View Full Version : Antioxidants and comparison via ORAC values
01-06-2006, 11:21 AM
up until (relatively) recently i only noticed antioxidants being rated as 'strong' or 'weak' or other horribly vague terms. i knew what protein i needed, and why the different kinds of protein were different adn how they related, but just know that antioxidants, well, you just need a lot of 'em.
then i noticed some products at my store claiming ORAC (oxygen radical absorpbtion capacity, or maybe capability, whatever). First reaction is just more is better, but then i remembered, 'hey, C is water soluble, E is fat, soluble, ALA is both, and recycles C and E'. so now i know there's a measure, but am still clueless.
if anyone can explain this a little more in depth, it woudl be greatly appreciated. i found a chart online comparing ORAC values of veggies and fruits, but didn't list vitamins. kind of curious if 100mg of ALA is comparable in ORAC to a cup of berries, moreso, or way less.
any info, charts, comments, would be helpful, i'm confused as **** here
01-07-2006, 08:00 PM
there are a few other methods of determining antioxidant potential, other than ORAC, such as FRAP and TEAC, and some foods do much better on one scale than on another.
01-07-2006, 09:19 PM
do you know of anywhere that can shed morelight on the subject? i hate just blindly dumping them in having no idea how to do it right
01-07-2006, 09:40 PM
Antioxidants are not well understood, and it seems to give them a specific value is pretty inappropriate, particularly because they usually have a synergetic action between themselves.
So you should aim for a variety of antioxidants, and they should also be spread during the day. ALA or Vitamin C last a few hours in the blood.
Considering ALA, what you don't often hear about is that it can potentially be dangerous, as it stirs any mercury you might have around, and it easily cross the brain-blood barrier, having the potential to bring mercury to the brain. If you have mercury (grey) amalgams, you shouldn't use it.
It shouldn't also be taken in high dosage long-term, because it is known to cause decreased bile elimination of copper, which can accumulate and become toxic, although the same ALA fights the effects of that toxicity.
Orac is just a poor attempt at trying to quantify the "unmeasurable".
01-08-2006, 07:49 PM
wow, that's some disturbing stuff, given the new light in which ala is being shown: the universal antioxidant that combats aging.
MRI (read: no2 and ce2) just recently released 'ageless', which is a 300mg, timed release ala product.
how concrete is the stuff you said about mercury and copper? could you hook up some links if possible?
and what do you mean by 'if you have mercury amalgams'? isn't an amalgam just another word for alloy? if so, you're saying 'if you have mercury you shouldn't use it'? who 'has mercury'?
also, when you say it shouldn't be used long term high dosage, what is high dosage?
01-09-2006, 11:00 AM
mercury amalgams = fillings
01-09-2006, 07:01 PM
haha that's what i thought, but i figured if he meant fillings he would have said fillings. how would fillings be affected by ala? aren't fillings totally inert, and sealed off from your body?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.