Talk:Antioxidant/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 adverse health & overconsumption of certain antiox 2 Food Production Daily 3 what's AMD? 4 Article too focused? 5 Big Reorganization 6 Article is Terrible ;> 7 Article reorganized, and ALL previous work preserved 8 Health hazards 9 Non-biology sections need to be written 10 Introductory sections 11 Long descriptions of particular nutritional sources 12 Suggested split of article 13 Selenium 14 Good editing practice 15 Doubtful claims about coffee moved to Talk 16 20 foods serving sizes are not all the same 17 Antioxidants and cancer chemotherapy 18 lead sentence 19 {{expert}} 20 Dietary supplements section 21 Gallic cosmetics? ;)

[edit] adverse health & overconsumption of certain antiox

any sources to say what excessive levels of these (tea, chocolate, whole grains) are? no sources cited...

[edit] Food Production Daily

An article from Food Production Daily [1] from May 9, 2005 asserts that a 3oz serving of button mushrooms offers 5 milligrams of ergothioneine, or 12 times the antioxidant of wheat germ. Exotic mushrooms such as shiitake, oyster, or maitake can containe 40 times the antioxidant of wheat germ. This finding was the result of a new assay developed at Penn State that uses traditional analytical chemistry techniques and is transferable to the analysis of other plants, not just mushrooms.

--208.50.113.34 13:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)grizzlygear

Recent tests have shown the mangosteen fruit to have the highest antioxidant capacity of any human food item. The ORAC value of mangosteen, especially the pericarp, or rind is measured by a standardized test assay developed and described by the USDA.

This article describes the US Department of Agriculture methods and standards for ORAC measurement.

--68.101.151.116 07:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)jstdadd

The article has a note stating, "I don't know how you could get this much ORAC value from eating fruit; you would almost certainly have to use nutritional supplementation." 100g of blueberries have an ORAC value of 2400, so you'd need to eat 291g of blueberries, for example (and this assumes you consume no other antioxidant-containing foods). 291g of blueberries is about two cups and 165 calories. Frankg 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what's AMD?

"The green tea industry, with makers like Japanese Green Tea and Arizona (for iced) have benefitted tremendously from recent articles on antioxidants in green tea delaying onset of AMD." ?

AMD is Age related macular degeneration.

I took out the part about Mangosteen being the fruit with the highest amount of antioxidants, because I found a few other articles online that say that wolfberries and others have an even higher amount. Plus I also don't trust those pages that praise mangosteen or other asian fruits because I think they are only put online for propaganda so XanGo and all the the others can sell more bottles of their juice.

Right, wild blueberries, pomegranates and wolfberries have all competed to say that they have the "highest antioxidant concentration", when in reality, they may have come out on top in one study or another that evaluated 40 or so fruits but not those vying for the top title. Also, ORAC can be deceptive, as some companies will use wet weight, making "dry" items such as raisins, spinach and garlic much higher in antioxidants as blueberries contain a large percentage of water.

[edit] Article too focused?

In the intro, the article states that an antioxidant is any chemical that prevents oxidation, but the rest of the article treats antioxidants as nutritional supplements, even referring to dosages in the "types" section. Should we perhaps have a separate section or article on antioxidants as nutritional suplements? Shaggorama 10:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. However, I was bold enough to move some stuff around, and I think structurally having only one major heading about antioxidants' use in biology makes it clear that there's more than one use for antioxidants. I don't think a separate article is required. StevenRobertson 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Reorganization

Big reorgs make me uncomfortable, it's difficult to watch which changes are being made to the article. I would ask that if this is done, that the creation of new sections and shifting of paragraphs be done in their own edits. Then, if you want to alter the CONTENTS of the paragraph, it be done as a separate edit. I wish wiki had a way of negating the red and drawing arrows showing paragraph movements. I realize that would be difficult, but it should be possible, and help reduce confusion and shock at large reorganizations. During them, information can slip in and out. You realize why, for those watching the community, this is hard? Tyciol 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is Terrible ;>

The entire article reads like a (poorly written) pamphlet from a health food store. This article is the number one result for "antioxidant" in google! More science and less pseudoscience on this very important topic, please! I know if I don't like it I should change it. Sorry, I don't have the time or background in this field to do so properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SubtleGuest (talk • contribs) 27 February 2006.

