PDA

View Full Version : Astaxanthin - The Super Antioxidant


astro zombie
06-05-2008, 08:14 PM
http://www.naturalnews.com/023177.html

Revealed: The Little-Known Miracle Nutrient for Inflammation, anti-aging, athletic endurance, eases rthritis pain, joint pain, sore muscles and protects against heart disease, and alot more.


NaturalNews) Every once in a very great while, I discover a natural medicine so astonishing that I feel compelled to share it with you. The verb "discover" is actually not to my credit, by the way; Mother Nature created this natural medicine eons ago, and it's been present in trace amounts in aquatic ecosystems for over a billion years. In this article, I'm going to reveal the name of this natural medicine, what health benefits it provides to us, and how to get some right now. But first, before revealing the name, I want to share some of the numerous health benefits with you so you get the full picture of just how significant this substance can be in enhancing your health. As always, I have absolutely no financial ties to this product, and I earn nothing if you choose to purchase it. I do, however, buy and consume this product myself on a regular basis, as you'll see below.

Did you ever notice how the drug companies get excited when they find a drug that just slightly alters the risk of a single disease? I remember hearing all the hype about a particular cancer drug made by Big Pharma. It was called a "miracle" drug that needed to be fast-tracked so it could start saving lives. When I looked at the research, however, it only turned out to prevent cancer in one woman out of two hundred (a 0.5% reduction in the risk of breast cancer). Gee, that's not much get excited about. And yet they called it a "miracle" drug!

Well imagine if there were a natural substance that operated at many different biochemical levels at once, providing all the following health benefits (yes, from a single source!):

• Reduces proliferation of breast cancer tumor cells by 40%
• Protects the brain from dementia and Alzheimer's
• Greatly reduces inflammation and joint pain
• Reduces oxidative damage to your DNA by 40% (even at low doses)
• Greatly increases endurance, muscle recovery and workout performance
• Reduces the risk of cancer
• Reduces blood sugar level in diabetics and prediabetics
• Improves fertility while decreasing the rate of stillborn births
• Promotes cardiovascular health, reduces C-Reactive Proteins (CRP)
• Reduces or eliminates carpal tunnel syndrome
• Boosts immune function and helps the body resist infections
• Protects the stomach from ulcers and invasive bacteria
• Protects the kidneys from damage due to high blood sugar
• Causes cancer cells to commit suicide (apoptosis)
• Greatly improves sperm quality, motility, and sperm count
• Prevents asthma by normalizing histamine levels
• Protects the body from highly oxidative foods like fried foods

In addition, I've found that this natural medicine:

• Greatly protects eye health, reduces cataracts and prevents UV damage to the eyes

• Makes skin look younger and functions as a natural internal sunscreen that prevents DNA damage and sunburn

• Protects the body from the dangerous oxidizing effects of Vioxx and COX-2 inhibitors, meaning that is can actually reduce the harmful side effects and deaths caused by other anti-inflammatory pharmaceuticals

Now, if all that is really true -- and I'll show you in a minute that it is true -- that would make this one of the most miraculous medicines ever discovered by modern science, wouldn't it? For any one substance to prevent and treat so many different diseases -- and to protect the human body in so many different ways -- is nothing short of truly miraculous. So why isn't this nutrient front-page news?

The answer, of course, is because it can't be patented. This natural substance (which I will reveal below) is created by microalgae, so it's not something that was invented by a drug company scientist for patenting purposes. And the sad fact of the matter is that drug companies aren't interested in medicines that can't be patented, no matter how helpful or miraculous they may really be.

And yes, all the health benefits I've described for this supplement are, indeed, quite true. And they're backed by clinical trials and research papers that are fascinating in what they contain, and yet have never been picked up by the mainstream media. In other words, this nutrient may be the most powerful natural medicine you've never heard about!


Maybe you have heard about it already, but here's something else...
It's possible of course, that you have heard about it. Especially if you've been reading NaturalNews for some time (I've mentioned it on this website before). But until recently, I never fully understood the health benefits of taking larger doses of the nutrient.

Previously, I was only taking 2mg - 4mg per day. But for a while now, I've been taking 16mg per day (400% more than before), and I've discovered something truly astounding: The health benefits of this natural medicine keep increasing as the dose increases (to a limit, of course). I've found that 16mg a day is the ideal dosage for me to experience maximum benefits from this supplement... benefits that include outstanding athletic performance, a significant reduction in muscle soreness and joint pain, radical improvements in resistance to UV sun exposure, stabilized blood sugar and many more.

So what is this mystery nutrient? It's astaxanthin, a deep red-colored phytonutrient synthesized by microalgae called Haematococcus. It's grown in fresh water using sophisticated techniques that encourage the algae to grow its own powerful medicines that protect it from oxidation, UV radiation and other environmental stresses. When harvested from the algae and concentrated into a liquid, astaxanthin becomes the most powerful antioxidant known in the natural world, demonstrating 550 times the antioxidant power of Vitamin E, for example. (I reveal my No. 1 recommended source and how to get astaxanthin at a discount, below...)

Now why is antioxidant power important? Think about it: Much of what goes on during the aging of the human body is due to oxidation. Every time you breathe, you're inhaling some oxygen, right? That oxygen reacts with your cells to create energy, but the byproduct of that energy is the creation of free radicals. These free radicals cause DNA damage, nerve cell damage, accelerated aging of internal organs and more.

The way to stop those free radicals is with antioxidants, which bind to them, neutralizing their damaging effects. Astaxanthin, it turns out, is so good at halting free radicals that it seems to confer miracle-class health benefits to the human body... benefits that might be described as "anti-aging" or "reversing disease."


Right to the muscles and tissues that need them
It gets even better: Unlike most antioxidants, astaxanthin is fat-soluble, meaning it gets carried by fat molecules directly to tissues and organs in your body where it can do the most good, like your retina, your brain, your breast tissue, prostate tissue, and skeletal muscles. You know what makes the flesh of salmon pink? Astaxanthin. And guess what gives salmon the seemingly superhuman ability to achieve marathon swimming feats, leaping up waterfalls against the current? Astaxanthin, of course. Without astaxanthin, salmon are mere average performers, and their survival rate drops to less than one in five. But with astaxanthin, they become superstars of the aquatic world, performing feats of physical strength and endurance that, in proportion, dwarf the greatest achievements of the world's top human athletes. (And their survival rate on salmon farms leaps from 17% to an astonishing 98%!)

You see, when astaxanthin is present in muscles and other tissues, it prevents oxidation right where it's needed: Right at the site of stress or potential oxidation. Ever notice how you breathe more air when you're exercising? That's more oxygen you're pumping through your tissues, and more oxygen means more oxidation. So the more you exercise, the more you need powerful antioxidants like astaxanthin. This helps explain why some athletes who work out hard but don't supplement with superfoods and antioxidants seem to age faster than everyone else. Exercising without antioxidants is like putting yourself on an aging acceleration program!

The fact that astaxanthin goes right to the muscles gives it the ability to protect muscles from all sorts of degenerative conditions. A horse suffering from a severe muscle conditions called rhabdomyolysis, for example (which can also be caused by statin drugs), was given 30mg of astaxanthin a day. In merely a few weeks, he was 100% symptom free and running again! (The owners were no doubt astonished.)

