Are antioxidants bad for you?

Maybe Newsweek should just stay away from writing about health.

I mean, could you possibly botch things up any more than they did when they published an article claiming that antioxidants "may not be good for your health"?

Their article, called "Antioxidants Fall From Grace," was published in the January 25 issue. And of course, our very own Dr. Wright jumped on it immediately. Writing for the Alliance for Natural Health, Dr. Wright calls out Newsweek on their poor journalism and downright ignorance.

And he certainly doesn't hold back. After he points out that the only "expert" they could dig up for the article (a science writer and blogger, not a professor who spends his life in the research lab) doesn't really understand how antioxidants work, it's all downhill from there.

Newsweek has the origin of free radicals partially right -- they are in fact generated by normal metabolism (red meat being a primary provider) and have been from our beginnings. But they completely ignore the fact that great excesses of free radicals are generated from environmental sources that are pretty new in the grand scheme of things.

From refined carbs to artificial flavorings and colorings to preservatives to water fluoridation to electromagnetic fields, our bodies are getting more than their fair share of free radicals -- far more than what is "natural." Of course we need to balance this out with antioxidants.

Oh, but Newsweek has evidence! Three studies prove that antioxidants are bad for us! Okay, so the first one is summed up as saying antioxidants need to be reevaluated for their detrimental effect. Conveniently, Newsweek paraphrased this from the original research, which stated that the particular plant material studied functioned as both an antioxidant and a pro-oxidant and must be investigated in terms of the latter.

The second study, they say, shows that antioxidants could promote atherosclerosis. Pretty scary, until you get to the part where the researchers are actually talking about NF-E2 Related Factor 2, which has never and will never be a component of any diet or supplement -- it's produced by our vascular cells!

Finally, there's the claim that antioxidants "might impair fertility." In fact, this broad statement is based on a study in which two "broad-range scavengers of oxidative species" were injected into rats' ovaries (which is not, mind you, how anyone I know takes their supplements).

One of the two was N-acetylcysteine, which has components that are actually GOOD for fertility (when, of course, taken in the usual way). The other was butylated hydroxyanisole, a food additive that is anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

Of course, as always, Dr. Wright's recommendation is that nature's way is the best way. Antioxidants rarely appear in nature alone -- rather, they are most often grouped in foods. The best source for them, then, is whole foods, with supplementation as needed.

Oh, and if you're looking for good health advice, don't pick up a copy of Newsweek!

If you're not a subscriber but want to stay on top of Dr. Wright's mainstream call-outs (not to mention the very best natural health solutions around), go to www.wrightnewsletter.com to learn how you can start receiving his monthly newsletter, Nutrition & Healing.

Share/Save/BookmarkPrinter-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

About the author

author-picture

Christine O'Brien writes the e-letter Health eTips for Dr. Wright's Nutrition and Healing.

You can sign up for the free eTips at www.wrightnewsletter.com.


Comments

Anonymous's picture
1

Helen

I heard when you remove oxigen from foods called hydrogenated
it prolongs the shelf life but no longer has the health benifits of oxigyn that our body needs. When I heard that I cleand my refrigerator and cupboards of every thing hydrogenated. I wanted my chilkdren healthy. I did not want them eating junk.

Anonymous's picture
2

Anonymous

Sir I agree with you on your response for the news week article.Your comments began with an air of disgust and in the end you brought down the hammer with a crushing blow. I have been following the antioxidant thing for quite some time now and if they are no good as the writer assumes then I should have been dead by this time. I bet you his next article will say smoking is a life saver.

Boomer12k's picture
3

Boomer12k

So, I am not the only one who reacts to bad reporting on bad studies, and wrongful conclusions from said studies. GOOD FOR YOU!!!!

Be Well and Happy!
Steve

Anonymous's picture
4

Rabbit

My brother has smoked since he was 6 and is now 66. I guess you could say smoking is good for him. Ha! I wouldn't ever be caught live with a cigarette of any kind. It shows kids the wrong idea about their health. I can't imagine why he is still alive but I still expect his health to crumble any day. He doesn't cough either. Is it possible that some bodies can take tons more carcinogens than other bodies.

Anonymous's picture
5

Anonymous

In truth the scientific community has no consensus of how good or bad antioxidants and free radicals are, but at least by presenting the studies which seem to suggest the opposing view to "health-nuts", they demonstrate that there isnt a closed mindset/accept the view because it suits what you want to believe.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <p> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2> <h3> <u> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.


popitup