I think the current article is evolving nicely. With substantially more background (bio)chemical knowledge you might also incidentally lose that pseudoscience 'tude. A lot of my first introductions to medical or nutritional uses of antioxidants over the years have been in Science Newsletter[2], hardly a health food store organ. If you (all above, too) need to know more about chemical/industrial antioxidants, specifically or generally, the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology[3], 27 heavy volumes in its 4th edition, now in a 5th ed[4], originally edited by Kirk & Othmer, is always a great starting point. Eventually Wiki will probably need to specialize and differentiate in its antioxidants coverage. In a country (US) going broke with so many unhealthy and uncovered souls, health simply seems to be the first interest here. --66.58.130.26 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC) And I pulled the advertisements for brands out. --10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is terrible, but it does need more coherence and structure, maybe even a short lesson explaining the major differences between the chemical classes of antioxidants; for example, between carotenoids and polyphenolics. I tried to sort the antioxidants in a more logical way, but I left some egregious loose ends for the next person to tidy up. (Sorry for the lack of professionalism, but the sloppiness of this article really bothered me, and I had to do something.) N3362

I also sorted a few of the compounds, while adding more of them. BTW: lignan is not a flavonoid. Understand that not all of the known antioxidants are absolutely healthful. For example, oxalic and phytic acids are considered by many nutritionists mostly as antinutrients because they bind dietary minerals, making them unabsorbable in the small intestine. A good future amendment of this article might be to point this out, and other negative aspects about some antioxidants. Otherwise, people may overconsume certain high antioxidant foods such as spinach which bind needed minerals. Zymatik 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point in time there's plenty enough information for more than 99% of the article's readers. What is needed now is a sense of crediblity. That's achieved by providing numbered external reference links, which the Wikipedia program automatically numbers for you; similar to a footnote. Right now the article needs reference links on the existing info more than it needs additional (minor) details. Currently this voluminous article has only 9 of them!! So Wikipedians, please do some checks of various existing details and insert an external link, which will validate/corroborate that detail of info. Sorry... I know that's tedious research, but you don't have to be a biochemist to do such checks if you're adept at searching the web and are a keen and discriminating reader. Zymatik 07:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I was surpised to see the contents contain "A quick lesson on..." and the phrase "researchers have found" looks suspicious without a citation. It all seems a bit too persuavive. DLeonard 14:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The "quick fatty acid lesson" has little to do with antioxidants so I move it here in case it can be of use in other articles:

• Fatty acids are either saturated (no double-bonded carbon) or unsaturated (contain at least one double-bonded carbon).
• Monounsaturated fatty acids have one double bond. Polyunsaturated fatty acids have more than one.
• Unsaturated fatty acids are either omega-3, omega-6, or omega-9, depending on the position of the first double bond.
• Humans can synthesize omega-9, but not omega-3 or omega-6, fatty acids, so certain precursor omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are deemed "essential". See essential fatty acid.
• Triglycerides are three fatty acids bound to a glycerin molecule.
• Lipoproteins are fatty acid and protein molecules that transport cholesterol between the intestines, liver, and cells in the rest of the body.
• Antioxidants play a role in protecting fatty acids during cholesterol transport, as well as during creation of immune system and hormonal molecules such as prostaglandin.
• For more details, see fatty acid, cholesterol, and related articles.

Prithason 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article reorganized, and ALL previous work preserved

Fear not, everything that all y'all wrote is still in the article, but I couldn't help myself and had to do a massive reorg. The *information* in the article was professional, but the *structure* of the article was amateurish. I still left the Cleanup-Date tag that produces "This article may require cleanup" at the top of the article, because there are still many loose ends and rambling thoughts without references (including my own). Can someone who is chemically knowledgeable put the straggler antioxidants such as the saponins, tannin polymers, and plant pigments, in their appropriate categories, or, if they are NOT antioxidants, remove them from the article? Thanks. N3362 04:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work - this has added a lot more detail on the value of different foods. In accordance with wikipedia guidance, I have done a small amount of pruning that has not removed any factual content. Elroch 02:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health hazards

I felt that this article was quite one-sided, so I'm the first to add parts mentioning the antinutrient and toxic effects of certain dietary antioxidants. Zymatik 07:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-biology sections need to be written

