[quote=“qm3ster, post:3, topic:5293”]They are grouped by bracket with the oil source, so it may be to prevent oxidation of the oil, but the use of three different ones, especially such an ambiguous one as a “rosemary extract” raises some suspicion of how it might not be a very scientific product, appealing to the healthy eating fads and not necessarily the latest research.[/quote]I see what you mean. I do find it a little unfortunate that vegan products are often also marketed at people who want to eat “all natural” and such (which is not my thing). But then again, I don’t think latest research at this point is conclusive enough to suggest that they shouldn’t use antioxidants.
[quote=“qm3ster, post:3, topic:5293”][…] speculating that the absence of this structural damage at a milder scale will increase the amount of cancers that develop to the stage of requiring medical intervention.[/quote]I’d find that odd; structural damage is usually what causes cancer. You’ll find that many anti-cancer medicines are carcinogenic, exactly because they destroy the cancer cell with structural damage – something that can cause cancer. If you manage to find a link though, I’d be interested in reading it!
[quote=“qm3ster, post:3, topic:5293”]I am not trying to start a panic, but since we are trying to make a far safer diet than whole foods here, I believe everything deserves scrutiny, especially with how little concrete objective facts about things we ingest are common knowledge.[/quote]Fair enough! I’m in favor of that
[quote=“qm3ster, post:3, topic:5293”]What do you suggest I change the title to? “Routes of possible harm from antioxidants” ?[/quote]Yeah that works.
[quote=“Smaug, post:4, topic:5293, full:true”]I’m afraid I don’t have much time now, but in the book Bad Science by Dr Ben Goldacre, he describes studies into Vitamin E supplementation which had to be terminated early because Vitamin E takers died in such high quantities.[/quote]I don’t want to shoot down your point right out of hand, but I tend to be wary of stuff said in books – simply because books aren’t peer reviewed.
I did a quick google, and found this meta-analysis that has found a non-statistically-significant increase in mortality with high-dose supplementation (>400 IU/d). The RDA for Vitamin E is 15 mg, which is about 22.4 IU, so we’re not running into problems there any time soon. I’m changing the UL in my spreadsheet for Vitamin E down to 267 mg (400 IU) instead of 1000 though, although I’m nowhere close.