From: JMathieuUS@aol.com
Date: Wed Jun 09 1999 - 13:33:12 MDT
In a message dated 6/9/99 2:46:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ALV@qm.com writes:
>Could someone with more biochemistry knowledge than me comment on the
>following reports?
>This one says that green tea is a better antioxidant than Vit C and E
>http://www.techmall.com/techdocs/TS970911-14.html. I was skeptical (of
>course!!) but then I saw this one, along the same lines.
>http://www2.ari.net/rjohnson/articles/GREENTEA.PUR.html
After reading the first article I was skeptical because the authors claim
EGCG is a better antioxidant than either vitamin C or E. But while vitamin E
is fat soluble and protects mainly against free radicals within the membranes
vitamin C is water soluble and protects in the cytoplasm and nucleus. Is
EGCG somehow soluble in both lipids and aqueous solution? Also the source
was Pharmanex Inc.. Perhaps they are the suppliers of Tegreen? Antioxidants
in general are marketed by wild claims to produce results that they never
could. Sure we all need them but there are various factors which make them
useful that commercially available supplements do not have. Often only one
enantiomer is biologically active while the other(s) is not if it has
isomers. Physiological conditions can change one form to the next in some
cases but often not, so what you receive may not even be active. Also
oxidation can occur during storage, again inactivating the useful properties.
There are also studies that suggest that additional amounts of many of the
common antioxidants do little more to protect one against free radicals then
are natural production.
Jacques Mathieu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:05 MST