Articles like this drive me crazy because the headlines, which is all many will read, are so misleading. I want to know if reductive stress is an issue for mice (and presumablye humans) who don't have the genetic mutation. How common is this mutation in humans? How much glutathione were the mice given and how does that correlate in human terms? I know the original article in Cell would have the info but that's not what most people read. Unfortunately, stories like this get reported (especially on TV news' health segments) as written,and the reporters don't question the report. They really don't know that much and the average viewer or reader knows even less.

Until convinced otherwise I will stay with the theory of Linus Pauling and take vitamin C daily along with Lysine and omega 3 oils.

Yes, Linus Pauling was a genius.  I use mega C for colds or flu and usually lose those buggers within a day or two instead of the usual 10+ days.  Asorbic acid powder mixed with a 1/10th amount of baking soday-natural baking soda with clean water.   That also balances ph in the stomach.  :)

The one point I'd make is this: A natural diet would be an effective route to take if we weren't exposed to so many toxins on a daily basis. I was a raw foodist for years, and I never took supplements (aside from green powders). In some regards, my health was superlative (I never got colds, etc.) But there was still room for improvement, especially in areas that had to do with neurological functioning.

I read a wonderful book called "Detoxify or Die," by Dr. Sherry Rogers. Her basic point is that we have to megadose on certain antioxidants (like vitamin C and glutathione) to function optimally in this toxic world. She also recommends finding a doctor versed in environmental and preventative.

Since reading that book, I've found a wonderful doctor with that sort of background in my area, who recommended I take the supplements mentioned in Rogers' book. The difference in my overall health and appearance has been dramatic. I think more clearly, my skin looks better... it's been just amazing.

I don't want you to think this was ALL due to antioxidants. My doctor also put me on a plan to address candida overgrowth, and that has been quite successful. But I'm certain that the antioxidants have played a huge role. I really recommend reading that book if you want to learn more on the issue.

All of the above comments regarding isolated and synthetic vitamins are true.  But what I always think of when one of these studies comes out is: Who did the study?  What are their affiliations?  Who gave them the money to do the study?  What are their motives?  If the study was some how funded by the AMA or a drug company, you have your answer.  They have little motivation for keeping us well.

In my testing with kinesiology (muscle response testing) there is substantial truth to the article and I agree with Dr. Mercola's response about appropriate balance. I suggest that those who use or have access to kinesiology or a practitioner that uses it,  test their antioxidant balance. Ask the body if it is too high or too low. Test the antioxidants you take against the liver and see what antioxidants in what amount give the strongest response. You'll see that if the quantity is too great you'll get a weak response. I also agree that the primary source should be from fruits and vegetables.

I absolutely agree. It depends on who said it and how they did the testing. I go the natural route, since we know that that works the best and it is more pure. For my own health I use a whole fruit Mangosteen juice with antioxidants. A natural health product

knows which part of the body needs to be helped, whereas we know that a med for example, is only prescribed for a specific ailment. If you take a food, you can't go too far wrong.

Nan

I'm not the least bit surprised with this at all, i had this suspicion a while ago, even if it's only been tested in mice and the results could be flawed, or debatable. I'm always leary of any "new discoveries". My personal motto has always been " to much of one thing is good for nothing ", so for ME i believe we need to keep things in balance and stick as close as possible to nature - this is not rocket science.....

While I agree with the basic premise of the article, that to much of a good thing can be just as bad as not enough, the science behind it was very biased and not easily extrapolated to humans.

Mary

This is the biggest crock of BS that I have heard.  Surely anyone involved in alternative health can see through this.  There is always some study that the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry is wanting publicized to scare the public so that they will not take supplements and keep themselves healthy, which would cut money out of doctors pockets and decrease the need for drugs from the pharmaceutical industry.  A well balanced Naturally sourced nutritional supplement that contains a broad spectrum of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, Omega 3's and Probiotics, that are in balanced ratios, not mega doses, are completely safe and proven to improve health and decrease incidence of disease.  I advise you to check out www.shakleevitalizer.com

I will be glad to discuss this with anyone.  Results to soon be published in JAMA.

I'm suspicious.

Maybe this study was done to pave the way for a new drug targeted at health conscious people who take antioxidants to live a longer and healthier life.  There'll be a drug to prevent heart failure in people who are antioxidant depleted and another drug for preventing heart failure in those who take antioxidants.  Hmmm, that just about covers everyone.  

All I can say is: Antioxidants work for me and I will keep on using them.

I question anything said by the Media. They can be paid to promote lies to the people, much like our government politicians accept bribes from lobbyists.

If one ever hears the real truth of the matter, you will read or hear it over the Internet, not from the National Media.

Because of the Internet the truth has an avenue to get out and the "powers that be" would love to be able to stop it.

The readily available forms of vitamins C and E are not even the whole complex.  They are the outer coverings (or part of that covering) of each complex.  The vitamin C found in whole foods (or in whole food supplements) includes ascorbic acid, ascorbigen bioflavonoid complexes, tyrosinase, P factors, K factors, and J factors--none of these in their real forms are found in the synthetic arrangements sold to the American public.  The vitamin E found in whole foods (or whole food supplements) contains gamma tocopherol, beta tocopherol, alpha tocopherols, delta tocopherols, F1, F2, E2, E3, xanthine, selenium, and lipositols.  These substances are just what are known to be there.  It is the full complement of factors that provides the nutritional benefit.  It makes sense to me that fractionating these nutrients and then synthesizing them offers little real benefit and may certainly harm us.