In fact, astaxanthin has been used in all kinds of ways to enhance the health of animals. In animal tests, it has been shown to:

• Greatly increase the longevity and survival rate of salmon and chickens
• Increase egg production by a whopping 300% in salmon
• Significantly lower salmonella infections in chickens
• Reduced infections by increasing immune resistance in every animal it's been tested with
• Accelerated the growth of farmed salmon by 600%! (Seems impossible, but it's true...)

The animals who have been fed a small amount of astaxanthin in their diet, it seems, experience phenomenal health benefits. Every type of animal given astaxanthin lives longer, grows faster, exhibits greater fertility and shows much stronger immune system function. Do these sound like benefits you'd like to experience, too?


How to get astaxanthin as an exclusive discount
Here at NaturalNews, I'm always looking for the best products and supplements I can recommend to readers. Again, I must repeat the fact that I have absolutely no financial ties with any of the products I'm recommending here, and I earn absolutely nothing if you decide to purchase astaxanthin. My sole motivation here is in demonstrating my value to you, the NaturalNews readers, by bringing you great deals like this (so you keep coming back to my website!)

Here's the deal I've put together for you on astaxanthin. I have a very positive journalistic relationship with the folks at Cyanotech who manufacture astaxanthin. I've even toured their aquaculture farms in Hawaii, observing their farming methods, cleaning methods and research labs. So I have a lot of truth in Cyanotech and how their products are grown and harvested. That's the brand of astaxanthin I recommend: BioAstin is the brand name.

For where to get it, the online vitamin retailer I recommend is Vitacost (www.vitacost.com) because they have great prices, fast shipping and they carry almost 10,000 different health-related products, allowing you to do a lot of your supplement shopping in one place.

The folks at Vitacost were thrilled to put together a time-limited coupon code that gets you 10% off their astaxanthin products. It's good from right now through close of business this Friday. To get the coupon code, just check your e-mail, since I already sent it to NaturalNews subscribers last night.

Not yet a NaturalNews subscriber? Just sign up right now (it's free!) and you'll instantly see the Vitacost discount code on the subscription success page. Sign up here: http://www.naturalnews.com/ReaderRegist...

It only takes ten seconds. Enter your e-mail address and confirm it, then you're in! You'll have the Vitacost coupon code and the ability to save 10% on these phenomenal astaxanthin products. Be sure to act now since not only does this special end this Friday, but with so many readers discovering this same article today, Vitacost is likely to be hit pretty hard on their astaxanthin inventory. In the past, announcements like this have wiped out the inventories of smaller companies, and some people had to wait weeks to get their products. To avoid that, order early.

To use the coupon code, simply go to either of these pages:

http://www.vitacost.com/Nutrex-Hawaii-B...
(For the BioAstin brand of astaxanthin, made by Cyanotech)

http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Natural-Astaxanthin
(For VitaCost's in-house brand of astaxanthin, which is also natural astaxanthin)

Remember, the coupon code gets you 10% off the already low prices offered by VitaCost! Check your e-mail for the coupon code, or subscribe here to get it now: http://www.naturalnews.com/ReaderRegist...

(Ahh, you knew there'd be some catch to the discount, right? Well, it's true: Even though I don't make any money on astaxanthin, I do ask that readers who want to receive these great savings we negotiate for you at least make a small commitment to NaturalNews by subscribing to our e-mail newsletter. It's a fair exchange: You subscribe to our e-mail newsletter, and we keep bringing you fantastic discounts on outstanding products. It's the least we can do for each other, wouldn't you agree?)

What I really love about Vitacost, by the way, is the fact that they have super fast shipping times, and they ship any number of products to you for a flat fee of just $4.95. That only applies to the continental U.S., but shipping fees are very reasonable to other destinations, too.

Please note that this 10% discount is currently limited to only the astaxanthin products, not the entire Vitacost product line, but their everyday prices on other products are very good to begin with, so feel free to pick up some other products if you want. They just happen to have a really incredible price on Ola Loa drinkable vitamins, which I've recommended for several years. Their price is 45% off retail. Wow! That's the best price I've seen on Ola Loa in a long time. Get that at: http://www.vitacost.com/Ola-Loa-Energy-Drink


Cyanotech's natural astaxanthin receives our Editor's Choice award
When you visit the web pages at Vitacost (www.Vitacost.com), you'll notice that two of the natural astaxanthin products there have been given a Natural News Editor's Choice award. This is an award we grant to the most outstanding products we find. In a week or two, we'll be announcing numerous awards for products and companies that deserve that recognition. For example, we'll be giving awards on Dr. Bronner's soap products, the new unsweetened hemp milk called Hemp Bliss, online superfood retailers like Transition Nutrition (www.TransitionNutrition.com) and many more.

The award logo has been given to both the BioAstin brand and Vitacost's in-house brand, because they both use the same source of natural astaxanthin. What this logo means is that you can trust the product to be made with very high quality ingredients and offered by a reputable source that we've checked out.


Supercritical extraction means no toxic solvents!
Speaking of high quality ingredients, I think it's important to know how nutrients are extracted from their natural sources. Sadly, some companies use toxic, explosive chemicals to extract their nutrients. A famous provider of DHA oils, for example, uses highly toxic hexane to extract the oils. That's just plain awful.

Supercritical CO2 extraction, on the other hand, is safe and far more "natural." It uses compressed CO2 to pull out key nutrients, after which the CO2 evaporates harmlessly into the ambient air (from which the CO2 was gathered in the first place). Thus, it introduces no new chemicals into the environment, and it leaves nothing in the resulting product that might be harmful to you. This process -- called "supercritical CO2 extraction" -- is the best extraction process in the business, and it's used on premium-quality supplements like neem oil. It also happens to be the process used by Cyanotech to extract their astaxanthin from the Haematococcus algae.

That means this astaxanthin contains no toxic solvent chemicals whatsoever! That's one of the many reasons why we gave it our Editor's Choice award: Because it's an honest product, with zero chemical contaminants (or as close to zero as you can get on the planet today), that offers astounding health benefits. Cyanotech's astaxanthin deserves every bit of publicity we can bring it. I truly consider it to be one of the most important nutrients ever discovered for human health.


My top 3 nutrients for human health
Speaking of top nutrients for human health, would you like to know what I think are the top 3 most important nutrients for human health? They are:

#1: Vitamin D
#2: Omega-3 fatty acids
#3: Astaxanthin

Vitamin D is crucial, of course, due to its miracle-class ability to halt cancer (77% of ALL cancers are prevented by vitamin D alone!), to ease depression, boost bone health, enhance heart health and much, much more. It's the single most impressive nutrient I've ever found. Nothing beats vitamin D in terms of the number of important health benefits derived from a single substance.

Next comes omega-3 fatty acids, which have proven to be miraculous, too, in terms of preventing cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, depression and much more. Plus, you can get these from plant sources (like chia seeds or flax seeds) or animal source (fish oil, krill oil, etc.).

And now, astaxathin joins my list as the third most important nutrient for human health. It is the "King of the carotenoids," as they say, and it has the ability to ease systemic inflammation, protect the eyes and brain from oxidative damage, prevent cancer, protect the body from dangerous foods, enhance skin health and even protect the skin from excessive UV sun exposure. It's truly miraculous.