The use of polymers in non-biological contexts is certainly of interest (but most would agree of less broad interest than their biological role). However, there is no reason to leave empty headings near the top of this article to remind editors of this fact. If someone does want to write these sections, the headings for empty sections that I removed are:

==Antioxidants in polymer industry==

==Antioxidant in fuel stabilisation==

Elroch 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory sections

The introductory sections relating to the biological role of antioxidants have possibly the highest potential impact of any in this quite lengthy article, since that is what the largest number of readers actually read. In light of this, the first paragraph might be expanded. The "Mechanism" section in particular is rather poor, giving a very patchy and incomplete picture. It would be useful if someone with a thorough knowledge of biology, and the inclination to present material in an accessible way, reworked the early sections. Elroch 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long descriptions of particular nutritional sources

I am guessing that there must be at least 300 extraordinary food sources of antioxidant chemicals. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide long descriptions of each editor's favorite antioxidant food source and its health benefits (health benefit descriptions are redundant, since they are already covered elsewhere in the article). There was a section named Antioxidants in walnuts (saved below). I copied several of its most pertinent points into a condensed description of walnut appearing elsewhere in the article, and then I deleted that section; parts of which more appropriately belong in the articles named walnut, and flavonoid, and tannin:

Antioxidants in walnuts

Analyses of walnut extracts show that walnuts: Are the only nut containing high quantities of ellagic acid. Are unique among the edible tree nuts because of their high content of omega-3 polyunsaturated linoleic and linolenic fatty acids. These fatty acids are short-chain fatty acids that tend to oxidize easily, so the walnut has high quantities of antioxidants to protect itself (which results in protection of LDL oxidation in humans who eat them). Have a high content of tocopherols (vitamin E) in the kernel, especially gamma tocopherol. Have a high content of phenolic antioxidants. These are what make the walnut taste bitter, and are found in the highest concentration in the pellicle. Some of these nonflavonoid phenolics are present as the monomers ellagic acid, gallic acid and methyl gallate, but most of these phenolics in the walnut are nonflavonoid phenolic polymers known as ellagitannins. These are hydrolyzable tannins formed when phenolic monomers bind to sugar molecules and form polymers, such as valoneic acid dilactone and pedunculagin. Contain at least one flavonol, related to quercetin. Are potent inhibitors of plasma and LDL oxidation, (but only under certain circumstances).

The identities of all of the chemicals found in walnut extract, and their capacity and functionality as antioxidants, are still not completely known. When walnut extract is compared to purified chemicals known to exist in the extract, the results sometimes seem to contradict each other (for example, extract has more antioxidant activity under some circumstances and less under other circumstances).

Consumption of walnuts improves one’s serum lipid profile: Increases HDL cholesterol Increases apolipoprotein Decreases total and LDL cholesterol Decreases triglycerides Zymatik 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested split of article

There is a strong case for separating antioxidants in living organisms and technological uses of antioxidants into two separate articles, with the main article being the biological one (based on what appears to be the large majority of readers), with a clear link at the top to an article on antioxidant technology. The role of antioxidants in chemistry and in food technology is important and could do with expansion, but it looks oddly out of place in the article as it stands, a bit like a discussion of combustion would be in an article on respiration. The historical material is rather anthropocentric - a balanced history would point out that antioxidants are believed to have been used as a protective mechanism by organisms since very early in the development of life, which predates rubber technology by about 2 billion years. My suggested title for the other article is simply antioxidant technology, as that would cover uses of antioxidants in chemistry and food technology. Has anyone else got any other suggestions for the title of the other article, or comments on this idea? Elroch 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose split at the current time although I can see a case for a split if the technological uses were ever expanded. The concept of an "antioxidant" is, like all concepts in biology, an attempt by man to understand complex natural processes. Thus I don't see how to separate it from chemistry that defines it, or to separate it from the history of how man came to define the term, and how the connotations have changed over the years as conceptions of nutrition and biology have changed. Labeling phytochemicals and enzymes with a term as simplistic as "antioxidant" is anthropocentric regardless. I would rather think that the main article on antioxidant could use more emphasis the mechanisms by which antioxidants are thought (by people) to act in biology. I do agree that the evolutionary history of antioxidants would be very interesting -- except that very little is known about it. Prithason 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A very strong argument would be needed to outweigh the fact that biology and chemistry are different subjects. Elroch 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selenium

