• All new members please introduce your self here and welcome to the board:
    http://www.professionalmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
M4B Store Banner
intex
Riptropin Store banner
Generation X Bodybuilding Forum
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Buy Needles And Syringes With No Prescription
Mysupps Store Banner
IP Gear Store Banner
PM-Ace-Labs
Ganabol Store Banner
Spend $100 and get bonus needles free at sterile syringes
Professional Muscle Store open now
sunrise2
PHARMAHGH1
kinglab
ganabol2
Professional Muscle Store open now
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
azteca
granabolic1
napsgear-210x65
esquel
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
ashp210
UGFREAK-banner-PM
1-SWEDISH-PEPTIDE-CO
YMSApril21065
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
advertise1
tjk
advertise1
advertise1
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store
over 5000 supplements on sale at professional muscle store

Anti oxidants could increase cancer rates according to this... (published today).

Knight9

Featured Member / Verified Customer / Kilo Klub
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
10,077
**broken link removed**


2014-01-30 07:28:01 - Antioxidants Could Increase Cancer Rates


29 January 2014 2:00 pm 
Jocelyn Kaiser 
Jocelyn is a staff writer for Science magazine. 

Antioxidants Could Increase Cancer Rates 

Many people take vitamins such as A, E, and C thinking that their antioxidant properties will ward off cancer. But some clinical trials have suggested that such antioxidants, which sop up DNA-damaging molecules called free radicals, have the opposite effect and raise cancer risk in certain people. Now, in a provocative study that raises unsettling questions about the widespread use of vitamin supplements, Swedish researchers have showed that moderate doses of two widely used antioxidants spur the growth of early lung tumors in mice. 

Some cancer specialists caution against basing public health advice on the study, published online this week in Science Translational Medicine. “You can’t extrapolate from this study to make a recommendation to people,” says Barry Kramer, director of the Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. He notes that the science of antioxidants is complicated and that the results of mice studies often don’t apply to humans. Still, Kramer and others say the new findings demand further exploration. 

The observation decades ago that people who consumed lots of fruits and vegetables had less cancer suggested that the antioxidants in these foods might be protecting them. But in the 1980s, researchers launched two large clinical trials to test whether the antioxidants β carotene (a vitamin A precursor), vitamin A, and vitamin E protect smokers from lung cancer—and found more cases of lung cancer in volunteers taking β carotene, leading one trial to end early. A more recent trial testing vitamin E and selenium to prevent prostate cancer was stopped when prostate cancer turned out to be more common in the vitamin E group. 

The Swedish researchers, led by Per Lindahl and Martin Bergö of the University of Gothenburg, studied two antioxidants: n-acetylcysteine (NAC), a water-soluble drug used to thin mucus in people with lung disease, and fat-soluble vitamin E. They gave mice genetically engineered to develop lung tumors a dose of NAC comparable to what a patient would receive or chow containing about 10 times more vitamin E than is in ordinary mouse food. “A lot of vitamin pills contain a lot more than that. It’s a conservative dose,” Bergö says. 

Compared with mice on a normal diet, the mice consuming the antioxidants developed more lung tumors, their tumors were more aggressive, and they lived only half as long. Follow-up studies suggested that by reducing reactive oxidative species and DNA damage in the cell, the antioxidants turn down a gene, p53, that is key to keeping cell growth in check and is often inactivated in cancer. For example, p53’s protein stops the cell cycle so enzymes can repair damaged DNA and triggers apoptosis, or self-destruction, in severely damaged cells. In cancer cells in which p53 had been turned off, Lindahl and Bergö found, the antioxidants had no effect on cell proliferation. 

The implication, Bergö suggests, is that people at high risk of cancer—such as smokers—and others who have incipient tumors should avoid taking extra antioxidants. “In a normal cell an antioxidant might be very good. But if you have a small tumor that might become a cancer, it will reduce p53 and the tumor will grow,” Bergö says. 

A clinical researcher involved with the aborted trials that tested antioxidants to prevent lung and prostate cancersays he is “thrilled” by the study. “It’s the first paper I’ve seen that goes into some of the molecular biology to explain what we saw,” says medical oncologist Gary Goodman of the Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, Washington. “This really shows that high doses of vitamins can be harmful.” 

