Chromium - wipes me out

There are different forms, and the other ingredients in the supplement
could be the problem. You could reduce the dosage, try different brand
and different forms, and there's nutritional yeast, which is high in
chromium. I eat small amounts of nutritional yeast with each meal,
less than a teaspoon, but I don't take chromiumc supplements. You
didn't say why you are taking it. Trace minerals are undeniably
important, but if you are deficient, it is important to discover why.
If there is a great deal of oxidative stress, some minerals might be
getting used up by the SOD activity, for example. Aside from a
"balanced diet," one needs to avoid more than small amounts of
oxidative (and other forms of) stress. Get to the underlying or root
cause - otherwise, there's going to be a major problem at some point in
the not too distant future. Most problems in countries like the USA
are the result of too much arachidonic acid stored up in the tissues
(which can then be turned into very dangerous metabolites upon minor
stressors) and too much dietary oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation),
which is enhanced by high iron diets and low antioxidant diets.

I'd give you more specific suggestions if you were more specific (age,
gender, height/weight, previous medical history, your diet, etc.).

Thanks for your response Montygram, I'll chew over what youv'e said.

The chromium I am taking is Chromium Picolinate, I was also low in
copper and told to take that also, but am only taking the chromium at
the moment as I'm waiting for my liquid copper to arrive in the post.
The interesting thing about the effect the chromium is having on me, is
it's exactly the same as what happened when I was taking magnesium a
few months back. After 3 weeks on the magnesium my appetite went
through the roof and, I began feeling woozy and a bit out of it. The
nice thing about it was all the extra food I was eating was going on as
muscle, with no training. I was tempted to keep on with the magnesium
as I really appreciated the way it was changing my bod, but I was half
zombie and had to give it up. From what I have read both the Mag and
the Chromium increase insulin sensitivity, so maybe this is what has
been happening with both, the increased insulin sensitivity is pushing
more glucose into muscle and leaving the blood level too low for normal
functioning. Maybe it is at this point that the copper deficiency
comes in, as I know this mineral is needed for Epinephrine synthesis,
which would rescue my low blood sugar. But is in too short supply to
get me back on an even keel. What do you guys think?

Oh and Montygram, here's my specs:
Age 28
Male
Height 70 inches
weight 170 pounds
Medical hist: ongoing fatigue, allergies, cold hands and feet
Diet: Mixed meat eating diet, mainly fish protein, also eat a wide
range of fruit and veg, avoid grains.

Thanks for offering more suggestions, I'd be very happy to hear what
you think.

Tony.

When I began to overcome severe osteoporosis (no, I'm not an old lady,
but a thin, 40 year old male), I went through a period when I had
almost a pregnant woman's appetite.

There could be all kinds of things going on. You could even have
Charcot Marie Tooth (cold hands and feet). If you can get a doctor to
do all kinds of tests, then you'll get a better idea. Thyroid
suppression is good possibility. Have them do a test for parasites
(stool test), as well as comprehensive blood tests, urine test, and
anything else you can get. If they detect something, you can send me a
message and I'll give you my ideas. Some claim that too much zinc
means allergies and auto-immune problems, whereas too much copper means
a depressed immune system. You could have something like orthostatic
hypotension. You can just take your BP and heart rate after lying down
for 20 minutes or more, then do it again after walking around for ten
minutes (just walk slowly, and stand still for about half the time,
alternating - just as you would if you were making dinner or something
like that). If BP and heart rate change (BP going down as heart rate
goes up), that can cause a "chronic fatigue syndrome" by itself).

Quoted message said:

Thanks for your response Montygram, I'll chew over what youv'e said.

The chromium I am taking is Chromium Picolinate,

<snip>

Even though it was probably way overblown, there was a study done I
think on mice that showed (I think, but could be wrong) Chromium
Picolinate caused DNA damage in the mice.

I could be wrong, but look for study if you want...and make up your own
mind... search for it on google if you want..

