David Sinclair — A researcher, scientist, doctor at Harvard, whose work in the field of ageing is celebrated by all the big guns of science. He is recognised among the world’s most influential persons today.
I’m reading his book ‘Lifespan’ and I came across this tidbit about antioxidants. Those antioxidants that we find everywhere on all sorts of labels for food, especially processed food, as well as cosmetics. In his book, David Sinclair gives the full story about how the antioxidants became a celebrity.
The ‘Free radical theory of ageing’ was fielded by a chemist at Shell Oil, Denham Harman.
According to his theory, unpaired electrons roaming around within our cells end up damaging our DNA, which leads to ageing. David has met Professor Harman’s family. His wife informed him that Prof. Harman had been taking high doses of alphapoic acid for most of his life, to stock up on antioxidants that would fight free radicals.
That being known, Harman proposed his free radical theory in 1956. It must be said that he ran 2 miles every day until he was 82. And continued to work until he was 90. He passed away in 2014, aged 98.
Wikipedia says “after years of frustration over his inability to increase maximum lifespan with antioxidant supplements, Harman came to the conclusion that mitochondria were producing as well as being damaged by free radicals, but that exogenous antioxidants don’t enter the mitochondria. And that it is mitochondria that determine lifespan. He published his ideas on what he called the “mitochondrial theory of aging” in the April 1972 issue of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.”
So says David: “Science has since demonstrated that the positive health effects attainable from an antioxidant rich diet are more likely caused by stimulating the body’s natural defenses against ageing, including boosting the production of the body’s enzymes that eliminate the free radicals, not as a result of the antioxidant activity itself.”
What does this mean?
It means that antioxidant theory is bull. The buzz it generated is disproportionate to the buzz it should have generated when it was disproved. Harman himself, in his lifetime, grew frustrated with its inaccuracy.
As David further argues, “The theory was overturned by scientists within the cloisters of my field more than a decade ago, yet it is still widely perpetuated by purveyors of pills and drinks, who fuel a $3 billion global industry. With all that advertising, it is not surprising that more than 60% of US consumers still look for foods and beverages that are good sources of antioxidants.”
So, I went on a search.
And I landed here:
The link says the global antioxidant cosmetic products market is growing at 8% CAGR! You name it. They’re all there.
I won’t even get started on food.
So, what’s my point?
Here: That these knowledgeable scientists would do us hoi polloi a big favour if they took concrete action to make it to the headlines. I am surprised that people like David do not have a problem with companies simply fooling people all the time. After all, what is the practical application of their knowledge, if they don’t first put a stop to all the fake propaganda before going ahead and creating the products / therapies that they find effective?
It’s like watching a real-life example of “a few good men”.
