How Effective Are Antioxidant Supplements in Obesity and Diabetes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is a central health issue due to its epidemic prevalence and its association with type 2 diabetes and other comorbidities. Obesity is not just being overweight. It is a metabolic disorder due to the accumulation of excess dietary calories into visceral fat and the release of high concentrations of free fatty acids into various organs. It represents a state of chronic oxidative stress and low-grade inflammation whose intermediary molecules may include leptin, adiponectin and cytokines. It may progress to hyperglycemia, leading to type 2 diabetes. Whether or not dietary antioxidant supplements are useful in the management of obesity and type 2 diabetes is discussed in this review. Only the benefits for obesity and diabetes are examined here. Other health benefits of antioxidants are not considered. There are difficulties in comparing studies in this field because they differ in the time frame, participants' ethnicity, administration of antioxidant supplements, and even in how obesity was measured. However, the literature presents reasonable evidence for marginal benefits of supplementation with zinc, lipoic acid, carnitine, cinnamon, green tea, and possibly vitamin C plus E, although the evidence is much weaker for omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, coenzyme Q10, green coffee, resveratrol, or lycopene. Overall, antioxidant supplements are not a panacea to compensate for a fast-food and video-game way of living, but antioxidant-rich foods are recommended as part of the lifestyle. Such antioxidant foods are commonly available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".