"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There are different forms, and the other ingredients in the supplement
could be the problem. You could reduce the dosage, try different brand
and different forms, and there's nutritional yeast, which is high in
chromium. I eat small amounts of nutritional yeast with each meal,
less than a teaspoon, but I don't take chromiumc supplements. You
didn't say why you are taking it. Trace minerals are undeniably
important, but if you are deficient, it is important to discover why.
If there is a great deal of oxidative stress, some minerals might be
getting used up by the SOD activity, for example.

getting "used up" by the SOD actitity?
you are aware that chemical elements do not have the habbit of spontaneusly
disappearing or transforming into other chemical elements.. don't you?

Quoted message said:

Aside from a
"balanced diet," one needs to avoid more than small amounts of
oxidative (and other forms of) stress. Get to the underlying or root
cause - otherwise, there's going to be a major problem at some point in
the not too distant future. Most problems in countries like the USA
are the result of too much arachidonic acid stored up in the tissues
(which can then be turned into very dangerous metabolites upon minor
stressors) and too much dietary oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation),
which is enhanced by high iron diets and low antioxidant diets.

which is enhanced by any _free_ metal ion with a redox potential.

Quoted message said:

I'd give you more specific suggestions if you were more specific (age,
gender, height/weight, previous medical history, your diet, etc.).

Quoted message said:

Age 28
Male
Height 70 inches
weight 170 pounds
Medical hist: ongoing fatigue, allergies, cold hands and feet
Diet: Mixed meat eating diet, mainly fish protein, also eat a wide
range of fruit and veg, avoid grains.

In ref to your allergies, do you consume dairy & cow's milk
products?

montygram said:

There could be all kinds of things going on. You could even have
Charcot Marie Tooth (cold hands and feet). If you can get a doctor to

Please explain more about Charcot Marie Tooth (cold hands and
feet).

Quoted message said:

From what I have read both the Mag and the Chromium
increase insulin sensitivity, so maybe this is what has
been happening with both, the increased insulin sensitivity
is pushing more glucose into muscle and leaving the blood
level too low for normal functioning.

No, chromium helps to stabilize your insulin levels - if you are
'insulin sensitive' it it doesnt increase it, it helps prevent it. You
might get more info/tips here: http://tinyurl.com/4u2yz

I would be looking at WHAT you eat after taking your supplements and
thruout the day and make some changes because I dont think its the
supplements, but more what you are eating or not eating that is causing
your 'symtoms'. My question is, why arent you getting some of these
necessary minerals from their food sources? Usually supplementation is
just that 'in addition to' not in lieu of, if you know what I mean. I
could see if you had been eating lots of foods that contain these trace
minerals and still were depleted, you could need supplementation of
them to bring your levels up to par - but then the question would be
WHY are you deficient in these? I would look deeper into this before
just taking whatever - liquid copper? Do you have digestion problems or
chrohns disease? Otherwise copper deficiency is extremely rare:
http://tinyurl.com/bhpsj

Magnesium, as one of its uses, may help in energy metabolism - its
needed by certain enzymes to help convert foods thru digestion into
energy. Really nothing to do with insulin. Read more about magnesiums
uses here: http://tinyurl.com/de8yx

Oh and btw for the person that mentioned about chromium damaging DNA
there's info about that as well in the first link - a few mice tests
with wopping overdose amounts doesnt always translate into humans.

joanne

High iron diets are the most common problem. Nobody is suggesting that
one consume large amounts of lead, etc.

The SOD issue is interesting. Several studies have found that people
who live the longest have the lowest SOD activity, but high vitamin E
levels, whereas the reverse is true of those who are middle aged and
dying or who have "chronic disease." The body can crank up SOD levels,
but certain trace minerals are needed, and if they are being used for
that purpose, they can't be used for other vital purposes, unless one
is getting much larger amounts than most people.

You can find several CMT web sites that will give you all the info. you
want. The nerves in the hands and feet die off, then the muscles
atrophy, etc.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

High iron diets are the most common problem. Nobody is suggesting that
one consume large amounts of lead, etc.