I've heard some ignorant conventional medical doctors (and FDA bureaucrats) say there are no miracles in the world of supplements, herbs and natural medicine. The only miracles in the world, they claim, are found in pharmaceuticals. I think that's nonsense: Nature is full of miracles! Growing a baby in the womb is a miracle. Automatic skin repair following a scratch or scrape is a miracle. The nanotechnology in your immune system is a miracle. The building of a highly complex organism from microscopic DNA is a miracle, too. Nature abounds with miracles! And astaxanthin is simply one miracle among many that have been provided for us by Mother Nature.

If you'd like to experience the miracle of astaxanthin for yourself, get it at:

http://www.vitacost.com/Nutrex-Hawaii-B...
(For the BioAstin brand of astaxanthin, made by Cyanotech)

http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Natural-Astaxanthin
(For VitaCost's in-house brand of astaxanthin, which is also made of natural astaxanthin)

Get a 10% savings coupon code -- good through this Friday only! -- by subscribing to the NaturalNews e-mail newsletter (it's free!) at: http://www.naturalnews.com/ReaderRegist...

If you're already a subscriber, just check your e-mail in box, because I e-mailed the coupon code to you before this article went live.


How to take astaxanthin for maximum effect
Since astaxanthin is a fat-soluble carotenoid, the best way to maximize its circulation in your body (and thereby make sure it gets to all your cells, tissues and organs) is to take it with some healthy fats. What kind of healthy fats? Plant-based fats, of course: Coconut oil, olive oil, avocados, chia seeds, flaxseed oil or even fish oil if you want to go that route. Taking astaxanthin with fat causes it to be efficiently transported all around your body and delivered to the places where you body needs healthy fat.

And where does your body need healthy fat? Almost everywhere! Every cell in your body, for example, contains fat molecules in its membrane. And did you know that your brain is made of a whopping 60 percent fat? It's true: Your brain is mostly fat and water. So does it make sense to protect your brain with natural antioxidants that can cross the blood/brain barrier and protect your brain cells from oxidative damage? You bet it does, and that's why astaxanthin produces such astounding health benefits for your brain. That's why it has been shown to prevent the deterioration of the brain cells that lead to dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

Are you taking enough astaxanthin? I took astaxanthin on and off for a couple of years at a very low dosage: 2mg or 4mg. And I never really noticed much of an effect. The reality of astaxanthin's health benefits didn't kick in for me until I started taking significantly higher doses like 16mg per day. At that level (which is just four tiny gelcaps per day, they're the size of BBs), all kinds of benefits started to kick in. I was able to run farther, exercise with greater intensity, and yet wake up the next morning with surprisingly little soreness. It was like my body was suddenly functioning at a fitness level way beyond what I was used to.

I can still remember running along the path through the open desert here in Arizona, passing by the Chaparral bushes (which can cure many cancers, by the way), smelling the rich, fragrant flowers of the local mesquite bushes (which are the sweetest smell in the whole world, as far as I'm concerned), and suddenly realizing that I wasn't even breathing hard. I was running at a healthy pace, just gliding along the desert pathway, kicking up sand, leaping across small rocks, under the blazing desert sun, and I didn't even feel tired. It was like I had an oxygen infusion keeping me energized and alert. It was like my heart could pump a never-ending supply of energy to all my muscles. The feeling was truly amazing.

Sure, I take a lot of natural supplements. I drink aloe vera every day (my recommended source for premium-quality dried aloe gel is www.GoodCauseWellness.com by the way), and aloe helps your blood carry more oxygen. And yes, I don't eat oxidizing fried foods, or trans fatty acids, or sugar, and I don't take pharmaceuticals of any kind, and yes, my blood flows like water because I gobble a lot of fish oils, and I get all kinds of vitamin D from the sun. So sure, I have a lot of factors going into healthy blood (astaxanthin certainly isn't the only one) that creates this athletic effect, but the point is I'm only human, just like you, and if I can make my cardiovascular system pump along effortlessly, filling my cells with seemingly unlimited oxygen during exercise, then you can experience similar benefits. We're 99.98% genetically identical, after all. My heart is pretty much the same as your heart. The only difference is what we choose to feed it!

Now don't get me wrong, in no way am I saying that after you pop a couple of astaxanthin pills, you will turn into Superman and you can start tearing up the hills of your local hiking path. The benefits of astaxanthin are very real, and I have no need to exaggerate them, so here are some things you need to know about astaxanthin to make sure you understand what it can and can't do for you:

• It doesn't work overnight. I took it for 30 days before I really started to see significant results. You probably won't feel any difference for a few days after you start taking astaxanthin. It takes time for the carotenoids to find their way to your tissues. Once you beging to feel some benefits, those benefits will typically increase for several weeks, so you'll feel better as you continue taking the astaxanthin. At some point, the benefits will level off and as long as you keep taking the astaxanthin, you'll stay there, experiencing those ongoing benefits.

• Astaxanthin won't counteract unhealthy habits like smoking cigarettes, eating fried foods or drinking a fat-laden Starbucks "coffee" that's really more like a 600-calorie milkshake. Don't take astaxanthin as an excuse to pursue unhealthy foods or lifestyle choices (like smoking).

• Don't go overboard with your exercise in an unsafe way. Always work with a qualified health practitioner concerning ANY changes in your exercise or diet. Ease into your exercise slowly and carefully. It's better to slowly ramp up to more exercise over time than to injure yourself because you got overly excited and went too far...

• Astaxanthin needs to be taken throughout the day for maximum effect. I take 4mg every 4 hours. That way, I'm getting a healthy dose of astaxanthin at every hour of the day.

• Always take astaxanthin with healthy fats. Since it's fat-soluble, it needs fat to hitch a ride to your body's cells.

• Remember that if you eat fried foods (including so-called "healthy" snack chips fried at high temperatures), you will "use up" a lot of the antioxidant power in astaxanthin, leaving less to help the rest of your body. Unhealthy foods are often highly oxidizing, so even though I don't recommend eating fried foods, if you do, you may want to consider taking an extra astaxanthin capsule at the same time to protect your body from the fried foods.

• Not to make this too scatalogical, but at 16mg per day, astaxanthin will turn your poo slightly red, just like when you drink beet juice. Drink some chlorophyll too (which turns your poo green) next December, and you can poo in vibrant holiday colors! (Only recommended for the easily amused...)

• There's virtually no way to overdose on astaxanthin. Remember, this isn't a drug. It's something that's been in the natural food supply for millions of years. The studies that have been done show virtually no toxicity even at ridiculously high doses. However, based on what I've read it seems that the benefits of astaxanthin reach a point of diminishing returns after about 20mg per day for a human being, so that's why I take 16mg a day: It's enough to generate wonderful benefits, but I'm not going overboard with it. In one study, they gave 30mg per day to a horse! So probably, it's a fair guess to say you would need less than a horse. The lighter you are, the less you need, of course. I weigh 190 and take 16mg. If you only weigh 110 pounds, you might only want to take 8mg or 12mg per day. Even 4mg per day produces some benefits, by the way.

