Hi,

Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it
was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are
useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is
equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.

this and other interesting facts about pauling (the guy who came up
with the modern theories of bonding) can easily be found on the web.

1st hit: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/lpbio/lpbio2.html

so drink tea and prosper...

Eric Jorgensen wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 20:52:28 +0100
> danube > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 08 May 2005 06:44:23 -0700, bigcat wrote:
> >
> > > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > >> [quoted text muted]
> > > its
> > >> [quoted text muted]
> > > for
> > >> [quoted text muted]
> > >
> > >
> > > excellant, thank you. The idea is to eat one tea bag a day to provide
> > > high levels of antioxidants. I realise there are other antioxis, but
> > > have already covered them.
> > >
> > > Oh... no, not to eat the paper bag itself!
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks, NT
> >
> > What are antioxidants? Think about it!
>
>
> Antioxidants are molecules that can give away an electron or two without
> needing to replace it.
>
> What happens is that there's stuff in your diet and environment that is
> missing a few electrons, and sometimes they'll steal one from a neighbor,
> and sometimes that electron steals one from someone else, etc. This can
> cascade into oxidization cells, though the effect is mild.
>
> Antioxidants give away some electrons without causing a chain reaction.
> This is a gross simplification, but should give you an idea what's going
> on.
>
> The truth is that there is no credible evidence backing up the idea that
> you should eat a *lot of antioxidants. All the evidence points to rapidly
> diminishing returns.
>
> Companies that advertise "super antioxidants" are obviously lying,
> because if their products had the advertised properties, they would be so
> acidic that they would dissolve your esophagus.
>
> Go ahead and eat some vitamin C and drink some green tea, but this is
> not a super-cure that will prevent cancer and make you live to 115 years
> old.

On 25 May 2005 23:42:42 -0700
"tarssarb" > wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it
> was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are
> useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is
> equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.


I don't disagree with that at all. There are a lot of things that are
necessary in small doses for a long, healthy life - fluoride, for example.
Also aluminum, and arsenic.

What i disagree with is the extension of that concept into a belief that
if something is good for you, a lot of it is even better.

As a case in point, there have been long term studies come to conclusion
in the last few years that indicate statistically that people who take
large doses of dietary iron (who are not taking it to treat a diagnosed
deficiency) are significantly more likely to develop heart disease than
average.

tarssarb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it
> was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are
> useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is
> equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.
>
> this and other interesting facts about pauling (the guy who came up
> with the modern theories of bonding) can easily be found on the web.
>
> 1st hit: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/lpbio/lpbio2.html
>
> so drink tea and prosper...
>
<<snip>>

Dr. Pauling is equally famous as a scientist. For those who may be
interested, I did a little research on Dr. Pauling and concluded those
who are pushing megadose therapies of antioxidant vitamins are perhaps
abusing Dr. Pauling's memory and his work, see
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en

-elgoog

tarssarb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it
> was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are
> useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is
> equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.
>
> this and other interesting facts about pauling (the guy who came up
> with the modern theories of bonding) can easily be found on the web.
>
> 1st hit: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/lpbio/lpbio2.html
>
> so drink tea and prosper...
>
<<snip>>

Dr. Pauling is equally famous as a scientist. For those who may be
interested, I did a little research on Dr. Pauling and concluded those
who are pushing megadose therapies of antioxidant vitamins are perhaps
abusing Dr. Pauling's memory and his work, see
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...e=source&hl=en

-elgoog

elgoog > wrote:

>> Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it
>> was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are
>> useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is
>> equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.

But Einstein (note spelling), in his dotage, did not start working in
a field about which he knew nothing and then use his fame to push
unwarranted theories.

Don't get me wrong, Pauling's fame for his work in crystal structure,
molecular biology, and protesting nuclear testing is absolutely
deserved. Wikipedia says "There is no doubt that Pauling was one of
the finest scientific minds of the century." He did enough work for
several astounding careers. But his move into clinical trials was
unwise. He recommended doses of vitamin C which are now considered
dangerous in order to achieve benefits which have not been reproduced.
For example, his paper [Pauling, Linus , and Herman, Zelek S. (1989),
``Criteria for the validity of clinical trials of treatments of
cohorts of cancer patients based on the Hardin Jones principle'',
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86 , 6835-6837] is
shameful in its misunderstandings of basic principles.

So if I idolize him for his work prior to age 65, why the vitriol?
Because I would discount any of his work on health, suspect anything
from his institute, and urge you to do the same.

Best,

Rick.

Rick Chappell wrote:
> elgoog > wrote:
>
> >> Just to correct Eric as he appears to represent a scientific view, it
> >> was linus pauling who put forward the hypothesis that antioxidants are
> >> useful for human health/longevity. For non-scientists, linus pauling is
> >> equal to einstien if you are looking for a basis of comparison.
>
> But Einstein (note spelling), in his dotage, did not start working in
> a field about which he knew nothing and then use his fame to push
> unwarranted theories.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Pauling's fame for his work in crystal structure,
> molecular biology, and protesting nuclear testing is absolutely
> deserved. Wikipedia says "There is no doubt that Pauling was one of
> the finest scientific minds of the century." He did enough work for
> several astounding careers. But his move into clinical trials was
> unwise. He recommended doses of vitamin C which are now considered
> dangerous in order to achieve benefits which have not been reproduced.
> For example, his paper [Pauling, Linus , and Herman, Zelek S. (1989),
> ``Criteria for the validity of clinical trials of treatments of
> cohorts of cancer patients based on the Hardin Jones principle'',
> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86 , 6835-6837] is
> shameful in its misunderstandings of basic principles.
>
> So if I idolize him for his work prior to age 65, why the vitriol?
> Because I would discount any of his work on health, suspect anything
> from his institute, and urge you to do the same.
>
> Best,
>
> Rick.

You've mixed up my reply with Tarssab's; but, FWIW, I agree with you.