After thinking about this for a bit, it occurs to me that selenium itself has no antioxidant activity and I propose that it be removed from the list of antioxidants. Selenium should be briefly described as an essential element in the diet that is necessary for the antioxidant activity of the various selenoproteins in vertebrates (such as thioredoxin reductase). Any objections? Prithason 02:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see what you would wish to remove. Selenium is currently mentioned as a component of two proteins, with respect to clinical trials, and in the section "vitamins and cofactors". It is virtually universal practice to include selenium in lists of dietary antioxidants, referring to a range of dietary selenium compounds used as a source of selenium to make antioxidants. It could be argued that other essential elements could be included as well in the vitamins and cofactors section.

My point was simply that selenium itself is not an antioxidant, please provide a reference if there is evidence otherwise. Its presence in the enzymes thioredoxin reductase and glutathione peroxidase is as part of a selenocysteine amino acid, not as a cofactor like manganese in the SOD complex. Certainly you would agree that although sulfur comes from the diet, sulfur is required for making cysteine, and cysteines are required for many antioxidants, sulfur is not an antioxidant? Why not move information on selenium not related to its presence in selenoproteins (ie the clinical trial and in the cofactors section) to the selenium main article? Prithason 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the looseness of calling selenium an antioxidant, which is common practice, referring to the fact that its main role seems to be in certain antioxidant enzymes. Different selenium-containing nutrients may have more difference in their effects than is commonly believed (beyond the percentage digested), and one question is whether selenium sources should even be bundled together as one variants of one nutrient. Some published data casts doubt on this, as well as showing the roles of selenium are more varied than the small number of important proteins it appears in. I was surprised to read the following abstract, which seems to complicate the situation considerably [5] Elroch 23:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To summarize: Selenium itself is not an antioxidant in cells, and it is not a cofactor in antioxidant enzymes. It is an essential mineral, there is evidence it is helpful as a dietary supplement, and it is incorporated into selenoproteins, which include antioxidant enzymes in mammals. As I see it then, the question is: should the antioxidant article specifically discuss only substances which are themselves antioxidants? Or should it cover all substances which indirectly have antioxidant effects? My opinion is that including individual discussion of all such substances would be nearly impossible -- nearly every major signaling pathway has some effect on the redox state of the cell. For example, insulin has "antioxidant effects" since high blood glucose causes oxidative stress, and insulin reduces blood glucose levels. Should insulin be listed as an antioxidant? While most substances in the article are antioxidants, a few, like selenium, are not, and I would like to pare these out if they can be discussed briefly elsewhere in the article. Certainly a section on antioxidant signaling could be included to cover indirect effects. 65.96.126.32 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is throwing useful light on the usual way that the word "selenium" is loosely used to refer to selenium compounds in the diet, and selenium is improperly called a dietary antioxidant. Selenium is unusual in being a chemical element of which dietary deficiency is not uncommon, and which is an essential component of key antioxidant enzymes. What needs to be justified is why selenium is singled out for this treatment but not zinc, copper, and manganese. It would undoubtedly be an improvement to deal with different selenium compounds in the diet separately - one very important point is the wide range of bioavailability - but this might be considered a specialised topic more appropriate for the main article on selenium. Elroch 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to single out selenium, I thought it was a useful question in general. I agree that zinc would also not qualify as an antioxidant. I am not positive about copper and manganese but I believe that they are the reducing agents in SOD. Prithason 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the info on Se and Zn here as there have ben no further objections to limiting the article to individual descriptions of only actual antioxidants. Prithason 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The significant effect of supplementary selenium in reducing incidence of prostate cancer was strongly supported by the Nutrition for the Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial (designed primarily to determine the effect of selenium supplementation on skin cancers) [6], and found significant effects for subjects whose plasma selenium levels were in the middle and lower thirds, but not for those in the top third. The SELECT project further investigating the effects of selenium supplementation (in combination with vitamin E) on prostate cancer incidence, but final results will not be available until 2013 [7].

• Selenium has been shown as early as the 1950's to have a beneficial effect in reducing the occurrence of male prostate cancer, and a recent study done by the National Health System of China have verified previous results. However, the substance must be taken in measured amounts because large doses of the element can be toxic. Good food sources include fish, shellfish, red meat, grains, eggs, sunflower seeds, chicken, turkey, garlic, and Brazil nuts. Vegetables can also be a good source if they are grown in selenium-rich soils, and some nutritional supplements contain a supply of selenium.