Once, again, if you'd like to get your hands on some astaxanthin, the source I recommend in the U.S. is Vitacost. Their pages on astaxanthin are:

http://www.vitacost.com/Nutrex-Hawaii-B...
(For the BioAstin brand of astaxanthin, made by Cyanotech)

http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Natural-Astaxanthin
(For VitaCost's in-house brand of astaxanthin, which is also natural astaxanthin)

If you want a 10% discount, and you're already a subscriber to NaturalNews, just check your e-mail (I already sent you the coupon code good for 10% off). If you're not a subscriber, just sign up right now (it's free!) and you'll instantly receive the coupon code. You can subscribe here: http://www.naturalnews.com/ReaderRegist...

You can also just buy astaxanthin at your local health food store, of course. Or you might have other online retailers if you're living in the U.K., Australia, Canada or another country. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me where you get your astaxanthin, just make sure of one thing, which is VERY important: Always by "natural" astaxanthin, not "synthetic astaxanthin."

You see, there's a lot of synthetic astaxanthin on the market, too, and it's made from -- if you can believe this -- petroleum! It doesn't provide any health benefits, by the way, just like synthetic vitamin E or synthetic B vitamins. They're all garbage, if you ask me. Only the natural stuff really works to protect and enhance your health. So wherever you buy astaxanthin, make sure you're buying only natural astaxanthin.


Which sources of astaxanthin I really trust
Another note: As a journalist, I've toured the Cyanotech facility on the Big Island in Hawaii, and I've seen their quality first-hand. I've met the people, photographed the processing facility machines and watched how they clean, dry and pack both astaxanthin and spirulina. So I've seen it all first hand at Cyanotech, and I know they do a really great job. I have NOT seen any other facilities making astaxanthin, so I can't say whether or not any other companies are doing as good a job as Cyanotech. Therefore, I personally only buy Cyanotech's astaxanthin because I know I can trust it. I also know they batch test their products to make sure they don't contain heavy metals or other freaky contaminants.

I just can't say whether other manufacturers are doing a good job. They may very well do so, but I haven't had the opportunity to tour their facilities yet. Perhaps after this story runs, I'll be invited to other manufacturers and I'll be able to publish a follow up report to let you know what I find. One thing you can rest assured of, however: I have zero financial ties with Cyanotech, Vitacost or any other company mentioned in this review, because that's my policy of remaining independent and objective, and I stick to it!


Why the FDA wants to censor this
The FDA, of course wants to censor this information outright. They don't want consumers learning the truth about how natural astaxanthin makes anti-inflammatory medications virtually obsolete, or how it operates as a natural sunscreen, or an exercise endurance enhancer. They don't want you to know that taking astaxanthin greatly reduces your chances of ever being diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer's disease, or that it prevents the oxidation of your cells from eating fried foods or junk foods.

And you know what? If I were selling astaxanthin, I'd be in jail right now. The FDA would raid my warehouse (if I had one), confiscate my inventory (if I had any), seize my product literature (if I had some) and confiscate my bank account profits from selling the product (if I had any). But since I don't have any of that and, in fact, I earn absolutely nothing from telling you these obvious truths about astaxanthin, the FDA is at a complete loss to take any action to censor me and thereby prevent you from learning the truth about this amazing nutrient.

To put it simply: I'm not regulated by the FDA, since I sell no foods, drugs, supplements or other such products. As a result, I'm free to tell you the truth about astaxanthin and other natural medicines in a way that the manufacturers of these products simply cannot (because they're muzzled by the FDA, which is of course a criminal operating engaged in blatant censorhip campaigns designed to keep the public ignorant about nutrition in order to protect the profits of Big Pharma).

So, in essence, the facts that astaxanthin eases arthritis pain, prevents Alzheimer's disease, speeds recovery from exercise, boosts physical endurance, prevents cancer, stabilizes blood sugar and protects the entire cardiovascular system are things that you're not supposed to know, you know. Forbidden knowledge and all that. The FDA has decided that the American population should not have access to this information, thereby ensuring that consumers don't know they have options for their health. When consumers don't realize they have options, they default to taking dangerous (yet profitable) pharmaceuticals. And that, of course, is the whole point of the FDA's campaign of censorship in the first place.

By the way, sometimes people ask me why I don't include more citations of the scientific studies supporting what I'm sharing in these articles. The answer to that is simple: The presence (or lack thereof) of a "scientific" citation does not change the nature of what astaxanthin is already and what it does for your body. In other words, including a citation doesn't make astaxanthin work any better, and excluding a citation doesn't make astaxanthin work any worse. It is what it is, and it's been around far longer than humans, or researchers, or scientific journals. Natural medicine, in other words, doesn't just suddenly start to work after it's been publishing in a science journal; it's been working for centuries to keep animals, fish and our human ancestors healthy!

After hearing that some people say, "No, Mike, you're supposed to convince me that astaxanthin does all this, and that's why you should cite all these scientific studies."

Actually, I'm not here to convince anyone who isn't already ready to experience phenomenal health in the first place. Some people will stand in their comfort zones and avoid all the healthy things they could be taking right now -- superfoods, spirulina, vitamin D, fish oils, astaxanthin -- and they'll sit there and insist "I'm not taking anything until it's scientifically proven!" And before long, they waste away with degenerative disease, dying of cancer, or heart attacks or strokes, all because they wanted 100% absolute proof before they would take a single health supplement that might have prevented their disease. It reminds me of a high school friend who never went to college. A few years back, I asked him why he never went to college. He said that Bill Clinton promised a free college education to every student in America, and he was waiting around until Clinton or some other President made good on that promise.

It just makes you wonder: How long will some people wait around to die, waiting for scientists to proclaim they've discovered what Mother Nature has provided us all along? Anybody who waits for corporate America to tell you how to take care of your health is a fool. There is simply no incentive for any industry (like the sick-care industry) to make you aware of the health benefits of astaxanthin. And teaching people how to prevent cancer is certainly no priority of medical journals, most of which are entirely funded by drug companies that profit from cancer in the first place.

Finally, scientific citations were probably really handy a few decades ago when there was no such thing as an instantly searchable online database of scientific studies such as Google Scholar. I mean, c'mon, how hard is it to go online and search for astaxanthin studies, anyway? Here, I'll do the search for you, just click this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=astaxanthin

There, you'll see a listing of 9,230 different references to astaxanthin in the scientific literature, including numerous studies about its anti-cancer benefits, antioxidant benefits, prevention of carcinogenesis, and a whole lot more.

Okay, get this: Some people then say, but Mike, you're supposed to interpret all those studies for us and tell us what they mean!

And that, my friends, is exactly what this article is doing in the first place: Interpreting the science and boiling it down to everyday language that honestly and openly shares the benefits of astaxanthin. So you see, in reality, people don't really want a long list of 9,230 scientific studies about a miracle nutrient like natural astaxanthin. What they really want is to understand how can it help me? And that's what I aim to do with articles like this. I'm just working to tell you the honest truth about the remarkable health benefits of natural astaxanthin.

Let's be honest: If I listed 9,230 scientific citations in the space following this paragraph, would it really matter anyway? The skeptical doctors, trained to discredit anything that's not a drug, would dismiss the whole story anyway. Even a million studies cannot overcome a person's own limiting belief system and mental filters. If a person believes natural medicine has no health benefits whatsoever, then they will automatically filter out all evidence that contradicts their stated belief.