Others are more restrained. “It’s a provocative study,” says cancer biologist David Tuveson of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. “Perhaps we should look more carefully at what’s available over the counter.” But he would like to see a more detailed explanation of how the cell’s sensing of reactive species controls p53 activity. Lung disease researcher Shyam Biswal of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, wonders if the results would be the same in mice with cancer sparked by a carcinogen, rather than an existing mutation. “The model is great, but it’s a very aggressive model,” Biswal says. 

Another huge caveat, Kramer adds, is that in the earlier lung cancer prevention trials, only the participants taking β carotene had a higher risk of lung cancer, not those on vitamin E alone. “It’s not likely that all antioxidants are exactly the same,” he says. He and others also emphasize that the study does not suggest that people should eat less fruit and vegetables, which provide smaller doses of antioxidants and likely have other benefits. 

Bergö and Lindahl now plan to extend their mouse studies to tests of β carotene and vitamin C and to other cancer types. They also plan to comb through medical records in Sweden to see if lung disease patients receiving NAC are at higher risk for lung cancer. 

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/01/antioxidants-could-increase-cancer-rates

--- Last Edited by Greentea at 2014-01-30 07:28:43 ---



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
there is way too little info to base anything off of on this.

to me this seems like nothing more then the propaganda used by big pharma, doctors and modern medicine to take away otc supps.

notice where its from, Sweden I believe they already have very strict regulation os supps and if memory serves me correct they are one of the coutries pushing for ( I forget the name of the law now, but the one for years that there has been a big international push to take away any and all otc supps higher then like 5mg )

remember guys these people are not looking out for yourbest interest! they are looking out for there wallets and job safety! fuck doctors! lol!

codex! that's what im talking about!
 
I think there is something to be said about this. Whether over anti-oxidation is a potential risks or an association of cell division→proliferation. I don't know? It is known that ROS (reactive oxygen species) is important for normal cell growth, through intracellular signalling. So a knock out of ROS may not be beneficial, slowing the the rate of oxidative stress is beneficial.

My question has always been that if you have flooded yourself for many years of supplemental Anti-Ox. Then abruptly stopped taking these Anti-Ox, does this promote mitochondrial dysfunction or accelerated cell division?

I don't believe pharmaceutical companies have any ties with this.
 
There is always an agenda stated or not.
What this study eludes to is pretty scary. However, I've also noticed a lot more intentional skewing of data , methods, etc in research more recently. It's sickening to see since even good research can so easily be ruined and or tainted.
Hopefully somene else will do a follow up on this in the near future.
 
I think there is something to be said about this. Whether over anti-oxidation is a potential risks or an association of cell division→proliferation. I don't know? It is known that ROS (reactive oxygen species) is important for normal cell growth, through intracellular signalling. So a knock out of ROS may not be beneficial, slowing the the rate of oxidative stress is beneficial.

My question has always been that if you have flooded yourself for many years of supplemental Anti-Ox. Then abruptly stopped taking these Anti-Ox, does this promote mitochondrial dysfunction or accelerated cell division?

I don't believe pharmaceutical companies have any ties with this.

they do with everything, these are the same people that knowingly put out drugs that cause all kinds of failure but there is money to be made

now there is talk of putting statin drugs in water like fluoride

they say that it can prevent heart disease and they are saying that the flu shots can prevent a heart attack and stroke?

shovel as many drugs down your throat and get rich
 
they do with everything, these are the same people that knowingly put gs that cause all kinds of failure but there is money to be made

now there is talk of putting statin drugs in water like fluoride

they say that it can pevent heart disease and they are saying that the flu shots can prevent a heart attack and stroke?

shovel as many drugs down your throat and get rich

Let's take a look at this way. In all hypotheticalness, if by chance this particular study was controlled and funded by any major pharmaceutical company. What would they benefit from this? There's no mentioning of any "Pharmaceutical drug" that would inhibit cell division and re-activate p53, in which accordingly is turned down by anti-oxidation.

