Hi Guys,
According to the "salesmen" on here supplements are magic bullets that can virtually cure anything, but are they really that good, or is it just all hype from "brain washed salesmen".
Round one would indicate a failure if this research is a sign of the times.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/antioxid...1714118357.html

Here, here...you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Lack of honesty and integrity is rampant in Online Business and Internet Marketing. There are too many so-called ‘experts’ selling junk or giving bad advice for self-serving reasons, it’s amazing. These ‘experts’ are like a cancerous plague who would sell their own mothers to make a buck.

Personally, I am sick of hearing “trust me on this one”, “I’m being honest here”, “honestly this is the one” or “I’m being honest with you here.” In my opinion, there should be an accountability law in place to protect us from these predators.

Kenrick Cleveland , well known and sought after sales trainer and motivational speaker, has this to say about honesty. “Those that are honest don’t need to say they are – they just are.” And when you say it, it begs the question, “so what you’re saying is honest about this issue, but is this an unusual thing for you to do, to be honest? Are the times you’ve brought this up in the past, or will in the future, not necessarily honest?” Something to think about don’t you think?

Before you ever consider getting involved in any online, or offline business for that matter, there are two key elements that should be at the forefront of your list. If a business, product or service is not quantitatively or verifiable, stay away. PERIOD!


If the program involves selling a product, will people buy it? How do you know what people are buying? Well, it's quite simple. If the business has been running for a while then people are still buying the product. If you buy something and feel good about it then the chances are damn high that there will be a lot more people that will feel just as good as you did about buying it.


Staying healthy in an unhealthy world is at the forefront of many individuals these days. The world around us is a dirty place. Every day we encounter chemicals and other substance in the air, water and soil as well as in the food we eat. The World Health Organization estimates that poor environmental quality may be responsible for one-fourth of all preventable illness. Wow!

Manufacturers of nutritional products recognize the need to support our bodies in its quest to maintain good health. Unfortunately, and this is the most disturbing part, the majority of these products fail to address the body’s criteria to maintain a healthy balance at the cellular level where it counts the most.
The body needs three main elements to survive….oxygen, fuel (sugar, glucose) and glutathione.

Glu..ta..what? you ask.

"Glutathione is the body’s master antioxidant and best kept secret to maintaining health." - Theodore Hersh, M.D., Harvard graduate, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Emory University.

Glutathione is a small molecule made up of three amino acids, which exists in almost every cell of the body. However, Glutathione must be generated within the cell from its precursors before it can work effectively in the body.

For more about Glutathione and its essential role in maintaining top health, simply Google “Glutathione” or “GSH” and you will find thousands of articles on the topic written by some of the top physicians and scientist in the world, including Dr. Robert Keller, the mastermind behind MaxGXL.

Max International MaxGXL is energizing the direct sales and health industry with its revolutionary produce and enticing business opportunity. We all have the desire to be part of something greater than we can achieve as individuals. With powerhouses like Steven K Scott, Bill Guthy, Greg Renker, Fred Ninow and YOU, and with testimonials from Larry King, Tom Jones and Dr. Robert Nelson, Max International and MaxGXL. is an unstoppable force.

Dr. Robert Nelson, past president of the American Medical Association made this statement in a live interview a short while ago. He said, “This product, in my opinion, represents the single most important breakthrough in health that I will witness in my life time. I believe it will revolutionize, change, and transform the practice of medicine world-wide and make Dr Robert Keller more famous than Jonas Salk who created the polio vaccine.”

Fred Ninow said, “The science behind MaxGXL sold me. It has blood test results, and Dr. Keller has true clinical studies to back it up.”

Shawn King, wife of Larry King said: “…It’s at the top of my “trip checklist”, I can go without a lot of things in life, but MaxGXL isn’t one of them.

Conclusion:

There you have it… my thoughts and my opinion for what it’s worth. Personally, MaxGXL has met the criteria outlined at the beginning of this article and has, without question, surpassed ANYTHING that I have ever used as a nutritional supplement. Go to www.maxsupreme.com and spend some time with us. If you have any questions or concerns, my name is Harve Heath and you can reach me at harve@maxsupreme.com

Stay fantastic and be happy right where you are.

Hi Hatfield,
Not everyone is as excited as you are about glutathione, which incidently you can make within your body simply by eating watermelon and asparagus . How much of the ingested supplement do you actually utilise? If glutathione is manufactured within the cell I think this is a relevant question don't you?
*

[edit] Biosynthesis

Glutathione is not an essential nutrient since it can be synthesized from the amino acids L-cysteine, L-glutamate and glycine.

It is synthesized in two adenosine triphosphate-dependent steps:

* First, gamma-glutamylcysteine is synthesized from L-glutamate and cysteine via the enzyme gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase (a.k.a. glutamate cysteine ligase, GCL). This reaction is the rate-limiting step in glutathione synthesis.
* Second, glycine is added to the C-terminal of gamma-glutamylcysteine via the enzyme glutathione synthetase.

Glutamate cysteine ligase (GCL) is a heterodimeric enzyme comprised of a catalytic (GCLC) and modulatory (GCLM) subunit. GCLC constitutes all the enzymatic activity, whereas GCLM increases the catalytic efficiency of GCLC. Mice lacking GCLC (i.e., all de novo GSH synthesis) die before birth.[2] Mice lacking GCLM demonstrate no outward phenotype, but exhibit marked decrease in GSH and increased sensitivity to toxic insults.[3] [4] [5]

While all cells in the human body are capable of synthesizing glutathione, liver glutathione synthesis has been shown to be essential. Following birth, mice with genetically-induced loss of GCLC (i.e., GSH synthesis) only in the liver die within 1 month of birth.[6]

The biosynthesis pathway for glutathione is found in some bacteria, like cyanobacteria and proteobacteria, but is missing in many other bacteria. Most eukaryotes synthesize glutathione, including humans, but some do not, such as Leguminosae, Entamoeba, and Giardia. The only archaea that make glutathione are halobacteria

Supplementation

Supplementing has been difficult, as research suggests that glutathione taken orally is not well absorbed across the GI tract. In a study of acute oral administration of a very large dose (3 grams) of oral glutathione, it was found that it is not possible to increase circulating glutathione in a clinically relevant way.[9] However, glutathione concentrations can be raised by increased intake of the precursor cysteine.