• Zinc. See Zinc's Antioxidant Potential Probed.

[edit] Good editing practice

Prithason, please do not delete facts because you are not sure of them yourself. If you are unsure of a fact, rather than being aware it is false, it is appropriate to either read the referred material or add a ^{[citation needed]} tag. You replaced a statement saying melatonin acted as an antioxidant in mitochondria by one saying it may act as an antioxidant in mitochondria. This may reflect your state of knowledge, but much research, including that referred to in the article, makes it clear that this is an established fact ([8], [9], [10]), as are other antioxidant actions of melatonin (relating to which there are around 10000 papers). It is also unreasonable to have removed melatonin from the antioxidants in biology section as several decades of research indicate it is a very important antioxidant which appears to be used by every living organism, as well as upregulating other antioxidants. Its recent addition (in more than very small quantities) to the range of dietary components that are antioxidants is certainly worth covering separately. On reflection, the most practical division between different classes of biological antioxidants (from a anthropocentric viewpoint) may be between those which are produced by humans, those which are essential dietary components in humans, and those which are inessential (but possibly beneficial) dietary components (there may be a rather fuzzy border between the last two categories). Of course there is also an overlap between those that can be produced by humans and those which form a useful part of diet, exemplified by ubiquinone, which has been described as an antioxidant that could be regarded as a vitamin in the elderly because of the decline in production.

Elroch 11:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Elroch, please calm down, I am trying to be conscientious about NPOV. Melatonin was not first proposed to have antioxidant activity until 1993, so it is impossible that there are decades of research indicating it is a very important antioxidant. You present only one side of the debate: while there are researchers who believe that melatonin is clearly a physiological antioxidant (such as Dr. Russell Reiter), there are others who do not (such as Dr. Richard Wurtman) -- and both appear to have conflicts of interest. Furthermore most agree that even if it is an important antioxidant, its precise mechanism of action is unclear, which has limited acceptance of its overall importance with cell biology researchers. As an example, a recent review by P. Storz [11] on ROS-mediated signaling in the mitochondria and nucleus does not mention melatonin. And I don't much care where the information on melatonin is as long as it is in one place.

Finally, I like your classification scheme. I would add a division for antioxidants which are produced by cells for their own use. Prithason 04:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, when I said "produced by humans" I meant within human cells rather than in a factory :-) Of course virtually all the dietary antioxidants are produced in some living cells for their own use (or at least those of the organism).

I find it difficult to see how anyone could read even the small subset of the published material (ok, ~10000 papers in less than two decades) and doubt that melatonin has antioxidant effects in several different ways [12], directly and indirectly. It is known to combine with specific radicals and form stable products. Recently, it has been shown to be present in higher quantities in the mitochondria, and directly demonstrated to act as an antioxidant there. It has been shown to have one of the highest levels of activity of all compounds tested, against one of the most significant radicals. What is missing? I am aware that Dr. Wurtman did pioneering work on the pineal gland and melatonin in the 1960s, but I was not aware that he believed recent published results to be false - could you give a reference where he justifies this viewpoint? Is there any chance it could be a case of the old guard taking a little while to accept new results? Elroch 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In the section that discusses the source of the superoxide anion, I believe it would be worthwhile mentioning that macrophages are also a source of reactive oxygen species (in addition to reactive nitrogen species). Furthermore, in the list of potential oxidants, there is no mention of reactive nitrogen species.

[edit] Doubtful claims about coffee moved to Talk

I moved this text here as it's had a request for verification for a while now with no improvement. Coffee is often depleted of antioxidants due to the high-temperature roasting process.^{[citation needed]} The US FDA may have recently suggested that the average person should consume up to 7000 ORAC units daily, in order to reduce the risk of cancer.^{[citation needed]} As this is nearly 12 servings of high-ORAC-value fruit, the use of nutritional supplements containing bioflavonoids is likely necessary to reach this target.^{[citation needed]} David.Throop 05:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20 foods serving sizes are not all the same

