unable to believe that saturated fats could actually have a protective effect against disease; it had to be something else: why not fruit and veg!!!
And, finally, as far as I remember, the whole theory that oxidization itself is a dangerous thing seems a little wobbly, if you ask me. It is usually distilled to something like this for the lay reader: "You know how metal rusts when exposed to oxygen, well, the same happens in your body if there aren't enough anti-oxidants around to neutralize the oxygen".
To me, this seems somewhat akin to the idea that "cholesterol clogs the pipes" in our body, which is also a gross oversimplification of what is currently perceived to be the actual reality (which in itself is only a guess - nobody has yet got inside a living body to chart the progress of arteriosclerosis).
I am not surprised that many of these studies which intended to show the benefits of antioxidants (usually vitamins A, C and E) in supplement form have produced dismal results.
However, the development of research on vitamin D deficiency has followed a completely different path. Firstly, the recurrence of deficiency-related disease was noted (such as the re-emergence of rickets in the USA); secondly, many populations have had their vitamin D levels tested; thirdly, populations with various diseases have had their vitamin D levels tested. The conclusions drawn have been that people with low vitamin D levels tend to be at greater risk of disease than those with higher levels.
Scientists are now embarking on the next step, which is to carry out testing on real people to see if various risk factors are reduced when vitamin D levels are normalized. So far, all the evidence speaks in favour of the value of raising vitamin D levels.
My personal observation is that it is also necessary to ensure that magnesium levels are also optimal before beginnning with vitamin D supplementation.
In my opinion, many "scientists" jumped on the antioxidant bandwagon due to the fact that they were totally blinkered by the nonsense started by Ancel Keys and the ensuing anti-cholesterol/sat fat dogma.
My two cents,
amanda
|