References

1. ^ Strużńka L, Chalimoniuk M, Sulkowski G. (September 2005). "The role of astroglia in Pb-exposed adult rat brain with respect to glutamate toxicity". Toxicology 212 (2-3): 185-194. PMID 15955607. Retrieved on 2006-05-05.
2. ^ Dalton, TP & et al. (2000), Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 279 (2): 324
3. ^ Yang Y, et al. (2002) J Biol Chem. 277(51):4944.
4. ^ Giordano G, et al. (2007) Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 219(2-3):181.
5. ^ McConnachie LA, et al. (2007) Tox Sci Epub 21 June.
6. ^ Chen Y, et al. (2007) Hepatology 45:1118.
7. ^ (2002) "Lateral gene transfer and parallel evolution in the history of glutathione biosynthesis genes". Genome biology 3.
8. ^ Grill D, Tausz T, De Kok LJ (2001). Significance of glutathione in plant adaptation to the environment. Springer. ISBN 1402001789.
9. ^ Witschi A, et. al. The systemic availability of oral glutathione. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;43(6):667-9
10. ^ Pereira C.F, de Oliveira C.R. (July 2000). "Oxidative glutamate toxicity involves mitochondrial dysfunction and perturbation of intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis". Neuroscience Research 37 (3): 227-236. doi:doi:10.1016/S0168-0102(00)00124-3. Retrieved on 2006-05-05.

[edit] Related research

* The antioxidant glutathione peroxidase family and spermatozoa: A complex story. PMID 16427183
* The Role of Glutathione in Cell Defense.
* Glutathione metabolism and its implications for health. PMID 14988435
* The changing faces of glutathione, a cellular protagonist. PMID 14555227
* Ophthalmic acid

[show]
v • d • e

I am not sure that you haven't got it totally wrong mate from what I can see and there is huge shortage of good research but no shortage of rubbish, vitamin E supplementation will raise the level of Glutathione by 9% so there exists a relationship with the two. The other abstracts I have found that achieved a positive result did so by injection, and this is totally different. I tried to find good science to support your argument so I wouldn't be "Cherry Picking" but I could not find any.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/conte...tract/23/9/1389
Cheers

Back again,
I think this is highly over rated mate
in fact the further you go the worse it gets, I would attempt to elevate my levels of Glutathione by food and food alone, here is some-more about this hot subject. Why spend a lot of money on supplements when a good diet will do the same thing??? All you need is adequate amounts of fruit/salads and vegetables preferably raw. Even the herb Milk Thistle will elevate Glutathione by 35% so one of the papers said, by stopping liver depletion of Glutathione.


supplemental sources: A daily dose of 500 mg of vitamin C may be adequate to elevate and maintain reduced glutathione concentrations in the blood. In contrast, direct consumption of glutathione orally does not seem to be an effective means of enhancing liver and intracellular gltathione levels. Following a small human study with seven subjects Witschi et al concluded that "because of hydrolysis of glutathione by intestinal and hepatic gamma-glutamyltransferase, dietary glutathione is not a major determinant of circulating glutathione, and it is not possible to increase circulating glutathione to a clinically beneficial extent by the oral administration of a single dose of 3 g of glutathione". On the other hand, intravenous glutathione administration may provide a direct and effective route for increasing intracellualr glutathione levels. Evidence indicates that oral consumption of NAC (N-Acetyl-Cysteine) may be an effective, but not necessarily safe or efficient, means of enhancing glutathione levels.
(Johnston CS, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Jul;58(1):103-105; Witschi A, et al. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;43(6):667-669.)

GLUTATHIONE

Doctors Only


Product Info | Patents | Glutathione | Related Links | Researchers

Contact Us


PHARMACOLOGY

ROLE OF CELLULAR GLUTATHIONE



GLUTATHIONE TESTING

The Science of Glutathione

By Patricia A.L. Kongshavn, Ph.D

Glutathione is a small molecule found in almost every cell. It cannot enter most cells directly and therefore must be made inside the cell, from its three constituent amino acids: glycine, glutamate and cysteine. The rate at which glutathione can be made depends on the availability of cysteine, which is relatively scarce in foodstuffs. Furthermore, the cysteine molecule has a sulfur-containing portion which gives the whole glutathione molecule its ‘biochemical activity’, i.e. its ability to carry out the following vitally important functions:

Firstly, glutathione is the major antioxidant produced by the cell, protecting it from ‘free radicals’ (‘oxygen radicals’, ‘oxyradicals’). These highly reactive substances, if left unchecked, will damage or destroy key cell components (e.g. membranes, DNA) in microseconds. Oxyradicals are generated in the many thousand mitochondria located inside each cell, where nutrients like glucose are burnt using oxygen to make energy. (Mitochondria can be thought of as the batteries that provide the power for the cells to operate). Oxyradicals also come from pollutants, from UV radiation and other sources. In addition, glutathione recycles other well-known antioxidants such as vitamin C and vitamin E, keeping them in their active state.

Secondly, glutathione is a very important detoxifying agent, enabling the body to get rid of undesirable toxins and pollutants. It forms a soluble compound with the toxin that can then be excreted through the urine or the gut. The liver and kidneys contain high levels of glutathione as they have the greatest exposure to toxins. The lungs are also rich in glutathione partly for the same reason. Many cancer-producing chemicals, heavy metals, drug metabolites etc. are disposed of in this way.