This study holds no warrant or value, other than an observation. There's nothing to be controlled by any pharmaceutical companies or agencies.

My thoughts on this is something that I have always been curious about, with supplemental over anti-oxidation. To me it looks as if you skipped right past where I stated that "oxidation is necessary for cell growth" and went right to my statement of "I don't believe pharmaceutical companies have any ties with this".

I'll give you another quick example. You can still buy fish oil, right? Even though it's available through prescription, and was erroneously reported to have a direct link to prostate cancer. Yet you can walk into just about any store and still buy it, no?

There's nothing to be controlled by any one from this. It's an observation.
 
So how in the world is anyone supposed to start to figure out where the fine line is between anti-oxidants and free radical damage that turns to disease is?
 
So how in the world is anyone supposed to start to figure out where the fine line is between anti-oxidants and free radical damage that turns to disease is, ?

I don't think anyone would have a definite answer to this. You'll have proponents on both sides. IMO, I think one should limit their supplemental anti-oxidant intake. And try to get a majority through food sources.
 
I don't think anyone would have a definite answer to this. You'll have proponents on both sides. IMO, I think one should limit their supplemental anti-oxidant intake. And try to get a majority through food sources.

What anti-oxidants do you choose to take through supplementation? And which do you make sure to get from your diet? I've been on the big anti-oxidant train for a while....

Ubiquinol, Astaxanthin, Curcumin, Tocotrienols, Vitamin C, NAC, ALA, etc...
 
Let's take a look at this way. In all hypotheticalness, if by chance this particular study was controlled and funded by any major pharmaceutical company. What would they benefit from this? There's no mentioning of any "Pharmaceutical drug" that would inhibit cell division and re-activate p53, in which accordingly is turned down by anti-oxidation.

This study holds no warrant or value, other than an observation. There's nothing to be controlled by any pharmaceutical companies or agencies.

My thoughts on this is something that I have always been curious about, with supplemental over anti-oxidation. To me it looks as if you skipped right past where I stated that "oxidation is necessary for cell growth" and went right to my statement of "I don't believe pharmaceutical companies have any ties with this".

I'll give you another quick example. You can still buy fish oil, right? Even though it's available through prescription, and was erroneously reported to have a direct link to prostate cancer. Yet you can walk into just about any store and still buy it, no?

There's nothing to be controlled by any one from this. It's an observation.

yes, if something is overdone it will have bad results...so OVER anti-oxidation might have this effect-I agree with that

I remember the story where there were 2 college kids that were taking cow vitamins and ended up basically ODing on them

what I'm trying to say is that all the BS info. nobody knows what is true and what is a lie...they started saying a few months ago that more than 2 cups of coffee a day will increase your chances of death by 50%-REALLY?

the study was so vague that there was no real proof of anything, sounds to me like they found out that coffee actually kept people healthy and they don't want that...

over 60% of bankruptcy in the US are due to medical bills, keep them sick and take all their money

your right if somebody over does it then it's bad, but it sounds to me like the study was created to scare people into not taking anti-oxidants

milk does a body good? depends on which study you read
 
What anti-oxidants do you choose to take through supplementation? And which do you make sure to get from your diet? I've been on the big anti-oxidant train for a while....

Ubiquinol, Astaxanthin, Curcumin, Tocotrienols, Vitamin C, NAC, ALA, etc...

Sigh...I wish I knew :( As you're aware, I am a strong believer in melatonin. As well Vit C (I get more than enough through food sources).

I blend a lot of my foods, I make some crazy concoctions. Bronston Austin years ago turned me on to blending foods. One of his best friends was Jack Leanne, if that says anything :)

I seen Bonston tonight he looks to be the picture of health, considering his age. Although he's not into bodybuilding anymore, he still blends a majority of his foods.
 
Last edited:
Believe me, I understand what you're saying. Sometimes it's hard to cut through the cheese.

