Study: Antioxidants May Make Cancer Worse

CFC

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
18,171
I've seen this study from last October popping up again recently. I don't think I posted it here, so thought I'd share.

Basically, the findings were that antioxidants (ones bodybuilders use plenty of - like NAC and Vit E) can worsen the spread (metastasis) of cancer cells.

This is probably because they reduce the oxidative load faced by cancer cells. Because such cells metabolise very rapidly, they usually produce a lot of oxidative waste (free radicals) and that slows their spread.

Bear in mind that the immune system naturally relies upon oxidation to kill all kinds of faulty and malignant cells, and it's been known for quite a while now that excessive use of anti-oxidants can be pretty counterproductive.

In some instances, the body actually actively reduces excessive levels of certain antioxidants - for instance it can scavenge and reduce Vitamin E, although in long-term supplementation the effect diminishes - possibly because the body finds more efficient ways to compensate by attenuating eg glutathione production.

Anyway, here's the magazine article from Scientific American, with original study linked at the bottom.


****


[h=1][/h][h=1]Antioxidants May Make Cancer Worse[/h]New animal studies explain why supposedly healthy supplements
like beta-carotene could exacerbate a dreaded disease


By Melinda Wenner Moyer on October 7, 2015


Antioxidants are supposed to keep your cells healthy. That is why millions of people gobble supplements like vitamin E and beta-carotene each year. Today, however, a new study adds to a growing body of research suggesting these supplements actually have a harmful effect in one serious disease: cancer.

The work, conducted in mice, shows that antioxidants can change cells in ways that fuel the spread of malignant melanoma—the most serious skin cancer—to different parts of the body. The progression makes the disease even more deadly. Earlier studies of antioxidant supplement use by people have also hinted at a cancer-promoting effect. A large trial reported in 1994 (pdf) that daily megadoses of the antioxidant beta-carotene increased the risk of lung cancer in male smokers by 18 percent and a 1996 trial was stopped early after researchers discovered that high-dose beta-carotene and retinol, another form of vitamin A, increased lung cancer risk by 28 percent in smokers and workers exposed to asbestos. More recently, a 2011 trial involving more than 35,500 men over 50 found that large doses of vitamin E increased the risk of prostate cancer by 17 percent. These findings had puzzled researchers because the conventional wisdom is that antioxidants should lower cancer risk by neutralizing cell-damaging, cancer-causing free radicals.

But scientists now think that antioxidants, at high enough levels, also protect cancer cells from these same free radicals. “There now exists a sizable quantity of data suggesting that antioxidants can help cancer cells much like they help normal cells,” says Zachary Schafer, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame, who was not involved in the new study. Last year the scientists behind the melanoma study found that antioxidants fuel the growth of another type of malignancy, lung cancer.

For the new study, published in Science Translational Medicine, Martin Bergö, a cell biologist at the University of Gothenburg’s Sahlgrenska Cancer Center in Sweden, and his colleagues decided to look at melanoma because rates have been increasing and because the cancer is known to be sensitive to the effects of free radicals. They fed the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) to mice that had been genetically engineered to be susceptible to melanoma. The per-weight dose they gave the mice was consistent with what people typically consume in supplements. Although the treated mice did not develop more skin tumors than similar mice that had not been fed the antioxidants, they developed twice as many tumors in their lymph nodes, a hallmark of the spread of cancer—a process called metastasis. When the researchers added NAC or a form of vitamin E to cultured human melanoma cells, they confirmed that the antioxidants improved the cells’ ability to move and invade a nearby membrane.

Antioxidants may bolster protection of these dangerous cells. Bergö and his colleagues found higher levels of glutathione, an antioxidant made by the body, inside metastatic tumor cells in treated mice compared with untreated mice. The treated mice also had a higher ratio of glutathione to glutathione disulfide, the molecule that glutathione becomes after it neutralizes free radicals. These findings suggest that when the body is given extra antioxidants, its tumor cells get to keep more of the antioxidants that they already make themselves. The cells can store the surplus, improving their ability to survive damage. This idea is supported by work that shows some genes that drive cancer growth turn on other genes that make intrinsic antioxidants.