The USDA chart listing the antioxidents of the top 20 foods looks wrong, because the foods do not have the same serving sizes. For example--(1) Small red beans, 1/2 cup dried beans, 13727; (2) Wild blueberry, 1 cup, 13427; (3) Red kidney beans, 1/2 cup dried beans 13259. Shouldn't the wild blueberry's ammount be divided into half to arrive at 6,713.5. I suppose it's easier to talk about the antioxident of one plum, instead of a 1/2 cup of a plum, but, the 1/2 cup and 1 cup measurement should be either be all 1/2 cup or all 1 cup servings. I think the USDA could have made a better chart than this one. 204.80.61.10 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

[edit] Antioxidants and cancer chemotherapy

I have moved the following edits here so they can be discussed. They do not belong in the article in their current form for the following reasons:

1. The paragraph is discussing possible *harmful* effects of antioxidants. The original statements were already clearly stated as hypotheses, with a citation, not as proven fact.

2. The statements are unsupported by the cites. Neither Chendil et al nor Baatout et al make any claims in their papers that antioxidants work as sensitizers for radio- or chemotherapy.

3. Any claim for strong evidence in the setting of effects on health must be based on clinical trials, not experiments on cell lines. Prithason 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You can set the bar even higher than this. You might want multiple trials in some areas. We use this in the Alzheimer's disease page. --Chrispounds 02:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

   You will learn. Snoader 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is much more evidence that antioxidants (e.g. resveratrol, vitamin C or curcumin) actually work as sensitizers for radio- and chemotherapy.^{[1] [2] [3]}

[edit] lead sentence

One thing this article needs is a better lead sentence. I think the current one hits the reader with too much all ot once. Any ideas on simplifying it? ike9898 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"+" This is an expansive subject, I agree experts should edit this article. There are Five recognized SOD enzymes, The four mentioned herein and Nickel Superoxide dismutase. The language is misleading it sounds as if each SOD contains all the mentioned metals; however each contains only one which designates the species.(134.154.242.29 21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] {{expert}}

It would be good if an expert could go through the article and determine if all the chemicals discussed are in fact properly classified as antioxidants. It seems to me that while many of them counteract the action of free radicals, free radicals can also be reducing species. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dietary supplements section

The entire dietary supplements section is a big glorified list, not really appropriate for this article and dramatically under-cited. The "main article", List of phytochemicals and foods in which they are prominent, is a much more general list (itself uncited, but that's a separate problem). Any thoughts on moving the dietary stuff here to a subarticle, say Dietary sources of antioxidants or similar? Opabinia regalis 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One strategy would be to set a bar of scientific evidence necessary to be listed here. Another subarticle can be more generous in describing the broader range of options. --Chrispounds 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If the benefits are mentioned or we think about relating this to a disease, we need to be very clear about the risks involved. Vitamin E is not recommended in doses greater than 400 IU for those with CV risk factors, for example. --Chrispounds 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The challenge here is that most of the chemicals mentioned really are antioxidants. I agree that "chemical X reduces the risk of disease Y" statements should have a high threshold for inclusion, but the dietary supplements section is just an undifferentiated list. Overall, what I'd rather see is that section moved (or removed entirely, it's not very useful as it stands) and replaced with a section that mentions only those for which major research has shown some benefit, as you suggest, accompanied by appropriate discussion of risks. A neutrally written section on the popularity/usefulness of 'antioxidant' products in the health food industry wouldn't go amiss either. Opabinia regalis 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A general list of antioxidants in food is justified, so I have made this change, promoting the list to its own topic and reorg under antioxidants in food. MatthewEHarbowy 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallic cosmetics? ;)

Hi Tim, just a question; did you mean to delete the propyl gallate and the abbreviations for the food preservatives? I think many people will have heard of BHA and BHT from their cereal boxes, and might recognize them more than their proper chemical names.

The role of antioxidants in preserving cosmetics is perhaps a throwaway factoid, but it might be helpful in bringing home the message that all fat-based substances are apt to go rancid and can be protected with antioxidants. People seem to think of antioxidants only in relation to health and food, but don't extrapolate that the same factors are at work in other areas, such as grease or whatnot. Anyway, just a suggestion, Willow 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I hadn't realised I had. Added them back, my apologies. I moved the cosmetics to the industrial uses section, perhaps an unpleasant implication! TimVickers 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That thought also occurred to me, but "food" has its own odd connotations. ;) It seems just as well where it is now, thank you :) Willow 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)