Not lead but other metals with a redox potential.. zinc for example-
since the "the more the better" supplementation philosophy is so popular
people are not aware that trace elements are supposed to be exactly that..
taken in trace ammounts.

iron is a problem because the span between too low and too high iron levels
is so small. generally however iron problems (like lipid peroxidation etc)
can only occur when there is iron overload and the iron binding protein
system (ferritin/transferrin) is overpowered. only _free_ iron is a problem
in vivo.

Quoted message said:

The SOD issue is interesting. Several studies have found that people
who live the longest have the lowest SOD activity, but high vitamin E
levels, whereas the reverse is true of those who are middle aged and
dying or who have "chronic disease." The body can crank up SOD levels,
but certain trace minerals are needed, and if they are being used for
that purpose, they can't be used for other vital purposes, unless one
is getting much larger amounts than most people.

citation for the first part?

small SOD activity is not the same as small SOD protein levels.
you suggest that there is chromium deficiency.. but where is the proof?
if there would be deficiency, what about glucose tolerance factor (another
chromium dependent enzyme)?

Quoted message said:

The thing about chromium deciciency is total nonsense. It comes from people
who want to sell you chromium supplements.

I'm sure you are right that the people who sell the stuff are pushing
the deficiency angle. But how can you be so sure that the deficiency
isn't widespread enough to be an issue? After hearing about the
importance of Chromium as a trace mineral I looked at my diet to see
what high chromium foods I was eating. The only decent one was egg
yoke, and you need about 100g of yoke to get the 200ug advised intake,
that's about 6 or more eggs a day, there's no way I'm gonna manage that
every day, talk about egg-bound!! Also seeing as I am definately
experiencing a physiological response from the Chromium, and it appears
that it's through blood sugar, I think it's safe to say I must have had
some kind of deficit otherwise I wouldn't be experiencing a lowering of
blood sugar?

Tony.

I'm not saying chromium is deficient due to SOD levels. Magnesium,
manganese, selenium, zinc, and copper are the ones to be concerned
about in this context. Chromium seems to help in certain conditions,
but I'd just go with the nutritional yeast in small amounts with each
meal.

Citation (too lazy to do a quick search?):

Free Radic Biol Med. 2000 Apr 15;28(8):1243-8.

Plasma antioxidants and longevity: a study on healthy centenarians.

Mecocci P, Polidori MC, Troiano L, Cherubini A, Cecchetti R, Pini G,
Straatman M, Monti D, Stahl W, Sies H, Franceschi C, Senin U.

Sezione di Gerontologia e Geriatria, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e
Sperimentale, Universita di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. [email hidden]

A large body of experimental research indicates that oxidative stress
contributes to the processes related to aging and to the pathogenesis
of several age-related diseases. Vitamins and antioxidant enzymes have
a fundamental role in defending the organism from oxidative stress. To
better understand the role of antioxidants in human aging, we measured
plasma levels of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), uric acid, vitamin E
(alpha-tocopherol), vitamin A (retinol), carotenoids, total thiol
groups, and the activity of plasma superoxide dismutase (SOD) and
glutathione peroxidase (GPX) as well as the activity of red blood cell
(RBC) SOD in 32 healthy centenarians-17 elderly subjects aged 80-99
years, 34 elderly subjects aged 60-79 years, and 24 adults aged less
than 60 years. Considering the "noncentenarians" only, we observed a
consistent behavior in the antioxidant pattern, with a decrease of the
nonenzymatic antioxidants and an increase of the enzymatic antioxidant
activities relative to age. Remarkably, centenarians were characterized
as having the highest levels of vitamins A and E, whereas the
activities of both plasma and RBC SOD, which increase with age,
decreased in centenarians. From these results, it is evident that
healthy centenarians show a particular profile in which high levels of
vitamin A and vitamin E seem to be important in guaranteeing their
extreme longevity.

"montygram" <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying chromium is deficient due to SOD levels. Magnesium,
manganese, selenium, zinc, and copper are the ones to be concerned
about in this context. Chromium seems to help in certain conditions,
but I'd just go with the nutritional yeast in small amounts with each
meal.

Citation (too lazy to do a quick search?):

Free Radic Biol Med. 2000 Apr 15;28(8):1243-8.

Plasma antioxidants and longevity: a study on healthy centenarians.