It's taking me awhile to understand how some of these clinical literatures come about. Clinical trials and studies can be very hard to interpret to the layperson. There's several different types of studies. In this particular case, it's an observation of a chain of events that possibly occur. Nothing definitive that this is conclusive on a broad population base controlled setting. Personally, I don't believe that it will come to that.



yes, if something is overdone it will have bad results...so OVER anti-oxidation might have this effect-I agree with that

I remember the story where there were 2 college kids that were taking cow vitamins and ended up basically ODing on them

what I'm trying to say is that all the BS info. nobody knows what is true and what is a lie...they started saying a few months ago that more than 2 cups of coffee a day will increase your chances of death by 50%-REALLY?

the study was so vague that there was no real proof of anything, sounds to me like they found out that coffee actually kept people healthy and they don't want that...

over 60% of bankruptcy in the US are due to medical bills, keep them sick and take all their money

your right if somebody over does it then it's bad, but it sounds to me like the study was created to scare people into not taking anti-oxidants

milk does a body good? depends on which study you read
 
What anti-oxidants do you choose to take through supplementation? And which do you make sure to get from your diet? I've been on the big anti-oxidant train for a while....

Ubiquinol, Astaxanthin, Curcumin, Tocotrienols, Vitamin C, NAC, ALA, etc...

I also take Ubiquinol, Curcumin. That's pretty much it...
 
Strange how they never gave details on the diet.
Were the diets/food the same except the one group had added anti oxidants to the food?
Was the food GMO just like the GM mice with cancer?
Was anything organic in the study?

I'd like to know the % of carbs, fats, proteins... and perhaps even the types of them.
 
Out of all the info that I have had to dissect and take apart, I would rather take my chances taking anti oxidants than not..... Its like I told a friend of mine, I dont condone weed smoking or regular nicotine cigarettes, but I believe in the positive effects of cannabis versus the very negative effects of cigarettes.... Now I m not trying to spur a debate one way or the other, what I am only trying to say is that, there are really good research and positive effects with one where as the other is terribly aweful for the cells in your body...

Smoking cigarettes actually increase free radicals and speed up cellular damage and apoptosis by 100%, thats how bad it is for a person...Now, with cannabis, there are zero by products but smoke is still inhaled but nothing like the effects of the products in this processed tobacco filled cigarettes that are consumed here in America....

Again, Id rather have anti oxidants and take a chance o them then not to have them, the research is prolifically proven on a myriad of subjects such as; CoQ10, hawthorn berry, saw palmetto, chlorella, Spirulina, Turmeric, Blue-green Algae, nattokinase, krill oil, all other super oils, NAC, gluthathione, methionine, 5htp etc etc..... Some of it will appear controversial, but one must experience it for themselves...

Love your posts bro. Between you, Stewie, and Alpha we have some fantastic minds on here. I'm sure there are more but these are the ones I really love reading their responses.
What are your personal thoughts on hawthorn berry or hawthorn extract?
 
Love your posts bro. Between you, Stewie, and Alpha we have some fantastic minds on here. I'm sure there are more but these are the ones I really love reading their responses.
What are your personal thoughts on hawthorn berry or hawthorn extract?

Was thinking this as well
Fitness are you a doctor?
 
Let's take a look at this way. In all hypotheticalness, if by chance this particular study was controlled and funded by any major pharmaceutical company. What would they benefit from this? There's no mentioning of any "Pharmaceutical drug" that would inhibit cell division and re-activate p53, in which accordingly is turned down by anti-oxidation.

This study holds no warrant or value, other than an observation. There's nothing to be controlled by any pharmaceutical companies or agencies.

My thoughts on this is something that I have always been curious about, with supplemental over anti-oxidation. To me it looks as if you skipped right past where I stated that "oxidation is necessary for cell growth" and went right to my statement of "I don't believe pharmaceutical companies have any ties with this".

I'll give you another quick example. You can still buy fish oil, right? Even though it's available through prescription, and was erroneously reported to have a direct link to prostate cancer. Yet you can walk into just about any store and still buy it, no?

There's nothing to be controlled by any one from this. It's an observation.

im sure you know that there has been a major push over the last 10 years to make any and all supps rx only if they contain more then a tiny amount of an active compound something like 5mg. this is codex. this is world wide. this is the direction of modern medicine. arguably many/most new drugs cause more harm then good and we have plenty of other supps and drugs that do similar things via different methods. this isall about money. not about health.

there are many more recent studies showing how bennificial various anti-ox can be.