On the other hand, a person who understands natural health and the principles of natural medicine doesn't need 9,230 scientific studies listed either, since they realize that Mother Nature is the true authority on human health and natural medicine, not some commercial publication that tries to position itself as a "scientific" journal. The real authority on what heals is, essentially, the nature found inside you right now. You are an extension of nature, and your body was created to live in perfect harmony with the foods and medicines found in the natural world around you. That's why truth is only defined by what's true for you, in your own experience.

So try astaxanthin yourself today, and see what benefits you experience. Don't let someone else tell you what astaxanthin will or won't do for you, find out for yourself! Only you can be the authority on what's true for you, after all.

Here are my recommended sources one more time:

http://www.vitacost.com/Nutrex-Hawaii-B...
(For the BioAstin brand of astaxanthin, made by Cyanotech)

http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Natural-Astaxanthin
(For VitaCost's in-house brand of astaxanthin, which is also natural astaxanthin)

If you want the 10% discount coupon code, and you're already a subscriber to NaturalNews, just check your e-mail (I already sent you the coupon code good for 10% off). If you're not a subscriber, just sign up right now (it's free!) and you'll instantly receive the coupon code. You can subscribe here: http://www.naturalnews.com/ReaderRegist...

Remember, the discount is only good through this Friday, and it only applies to those astaxanthin products, not the entire Vitacost product line.

Enjoy your astaxanthin!

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He's also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NaturalNews subscriptions. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening.

weirdwolf71
07-05-2008, 01:21 AM
found a UK source if anyone interested....

http://www.bioastin-uk.com/bioastin_astaxanthin_uk.htm

madthumbs
07-05-2008, 03:15 AM
Natural News used to be NewsTarget.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-moderngeneral.html

Lemon Juice and water can help prevent apples or lettuce from browning due to it's anti-oxidant properties. Would concentrating that juice or would perhaps another juice work better? IMHO, I think anti-oxidant propaganda is used as a cover up for amygdalin (http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=83).

megafish33
07-05-2008, 08:39 AM
Buy fish from VitalChoice and you'll get tons of it in your diet. :) Neptune Krill Oil is also a concentrated supplement that has some in there.

kernelpower
07-05-2008, 03:57 PM
Natural News used to be NewsTarget.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/codex-moderngeneral.html

Lemon Juice and water can help prevent apples or lettuce from browning due to it's anti-oxidant properties. Would concentrating that juice or would perhaps another juice work better? IMHO, I think anti-oxidant propaganda is used as a cover up for amygdalin (http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=83).

sorry what was the point of posting the rath link???

Thanks

astro zombie
07-05-2008, 10:26 PM
Buy fish from VitalChoice and you'll get tons of it in your diet. :) Neptune Krill Oil is also a concentrated supplement that has some in there.

Cool thanks.:cool:

madthumbs
08-05-2008, 04:41 AM
sorry what was the point of posting the rath link???

Thanks

Mike Adams is associated with Laibow/Stubblebine, both were claiming DDOS attacks before the name change. Don't fail to be skeptical of what information you get from these sites.

megafish33
08-05-2008, 09:42 AM
Cool thanks.:cool:

NP, enjoy. :cool:

deetox
26-07-2009, 01:10 AM
BUMP

I recently discovered this amazing nutrient and thought it might be a good idea to remind people about it.

Heres a whole bunch of amazing reviews from people.

http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-Natural-Astaxanthin-Featuring-Hawaiian-BioAstin/pd_section-pr#ProductReviews

http://www.vitacost.com/Nutrex-Hawaii-BioAstin-Natural-Astaxanthin/pd_section-pr#ProductReviews

Needless to say after reading all that I ordered some right away, should have it by next week. I can't wait to try this stuff.

motleyhoo
01-08-2009, 05:30 AM
Mike Adams is associated with Laibow/Stubblebine, both were claiming DDOS attacks before the name change. Don't fail to be skeptical of what information you get from these sites.

There is a lot of disparaging information being spread around about Mike Adams of Natural News really working for the other side. That's really funny actually, because since I have been a regular visitor of his site, and long before he changed it from newstarget, not once has he ever posted anything even remotely resembling something that could be construed as being in line with the other side. The majority of his articles are about serious malfeasances being perpetrated by the drug companies, information that is truthful and verifiable, and will not be presented anywhere in the news media since they get their advertisement dollars from the very pharma companies he blows the whistle on. I have learned more about how to live a healthy life outside of mainstream medicine from his sites than from any other sources, and I dare say natural news was part of what woke me up.

Don't fail to be skeptical of what information you get from propagandists working for a multi-billion dollar industry interested in stamping out all forms of health freedom.

I would also add that the information on natural news is vehemently opposed to Stubblebine's views, and that an anti-Codex article was just posted this week. I suggest you read this if you still think Mike Adams is in collusion with the other side.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026731_CODEX_food_health.html

.

jolinemaria
01-09-2009, 12:59 PM
I bought the asthaxantin.
Been using it for 2 days now.
Very curious if it does anything good to my eyesight.
Anyone else started taking it?
Results as yet?

gripit
01-09-2009, 01:09 PM
Antioxidants: Another health con?


April 22, 2008

JFS Special: Results of the largest study on antioxidants - do they have a role in preventive health?

It’s one of the most popularly believed adages of our times: that antioxidant supplements, and lots of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables, can avert the damage of free radicals and prevent chronic diseases of aging — the primary causes of death, such as heart disease and cancer — and enable us to live longer. Free radicals, the unavoidable results of being alive, are natural byproducts of breathing. Decades ago, when a correlation was seen between people eating produce-rich diets and lower rates of diseases associated with free radical damage, the belief was born that the antioxidants in fruits and vegetables must be the cause. Decades of clinical trials, that have not supported the ability of antioxidant vitamins to reduce premature deaths, haven’t shaken our conviction, let alone brought most of us to even question it.

According to the National Institutes of Health, more than half of adults in the U.S. take some type of vitamin supplement, spending $23 billion each year. The benefits of antioxidants are intensely promoted not just by those with the $65 million of programs for produce and ‘healthy eating’, but the even larger vitamin and supplement industry.

As you can imagine, the just-released review of every available randomized, placebo-control, clinical trial of antioxidant vitamins conducted since 1945 has received a lot of attention. And sparked a lot of misinformation from both sides of the debate.

This study* was conducted using exemplary methodology and by the world’s most respected source of systematic reviews. It provided one answer quite impressively and we can learn a lot from it. But it still cannot overcome the fact that it was a review. Forgetting that fact has been the source of misinterpretations and over interpretations of its findings, leaving consumers unsure what to believe.

Let’s start from the top.


What they did

This review, all 191 pages, was just published online by Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, having been previously published in a February 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. So, its methods have already had a year of external peer-review and corrections, in addition to JAMA’s peer-reviewers. Researchers, led by Dr. Goran Bjelakovic, M.D., DrMedSci, at Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit at the Center for Clinical Intervention Research at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, set out to determine if antioxidant supplements can reduce premature deaths and prolong life. They wanted to see if antioxidant nutrients are effective for primary and secondary preventive health care.

