Antioxidants don't do what scientists hoped

Ross Pomeroy writes in Real Clear Science about the great antioxidant lie. What? I didn't know about that lie.

...But then, in the early 2000s, results from randomized, controlled trials on humans began flowing in, and the stream of positive results soon turned into a torrent of negative findings. Perhaps the trials weren't long enough, or were conducted on the wrong study populations, some scientists wondered. Over the next decade, more experiments concluded, with more inconclusive or outright negative results. Antioxidant intake didn't boost cognitive performance, or stall dementia, or halt heart disease, or prevent cancer, or lower the risk of Parkinson's.

...The health effects of antioxidants are a lie, one we told to ourselves. It's time to admit our failure and learn from the mistakes. Here are four takeaways:

1. In vitro is not in vivo. Results from a test tube rarely translate to humans, yet we always seem to forget that when discussing studies about human health.

2. Scientists can get too attached to ideas. Though negative findings about antioxidants started rolling in more than fifteen years ago, research and hope has persisted. Treasured ideas are hard to let go, even for supposedly rational scientists.

3. If something seems too good to be true... How many times has the public at large fallen for health panaceas? When will we learn that there is no simple pill-form or supplement solution to a healthy life?

4. Food marketing is mostly meaningless. Eat more protein! Take your vitamins! Antioxidant boost! If there's a hyped health call-out on a food label, you can probably disregard it.

Read more here, and please pass the blueberries!