GSH can, but what about other antioxidants?
The most common cause of reductive stress is excess NADH/NADPH, which is different from, say, extra amounts of melatonin/ascorbic acid/C60/conjugated double bonds. Dayan Goodenowe discusses some implications of excess NADH/NADPH in his “breaking autism” webinars
One data point on antioxidants…
BUT WHAT KIND? Vitamin C/E yes, ALA yes, but glutathionine-based antioxidants have been shown to be neutral-to-beneficial, as with melatonin.
IT DEPENDS ON THE KIND
Yes - some seem helpful, not sure if the mechanism is the antioxidant property…
I’ve held this same opinion for a long time now. I don’t know how I feel about antioxidants all getting lumped into one. Do we even know for sure that’s it’s the antioxidant effect that shows harm when you take too much Vitamin A, E, etc? Or is it simply the individual vitamins themselves? I just want to know how we landed on blaming antioxidants as a whole for this.
Vitamin C is harmful? I thought excess is excreted. @TongMD said vitamin C is a pro-oxidant.
Anecdotal, but my neighbor is the most active 92 year old I’ve ever seen. Comes and goes all day long, has a girlfriend, and talking to him you’d think he was in his mid 70’s.
I asked him what he supplements, he said vitamin C and calcium. Good genes really are a trump card.
High dose C (1g) does blunt benefits of exercise if you take it around workouts though.
Vitamin C and E supplementation hampers cellular adaptation to endurance training in humans: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial - PMC)%20and%20biochemical/molecular%20analyses%20of%20blood%20and%20muscle.
Would it not be the vitamin E in cause? Vitamin C’s absorption rate really slows down after 500mg and vitamin C itself is quite a weak antioxidant compared to vitamin E 
Good question actually. I’m not sure if they tested each one separately. The ones I’m looking at seem to say vitamin C and E together, so you might have a point.
Yes, vitamin C + E, reduces the effects from exercise, but vitamin C also increases functions in the body, for instance, the levels of glutathione. The question should be, is supplementation with vitamin C a net positive or a net negative? To only focus on the effect on adaptation to exercise is a bit narrow and does not give me the full picture.
And the effects of vitamin C alone, on exercise is not consitent.
This is a good example of that: when we focus too narrowly on one mechanism, we risk blinding ourselves to other aspects of the physiology. The latest headlines drive our thinking and actions.
Human studies on interventions and how they affect multiple human biomarkers (Like was done with GLYNAC) or studies on primates (like was done with Taurine) are more relevant than mouse studies. One has to love the complexity and the detective work it brings to us.
Well, this was timely…
The IMPORTANT antioxidants are taurine/zeaxanthin/astaxanthin/melatonin… Not the vitamins…
What is it with these kinds of statements? At least back them up. “Important”… in what way? I know, I know, it’s a waste of time trying to get answers. Always same MO - hit and run, make some claim with no backing, then disappear. Best way forward: ignore.