They first searched through four major databases of published trials, as well as contacted all of the major manufacturers of antioxidant supplements for any unpublished trials, done from 1945 to October 2005. They looked for every randomized clinical trial that compared antioxidant supplements (including beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E and selenium) to a placebo or no vitamins. Trials of adults who were healthy and recruited among the general population (primary prevention) were included, as well as adults who had chronic diseases in a stable phase (secondary prevention). They excluded trials involving special needs or treatments for deficiencies, such as pregnant women, children, or those with acute infectious or active malignant cancers, as there is no scientific debate about the benefits of vitamins and minerals for deficiencies of essential nutrients.

Their primary outcome was, of course all-cause mortality. It is the most objective and decisive measurement to evaluate the hypothesis that these vitamins prevent or lessen the chronic diseases that are the major causes of death, and improve health and longevity.

They identified 815 prevention trials and contacted authors to get any missing information. A total of 339 studies were excluded because they weren’t randomized trials or didn’t meet the inclusion criteria, which was straightforward. A total of 405 trials (on 40,000 people) reported no deaths at all, meaning no comparisons could be made between the vitamin and placebo groups to show an effect from the vitamins — the majority were small phase I or II trials of short duration — but the Cochrane reviewers contacted the authors to confirm they had no deaths.

They ended up with 67 clinical trials that had been conducted all over the world on a total of 232,550 people. The average age was 62 years, with the studies reporting an average of 45% female participants.

Twenty-one trials were primary prevention trials of 164,439 healthy participants; 46 trials were secondary prevention trials with 68,111 participants who had gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, ocular, dermatological, rheumatoid, kidney, cardiovascular, endocrinological or other diseases. All participants in the intervention half of each trial had been given antioxidant supplements (orally) in a range of doses, alone or in 13 various combinations, for 1 month to 12 years (average 2.8 years). The average follow-up for all of the trials was 3.4 years (28 days to 14.1 years).

It is what the Cochrane researchers did next that provides us with the most important information. They took each clinical trial, along with the protocols and a multitude of published papers for each trial, and conducted detailed analyses of the quality of the methodology, looking for bias.

Bias in clinical trials is not a term many people recognize. Looking for bias is just a way to tell if a clinical trial has been conducted to be a “fair test” of an hypothesis. It’s a way to judge the quality of a clinical trial and determine if its results are reliable. When scientists talk about a weak trial that’s of poor quality, it isn’t an arbitrary claim, frivolous pickiness, or because there is some conspiracy to trash a study they don’t like. A weak study is one that failed to follow well-established methods to reliably test an intervention — basic standards that have been part of the scientific process for centuries — and shown bias. Bias is also used to judge a systematic review of all the relevant, credible trial evidence to help practitioners determine if a medical treatment is actually effective. We’ve talked briefly about fair test before, but for more information on biases and how trials can be manipulated to create bias, see sidebar: “What is a fair test?”

They identified 47 trials as having low risk for bias (in randomization, blinding, follow-up, etc.); and 20 trials with questionable or inadequate methodology, hence, high risks for bias. [But in the end, even considering bias didn’t change the findings.]


The money shot

Here is the greatest value of this analysis. They plotted the findings of each clinical trial, showing the effects in the intervention group taking the antioxidant supplements compared to those taking a placebo. The researchers also compared the trials in a multitude of ways: according to high and low risks of bias, primary and secondary prevention trials, excluding trials administering extra supplement doses, excluding trials with potential confounding factors and/or with extra supplements; trials of each of the vitamins separately, and each of the vitamins without selenium.

Not a single clinical trial was able to find a tenable effect for taking vitamins. There was no significant difference in mortality among those taking the antioxidant supplements compared to a placebo — regardless of the doses, antioxidants taken individually or in combination, in any population studied or after 14 years of follow-up. Every relative risk hugged either side of null (1:1 = same risk of death in those taking supplements and in those not), all within the range of random chance and margin of error. There are pages upon pages that look much like this:


The researchers were also unable to find a tenable effect for taking the antioxidant vitamins by lumping all of the studies together or by any permutation of comparisons they tried or any statistical model they used.

As the researchers noted: “In random-effects meta-analysis, antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality.” Relative risk was 1.02. A null finding.

The random-effects analysis was requested by the JAMA peer-reviewers and is used when there are differences between study groups (heterogeneous trials, such as these on healthy people to patients, and differing study sizes and durations, participant ages, doses and vitamin combinations). This method yielded, as the authors noted, no statistically significant effect at all.

Cochrane Collaborate tells authors of these types of meta-analyses that there is little difference in the results regardless of which statistical analysis model is used, “and the conclusions of your review would certainly not change.” These authors tried two other statistical models and, sure enough, were still unable to yield a single tenable relative risk. With a fixed-effect analysis, they were able to derive a “statistically” significant relative risk of 1.04, but it was still an untenable relative risk for a meta-analysis. A null finding.

They tried other statistical analyses of every permutation mentioned above, using the fixed-effect model, and, still, all of the relative risks hugged either side of null: 1.17, 1.004, 1.00006, 0.998, 1.16, 0.999, 1.05, 0.92, 1.05, 0.95, 1.03, 0.89, 1.05, 1.12, 1.16, 1.02, 0.99, and on and on. None of the relative risks for mortality between those taking supplements and those taking a placebo were tenable.

Applying a Peto odds-ratio statistical method, a method used when there are little differences between a treatment and control group, they still found no tenable risk ratio (RR 1.05 for low-biased trials, for example).

The clearest and soundest take-away message from this analysis was the authors' conclusion:

“We found no convincing evidence that antioxidant supplements decrease mortality... We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention.”

If there was any real effect on improving health and preventing or lessening chronic diseases that are what most people die of, then there would have been a clear, tenable effect seen. In the clinical trials that had reported the causes for deaths, cancer and heart disease were the mains causes of death — which were statistically equal between the supplement and placebo groups.

As the authors noted, antioxidant supplements are not only one of the most researched topics in the world, they’re one of the most adequately researched. By compiling the studies for us, we can better see that there is no evidence to support a benefit for taking antioxidant vitamins, believing they will help us live longer or as a preventative for chronic illnesses. Nada, zip, ziltch.

The general public, I suspect, doesn’t realize the degree to which clinical trials have consistently failed to support the use of antioxidant supplements and various ‘healthy’ foods, because the studies widely cited as evidence for their benefits are observational studies, looking for correlations among groups of people (or studies in test tubes). As with most diet and nutrition epidemiological studies, certain foods and behaviors are most often markers for factors such as social-economic and genetic factors that have the greatest role on health and longevity. When they’re put to the test in randomized clinical trials and given fair tests, they fail to prove to be the cause.


It went downhill from there

As is so often the case, what a study’s data actually reveals isn’t always what the authors conclude, or the spin given in the media.

The news around the world has been trumpeting, “Vitamins may shorten your life!” And media has been reporting that antioxidants could lead to premature death. Even the authors concluded that “beta-carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E seem to increase mortality.”

There is nothing to support these fears or such scary interpretations of null findings and untenable relative risks. As been noted by multiple expert bodies, derived relative risks need to be at least one to two times above null to be considered tenable.