Thirdly, glutathione plays a crucial role in maintaining a normal balance between oxidation and anti-oxidation. This, in turn, regulates many of the cell’s vital functions, such as the synthesis and repair of DNA, the synthesis of proteins and the activation and regulation of enzymes.

Fourthly, glutathione is required in many of the intricate steps needed to carry out an immune response. For example, it is needed for the lymphocytes to multiply in order to develop a strong immune response, and for ‘killer’ lymphocytes to be able to kill undesirable cells such as cancer cells or virally infected cells.

The importance of glutathione cannot be overstated. It has multiple roles as indicated and, indeed, as one examines each system or organ more closely, the necessity for glutathione becomes increasingly evident. Glutathione values decline with age and higher values in older people are seen to correlate with better health, underscoring the importance of this remarkable substance for maintaining a healthy, well-functioning body.

Reference: Lomaestro B, Malone M. Glutathione in health and disease: Pharmacotherapeutic Issues Ann Pharmacother 29: 1263-73,1995

Hello again,

There were some good points made in the preceding post about Glutathione and it is not my intent here to be argumentative or get into attack mode . I do suggest though, that a "cart blanc" criticism without facts and careful evaluation is doing a great injustice to both Glutathione and MaxGXL.

For those of you who may be a more familiar with medical terminology here is a site put together by
physicians on the subject of glutathione http://www.joinmaxgxl.com

MaxGXL's Patented Formula Dramatically increases Intercellular GSH. MaxGXL provides the proper nutrients needed to promote the body's own ability to manufacture and absorb Glutathione. MaxGXL also aids in liver support by destroying enviromental toxins, thus helping the liver to function as the main production site and storehouse for Glutathione. As I understand it this type of Patented Formula is only granted through careful evaluation and independent double-blind placebo testing.

Dr. Robert Keller's credentials speak for themselves. He is named as one of the world's 2000 Outstanding Scientist of the 21 century. He has served on the scientific review panels for the National Institute of Health and the VA. The Consumers' Research council has recognized him as one of America's "TOP Physicians" every year since 2003. He has been elected to the Board of Governors of the America Academy of HIV Medicine, and serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Numerous biotech and nutritional companies.

Does he know what he is talking about concerning Glutathione? You decide!

More of your questions can be answered here: http://www.maxgxl.com/productsfaq.php and here

http://www.maxgxl.com/kemyha


The science behind MaxGXL sold me. There is no evangelical hype or "ra-te-da" here, just PURE FACTS. MaxGXL has blood test results, and Dr. Keller has true clinical studies to back it up.

I hope this helps and please do have a great day!

Hi Hatfield,
There is no attack mode here, nutrition/ science should be fun. What I am trying to present here is a dispassionate discussion of FACTS, to restore balance to a site that often gets out of balance because of INFOMERCIALS. No-one would dispute Dr Keller's credentials, they are not on trial here, just the information he supplies, did you happen to notice the disclaimer immediately below his information

Important Notice: These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
These products are not intended for use in the treatment of any disease.


Was he paid to say this (He certainly would not be the first doctor or scientist to do this), did he do it under duress?? We don't know the answers so we deal with scientifically PROVEN facts, not opinions or testimonials.
How are the sales of this product going??

Hello John,

I am not sure if this disclaimer is any different that a drug company stating the possible side effects of using their drug to treat certain diseases or not. And I am not sure if it's a legal requirement or not...I am not a lawyer.

John, all I know it this. MaxGXL is one unique product that does what it was designed to do. I have experimented with many nutritional products and supplements over the years with varying degrees of success. I have yet to come across a product as good as MaxGXL. There are a lot of high powered stakeholders (who really don't need the money) involved in the company. I believe that it will do for general health what, the invention of the wheel did for industry, Windows did for computers, Google did for the internet, the telephone did for communications...you get the picture.

I wish that I had been one of the frontier members of Google, Windows, YouTube and others innovative discoveries. I liken MaxGXL to those opportunity.

I am fairly new to the internet marketing venue but, my personal business is growing on a daily basis. I would be very surprised (with what's going on in the background) if MaxGXL growth doesn't escalate over the course of the next several months.

It is a beautiful thing!

Hi Hatfield,
You said,

"I am not sure if this disclaimer is any different that a drug company stating the possible side effects of using their drug to treat certain diseases or not. And I am not sure if it's a legal requirement or not...I am not a lawyer."

When some-one uses a disclaimer it is for the purpose of avoiding prosecution for leading people into believing something is a proven fact, when it obviously isn't. People also avoid prosecution by stating a product or service MAY HELP a disease process. They want them to believe it will cure but the law will not allow them to say so because it has not been proven. Dr Keller is a very persuasive high profile speaker that is going to make a truck load of money out of this product, and when it comes to making money or telling the truth I'll back money in most instances. Dr Keller may turn out to be 100% right in his claims, although I am a bit suspicious of his claim of not being able to lift your glutathione levels to the required amount by eating a good diet, even when you are violating natures laws for protecting your antioxidant levels. He is pushing the MaxGXL product pretty hard.
I would need more proof than he has offered. Check this link just for balance


http://www.doctormurray.com/newsletter/1-15-2003.htm

Hey John,

You raise some good points and they make sense. However, not all high profile promoters of products are dishonest. Why would Dr. Keller, Larry King, Tom Jones, Greg Renker, Bill Guthy and Dr. Robert Nelson (AMA Past President) risk their reputations on promoting a "snake-oil" product? Incidentally, most of these guys are already millionaires.

I've been a supporter of nutritional supplements for a long time. We do need them. MaxGXL does what it is designed to do, to raise the glutathione level in our body's cells and does it effectively. My recommendation to anyone is to try it for yourself. In fact John, I will send you a supply for your own evaluation, if you wish. Let me know...fair enough?

