Look up antioxidants and you’ll find over 22,000 published and peer reviewed articles. Numerous clinical and observational studies have demonstrated that antioxidant nutrients (vitamins A, C, and E, carotenoids, co-enzyme Q10, alpha-lipoic acid, flavonoids, selenium, zinc, soy isoflavones, and others) fight free radicals thereby reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, the effects of aging, and so on. However, once again the media has chosen to expose the shortcomings of antioxidant supplementation.
In August the Archives of Internal Medicine published a report suggesting that antioxidants are not effective in reducing the risk of heart disease. Dubbed the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study, 8,171 women over the age of 40 were followed for more than nine years. The study compared the effects of specific antioxidants on cardiovascular disease and stroke risk for: vitamin C (500 mg of ascorbic acid daily); vitamin E (600 IU of vitamin E every other day); and beta carotene (50 mg every other day). All participants had a history of heart disease or had three or more risk factors (hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking, or a family history of heart attack).
The women who consumed these antioxidants as directed (daily or every other day) experienced a 31% reduction in stroke risk and a 22% reduction in risk of heart attack. However, the study combined the statistical data of those women who neglected to take their supplements on a regular basis with those who did. Consequently, the results concluded there was no overall effect or benefit of antioxidant supplementation on reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease in these high-risk women.
To date the evidence for antioxidant supplementation is contradictory and confusing. There is just as much support for regular supplementation with the antioxidant nutrients as there is for its dangers. In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association published research showing that high dietary intake of vitamin C and vitamin E may lower the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. In 2005 it reported that a high dietary intake of vitamins C, E, zinc, and beta-carotene was associated with a substantially reduced risk of macular degeneration in elderly persons. A 1995 JAMA study concluded that supplementary vitamin E intake of 100 IU per day or greater demonstrated less coronary artery lesion progression than did subjects with an intake of less than 100 IU per day. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a report in August, 2000 indicating the importance of antioxidant supplementation to combat free radicals produced during intense physical activity. Also in 2000, the same medical journal reported that vitamin E supplementation significantly decreased multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease in baboons.
The evidence may remain inconclusive, but one notion has remained consistent: antioxidants naturally found in food offer significant health benefits. It remains to be seen whether or not the rewards from nutritional supplements are the same or better. Until we know more, continue to make every effort to emphasize colorful fruits and vegetables in your diet.
Reference: Cook, N., Albert, C., Gaziano, M., Zaharris, E., MacFadyen, J., Danielson, E., Buring, J., & Manson, J. (2007) “A Randomized Factorial Trial of vitamins C and E and Beta Carotene in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Women - Results From the Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study." Archives of Internal Medicine. 167.
Popcorn Perils
You may have seen Wayne Watson in the news lately. For almost ten years, Watson ate at least two bags of microwave popcorn every day until doctors suggested that “popcorn lung” may be the cause of his health problems. Watson is convinced his heavy consumption of popcorn caused his rare, life-threatening disease called bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as popcorn lung.
Popcorn flavoring contains diacetyl, the chemical which gives popcorn its buttery flavor and is also found in cheese and alcoholic beverages. Though it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a flavor ingredient, diacetyl may be hazardous when heated and inhaled over a long period of time. Factory workers that tested hundreds of bags of microwave popcorn per day have sued flavoring makers in recent years for lung damage.
ConAgra, the nation's largest microwave popcorn maker and manufacturer of Act II and Orville Redenbacher brands, said it would stop using diacetyl within a year.
While a definite relationship between Watson's popcorn consumption and his disease has not yet been proven, there is more bad news for microwave popcorn lovers. The FDA has revealed that a substance used to coat the bags of microwavable popcorn may expose people to PFOA, a suspected carcinogen. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8, is a Teflon chemical that has been linked to cancer and birth defects in animals and exists in the blood of most of Americans.
Microwave popcorn bags contain more PFOA than any other food wrapper. Ninety-five percent of Americans have 4-5 parts per billion of PFOA in their blood. This dangerous amount could be achieved from eating only one bag of popcorn a week. PFOA has a long half-life in humans and remains in blood for about 4 years.
DuPont, makers of Teflon, was fined for failing to report the health risks of PFOA and vows to eliminate the harmful chemical by 2015. In the meantime, eat popcorn the old-fashioned way – air popped.