Mecocci P, Polidori MC, Troiano L, Cherubini A, Cecchetti R, Pini G,
Straatman M, Monti D, Stahl W, Sies H, Franceschi C, Senin U.

Sezione di Gerontologia e Geriatria, Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e
Sperimentale, Universita di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. [email hidden]

A large body of experimental research indicates that oxidative stress
contributes to the processes related to aging and to the pathogenesis
of several age-related diseases. Vitamins and antioxidant enzymes have
a fundamental role in defending the organism from oxidative stress. To
better understand the role of antioxidants in human aging, we measured
plasma levels of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), uric acid, vitamin E
(alpha-tocopherol), vitamin A (retinol), carotenoids, total thiol
groups, and the activity of plasma superoxide dismutase (SOD) and
glutathione peroxidase (GPX) as well as the activity of red blood cell
(RBC) SOD in 32 healthy centenarians-17 elderly subjects aged 80-99
years, 34 elderly subjects aged 60-79 years, and 24 adults aged less
than 60 years. Considering the "noncentenarians" only, we observed a
consistent behavior in the antioxidant pattern, with a decrease of the
nonenzymatic antioxidants and an increase of the enzymatic antioxidant
activities relative to age. Remarkably, centenarians were characterized
as having the highest levels of vitamins A and E, whereas the
activities of both plasma and RBC SOD, which increase with age,
decreased in centenarians. From these results, it is evident that
healthy centenarians show a particular profile in which high levels of
vitamin A and vitamin E seem to be important in guaranteeing their
extreme longevity.

Did you read the paper?
This was the composition of the groups:

young adults: (>60 yrs)
13 women 11 men (makes roughly 50:50)

young-old subjects: (61-80yrs)
13 women 13 men (50:50)

old subjects: (81-99yrs)
7 women 10 men (roughly 50:50 again)

the last group, the one they used to make their statement has a totally
different composition

cenetarians test group: (>100yrs)
25 women and * 7 * men (makes almost 80:20%)!

its well known that women differ greatly from men when it comes to age
related studies..
having the one group you'd like to say something about being so radically
[no pun intended] different from the rest is at best very dubious.

not to say that high retinol and high tocopherol levels don't play a very
important role.. but this study certainly does not have the power to say so
because the test group composition is majorly flawed compared to the
others.. and I hope you will at least agree on that bit.

I am really getting tired of refuting people like MMu and MattLB with
actual scientific evidence. They, on the other hand, enjoy attacking
my obvious typographical errors. If you listen to these guys, your
health may be at serious risk. MattLB recently attacked what I said
about tightly wound DNA an cancer cells, yet it was on sciencedaily.com
a few weeks back. DO SOME RESEARCH - AND CITE SOME RESEARCH, rather
than making ludicrous, non-scientific attacks. As for the lead claim,
here is the evidence. I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, but the
problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical
mediated. How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks
are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore
worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am
talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is
fats going rancid in your body) or chronic inflammation, which
generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs.
This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed
should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red
herrings to justify their moronic claims.
Here's a refutation to MMu's claims about the effects of lead:

Toxicological Sciences 69, 149-156 (2002)
Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Toxicology

MOLECULAR AND GENETIC TOXICOLOGY
Tea Catechins Protect against Lead-Induced Cytotoxicity, Lipid
Peroxidation, and Membrane Fluidity in HepG2 Cells
Liuji Chen*, Xianqiang Yang*, Hongli Jiao and Baolu Zhao,1

* Department of Tea Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
310029; and Laboratory of Visual Information Processing, Research
Centers of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics,
Academia Sinica, 15 Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China
100101