I also recommend, to anyone, to research the multitude of articles on glutathione and the names of the individuals above and I trust that you will discover that facts are facts.

Take care

my congrats guys, this information is so important for us. thnak you so much.

Hi Hatfield,
I just noticed your last post on this, I don't want to rehash old material for too long mate, remember what Einstein said "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the first sign of insanity". You ended by saying "I also recommend, to anyone, to research the multitude of articles on glutathione and the names of the individuals above and I trust that you will discover that facts are facts".

Something only becomes a fact when it has been proven and accepted as such, this is exactly what I have been saying, read the abstracts and find peer reviewed articles that support what you are saying, I couldn't find them. Quite a lot of scientists have been admonished for claiming truths that did not stand up to scrutiny, Jeffrey Bland, Benevistre, and high profile people like Kevin Trudeau. We had an eminent scientist who started a foundation for health, which changed the world's thinking in the field, disqualified from doing research because he falsified results, so it is far from unusual to lend your name to a money making venture that you know is not proven. Capitalistic greed is what keeps the world moving mate.

Hey John,

Incidentally, after scrutinizing dozens of nutritional supplements in every shape and form over the years, when I was approached about MaxGXL, my guard went up defiantly. And only after several weeks of listening to several doctors, researching glutathione myself did I agree to try a weeks supply of MaxGXL. The little arthritis I had in my shoulder dissipated, I was sleeping better (and dreaming) and I had more energy. I am 57 years old and since I've been taking MaxGXL for several weeks now, I'm feeling better than I have in a long time. This has nothing to do with a physiological placebo effect.

I don't know John, regardless if it's Capitalistic greed or the genuine article, when it comes to the information published about Dr. Keller and MaxGXL and Glutathione, the convincing factor for me is that MaxGXL did make a difference.

Personally, I do not believe that everyone who has made a comment about MaxGXL is lying. Not everyone in the world is THAT greedy...are they?

John, I'd like to send you a weeks supply of MaxGXL (at no charge) if you want to try it for yourself. You appear to be a knowledgeable person and I believe your would provide a fair assessment.

How about that?

PM me if that can be done here, or post your reply here.

Hi Hatfield/ WilliamHey,

Your using a pretty famous Dr's signature WilliamHey.........".my congrats guys, this information is so important for us. thnak you so much.


--------------------
William Heyward"

Hatfield from I can find on research for Glutathione it clearly states that Glutathione can not enter cells from outside, it has to be manufactured from it's three constituents within the cell (Glycine,Glutamate and Cysteine).
Actually Cysteine is poorly represented in most dietary foods so it becomes the limiting factor in the manufacture of Glutathione, it also supplies the sulphur portion that gives Glutathione it's biochemical activity, and without that it could not perform it's extremely important functions. I believe in science a bit to much Hatfield and because the researchers have said Glutathione can not enter a cell I would introduce a bias to any reasonable trial on Glutathione, so on these grounds I will refuse your generous offer. I will eat a fruit cocktail or asparagus and watermelon to increase my Glutathione levels. This has been a good debate Hatfield I have really enjoyed it and I admire the way you have presented your case. Glutathione is essential for a healthy immune system and every person reading this should tuck into their watermelon and asparagus comforted by the knowledge that it is shoring up your protection from a lot of nasties.

Hello John,

Just out of curiosity, if you ae not too busy, you may be interested in listening to Dr. Keller talk about
glutathione, etc here; http://www.byoaudio.com/play/WXH5NNQx

Have a great evening.

Hi Hatfield,
Dr Keller is a very inspirational speaker, I listened to what he said from start to finish, and I might have it wrong here mate, I thought MaxGXL was simply adding Glutathione to the cell, which apparently can't be done, from what Dr Keller said on there they are using a patented formula to add precursors to the cell. The body gets it's dietary precursors from watermelon and asparagus and from there it can make glutathione so it may be possible to deliver the precursors more effectively in MaxGXL, but no research, that I can find, has been done to prove it. If Dr Keller speaks the truth then science will be able to prove it, I should have taken you up on your offer .
(John, I'd like to send you a weeks supply of MaxGXL (at no charge) if you want to try it for yourself. You appear to be a knowledgeable person and I believe your would provide a fair assessment.)

Cheers

Good morning John,

The offer still holds. You can go to my website http://www.maxsupreme.com and my contact information is there.

Here is a link that shows the results of research done on MaxGXL that you may find useful:

http://www.maxgxl.com/products.php

Take care and have a fantastic day!

Are you still there Hatfield? What's your take on the Harvard study on multi-vitamins and mens health?
Cheers

Hello John,

I haven't been on this forum for a while. Been spending some time with my daughters over the Easter break. I also find a lot of these forums are filled with people who automatically strike out at everything that they do not totally understand, without first obtaining knowledge.

I didn't read the Harvard Study but, I did read somewhere that most of the supplements that people are ingesting (especially in pill forum) are not digested by the stomach and in some cases end up in the sewer system with the brand name still visible.

Canada has one of the most strict criteria that I know of when it comes to approving products for distribution and consumption in the country, especially when it comes to peoples health. MaxGXL has been given approval by all pertaining stakeholders for distribution in Canada...legally and ethically.

We are not taking or selling Glutathione. We are using MaxGXL which is an accelerator that helps your liver produce it's own glutathione naturally. Ingesting Glutathione does have side effects and should not be taken with certain liver problems. And because the Glutathione molecules are so large taken it orally or intravenously is not effective as the stomach acids end up destroying them. That was the premise of Dr. Kellers research in the first place was to get the liver to produce and recycle the body's own glutathione.

Read your information, about the patent, and you will understand it is not Glutathione we are taking. That is the error many people are making by thinking we are selling gluththione.

Thanks John and take care.