The substances may help cancer cells in other ways, too. Previous research has suggested that glutathione affects the activity of a protein called RhoA, which helps cells move to different parts of the body. “If you were to select one protein that is known to be involved in [cell] migration, RhoA is it,” Bergö explains. He and his colleagues confirmed that the extra glutathione in the treated mice caused levels of RhoA to increase in their metastatic tumors. In their 2014 lung cancer study they also found that antioxidant supplements caused lung tumor cells to turn off the activity of a well-known cancer-suppressing gene called p53; its inactivation is believed to drive metastasis. And Schafer’s work has shown that antioxidants help migrating breast cancer cells survive when they detach from the extracellular matrix, the network of proteins surrounding cells.

These molecular investigations shed light on the large human trials that have implicated antioxidants in cancer. It is possible that the supplements did not triggercancer but rather accelerated the progression of existing undiagnosed cancers, making later discovery of the disease likely.In other words, it “could be that while antioxidants might prevent DNA damage—and thus impede tumor initiation—once a tumor is established, antioxidants might facilitate the malignant behavior of cancer cells,” Schafer says.

The medical advice for people at this point is tentative. More studies need to be done to bolster this hypothesis and understand exactly how antioxidants affect cancer cells in humans. Bergö, who is not a medical doctor, does believe that people who are at an increased risk for lung cancer or melanoma or who have been diagnosed with either one should avoid antioxidant supplements. “There’s no conclusive evidence that it would be beneficial to them, and there’s mounting evidence that it could be harmful,” he says.

His results do have a silver lining. They suggest a potential new way to target the disease. If cancer is very sensitive to the damaging effects of free radicals, then it might be possible to develop drugs that target cancer cells specifically and prevent them from producing antioxidants or that ramp up free radical levels inside of the malignant cells, exploiting their newly discovered weakness.



http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/308/308re8
 
Last edited:
Those numbers are pretty alarming honestly. When I read the title I was hoping it was going to be a minor increase with questionable doses that didn't line up with what we take as people.
 
Yes, pretty disturbing.

In AAS users on cycle who already have an increased oxidative load, some degree of short-term supplementation might not cause trouble. But ultimately it comes back to the argument GF has made many times about receiving the lion's share of needs from quality food sources alone, and using supplements just for a few essentials.
 
I should point out, interestingly, that Taurine has pro-apoptotic effects on cancer cells (it kills them) and inhibits their proliferation. I'm not sure we should strictly call taurine an anti-oxidant, although it does have that effect directly and indirectly in many tissues.

But clearly this subject is way more complex than it seems at first glance. I think all we can take home at the moment is that sustained mega dosing of supplements like Vit C, E, selenium etc could be counterproductive and should be avoided.
 
Taurine was always something I used in a futile attempt to delay or mitigate the neurotoxicity brought on by methamphetamine. It's also a great compound for treating hypertension, the volatile environment from meth I'm sure destroys intracellular myocardium taurine storage. I used to eat 500mg vitamin C chewable tablets like Tic-Tac's as a kid because it helped with staying sick free and was great for my skin. I'm sure majority of it was expelled through urination as there is no realistic necessity for 5,000mg of vitamin C.

Vitamin C also protects against the neurotoxicity from methamphetamine as well surprisingly. Is there a connection with neurotoxicity and accelerated cancer growth? I feel like I'm missing something major here.
 
Is there a connection with neurotoxicity and accelerated cancer growth? I feel like I'm missing something major here.

I don't know about methamphetamine but the very similar MDMA has been shown to reduce pro-apoptotic (pro cell death) markers. This might be a compensation for neurotoxicity (just a guess). But I don't see any drastic reasons why we would only see this effect with MDMA. One particular apoptotic marker FADD is kinda complicated because it can stimulate NF-KB which is at the same time anti-cell death but also (according to Wiki) more-so than anti cell death it produces a lot of inflammatory cytokines that might help keep cancer under control, but the main thing I'm reading is that FADD is very important for producing immune system cells that could conceivably be important for fighting cancer (T cells and T lymphocytes), I can't remember off the top of my head what those cells are important for though.

