What's an Antioxident

A

A. Kari

New member
Dont know if I have that spelled right, but this must be the latest
fad thing in dieting. A few years ago it was carbs, not it's
"Antioxidents". I keep seeing that word on food packages, in
commercials, and other places. What is it????

Thanks
 
[email protected] wrote:

Non-technically - It works okay to think of it as a new buzzword that
replaces vitamin. Vitamins are actually classes of related molecules
that are beneficial and that can't be made from scratch by our bodies.

Technically - They are actually all vitamins because some can be made
from scratch by our bodies. But they are still beneficial so it makes
sense to supplement them and/or eat foods that have a lot of them.

Foods that are high in antioxidants are good for you. It's a way of
estimating how good. Dr Atkins even built a list of antioxidant to carb
ratio for foods. The higher the ratio the better the food is for you.
The lower the ratio the worse the food is for you. A glance at the list
should not be surpising to anyone who knows nutrition - Garlic, kale and
berries are at the top of the list. Junk starches with tiny amounts of
vitamins are at the bottom of the list.
 
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:26:29 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

Paraphrased from "Chemistry for Changing Times" 12th ed, Hill et al,
Prentice Hall 2010:

Antioxidants inhibit spoilage of food in the presence of oxygen.
They minimize fats and oils turning rancid.
They minimize the destruction of some amino acids and vitamins.
Aging is caused in part by the formation of free radicals. *It* *is*
*thought* that antioxidants *may* retard chemical breakdown in cells.
(end paraphrase)

Vitamins C and E are antioxidants, the others are not. An excess of
vitamin C doesn't appear to be harmful to most people. You just pee
out the excess. However, to the best of my knowledge, no decent
double-blind study shows that megadoses of vitamin C do any good.

Interestingly enough, one proper study involved feeding relatively
large amounts of BHT (a CHEMICAL!!!***) to rats daily. Life spans
were increased by a human equivalent of 20 years. Hmmmm.

An excess of vitamin E can be harmful. Current recommendation is to
get the amount of E you need from foods, and minimize or avoid vitamin
E supplements.
--
Best -- Terry
***I don't know the icon for 'tongue in cheek'
 
On 1/27/2011 12:19 PM, Terry wrote:

Good info. An excess of vitamin A can be unsafe for a smoker, and even
an ex-smoker. It can increase the risk of lung cancer.
http://www.nei.nih.gov/amd/summary.asp#9

Years ago when I first started seeing a new eye doctor, he thought he
saw early signs of macular degeneration and while discussing some
treatments if it were to be true, he said I wouldn't be a candidate for
AREDS since I was a smoker at the time. Happily, I don't have AMD, at
least not yet. No changes in my retinas since then.

Here's a good reference for antioxidants.
http://www.mdsupport.org/library/antioxidant_descriptions.html
 
In article ,
Sqwertz wrote:


I hate that. I'm a big fan of GIMF, and it's sister, GIYF (Google is
my/your friend), but some things don't Google well. We had a little
flap here about coconut oil. Somebody said it was the solution to all
of life's problems. Fine, got a cite? No, just Google it. So I did.
Sure enough, it will solve all of life's problems...for the companies
who sell it. Most of the hits on Google are "recommendations" from
companies who are selling it at greatly inflated prices. Many of the
other hits were from natural foods fanatics. I looked it up on my HMO
web site. They've got pretty solid, but tried and true (slightly
obsolete) info. I got 7 hits. Some recommended restricting its use.
Some recommended trying to eliminate it from the diet completely (when
undergoing certain types of cancer treatments). There was one hit as a
drug. It stated that there was no solid evidence for any oral use. It
*does* work as a skin moisturizer!

I suspect that antioxidant would be the same. Google is just a giant
spammer.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
On 28/01/2011 2:11 PM, Dan Abel wrote:


Not just coconut oil. It seems to apply to just about every coconut
product. I had to do some checking because of mixed messages I was
getting. The dietary handbook I was given in the hospital suggested
eating lots of fruit......but not coconut. When I googled the topic I
came across sites that suggested that coconut was heart healthy. Some
articles suggested that, while high in fat, it was good fat and that it
helped reduce bad cholesterol.

That was one of issues I raised in my appointment with the dietitian. I
was concerned because my wife loves my curried chicken with coconut
milk. She thinks it's bad. Her advice was to avoid coconut, but that I
can used coconut milk provided that I don't shake up the can or stir it
up. Scrape off the fat sitting on top and discard it.
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:11:57 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:


There is plenty of unbiased information out there regarding
antioxidants (it will also tell you how to spell it). And
coconut/palm oils for that matter.

If you don't know how to Google and sort of the results, then I sure
as hell ain't gonna spoon-feed anyone and retype all the pertinent
information or do your searching for you.

It sounds like you (and others) just need better Google skills, Dan.

Here's an example for coconut oil:


-sw
 
In article ,
Dave Smith wrote:


I think that "suggested" might be the correct word. You have to watch
those word weasels. I don't know exactly which site you read, but that
sounds a little bit familiar. I suspect if you go back and reread it,
though, it might not say "good" fat, just that it is "different" than
the "bad" fat. I had to go back and reread it.


Let me guess. Those sites you Googled that said that coconut oil wasn't
proven to be a "bad" fat were selling coconut oil. That was my
experience. Your dietitian isn't selling anything. She's giving you
advice to keep you healthy. The advice I've read says that saturated
fat consumption is correlated with high LDL, which is correlated with
artery blockage. Coconut oil is very high in saturated fat. It doesn't
seem like a good plan to substitute coconut oil for animal fat, unless
you happen to sell coconut oil.

To give some perspective, lard is 40% saturated fat, coconut oil is 86%
saturated fat:

http://www.nutristrategy.com/fatsoils.htm

My family likes curry made with coconut milk. We have it about once a
month. I put it in the same category as steak and chocolate, a treat
for occasional consumption. We haven't had heart surgery, though.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:11:57 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:


try wikipedia:



some beef that 'anyone can edit articles there,' but you won't find
outright hucksters, and there are references you can follow if you're so
inclined.

your pal,
blake
 
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:12:42 -0500, blake murphy
wrote:


I like wikipedia for many things. Google is horrid. Besides the fact
that they track users and have built in "spys" on their site, it's
more than that. Google lists all advertisers first. They have the
biggest amount of dead and broken links of all search engines, and
half their results dont even pertain. The google Images search is
even worse. Try to search for images of something common, like
"dogs". The first page or two are usually semi-useful. After that,
the results are a complete waste of time. You'll find pictures of
everything and anything and none of them have anything to do with the
topic word. It seems to me like Google just adds all of them to make
it look like you're getting lots of results, but actually at least
half are worthless or worse. I rarely use google anymore. There are
other search engines that are better. Google is usually my last
recourse.

Thanks to those who provided helpful replies.
As far as the guy who said I should look it up on "the internet"....
This IS the internet !!! You wont be able to use these newsgoups
without an internet connection.
 
On 6/02/2011 6:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Might I point out that this is a discussion group and if the answer to
each and every question posed here was GIYF or GIMF, then there would be
nothing to discuss!
I have found two problems with Google. One is that you often get way too
much information which forces you to spend even more time sifting to try
and find what's relevant. This is especially vexing when seeking out
information in a highly scientific or technical area.
The other problem is when you get sidetracked into other areas totally
irrelevant to your original query. I notice that this divergence also
happens in discussion groups so it is perhaps a facet of human nature.

Krypsis
 
Back
Top