Hello John,

I haven't been on this forum for a while. Been spending some time with my daughters over the Easter break. I also find a lot of these forums are filled with people who automatically strike out at everything that they do not totally understand, without first obtaining knowledge.

I didn't read the Harvard Study but, I did read somewhere that most of the supplements that people are ingesting (especially in pill forum) are not digested by the stomach and in some cases end up in the sewer system with the brand name still visible.

Canada has one of the most strict criteria that I know of when it comes to approving products for distribution and consumption in the country, especially when it comes to peoples health. MaxGXL has been given approval by all pertaining stakeholders for distribution in Canada...legally and ethically.

We are not taking or selling Glutathione. We are using MaxGXL which is an accelerator that helps your liver produce it's own glutathione naturally. Ingesting Glutathione does have side effects and should not be taken with certain liver problems. And because the Glutathione molecules are so large taken it orally or intravenously is not effective as the stomach acids end up destroying them. That was the premise of Dr. Kellers research in the first place was to get the liver to produce and recycle the body's own glutathione.

Read your information, about the patent, and you will understand it is not Glutathione we are taking. That is the error many people are making by thinking we are selling gluththione.

Thanks John and take care.

Here is a link to articles, affiliations, publications, etc pertaining to
Dr. Robert Keller for those who are interested.

http://sozomax.com/docs/robert_h_keller.pdf

Hi Readers,
A new bunch of"salesmen/women" appear to have infiltrated the camp so I think it would be more than prudent to go back and at least look at some of the old evidence supporting or condemning both sides of the antioxidant
debate.There has been some disturbing research results over the past decade regarding the use of supplements, some research has suggested an elevated risk of certain cancers, cardiovascular disease and even mortality so I wouldn't blunder forward excepting new posts per se,I would look for supporting evidence.
Cheers

Hi Readers,
I have found a paper that explains anti-oxidants better than I ever could. Hatfield could very well be right with what he has been saying ie, they have an accelerator for the manufacture of Glutathione, we usually refer to an accelerator by the term catalyst, but I am not a fan of supplements in general at all, based on their lousy performance in properly conducted clinical trials. Here is the paper from Harvard Medical School.


Antioxidants: Beyond the Hype

Table of ContentsAntioxidant pills

* Introduction
* What's the Buzz?
* Little Supportive Evidence
* Potential Hazards
* The Bottom Line
* References

Introduction

The body's trillion or so cells face formidable threats, from lack of food to infection with a virus. Another constant threat comes from nasty chemicals called free radicals. They are capable of damaging cells and genetic material. The body generates free radicals as the inevitable byproducts of turning food into energy. Others are in the food you eat and the air you breathe. Some are generated by sunlight's action on the skin and eyes.

Free radicals come in many shapes, sizes, and chemical configurations. What they all share is a voracious appetite for electrons, stealing them from any nearby substances that will yield them. This electron theft can radically alter the "loser's" structure or function. Free radical damage can change the instructions coded in a strand of DNA. It can make a circulating low-density lipoprotein (LDL, sometimes called bad cholesterol) molecule more likely to get trapped in an artery wall. Or it can alter a cell's membrane, changing the flow of what enters the cell and what leaves it.

We aren't defenseless against free radicals. The body, long used to this relentless attack, makes scads of molecules that quench free radicals as surely as water douses fire. We also extract free-radical fighters from food. These defenders are often lumped together as "antioxidants." They work by generously giving electrons to free radicals without turning into electron-scavenging substances themselves.

There are hundreds, probably thousands, of different substances that can act as antioxidants. The most familiar ones are vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and other related carotenoids, along with the minerals selenium and manganese. They're joined by glutathione, coenzyme Q10, lipoic acid, flavonoids, phenols, polyphenols, phytoestrogens, and many more.

But using the term "antioxidant" to refer to substances is misleading. It is really a chemical property, namely, the ability to act as an electron donor. Some substances that act as antioxidants in one situation may be prooxidants—electron grabbers—in a different chemical milieu. Another big misconception is that antioxidants are interchangeable. They aren't. Each one has unique chemical behaviors and biological properties. They almost certainly evolved as parts of elaborate networks, with each different substance (or family of substances) playing slightly different roles. This means that no single substance can do the work of the whole crowd.
What's the Buzz?

Bowl of berries Antioxidants came to public attention in the 1990s, when scientists began to understand that free radical damage was involved in the early stages of artery-clogging atherosclerosis and may contribute to cancer, vision loss, and a host of other chronic conditions. Some studies showed that people with low intakes of antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables were at greater risk for developing these chronic conditions than were people who ate plenty of these fruits and vegetables. Clinical trials began testing the impact of single substances, especially beta-carotene and vitamin E, as weapons against heart disease, cancer, and the like.

Even before the results of these trials were in, the media, and the supplement and food industries began to hype the benefits of "antioxidants." Frozen berries, green tea, and other foods labeled as being rich in antioxidants began popping up in stores. Supplement makers touted the disease-fighting properties of all sorts of antioxidants.

The trials were mixed, but most have not found the hoped-for benefits. Most research teams reported that vitamin E and other antioxidant supplements didn't protect against heart disease or cancer. One study even showed that taking beta-carotene may actually increase the chances of developing lung cancer in smokers. On the other hand, some trials reported benefits; for example, after 18 years of follow-up, the Physicians' Health Study found that taking beta-carotene was associated with a modest reduction in the rate of cognitive decline. (1)

These mostly disappointing results haven't stopped food companies and supplement sellers from banking on antioxidants. Indeed, antioxidant supplements represent a $500 million dollar industry that continues to grow. Antioxidants are still added to breakfast cereals, sports bars, energy drinks, and other processed foods, and they are promoted as additives that can prevent heart disease, cancer, cataracts, memory loss, and a host of other conditions.

