I believe this refers to studies like that of Greenberg, et al NEJM, 94 in which antioxidant vitamins showed no benefit in prevention of colorectal adenoma when dietary patterns of increased fr and veg and who grains do. Same with the ATBC study and lung cancer, Antioxidants and heart disease vs patterns of whole grains, Fr and Vegs; DASH diets and hypertension vs just lo sodium or high calcium, etc. Vitamins are good, Proteins are good, Fresh fruit and vegies are good. IF you get them vine rippened and not green and stored in a cool store for 12 months – When an orange is picked off the tree it looses some of its nutritional value within 24 hours. Open it and you loose it within 7 hrs.
So while it is good to eat fresh foods their nutritional value aren’t always that cracked up to be. Also when you go down the local supermarket or even some markets. The quality is sometimes disgusting. As I said all of the above are good but our cells need something more. Lipids which are fats and one more major requirement. There has been a lot of research into cell blueprints and one of the most needed requirements the cells need are monosaccharides/carbohydrates/GLYCONUTRIENTS.(a chain of sugars) These are the blue print for our blood type & the communication blueprint for our cells. How to Heal itself, Clean itself, Feed itself, Support itself and recognise other cells – good or bad. This is Biochemisty at its first level. In our diets now, we only get 2 of these sugars/Glyconutrients. 5 of them are in breastmilk.
Our bodies naturally make the Glyconutrients but struggle because of disease and toxins in our system If anyone wants to know more let me know The news story states this sloppily; what I ASSUME they’re really pointing to is the fact that the epidemiology on fruits & veggies is strong, clear, and consistent for a protective effect agianst a wide variety of diseases, while the evidence for supplements remains conflicting and inconclusive. Indeed, nearly all of the RCTs of supplements with real morbidity & mortality outcome show no benefit, or no clear benefit, or (as in the Clark Se trial) no benefit to all but those suffering frank nutritional deficiency.