So, just as this analysis clearly found no benefit, those very same relative risks show no credible dangers, either.**

What would relative risks in an analysis of randomized clinical trials look like that might allow healthcare practitioners and us to make a credible conclusion of a potential benefit or risk?

Considerably different. The relative risks would be strong, consistent and unambiguous. They say a picture’s worth a thousand words, so here is the plot from a meta-analysis of clinical trials of antibiotics compared to a placebo for reducing post-op deaths after bowel surgery. Except for the first small study in 1969 on 29 patients using an early antibiotic, every clinical trial showed a similar and strikingly significant reduction in deaths. [Relative risks are all well to the left 1, meaning many times fewer people died on antibiotics compared to a placebo.] There was no hugging either side of null and statistical splitting hairs trying to divine meaning. The saddest thing is that it took years for the medical profession to get it and they continued to do trials for 17 years, long after a benefit was clearly identified in repeated randomized, clinical trials.


How many clinical trials will continue to be done on antioxidants, and consumers being sold them, despite decades and at least 67 randomized controlled trials that have clearly shown no benefit of antioxidants in primary or secondary prevention?


Bringing balance and reason back is hard

Basic nutritional science has long known, and repeatedly demonstrated, the value of essential nutrients for the prevention and treatment of deficiencies. Here, the evidence is incontrovertible. A deficiency of vitamin C results in scurvy, a deficiency of folic acid in pregnant women can increase risk of spina bifida and neural tube defects in babies, a deficiency of vitamin B6 affects the neurological system, a deficiency of iron results in anemia, a deficiency of vitamin A can cause blindness and impaired immune system (and is the leading cause of preventable blindness and death among women and children in underdeveloped countries), etc. The use of vitamins and minerals in the treatment of deficiencies such as these have solid science. There are also specific medical conditions where deficiencies are known to occur due to heightened needs or difficulty meeting nutritional needs through foods, such as malabsorption after bariatric surgeries, certain illnesses, alcoholism, organ failure or surgery. For example, vitamin B6 deficiencies are seen in those taking certain medications such as cycloserie and penicillamine, or in babies with seizures due to a rare genetic pyridoxine-dependency.

But there is no credible evidence to support the belief that most of adults suffer deficiencies and need supplements, while we may fear so. Nor is it true that most people in developed countries are poorly nourished and suffer widespread vitamin deficiencies. Getting the tiny amounts of essential vitamins our bodies need (excluding certain medical conditions) isn’t difficult when food isn’t restricted. And eating and getting the nutrients our bodies need isn’t nearly as precarious as many want us to fear — eat normally and enjoy a variety of foods, which, despite popular fears, most people naturally do when they have enough to eat and are not fretting about their diets or weight and trying to control their eating. There’s no single ‘right’ way to eat.

Among countless other doctors, Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., lead author of Worst Pills, Best Pills, has also emphasized that there is no credible medical evidence to support taking supplements when a specific deficiency doesn’t exist or for otherwise bettering our health. Claims that poor nutrition or nutritional deficiencies cause most chronic disease and today’s health problems are not supported by the evidence or biological plausibility. Similarly, claims that diseases and health problems be prevented or treated through nutrition and supplements aren’t supported, either.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force — charged with issuing careful, evidence-based findings that are used to develop clinical guidelines for healthcare providers — also recently reviewed randomized clinical trials on vitamin supplementation to prevent cancers and heart disease. It found insufficient evidence to recommend supplements of vitamins A, C or E; multivitamins with folic acid; or antioxidant combinations for the prevention of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Clinical trials, many covered here, continue to yield null findings for the benefits of vitamins and supplements or certain foods in preventing heart disease, cancers or other chronic diseases of aging, reducing premature deaths, or helping us live longer.

Healthy lifestyle programs and anti-aging diets rich in ‘healthy foods’, fruits and vegetables, and special supplements, promise to prevent chronic diseases, promote optimal “wellness,” slow aging and add years to our life. The trouble is, there’s no scientific support for such beliefs, and things have gone way beyond basic nutrition.

The free-radical theory of aging serves as a basis for the prominent role that antioxidants have in the anti-aging, ‘lifestyle medicine’ and the preventive health movement, yet it is based on misunderstandings of how cells detect and repair the damage caused by free radicals and the important role that free radicals play in normal physiological processes. Research on flavonoids and super reds, concentrated antioxidants from colorful fruits and vegetables, and other superfoods, for instance, continues to show no credible scientific evidence for any special healthful virtues or powers to heal or prolong life.

The role of food and lifestyles in causing or preventing cancers is where misinformation is especially ripe. As Dr. Barnett Kramer, deputy director in the office of disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, said: “Over time, the messages on diet and cancer have been ratcheted up until they are almost co-equal with the smoking messages. I think a lot of the public is completely unaware that the strength of the message is not matched by the strength of the evidence.”

Many people discount the clinical trials of supplements and “healthy” foods that have failed to show significant special benefits (beyond their role in known deficiencies) for preventing cancers, heart disease or other chronic diseases of aging or on reducing mortality, believing that whole foods or some different combination of foods and supplements offer the vital essence that can promote optimal health. This is vitalism, not science. Regardless of the beliefs in special abilities of certain foods or special diets (the very same nutrients and diets are said to heal or kill us, depending on the information source!) they are grounded on a lot of nutritional misconceptions and poor science... and marketing. Look for those fair tests and randomized clinical trials on people.

People around the world have enjoyed a wide range of diets with no common relationship to lifespans or health. And humans have been trying to find the secret to longer life for all of recorded history, and haven’t found it yet. Even careful examination of people who have lived over 100 years fails to reveal any consistent secret except one: Have long-lived parents.

Science isn’t popular, though, and is a hard sell against intense marketing. Disturbed by how much nutritional and lifestyle quackery has crossed into mainstream, 51 world-recognized scientists and experts in human aging reviewed all of the scientific evidence behind such popular beliefs and issued a scientific position on the evidence. Funded by the National Institute on Aging and published in the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, they emphatically stated:

“Our language on this matter must be unambiguous: there are no lifestyle changes, surgical procedures, vitamins, antioxidants, hormones or techniques of genetic engineering available today that have been demonstrated to influence the processes of aging.”


* External Funding

This study received external funded from the Knowledge and Research Centre for Alternative Medicine (Vi-FAB) in Denmark. This is an independent institution under the Danish Ministry of Health and Prevention which promotes research into alternative medicine and promotes information on natural medicine and alternative modalities. Its board members include alternative practitioners associations and preventive health and public health organizations.


** Precaution

There is one precaution and potential risk of taking antioxidant supplements that hasn’t been mentioned. While supplements clearly don’t improve longevity or have a preventive health benefit, they are not harmless for those taking certain medications. Various supplements can interact with other medications with adverse consequences for patients. Vitamin E, for example, can inhibit the effects of tricyclic antidepressants, potentiate the effects of phenothiazine antipsychotics, inhibit beta blockers used for high blood pressure, and increase the blood thinning effect of warfarin and risk abnormal bleeding. Be sure to work with your doctor or pharmacist, if you choose to combine over-the-counter products with prescription medications.


Questions? These are a few of the main concerns that have been in the news:

1. Claim: We need to take vitamins and supplements because our diets are so crappy today and/or our foods are poor in nutrients.