Often the claims have stretched and distorted the data: While it's true that the package of antioxidants, minerals, fiber, and other substances found naturally in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains helps prevent a variety of chronic diseases, it is unlikely that high doses of antioxidants can accomplish the same feat.
Little Supportive Evidence

Randomized, placebo-controlled trials—which, when performed well, provide the strongest evidence—offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest such trials have been mostly negative.
Heart Disease

Vitamin E, beta-carotene, and other so-called antioxidants aren't the silver bullet against heart disease and stroke that researchers were hoping for. Although the final chapter has not been written on vitamin E.

In the Women's Health Study, 39,876 initially healthy women took 600 IU of natural source vitamin E or a placebo every other day for 10 years. At the study's end, the rates of major cardiovascular events and cancer were no lower among those taking vitamin E than they were among those taking the placebo. However, the trial did observe a significant 24 percent reduction in total cardiovascular mortality. Although this was not a primary endpoint for the trial, it nevertheless represents an extremely important outcome. (2)

Earlier large vitamin E trials, conducted among individuals with previously diagnosed coronary disease or at high risk for it, generally showed no benefit. In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial, the rates of major cardiovascular events were essentially the same in the vitamin E (21.5 percent) and placebo (20.6 percent) groups, although participants taking vitamin E had higher risks of heart failure and hospitalization for heart failure. (3) In the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI) trial, the results were mixed but mostly showed no preventive effects after more than three years of treatment with vitamin E among 11,000 heart attack survivors.(4) However, some studies suggest potential benefits among certain subgroups. A recent trial of vitamin E in Israel, for example, showed a marked reduction in coronary heart disease among people with type 2 diabetes who have a common genetic predisposition for greater oxidative stress. (5)

Beta-carotene, meanwhile, did not provide any protection against heart disease or stroke, as demonstrated by the Physicians' Health Study. (6)

What about combinations? The findings are complicated and not entirely clear. In the Supplementation en Vitamines et Mineraux Antioxydants (SU.VI.MAX) study, 13,017 French men and women took a single daily capsule that contained 120 milligrams of vitamin C, 30 milligrams of vitamin E, 6 milligrams of beta-carotene, 100 micrograms of selenium, and 20 milligrams of zinc, or a placebo, for seven and a half years. The vitamins had no effect on overall rates of cardiovascular disease. (7)

In the Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study, vitamin E, vitamin C, and/or beta-carotene had much the same effect as a placebo on myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death, although there was a modest and significant benefit for vitamin E among women with existing cardiovascular disease. (8)
Cancer

When it comes to cancer prevention, the picture remains inconclusive for some antioxidant supplements. Few trials have gone on long enough to provide an adequate test for cancer. In the long-term Physicians' Health Study, cancer rates were similar among men taking beta-carotene and among those taking a placebo. (6) Other trials have also largely showed no effect, including HOPE. (3) The SU.VI.MAX trial (7) showed a reduction in cancer risk and all-cause mortality among men taking an antioxidant cocktail but no apparent effect in women, possibly because men tended to have low blood levels of beta-carotene and other vitamins at the beginning of the study. A randomized trial of selenium in people with skin cancer demonstrated significant reductions in cancer and cancer mortality at various sites, including colon, lung, and prostate. (9) The effects were strongest among those with low selenium levels at baseline.
Age-Related Eye Disease

This is the one bright spot for antioxidant vitamins. A six-year trial, the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), found that a combination of vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and zinc offered some protection against the development of advanced age-related macular degeneration, but not cataract, in people who were at high risk of the disease. (10, 11) Lutein, a naturally occurring carotenoid found in green, leafy vegetables such as spinach and kale, may also protect vision. However, relatively short trials of lutein supplementation for age-related macular degeneration have yielded conflicting findings. (12, 13) A new trial of the AREDS supplement regimen plus lutein, zeaxanthin, and fish oil is underway. This trial could yield more definitive information about antioxidants and macular degeneration. (14)
Other Efforts

Ongoing trials of other antioxidants, such as selenium and vitamin E for prevention of prostate and other cancers (15) are currently underway.
Potential Hazards

Cup of tea If antioxidants were harmless, it wouldn't much matter if you took them "just in case." A few studies, though, have raised the possibility that taking antioxidant supplements, either single agents or combinations, could interfere with health. The first inkling came in a large trial of beta-carotene conducted among men in Finland who were heavy smokers , and therefore at high risk for developing lung cancer. The trial was stopped early when researchers saw a significant increase in lung cancer among those taking the supplement compared to those taking the placebo. (16) In another trial among heavy smokers and people exposed to asbestos, beta-carotene was combined with vitamin A. Again an increase in lung cancer was seen in the supplement group. (17) Not all trials of beta-carotene show this harmful effect, however. In the Physicians' Health Study, which included few active smokers, no increase in lung cancer or any other adverse affect was seen even after 18 years of follow-up. (6)

Another possible red flag: In the SU.VI.MAX trial, rates of skin cancer were higher in women who were assigned to take vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, selenium, and zinc. (18)
The Bottom Line

Free radicals contribute to chronic diseases from cancer to heart disease and Alzheimer's disease to vision loss. This doesn't automatically mean that substances with antioxidant properties will fix the problem, especially not when they are taken out of their natural context. The studies so far are inconclusive, but generally don't provide strong evidence that antioxidant supplements have a substantial impact on disease. But keep in mind that most of the trials conducted up to now have had fundamental limitations due to their relatively short duration and having been conducted in persons with existing disease. That a benefit of beta-carotene on cognitive function was seen in the Physicians' Health Follow-up Study only after 18 years of follow-up is sobering, since no other trial has continued for so long. At the same time, abundant evidence suggests that eating whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—all rich in networks of antioxidants and their helper molecules—provides protection against many of these scourges of aging.
References

1. Grodstein F, Kang JH, Glynn RJ, Cook NR, Gaziano JM. A randomized trial of beta-carotene supplementation and cognitive function in men: the Physicians' Health Study II. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:2184–90.