Vitamin E strikes again @ 2000iu doses.

http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/alzheimers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

just one example.

I don't know any body in real life that has used more or stronger anti-ox them me and I have yet to find the prooxidation effect or problems, even when coming off of them.

it almost seems like the talk of over training. yes I know over training is real, but I also know I have pounded the shit out of my calves the past few years and they have actually grown, no over training just results, same goes for delts...

the other thing is I know or am in contact with people who are pushing the limits of all of this rpobobly more then any other group on the planet, none of them have health problems, non of them get sick, when they share there information with people who are deathly ill with major deseases like cancer and altzheimers they get better. shit I cured a tumor on my dogs leg with anti-ox lotions and topicals, a big red lump that the doc told us needed to be surgically removed, gone in a matter of months. if people start dropping dead ill let you know but so far we are blowing away modern medicine and boggling the minds of any and all docs associated with any of these cases.
 
Last edited:
im sure you know that there has been a major push over the last 10 years to make any and all supps rx only if they contain more then a tiny amount of an active compound something like 5mg. this is codex. this is world wide. this is the direction of modern medicine. arguably many/most new drugs cause more harm then good and we have plenty of other supps and drugs that do similar things via different methods. this isall about money. not about health.

there are many more recent studies showing how bennificial various anti-ox can be.

Vitamin E strikes again @ 2000iu doses.

http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/alzheimers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

just one example.

I don't know any body in real life that has used more or stronger anti-ox them me and I have yet to find the prooxidation effect or problems, even when coming off of them.

it almost seems like the talk of over training. yes I know over training is real, but I also know I have pounded the shit out of my calves the past few years and they have actually grown, no over training just results, same goes for delts...

the other thing is I know or am in contact with people who are pushing the limits of all of this rpobobly more then any other group on the planet, none of them have health problems, non of them get sick, when they share there information with people who are deathly ill with major deseases like cancer and altzheimers they get better. shit I cured a tumor on my dogs leg with anti-ox lotions and topicals, a big red lump that the doc told us needed to be surgically removed, gone in a matter of months. if people start dropping dead ill let you know but so far we are blowing away modern medicine and boggling the minds of any and all docs associated with any of these cases.

I have a couple questions for you bro...
You said 350mg/wk of Curc is best bang for the buck correct? Or was it 300? What about Resveratrol? If you want the benefits of it but don't want to lose muscle mass(weight)..what is optimal in your estimation.

Also, you mentioned Vitamin E. Are you well-versed on the full spectrum(8 isomers) and specifically the tocotrienols which seem to truly be "all stars" of the groups? Does it sicken you that everything is just alpha tocopherol or mixed tocopherols(with no breakdown) on almost everything on the shelves when it comes to Vitamin E?
 
I think trying to get what you can from natural sources is best. Eating or juicing fresh raw foods have proper ratios, enzymes and such to help be self regulating. Also try and incorporate as much fish and sea vegetation as possible.

At the same time...I do take ibiquinol, reservatrol(300 mg a week makes muscle gain a little harder but the benefits out weigh the negatives), curcumin and fishoil.

Everyone is on the hate Big Pharm band wagon...I can completely understand and agree...but supplement companies have their own agenda.
 

Staff online

  • Big A
    IFBB PRO/NPC JUDGE/Administrator
  • K1
    Blue-Eyed Devil

Forum statistics

Total page views
559,703,212
Threads
136,132
Messages
2,780,598
Members
160,448
Latest member
Jim311
NapsGear
HGH Power Store email banner
your-raws
Prowrist straps store banner
infinity
FLASHING-BOTTOM-BANNER-210x131
raws
Savage Labs Store email
Syntherol Site Enhancing Oil Synthol
aqpharma
YMSApril210131
hulabs
ezgif-com-resize-2-1
MA Research Chem store banner
MA Supps Store Banner
volartek
Keytech banner
musclechem
Godbullraw-bottom-banner
Injection Instructions for beginners
Knight Labs store email banner
3
ashp131
YMS-210x131-V02
Back
Top