Recent studies have shown that lead causes oxidative stress by inducing
the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reducing the
antioxidant defense system of cells. This suggests that antioxidants
may play an important role in the treatment of lead poisoning as a kind
of excellent scavenger of free radicals and chelator of heavy metal.
Whether tea catechins have protective effects against oxidative stress
after lead treatment in cell systems remains unclear. The present study
was designed to elucidate if tea catechins have any protective effects
on lipid peroxidation damage in lead-exposed HepG2 cells. Exposure of
HepG2 cells to Pb++ decreased cell viability and stimulated lipid
peroxidation of cell membranes as measured by the thioburbituric acid
reaction. Electron spin resonance (ESR) spin-labeling studies indicated
that lead exposure could decrease the fluidity in the polar surface of
cell membranes. Tea catechin treatment significantly increased cell
viability, decreased lipid peroxidation levels, and protected cell
membrane fluidity in lead-exposed HepG2 cells in a
concentration-dependent manner. The galloylated catechins showed a
stronger effect than nongalloylated catechins. Cotreatment with
(-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) and (-)-epicatechin (EC),
(-)-epicatechin gallate (ECG), and (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)
showed a synergistically protective effect. The results suggest that
tea catechin supplementation may have a role to play in modulating
oxidative stress in lead-exposed HepG2 cells.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/1/149

Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic
disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher
saying this explicitly. So by attacking me, they are actually
attacking the scientific process. What they gain by doing this is
beyond my comprehension, but it probably has to do with some sort of
psychological imbalance in their brains - probably due to the
polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic. Do a pubmed.com search for
arachidonic and you'll see that this is not a joke!

I am really getting tired of refuting people like MMu and MattLB with
actual scientific evidence. They, on the other hand, enjoy attacking
my obvious typographical errors. If you listen to these guys, your
health may be at serious risk. MattLB recently attacked what I said
about tightly wound DNA an cancer cells, yet it was on sciencedaily.com
a few weeks back. DO SOME RESEARCH - AND CITE SOME RESEARCH, rather
than making ludicrous, non-scientific attacks. As for the lead claim,
here is the evidence. I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, but the
problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical
mediated. How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks
are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore
worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am
talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is
fats going rancid in your body) or chronic inflammation, which
generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs.
This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed
should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red
herrings to justify their moronic claims.
Here's a refutation to MMu's claims about the effects of lead:

Toxicological Sciences 69, 149-156 (2002)
Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Toxicology

MOLECULAR AND GENETIC TOXICOLOGY
Tea Catechins Protect against Lead-Induced Cytotoxicity, Lipid
Peroxidation, and Membrane Fluidity in HepG2 Cells
Liuji Chen*, Xianqiang Yang*, Hongli Jiao and Baolu Zhao,1

* Department of Tea Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
310029; and Laboratory of Visual Information Processing, Research
Centers of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Biophysics,
Academia Sinica, 15 Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China
100101

Recent studies have shown that lead causes oxidative stress by inducing
the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reducing the
antioxidant defense system of cells. This suggests that antioxidants
may play an important role in the treatment of lead poisoning as a kind
of excellent scavenger of free radicals and chelator of heavy metal.
Whether tea catechins have protective effects against oxidative stress
after lead treatment in cell systems remains unclear. The present study
was designed to elucidate if tea catechins have any protective effects
on lipid peroxidation damage in lead-exposed HepG2 cells. Exposure of
HepG2 cells to Pb++ decreased cell viability and stimulated lipid
peroxidation of cell membranes as measured by the thioburbituric acid
reaction. Electron spin resonance (ESR) spin-labeling studies indicated
that lead exposure could decrease the fluidity in the polar surface of
cell membranes. Tea catechin treatment significantly increased cell
viability, decreased lipid peroxidation levels, and protected cell
membrane fluidity in lead-exposed HepG2 cells in a
concentration-dependent manner. The galloylated catechins showed a
stronger effect than nongalloylated catechins. Cotreatment with
(-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) and (-)-epicatechin (EC),
(-)-epicatechin gallate (ECG), and (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG)
showed a synergistically protective effect. The results suggest that
tea catechin supplementation may have a role to play in modulating
oxidative stress in lead-exposed HepG2 cells.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/1/149

Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic
disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher
saying this explicitly. So by attacking me, they are actually
attacking the scientific process. What they gain by doing this is
beyond my comprehension, but it probably has to do with some sort of
psychological imbalance in their brains - probably due to the
polyunsaturated fatty acid, arachidonic. Do a pubmed.com search for
arachidonic and you'll see that this is not a joke!