2. Lee IM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: the Women's Health Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 294:56–65.

3. Lonn E, Bosch J, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of long-term vitamin E supplementation on cardiovascular events and cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 293:1338–47.

4. Dietary supplementation with n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E after myocardial infarction: results of the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto miocardico. Lancet. 1999; 354:447–55.

5. Milman U, Blum S, Shapira C, et al. Vitamin E supplementation reduces cardiovascular events in a subgroup of middle-aged individuals with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and the haptoglobin 2-2 genotype. A prospective double-blinded clinical trial. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2007:ATVBAHA.107.153965.

6. Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Manson JE, et al. Lack of effect of long-term supplementation with beta-carotene on the incidence of malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1145–49.

7. Hercberg S, Galan P, Preziosi P, et al. The SU.VI.MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:2335–42.

8. Cook NR, Albert CM, Gaziano JM, et al. A randomized factorial trial of vitamins C and E and beta-carotene in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in women: results from the Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167:1610–18.

9. Duffield-Lillico AJ, Reid ME, Turnbull BW, et al. Baseline characteristics and the effect of selenium supplementation on cancer incidence in a randomized clinical trial: A summary report of the nutritional prevention of cancer trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002; 11:630–39.

10. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E, beta-carotene, and zinc for age-related macular degeneration and vision loss: AREDS report no. 8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001; 119:1417-36.

11. A randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of high-dose supplementation with vitamins C and E and beta-carotene for age-related cataract and vision loss: AREDS report no. 9. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001; 119:1439-52.

12. Richer S, Stiles W, Statkute L, et al. Double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of lutein and antioxidant supplementation in the intervention of atrophic age-related macular degeneration: the Veterans LAST study (Lutein Antioxidant Supplementation Trial). Optometry. 2004; 75:216-30.

13. Bartlett HE, Eperjesi F. Effect of lutein and antioxidant dietary supplementation on contrast sensitivity in age-related macular disease: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007; 61:1121-27.

14. Age Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2). National Eye Institute.

15. Klein EA, Thompson IM, Lippman SM, et al. SELECT: the next prostate cancer prevention trial. Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. J Urol. 2001; 166:1311-15.

16. Albanes D, Heinonen OP, Taylor PR, et al. Alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene supplements and lung cancer incidence in the alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene cancer prevention study: effects of base-line characteristics and study compliance. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88:1560-70.

17. Omenn GS, Goodman GE, Thornquist MD, et al. Effects of a combination of beta-carotene and vitamin A on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334:1150-55.

18. Hercberg S, Ezzedine K, Guinot C, et al. Antioxidant supplementation increases the risk of skin cancers in women but not in men. J Nutr. 2007; 137:2098-105.
Terms of Use

The aim of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source is to provide timely information on diet and nutrition for clinicians, allied health professionals, and the public. The contents of this Web site are not intended to offer personal medical advice. You should seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this Web site. The information does not mention brand names, nor does it endorse any particular products.

I think after reading this you will agree my feelings about anti-oxidants are justified!!!!!

Cheers

Hi Readers,
Because of all the "static" about antioxidant supplements lately I have returned to this post.
I am not a fan of supplements, at least until they demonstrate some degree of efficacy and prove once and for all that it is not just sales hype, but if I was going to lower my colours and take an antioxidant supplement it would probably be this one Hatfield has been talking about.

It at least demonstrates a methodology by which the bodies own manufacturing plant can be stimulated into making glutathione, by the supply of raw ingredients.

Cheers

Hi,
New Zealand Maoris were extremely healthy before Europeans invaded their shores, and even now how a low rate of cholorectal cancer, perhaps antioxidants from native fruits played a huge role in this, almost all adult Maoris are fat so they have obesity (linked to 19 new cancers as from Nov, 2007; AICR report) working against them.

Traditional NZ foods set antioxidant standards

By Marilyn Head for ABC Science Online

Posted Mon Mar 6, 2006 8:00pm AEDT
Updated Mon Mar 6, 2006 8:03pm AEDT

* Related Link: The Lab: ABC Science Online

Plants traditionally eaten by Maori people are the world's richest source of antioxidants, New Zealand scientists say.

"Until now blueberries have been regarded as the 'king of the antioxidants', the best source of antioxidants in a Western diet and the standard by which they're measured," Associate Professor Kevin Gould, of the University of Otago, said.

"But almost half the plants we tested had concentrations many times higher."

Associate Professor Gould measured levels in both native and introduced plants.

Puha, a plant similar to watercress and still commonly eaten by Maori people, has over three times the concentration of antioxidants of blueberries.

New Zealand honeysuckle has 10 times more.

But the fruit of the Syzygium maire or swamp maire tops the lot, with 18 times the concentration.

Associate Professor Gould says the study, published in the New Zealand Journal of Botany, opens up several exciting avenues for further research.

"It may account for the low incidence of non-infectious disease in pre-European Maori," he said.

"Even now Maori are less at risk from colon and rectal cancers than New Zealanders of European descent.

"But it may also reflect the way New Zealand plants are responding to global warming and other environmental stresses."

Plants are particularly susceptible to stress from too much ultraviolet (UV) radiation.

New Zealand has one of the highest levels of UV radiation in the world because of the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica.

Under stress

All organisms produce free radicals when they are stressed.

Normally the organism can deal with them by producing its own antioxidants to mop up them up.

But too many antioxidants can cause damage.

"A free radical is an unstable molecule that behaves irrationally," Associate Professor Gould said.

"It's a bit like a jilted lover, bent on revenge, wanting to attack the first thing it sees.

"It's unstable because it's lacking an electron, or it's got too many, so it just wants to grab one from anywhere, including the tissue from your lung or your bowels."

