But I just read some articles about cell aging before, and I have a general understanding of free radicals, mitochondria, telomerase and other knowledge. So I can give you some details about free radical theory for free.
A widely spread knowledge in the field of health care is that eating some antioxidant foods can delay aging, and all kinds of expensive health care products and fruits are publicity gimmicks. Those who sell cosmetics and skin care products also claim that they can scavenge free radicals, resist oxidation and resist aging.
This is a kind of "propaganda means" for merchants to use an outdated theory to promote cheap goods. I don't think it is too much for Mr. Liu Dake to say that this is a kind of commercial fraud. Because the academic community has reached a conclusion and overturned this theory.
Let's take a look at this outdated theory. What is the theory of "free radical aging"?
Oxidative free radicals will react with various molecules in cells.
These molecules should not participate in these reactions. In this way, with the passage of time, more and more membranes, protein and even DNA fragments will be destroyed by oxidation.
Although we are also synthesizing antioxidants ourselves, tiny damage will always occur, and when it accumulates to a certain extent, cells will be damaged.
Because every cell can't escape such bad luck, eventually tissues and organs are damaged and people die of aging.
This theory came into being in the 1960s. At that time, the academic circles knew that the radiation of X-rays and atomic bombs would lead to the production of free radicals in the body, and thought that foods rich in antioxidant Liu could resist the damage caused by these dangers.
Preliminary experiments on mice also found that the life span of mice fed with antioxidant Liu did extend. Then in 1969, scientists discovered their own antioxidant-superoxide dismutase (SOD) in mice. That's right, it's Dabao SOD honey that SOD.
If free radicals are harmless to the body, why does the body secrete antioxidants by itself? Looks like the evidence is conclusive.
This can arouse the interest of all parties, especially the manufacturers of health care products. Vitamins are antioxidants. Taking vitamins in large doses for a long time has become an advanced and active healthy life under the propaganda of health care products manufacturers. Old people also believe that eating fruits and vegetables can resist radiation.
However, after the 1980s, the scientific circle found that there were problems with the experimental conditions and the data were wrong. Scientists found that those experiments that did not increase the life span of mice were the best.
Later, after the 1990s, scientists have been able to directly transform the amount of free radicals in animals through genetic technology, without relying on feed, completely disintegrating the theory that antioxidants can prolong life.
Later, scientists conducted further experiments.
Canadian biologist Heikimi found that nematodes in Free Quito live longer.
The Baptistaw Institute of Longevity and Aging at the University of Texas has done experiments with mice that are closer to humans, and found that the antioxidant content in mice has nothing to do with the length of life.
In addition to mice, scientists also studied naked moles of the same size. The life span of naked mole is eight times that of mice, but scientists measured the concentration of antioxidant dismutase in naked mole and found that it was lower than that of mice.
The evidence is combined because it shows that free radicals have nothing to do with life span.
How to explain this result?
There is an understanding that:
The role of free radicals is varied, and the oxidation of other molecules is only one of them. Moreover, the effect it brings is not the mastermind of cell damage, because the repair ability of the cell itself is greater than the damage it brings.
Another function of free radicals is probably to provide an alarm signal, that is, to tell the body that you are going to start the self-repair mechanism. The more such signals, the stronger the function of self-repair, and the positive effects far outweigh the negative effects.
So the total effect of free radicals is beneficial.
Nick Lane, a biologist at University College London, summed up this series of theories the most. Mr Liu Dake also mentioned him in his article. If you are interested in learning more about it, you can read his works or pay to read Mr. Liu Dake's column.
Let me emphasize the conclusion again:
In fact, higher quality and larger-scale studies have confirmed that antioxidants can't increase life span, and a few experiments show that they may shorten life span.
Because free radicals have the function of acting as signal substances, it is equivalent to giving the body an alarm in order to enter a state of self-repair. If we eat antioxidants to suppress signals, self-repair is weakened, so it is harmful.
Finally, there are many theories about why people get old.
In order to make money, health care products merchants use some outdated theories to package and then publicize them. Many times, it can hit people's psychology better than those advanced latest studies. On the other hand, you can never wake a person who pretends to sleep.
Almost more and more research shows that almost all health care products and skin care products have no practical effect, and a large part of them still have negative effects, but people still report that they would rather believe what they have and continue to donate money to these enterprises.
After all, the attraction of immortality is too great.