Quoted post said:

I'm not sure what planet MMu is on, but the
problems that lead causes in the body are well-known and free radical
mediated. How much evidence do I have to post here? The worst attacks
are from those who say that with oxygen, one can't live, therefore
worrying about free radicals makes no sense. However, what I am
talking about are processes like in vivo lipid peroxidation (which is
fats going rancid in your body) or chronic inflammation, which
generates free radicals in large amounts and damages tissue and organs.
This has nothing to do with mitochondrial respiration, which indeed
should be optimal, not reduced in any way, but these people need red
herrings to justify their moronic claims.
Here's a refutation to MMu's claims about the effects of lead:
....

claims about lead?
I am slowly very concerned about you answering and fighting back claims that
nobody took..
this actually could be a lack of n3 fatty acids in the cerebrum.

lets take this slowly.. shall we?

you said:

High iron diets are the most common problem. Nobody is suggesting that
one consume large amounts of lead, etc.

I answered:
"Not lead but other metals with a redox potential.. zinc for example-
since the "the more the better" supplementation philosophy is so popular
people are not aware that trace elements are supposed to be exactly that..
taken in trace ammounts."

even simpler:
you: "nobody is suggesting that one consume large ammounts of lead" _ i:
"Not lead but other metals with a redox potential.. zinc for example".

I will even spell it out for you:
people are not suggesting lead but are suggesting that one consume large
ammounts of other metals with a redox potential like zinc which might be a
problem when it comes to free radical damage.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just remeber one thing: free radical DAMAGE is the key to "chronic

disease," and if you search on pubmed.com you'll find many researcher
saying this explicitly.<<

COMMENT:

They can say it as explicitly as they want, and that doesn't make it
generally true. It's a theory that goes back to Harman and has been
promoted by optomists like Pearson and Shaw, and has gained currency as
a good hypothesis. The problem is that there's not much evidence for
it.

Now wait, you say. Whenever there's worn out or damaged tissue, aren't
there more free radicals around? Sure. Whenever there's damage to
buildings by fire or crime, there are lots of cops and firemen around.
This does not mean that uniformed people or paperwork or insurance
claims cause disasters. Try *removing* the cops and firemen to test
this hypothesis. It doesn't work.

Nor does removing free radicals modify chronic disease progression,
much. The biggest cause of chronic disease in developed countries is
aging. If you remove free radicals by introducing spin traps,
antioxidants, and so on, you do not find aging markedly changed in
animals. There were some hopeful experiments along that line, but they
haven't been replicated, and some of the early ones turned out to be
due to dietary restriction, not antioxidants (these things often taste
bad). Nor is there much evidence that you can modify the rate of
"chronic disease" in humans by giving antioxidants. I've brought up the
subjec of vitamin E, and all the proponents can think of to say is that
maybe we have to use every kind of molecule with vitamin E activity
that exists in nature. Well, they didn't say that 25 years ago before
the vitamin E experiments failed. The claims of the vitamin hawkers are
moving targets. Produce data against them, and they just change. They
are not only data-free, but data-proof. When it's explained to these
people that the greatest life expectancies and lowest chronic disease
rates occur in the Japanese, who probably eat one of the highest
polyunsaturated fat diets there is, they just blank out and invent
magical reasons that the Japanese might be eating huge doses of free
radical blockers to make up for it.

You wouldn't want to just damp out all free radicals [censored] nilly
anyway, even if you could. They are the body's messengers for dealing
with infection, and for triggering healing. Yes, sometimes they need
modulation. Free radicals are produced in copious amounts during tissue
damage (acute trauma or infection or tissue ischemia) and they often
are produced in amounts too large for optimal health (due to the fact
that evolution did not design you with antibiotics in mind, nor to
survive giant traumas that require ventilators and pressor support or a
lot of brain or heart ischemia--- you're expected to DIE in those
cases). So antioxidants (ironically) actually shine more as possible
modifiers of ACUTE disease processes, not chronic ones. For chronic
disease, the inflammatory process will probably need to be modified far
higher up in the process than the end-result where free-radicals are
generated. Another story.

SBH