We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
so forth pain itself is doing good things in your body it may have a hormetic effect by inducing increase glutathione but the reason it's inducing in goose in - in Greece for the thigh on is because it is creating these lipid peroxides in the human body right I've seen literature to suggest that so for a feign increases the levels of acrolein and for hne which are oxidized omega-6 fatty acids that are very dangerous in the human body
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
but here's the thing nrf2 this gets into all these different rabbit holes nrf2 can be activated by all sorts of things in the human body it's part of a process of you know it's triggers the production of more glutathione which ours is our endogenous antioxidant people often misunderstand the fact that so forth aim is not beneficial so for vain is a toxin
well where is so far thing actually toxic it can be directly toxic if you eat too much of it and you overwhelm the livers ability to detoxify it it can become a pro-oxidant
so Florentine has also been shown to induce tumors and in rodents and then Sephora Thane has also been shown to induce the formation of oxidized omega-6 fatty acids because it's such a pro-oxidant so things like for H and E and acrolein which what we talked about with regard to you know oxidized omega-6 fatty acids so for Athene has been shown to oxidize fatty acids in the membrane of cells and potentially even oxidized LDL
we can then maintain an adequate level of glutathione and oxidative defense without plant molecules we don't need molecular or mises to get enough glutathione so why would we do something that's redundant and suffer the side effects
so for a faint it's gonna increase your glutathione because it's a pro-oxidant but the downside of that is if you get too much you can definitely overwhelm your body's ability to make glutathione then it's gonna become clearly a pro-oxidant it's clearly a toxin and it's doing all these other negative things in the human body and the one positive effect you didn't even need it for in the first place so it's clearly net negative
my argument my hypothesis the premise that I'm advancing is we don't need so far of Fame to get enough glutathione and this has been shown repeatedly over and over in fruit and vegetable depletion studies and inclusion studies which I'll review in a moment that when we include fruits and vegetables in our diets and we look long-term there's no difference in antioxidant stress markers oxidative stress markers antioxidant capacity DNA damage or inflammation in in a lot of these studies