A lot of methamphetamines damage is ultimately from oxidative stress (dopamine metabolites produce oxidative stress, this is known as dopamine auto-oxidation), its unfortunate that stimulants also tend to suppress the immune system, so negating neurotoxicity from MDMA etc. with anti-oxidants really results in a vastly compromised immune system... I wonder if down the road we will see statistics of increased cancer in MDMA users because with these issues its pretty much a perfect storm.
 
Taurine was always something I used in a futile attempt to delay or mitigate the neurotoxicity brought on by methamphetamine. It's also a great compound for treating hypertension, the volatile environment from meth I'm sure destroys intracellular myocardium taurine storage. I used to eat 500mg vitamin C chewable tablets like Tic-Tac's as a kid because it helped with staying sick free and was great for my skin. I'm sure majority of it was expelled through urination as there is no realistic necessity for 5,000mg of vitamin C.

Vitamin C also protects against the neurotoxicity from methamphetamine as well surprisingly. Is there a connection with neurotoxicity and accelerated cancer growth? I feel like I'm missing something major here.

A better treatment for meth neurotoxicity would be to ensure that blood sugar levels are decent at all times (ie eat well and constantly), since much of the oxidative stress ultimately seems related to mitochondrial dysfunction. In other words definitely do not do your ketosis lol!

As for neurotoxicity and cancer... what concepts exactly are you trying to link?
 
Chronic MDMA administration down regulates pro-apoptotic markets so I wonder if meth is very different. It doesn't make sense though, you would think that pro apoptotic markets would be up regulated in response to increased cell injury so the debris could be cleared.. So I wonder if the down regulation of apoptotic markets is some sort of compensation for neurotoxicity...
 
This is really confusing. I went to a doctor who's into anti-aging. He measured my oxidative and nitrosative stress. Both were elevated. He told me to take a multi, 1gr vitamin C, vitamin E and alpha lipoic acid. I also take spirulina and wheat grass and stuff like that. Now I dont know if this is good or bad. But having elevated oxidative stress is probably also not healthy.
 
This is really confusing. I went to a doctor who's into anti-aging. He measured my oxidative and nitrosative stress. Both were elevated. He told me to take a multi, 1gr vitamin C, vitamin E and alpha lipoic acid. I also take spirulina and wheat grass and stuff like that. Now I dont know if this is good or bad. But having elevated oxidative stress is probably also not healthy.

Its all about balance... too much of anything isn't good over the longer term...
 
Its all about balance... too much of anything isn't good over the longer term...
Except for taurine it seems. I haven't dug up anything bad about overdoing taurine. Though I only dose about 4.5g a day which is far from extreme dosing.
 
I think the one to really watch is vitamin E (tocopherols, some have more risk associate with use). They can also significantly increase risk of heart disease. Also, as it has been hinted at above, anti-oxidant is not always good. Certain granulocytes use oxidative mechanisms (like secreting peroxide and hypochlorite) to destroy invading micro-organisms. It actually increases mortality FROM ALL CAUSES when supplemented for extended periods of time. While taurine may be beneficial, it isn't always necessary. I am a firm believer in proper diet over supplementation of any kind.

Taking excessive supplements with AAS is just asking for adverse effects in my opinion. No matter what the media hype says, if that bottle says "not intended to treat, prevent, diagnose, or cure any disease" it more than likely has not undergone rigorous enough testing to risk your health. If you need examples of this look up RESVERATROL, that anti-oxidant in red-wine everyone started to equate with an hour of exercise. Not only did it not do anything in studies attempting to replicate the original one, but it is found in such low quantities in natural food sources that it couldn't have any effect. Healthy skepticism will help prevent you from taking something dangerous.
 
Top