Finding plants with such high concentrations of antioxidants may prove doubly beneficial, the researchers say.

They are potentially rich sources of dietary antioxidants and could provide a better understanding of how plants respond to environmental stress.

Cheers

Hi Readers,
More good news for antioxidants.

Marinating Away Cancer-Causing Compounds
Mint Sprig
All three marinades contained spices from the Lamiaceae (mint) family.

Along with adding a boost of flavor, marinating your meats in a spice-based marinade may also cut the amount of possible cancer-causing compounds, new research found. Heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are suspected cancer-causing substances that form in meat cooked at high temperatures. Previous research on marinades and HCAs suggest antioxidants play a key role in reducing HCAs, leading the authors of this study to focus on spice-filled marinadesexternal site, which all contain antioxidants via spices or herbs.

Study authors allowed beef steak to sit for an hour in one of three store-bought marinades – Caribbean, Southwest, and herb. They also soaked beef in these same marinades with their spices removed, and in an oil-vinegar mixture used in all the marinades. After grilling the steaks, all three spice-marinated meats showed the most dramatic reduction in total HCAs. The meat soaked in the spice-less marinades lowered the HCAs a moderate amount compared to the non-marinated meat. And the meat marinated in the oil-vinegar mixture alone had no major effect on HCA level

Cheers

Hi Charles Martin,

You have climbed a long way out on the limb haven't you?

According to this lot of ORAC scores you are not even close, but I am not sure that I would consider it proof. A lot of countries like to claim titles for best at things and antioxidants are no different, do you remember the old joke about the 3 men discussing which country had built the biggest structures, finally the American ended the discussion by saying " America has built a washer so big, even the hole in the middle weighs three tons"

I look forward to your proof about acai berry. Remember there are only 2 things science and opinion, science begets truth and opinion begets ignorance.


Cheers

Hi Readers,
The Cochrane Review has issued a statement on antioxidants worth reading.

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases

Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C

Summary
No evidence to support antioxidant supplements to prevent mortality in healthy people or patients with various diseases

Previous research on animal and physiological models suggest that antioxidant supplements have beneficial effects that may prolong life. Some observational studies also suggest that antioxidant supplements may prolong life, whereas other observational studies demonstrate neutral or harmful effects. Randomised trials have largely been neutral. We need evidence from randomised trials to decide if antioxidant supplements should be used for prevention.

This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009 Issue 2, Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This record should be cited as: Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007176. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007176.

This version first published online: April 16. 2008
Abstract
Background

Animal and physiological research as well as observational studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may improve survival.
Objectives

To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in primary or secondary prevention randomised clinical trials.
Search strategy

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (1985 to October 2005), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (1945 to October 2005). We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and wrote to pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.
Selection criteria

We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention. Included participants were either healthy (primary prevention trials) or had any disease (secondary prevention trials).
Data collection and analysis

Three authors extracted data. Trials with adequate randomisation, blinding, and follow-up were classified as having a low risk of bias. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed. Random-effects meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity.
Main results

Sixty-seven randomised trials with 232,550 participants were included. Forty-seven trials including 180,938 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-one trials included 164,439 healthy participants. Forty-six trials included 68111 participants with various diseases (gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, ocular, dermatological, rheumatoid, renal, endocrinological, or unspecified). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects meta-analysis (relative risk [RR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99 to 1.06), but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06). In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. In the trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.08). When the different antioxidants were assessed separately, analyses including trials with a low risk of bias and excluding selenium trials found significantly increased mortality by vitamin A (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24), beta-carotene (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11), and vitamin E (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07), but no significant detrimental effect of vitamin C (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). Low-bias risk trials on selenium found no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01).
Authors' conclusions

We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may increase mortality. Future randomised trials could evaluate the potential effects of vitamin C and selenium for primary and secondary prevention. Such trials should be closely monitored for potential harmful effects. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

I totally agree with this.

Cheers

Hi,
I think there is still a long way to go before the anti-oxidant issue is resolved, recently it has come to light here in Australia that big pharma has been manipulating evidence to suit its needs, meaning to reduce competition, to enhance the performance of their own drugs, and even hide serious side effects, and to maintain its dominance over complementary medicine through the use of evidence b(i)ased medicine, so it is still not clear what works and in what circumstances.

We also have a new type of research emerging called epigenetics/nutigenomics and pharmacogenetics, which will be used as personalised medicine.

Recently it has been shown that in some people enzymes are switched on or off depending upon dietary components, so perhaps we will find a mechanism by which anti-oxidants may prove valuable.

Cheers

Vitamins are very useful for human beings. Our body is useless without vitamins

Hi Dillykansil,
I don't think any sensible person would dispute that statement mate, but supplements are not the equal of vitamins contained in the food. I am sure I can hear you asking why not? Well the answer to that is very simple, there are a lot of micronutrients still un-identified in food and some of these have synergistic properties and may even work by feed back loops, still not identified. For instance they may play a role in gene expression where an enzyme is inhibited or switched on, and this may lead to, or prevent a disease.

Cheers

Static....?
Could anyone please tell me why do I have so much static, daily no matter what I touch I shock. Im getting so fed up. My diet hasn't changed, I use fabric softner but still I shock. Why is that???
buy resveratrol

Hi billycats,
You obviously have had an overdose of resveratrol. No seriously, many things can effect the static electricity charge you carry, things like weather conditions, the fabric of the clothes you wear, the water atoms in the surrounding environment etc. Lightning is a good example of static electricity.

Everything we come into contact with is made up of atoms and molecules that are electrically neutral, that is they have an equal number of protons in the nucleus to negative charges, electrons in the outer shell, some of these electrons are loosely bound and give off their electrons easily to sparsely filled outer shells of other materials they come in contact with. this is called the triboelectric effect, leaving one material positively charged and the other one negatively charged.

Cheers