The Weight of Evidence is Against Antioxidants
As noted in the past here at Fight Aging!, the weight of evidence suggests that presently available antioxidant supplements either do nothing or somewhat harm long term health - the fervor for them is nothing more than magical thinking based on the effects antioxidants can have on cells in culture, and on the beneficial effects of mitochondrially targeted antioxidant compounds. That, however, is a long way removed from what you eat and what happens in a complex system like a living animal. Fortunately, sense is slowly starting to emerge in the media: "Few medical remedies have a more sterling reputation than that assortment of foods, pills, and general life maneuvers known collectively as 'antioxidants.' At last, here's something that promises better heart health, improved immunity, a pellucid complexion as well as relief against cancer, arthritis, and the blahs - and it's all-natural! What's not to like? Well, there is a wee small problem in our ongoing anti-oxidize-athon: As it turns out, we have no evidence that antioxidants are beneficial in humans. ... In fact [the] best available data demonstrate that antioxidants are bad for you - so long as you count an increased risk of death as 'bad.' ... But, hey, who ever let a little evidence stand in the way of a good time? Especially in this case, when the charge toward lifestyle legitimacy has been led by willowy celebrities with karmic equipoise."