Facts: Millions of people take vitamins to ‘cover their bases,’ wrongly believing their diets are inadequate and need the extra insurance of supplements to be healthy. This study used randomized controlled trials, which means people taking supplements were compared to people not taking supplements and eating typical diets with all of those supposedly “bad” foods. Yet even still, the supplements showed no benefit.

Concerns over the quality of our diets and health are greatly exaggerated; the population continues to live longer than ever in our history and rates of heart disease, cancer and stroke have been dropping. It is when foods are restricted by healthy people that deficiencies can come into play, not getting enough to eat.


2. Claim: They eliminated all of the studies (405 trials) that showed no deaths, thereby excluding from the analysis all the studies that showed no increase in risks.

Facts: They did not delete the studies just showing no deaths in those taking vitamins. They deleted studies reporting no deaths at all, from either arm. Remember, these were randomized, controlled trials, which means each trial compared a group of people taking vitamins and a group not. The researchers were looking to see if vitamins help reduce premature deaths — death is the most definitive measure of all of the chronic diseases that are the major causes of death, such as cancer, heart disease, etc..

If there are no deaths among people taking vitamins and no deaths in those not receiving vitamins, there’s no difference and the vitamins could not be shown to reduce deaths or increase deaths. Zero events are still zero.

They could have included these trials — 405 zeroes. But 405 X 0 = 0. It would not have changed their findings.

The clinical trials that didn’t report any deaths among the people during the study period were also smaller, shorter trials. In fact, they represented only 40,000 people, compared to the 232,550 in the larger, longer 67 trials they did include. So, the researchers actually included about 85% of every person who’d participated in clinical trials of antioxidant supplements since 1966.

In a sensitivity analysis, their findings didn’t change when they included all of those excluded studies, even after adding a death in each study arm (RR 1.02).


3. Claim: Most of the people in their analysis already had diseases and it was too late to repair that oxidant damage from a lifetime of bad diets, but they didn’t study healthy people.

Facts: This review examined the use of vitamins for primary prevention and secondary prevention. Most of the people were healthy — 164,439 healthy participants. Another 68,111 people had various chronic diseases. Regardless of how the authors analyzed the data — including all participants, just those who already had diseases and just healthy people — there was no benefits shown in vitamin use.


4. Claim: They studied people not taking large enough doses or the right combination of antioxidants to really prevent the diseases of aging.

Facts: This analysis included studies of vitamin supplements primarily to meet the RDA but also mega-doses. The exception was vitamin A; given the known health risks of high doses of vitamin A, only one trial (of 109 people) had given >25,000 I.U. of vitamin A. Regardless of how the findings were analyzed, including separate analysis of those taking extra vitamins, their findings didn’t change. There was no benefits in taking any of the vitamins alone or together, regardless of the dose or duration.


5. Claim: The vitamins were synthetic, not ‘natural,’ and ‘natural’ vitamins are different because they contain other ‘vital’ bioactive factors in whole foods that aren’t found in chemically-created products.

Facts: The idea of natural sources of vitamins is a marketing concept, but all chemicals are natural and derived from natural chemical precursors. The molecular structure of a synthetic vitamin molecule is identical to one from natural sources and indistinguishable in all respects to our body.

Names can be confusing and lead you to believe that one type is less bioactive than another, such as vitamin E. The d-form (most often termed ‘d-alpha tocopherol’) that is derived from vegetable oils and other ‘natural’ sources is different from the dl-form (dl-tocopherol) that’s commonly called the ‘synthetic’ type of vitamin E, but biologically no better. Simply put, the dl-form is a combination of d-form and l-form (usually 1:1 ratio), but the body only uses the d-form. The l-form doesn’t offer any extra benefit as it’s just excreted by the body. So the dosage on the labels of dl-form and d-forms (half) will be different — but the bioeffective vitamin dose is the same.

The body has to digest foods and metabolically change them to absorb and utilize the vitamins, so synthesized vitamins, such as folate, can be even more readily absorbed than natural forms. Most synthesized vitamins are made to have the right sterio-isomeric configuration to be readily absorbed.

‘Natural’ vitamins are said to have hundreds of other, unknown substances found in whole foods that aren’t found in synthetic vitamins, but there are no credible clinical studies supporting such claims that these ingredients potentiate or improve the action or absorption of the vitamins or offer any special benefits. Vitamin pills extracted from foods undergo a process that changes their place in that food and it’s implausible that the miniscule amount of some unknown factor that might survive that process in a tiny pill has any special vital essences or health promoting properties.


6. Claim: They eliminated 245 studies because they didn’t meet their arbitrary criteria.

Facts: Their inclusion criteria were clearly defined. It would have provided no value at all to include flawed studies and a data dump simply because some might like what they found. See “Fair test.”


© 2008 Sandy Szwarc


http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/04/jfs-special-results-of-largest-study-on.html

hank_scorpio
01-09-2009, 03:15 PM
Vitamin C is a naturally evolved anti-oxidant. Plants hit a brick wall in evolution and developed vitamin c to combat oxidants. :) Maybe its no thanks to vitamin c that mammals even evolved in the first place.;)

I don't agree with taking supplements because they are not natural and organic and don't do anything for the body. If you take dead nutrients they are just going to sit in your stomach and not do anything. Some supplements are advertised as organic but aren't.

motleyhoo
02-09-2009, 04:14 AM
JFS Special: Results of the largest study on antioxidants - do they have a role in preventive health?

Are you saying you actually believe something posted by the NIH? This is one of the organizations hyping up the swine flu at this very moment. They are nothing but shills for the drug comapnies who can't get patents on superfoods. If you look at the people running the NIH, they either used to work for a drug company, or they will become a drug company lobbyist after their tour of duty is over. The way you get a cushy six figure job working as a lobbyist is work for a govt agency and do the bidding of whatever corporations you want favors from when your stint is over. The NIH and the FDA are full of people with just such an agenda.

In light of that article, I would ask the publishers how they would explain the positive findings by a multitude of studies regarding the anti-oxidants Resveratrol and Curcumin. It refutes their entire article.

.

gripit
02-09-2009, 05:00 AM
Are you saying you actually believe something posted by the NIH? This is one of the organizations hyping up the swine flu at this very moment. They are nothing but shills for the drug comapnies who can't get patents on superfoods. If you look at the people running the NIH, they either used to work for a drug company, or they will become a drug company lobbyist after their tour of duty is over. The way you get a cushy six figure job working as a lobbyist is work for a govt agency and do the bidding of whatever corporations you want favors from when your stint is over. The NIH and the FDA are full of people with just such an agenda.

In light of that article, I would ask the publishers how they would explain the positive findings by a multitude of studies regarding the anti-oxidants Resveratrol and Curcumin. It refutes their entire article.

.

Hey motleyhoo: First of all, I never said what I believed. Second of all, nowhere does it say the study was done by the NIH. Thirdly, this woman from rips apart all the bullshit spewed out by the NIH and the Big Pharma scamsters on a daily basis! She is on OUR side!!

As far as other antioxidant studies, I haven't read up on them. All I was doing was posting the results from the largest random intervention trial ever done. The rest is for the reader to decide...

Cheers :)