Are the benefits of antioxidants a myth?

Advertising of antioxidants prevents cancer treatment

Kirill Stasevich, Compulenta

Recently, an article by Nobel laureate James Watson, one of the authors of the double-chiral DNA model, appeared in the journal Open Biology, in which he expresses his doubts about the anticancer effect of antioxidants (Oxidants, antioxidants and the current incurability of metastatic cancers).

It is known that cancer arises from damage to DNA, and these damages are not least due to oxidative stress. So people pray for antioxidants, which supposedly protect them from aggressive DNA-destroying oxygen radicals.

Mr. Watson also says that the lion's share of chemotherapeutic substances is designed to suppress the reproduction of cancer cells by oxidative stress. Oxidant drugs block the cell cycle, while the transformation of normal cells into cancer cells is accompanied by the production of a huge amount of antioxidants. By increasing the level of antioxidants, we act for the benefit of the disease. And although Mr. Watson speaks only about a "hypothesis", presenting it in the form of reflections that need to be confirmed and rechecked, his article, to put it mildly, made an impression. Many publications, even those not directly related to science, commented on the revelations of the legendary Nobel laureate.

But in fact, the professor only voiced what people who professionally deal with the problem of cancer have long known – or suspected. Henry Scowcroft from the Cancer Center of Great Britain on the pages of The Guardian newspaper (The antioxidant myth is too easy to swallow) lists a number of studies in recent years that confirm Mr. Watson's words, but which have remained beyond the attention of the general public. So, a lot of data suggests that almost all antioxidant substances (except, perhaps, vitamin D) have a very weak, insignificant positive effect on health – at least in terms of preventing cancer and increasing life expectancy. At the same time, antioxidants such as vitamins A, E and beta-carotene, on the contrary, even increase the risk of developing the disease and premature death. It would be interesting, of course, to restore the roots of this antioxidant craze; most likely, more than optimistic results were obtained once, which were not confirmed later. (You can read about where such epoch-making discoveries come from here.)

And although researchers report all this in all available ways, from articles in specialized journals to blogs, the position of antioxidants in the mass consciousness is unshakable. The reasons for this state of affairs seem obvious, but it still makes sense to say them again. The main role here belongs, of course, to advertising. The word "antioxidant" is used incredibly often when applied to food, drinks and cosmetics. Foreign organizations regulating advertising activities usually make sure that words do not diverge from deeds, and ask manufacturers harshly whether they really have evidence of the beneficial effects of antioxidants in the product. Here, however, there is a trick – when advertising is reported, for example, simply about "a large number of substances that increase the level of antioxidants in the body."

That is, the myth of antioxidants nourishes itself: you no longer need a direct statement about their usefulness, but just say the word "antioxidant" to convince a person to drink, or eat, or smear it on his face. The mechanisms of myth reproduction are a task for culturologists, sociologists, etc., although it is worth noting that post-industrial information technologies obviously only accelerate the "mythological exchange", but the general lack of enlightenment and ignorance still remain at the same, "pre-post-industrial" level.

And here, according to Henry Scowcroft, we come to very banal things. Why do we have such a willingness to believe in the miracle of antioxidants? Everyone always wants to live longer and not get cancer, but the recipes for a long, happy life, according to scientists, remain the same as a hundred, two hundred years ago. No smoking. To be in shape (that is, not to overeat). Eating is right. If you drink, then moderately. Lead an active lifestyle ("in a healthy body..." and so on). It is not easy to follow these rules. It's easier to drink an antioxidant pill. Ignoring what the researchers say about such pills.

All these, we repeat, are obvious platitudes, but it is these platitudes that should be said again, and again, and many, many more times. It is best, of course, that some titan like James Watson, who wrote about it, broadcast about it: "It's better to eat blueberries because they're delicious, not because they save you from cancer."

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru11.01.2013