
Scientists think antioxidants may make cancer cells spread faster - olb
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/10/14/antioxidants-may-give-a-boost-to-cancer-cells-making-them-spread-faster-study-suggests/
======
sitkack
Makes total sense. Free radicals are thought to damage a cell and turn in
cancerous. Antioxidants mitigate the number of free radicals so the rate of
damage is lower, but once cancer is occurring, antioxidants aren't going to do
anything to prevent the spread of cancer. In this experiment, cancer was
transferred directly showing that AO actually hinders the bodies ability to
fight cancer. Could free radicals actually be part of the immune system?

Another theory, which i think is interesting is that free radicals damage
strong as well as weak cells, those weak cells that are killed by free
radicals could actually more easily transition into cancer in the absence of
free radicals.

It is too easy to explain less free radicals as good. There isn't a single
variable in this equation.

~~~
rsync
Is that what they're saying ?

My understanding of the case against antioxidants is that thefree radicals
(etc.) are an essential cell signaling mechanism ... and the signal is "kill
me, I'm a bad cell".

If you somehow disrupt or eliminate the signal, you allow bad, or inefficient,
or perhaps cancerous cells to live longer than they would otherwise.

I'm paraphrasing directly from the excellent, excellent book _Power, Sex,
Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life_ by Nick Lane, which is highly
skeptical of antioxidant supplementation and is a truly fascinating book.

~~~
api
I wonder if this is why fasting may be healthy: it flushes marginal cells.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Interesting, but do you have any evidence that fasting is healthy?

~~~
Geee
There's lots, if you search, e.g.:

[https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-
regene...](https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-
of-damaged-old-immune-system/)

[https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-
mice/](https://news.usc.edu/29428/fasting-weakens-cancer-in-mice/)

[https://news.usc.edu/78953/fasting-and-less-toxic-cancer-
dru...](https://news.usc.edu/78953/fasting-and-less-toxic-cancer-drug-could-
be-alternative-to-chemotherapy/)

~~~
jsprogrammer
Thank you, I have looked into it before and will continue to do so. However,
the articles you linked were studies done in mice and those undergoing
chemotherapy treatment. I am hesitant to extrapolate that up my myself.

------
alialkhatib
For anyone that's curious, the article is here:
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature15726.html)

I'd complain about the WSJ's practice of not properly referencing the study,
but I'm afraid that's becoming about as played out as the complaints about
paywalls.

~~~
melling
The headline points to the Washington Post, not the WSJ. Did someone change
it?

~~~
dang
No, I think the GP meant WP.

~~~
alialkhatib
Yep I did, my bad. Sorry about that.

------
TheCowboy
Slightly off-topic, but I wish media would stop using phrases like "scientists
think" when reporting on a specific study without a general scientific
consensus. "Scientists say global climate change is real" is completely fair
though. It doesn't help science to give a false appearance of consensus, and
likely leads to a public more willing to dismiss scientific evidence.

If this was a well-researched meta analysis that found a strong consensus,
that would be different, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

This may not be the fault of the reporter, as often they don't get final say
on the title. It would be marginally better to say "some scientists suggest".
The conclusion of the article itself seems to suggest that the evidence is
mixed.

------
hanklazard
Anecdotal supporting evidence: A close family friend with chronic leukemia
went on a "pro-oxidative" diet after reading similar previous data. He did see
a drop in his counts (which had otherwise been elevated and stable) while not
in active chemo.

------
api
Every 5 or 10 years there is a big study that gives rise to a health fad:
antioxidants, low fat, high fat, low carb, no carb, complex carbs, red wine,
...

These are then almost predictably found to either be bunk or gross
oversimplification 5 or 10 years later.

You would think the scientific and medical establishment would realize after a
while that there must be something deeply wrong with their whole approach to
these studies and their interpretation, but no. The next one is always a
breakthrough and around the circle we go. Or are there industries making big
bucks on pimping this stuff?

~~~
scott_s
This is not the fault of the scientific and medical establishment. They
investigate phenomenon and publish what they can learn. The media does a poor
job in explaining the subtleties of what they have learned, and food and
supplement companies latch on to these misunderstandings to market "health"
products.

~~~
scorpioxy
Right and people are always looking for a quick fix and "just a pill to take".
My understanding is that how nutrition affects the body is a poorly understood
complex mechanism and isn't as simple as all fat is bad or all carbs are bad
or red meat is poison. Keeping a diversified diet that is rich in real food
and very little processed food is a good thing. Exercising is a good thing.
Beyond that it seems like micro-optimizations with very little benefit.

------
dbbolton
The fact that high antioxidant levels could interrupt the ROS-p53 axis and
prevent apoptosis (i.e. prevent cancer cells from dying) has been known for
awhile.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcysteine#Adverse_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcysteine#Adverse_effects)

Edit: forgot to mention one of the relevant studies is from 2005.

------
Geee
It is widely believed that antioxidant supplements interfere with chemotherapy
treatments, but it seems to be controversial subject. A relative of mine just
started chemotherapy treatments and the doctors recommended avoiding
antioxidants.

~~~
tripletmass
In particular, we want mice who when presented with a particular existing
class of cancer spring to take antioxidants when they serve the mouse and not
when it's going to perk up the cancer more, tell related mice how that feels,
then survive at a significant rate; then look at their relatives. Sort of a
missing hat trick at the end of _Ben_.

------
ChuckMcM
Another thing for the [http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/](http://kill-or-
cure.herokuapp.com/) app :-)

