Antioxidant Resveratrol Blocks Many Cardiovascular Benefits of Exercise

[AzDreamer]

This was discussed in Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" back in 2008. Still, antioxidants are so popular that 7up claims to have them.

-

July 22, 2013 — In older men, a natural antioxidant compound found in red grapes and other plants – called resveratrol – blocks many of the cardiovascular benefits of exercise, according to research published July 22 in The Journal of Physiology.

research at The University of Copenhagen surprisingly suggests that eating a diet rich in antioxidants may actually counteract many of the health benefits of exercise, including reduced blood pressure and cholesterol.

Too many antioxidants? Resveratrol blocks many cardiovascular benefits of exercise

 

[DayDreaming]

From the article"

“It should be noted that the quantities of resveratrol given in our research study are much higher than what could be obtained by intake of natural foods.”

I like my red wine so I'll take my chances and keep drinking it.

 

[donheff]

You can't win for losing. Pass me a beer.

 

[Chuckanut]

This is another reason to be suspicious of those selling various health supplements and foods.

A while back a local fellow who is part of an anti-aging outfit was on the radio talking about how one would have to drink hundreds (or was it thousands) of glasses of wine a week to get the resveratol in one or two of his outfit's pills. The cost was several hundred dollars a year. Now people who have bought them find they may be doing more harm than good.

Just Eat Real Food.

 

[bUU]

From the article

“It should be noted that the quantities of resveratrol given in our research study are much higher than what could be obtained by intake of natural foods.”

Dietitian and nutritionist Jeff Novick pointed out the same condition in the article this morning. He also pointed out that results of any one individual study are virtually meaningless without it being put into proper context of the larger body of evidence on the topic.

The inflammatory headline sure did capture our attention though, didn't it?

 

[braumeister]

one would have to drink hundreds (or was it thousands) of glasses of wine a week to get the resveratol in one or two of his outfit's pills. The cost was several hundred dollars a year.

Yeah, I know. But what was the cost of the pills?

 

[Chuckanut]

Yeah, I know. But what was the cost of the pills?

I am guessing about $20 a month, taking 2 a day.

 

[braumeister]

Sorry, forgot the smiley.

 

[Tigger]

I wonder what we can conclude from this study, if anything, for people who are not "older men" and who don't do "high-intensity exercise".

Also, did the group that was supplemented get any measurable benefits (from the supplements) that the control group didn't get?

 

[bUU]

My understanding is that practically no one could conclude anything useful from this study.

 

[braumeister]

Makes as much sense as the other "study" released today that proves skipping breakfast makes you 27% more likely to have a heart attack.

(seriously)

Skipping breakfast may increase heart attack risk

 

[Chuckanut]

Makes as much sense as the other "study" released today that proves skipping breakfast makes you 27% more likely to have a heart attack.

(seriously)

Skipping breakfast may increase heart attack risk

That 27% is a relative difference between two percentages. Relative differences between two percentages makes things look much better or much worse, and can be used to make small actual differences seem very large.

Oh, the skippers group had more smokers in it, more drinkers, more TV watchers, more full time workers, and fewer people who worked out. The breakfast eaters were about 5 years older.

Maybe we should rewrite the headline like this:

"Full time work may increase heart attack risk by 27%."

The only negative in the breakfast eaters was they were 5 years older. It took all those negative factors in the skippers to neutralize the 5 extra years of age in the eaters. Interesting. Age must play a big part on heart attacks.

 

[Chuckanut]

Dietitian and nutritionist Jeff Novick pointed out the same condition in the article this morning. He also pointed out that results of any one individual study are virtually meaningless without it being put into proper context of the larger body of evidence on the topic.

The inflammatory headline sure did capture our attention though, didn't it?

+1

Many 'poisons' including the things like sugar (GASP!) are dose dependent. IIRC, even oxygen can kill at a high enough percentage. But, I sure wouldn't want to go without it.

 

[nash031]

“We studied 27 healthy, physically inactive men around 65 years old for 8 weeks. During the 8 weeks all of the men performed high-intensity exercise training and half of the group received 250 mg of resveratrol daily, whereas the other group received a placebo pill (a pill containing no active ingredient). The study design was double-blinded, thus neither the subjects nor the investigators knew which participant that received either resveratrol or placebo. “We found that exercise training was highly effective in improving cardiovascular health parameters, but resveratrol supplementation attenuated the positive effects of training on several parameters including blood pressure, plasma lipid concentrations and maximal oxygen uptake.”

The best part about this whole study is that they said "we studied 27 healthy, inactive men". Um, IMO that's kind of a contradiction in terms. And I don't think 27 would be enough of a sample size for me to care.
In addition, the idea that oxidative stress is required to cause positive physical change is not news. It is the very foundation of exercise, for crying out loud! You just don't want too much oxidative stress from any form.

I seriously doubt these guys were doing any kind of exercise that would cause any great physical adaptation if a little bit of reservatrol was enough to cause a regression of the physical benefits of exercise. In fact, they say they subjected them to 8 weeks of "high intensity exercise", but they never defined what that exercise was.

Take a small group of physically inactive guys. Exercise them in some way, but make no mention of other contributing factors (did they all eat the same diet? Are they all the same physical size/body composition?). Draw conclusions.

Sounds like a poor study to me.