Walk down any aisle in any grocery store and count how many packages say the word antioxidant.
Juice. Tea. Chocolate. Cereal. Trail mix. Bottled water, somehow. The word has been doing marketing work for about thirty years, and it has been doing it so successfully that a lot of us have stopped asking what it means.
I want to ask. Because the honest answer turned out to be considerably more interesting than I expected — and considerably less flattering to the industry that put the word on everything.
Here is the short version. Oxidative stress is real, it matters a great deal as our bodies change, and the foods people call antioxidant foods do appear to help. But a lot of what we were taught about why they help does not hold up, the scoring system brands used to prove it was retired by the USDA more than a decade ago, and the pill version of the idea failed badly enough in clinical trials that researchers started warning people off it.
That is a lot to unpack. Let us go in order.
What oxidative stress actually is
Every cell in your body runs on a controlled burn. You take in oxygen and fuel, your mitochondria convert them into usable energy, and like any combustion process, that reaction throws off byproducts.
Some of those byproducts are molecules with an unpaired electron. They are unstable, they are reactive, and they will take an electron from whatever is nearest — a cell membrane, a protein, a strand of DNA. Those are free radicals. The damage they do is called oxidative damage, and the state of having more of them than your body can comfortably manage is oxidative stress.
Your body is not defenseless here. It produces its own antioxidant enzymes, and it repairs oxidative damage constantly, all day, without being asked. This is normal maintenance, not an emergency.
What changes as we age is the balance. Mitochondrial function shifts. Repair capacity declines. The maintenance crew is still working, but it falls a little further behind each year. Oxidative stress is one of the mechanisms researchers point to when they describe why tissue ages the way it does.
So the logic seems obvious. More antioxidants, less damage, better aging.
That logic is where things went sideways.
Free radicals are not only the enemy
In the 1990s and 2000s, researchers ran the obvious experiment. Take the antioxidants found in healthy diets, concentrate them into pills, give them to a lot of people for a long time, and measure what happens.
It did not go the way anyone expected.
A 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA pooled 68 randomized trials covering 232,606 participants. Among the trials with the lowest risk of bias, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with a 7% increase in mortality. Vitamin A, 16%. Vitamin E, 4%. Taken together, antioxidant supplementation was associated with a 5% increase.
Not no benefit. Worse than no benefit.
The authors offered a theory for why, and it is the single most useful idea in this entire post: by eliminating free radicals wholesale, high-dose supplements may interfere with defensive mechanisms the body actually needs.
Free radicals are not purely damage. They are also signals. Your body uses them to communicate that a cell is under stress, which is what triggers the repair and defense machinery to switch on in the first place. Exercise generates free radicals. That is part of how exercise makes you stronger.
Flood the system with enough concentrated antioxidant to mop up the signal, and you may quiet the alarm without addressing the fire.
The distinction that matters
A megadose of an isolated compound and a normal serving of a whole food are not the same intervention, even when the compound came from the food.
This is the single most common error in nutrition marketing: find a beneficial compound in a food, concentrate it, sell it, and assume the benefit concentrates with it. The evidence says it frequently does not — and sometimes reverses.
The scoreboard the USDA threw out
If you have shopped for antioxidant anything, you have probably seen an ORAC score — Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity. For years it was the number brands used to rank foods. Higher ORAC, more antioxidant, better for you. The USDA maintained a public database of ORAC values and the industry built a great deal of marketing on top of it.
In 2012 the USDA withdrew that database entirely.
Their stated reasoning is worth reading closely. The agency cited mounting evidence that antioxidant capacity values have no relevance to the effects of specific bioactive compounds, noted that results from a test tube cannot be extrapolated to effects in a human body, and said directly that ORAC values were being routinely misused by food and supplement manufacturers to promote their products.
They went further than that. The USDA stated there is no evidence that the beneficial effects of polyphenol-rich foods can be attributed to the antioxidant properties of those foods.
Read that twice. The agency was not saying these foods do not help. It was saying the antioxidant explanation for why they help does not hold up.
That was fourteen years ago. ORAC scores are still printed on packaging and still cited in marketing copy today.
What to do with this in a store aisle
An ORAC number on a package is not a lie, exactly. It is a real measurement of how a substance behaves in a test tube. It is simply not a measurement of what that substance does inside a person — which is the thing you were trying to find out. Treat it the way you would treat any number a brand chose to print because it flattered them.
So why do these foods keep showing up in the outcomes?
Here is the part that took researchers another decade to work out, and it reframes everything above.
Polyphenols — the large family of plant compounds in cacao, coffee, tea, berries, turmeric, olive oil, red onion, and most deeply pigmented plants — turn out to be fairly mediocre direct antioxidants inside the body. They are poorly absorbed. Most of what you eat never reaches your bloodstream intact. On paper, they should not do much.
And yet the population data keeps pointing the same direction.
The current explanation is called hormesis, and it inverts the usual story. A 2025 review in Food Chemistry Advances describes polyphenols as compounds with relatively modest direct antioxidant activity that are nonetheless powerful inducers of hormetic responses — acting as mild stressors that stimulate the body’s own cellular defense systems rather than doing the defending themselves.
In plain terms: a polyphenol is not a bucket of water thrown on the fire. It is a small, controlled poke at the system that prompts your own defenses to turn up.
Which explains the supplement failures cleanly. If the benefit comes from a mild signal, a megadose is not a stronger signal — it is a different intervention entirely. The same review notes that at high enough concentrations, these compounds stop behaving protectively and start behaving the other way.
Dose is not a detail here. Dose is the whole mechanism.
What the best cacao study actually found
The largest test of this idea deserves an honest accounting, including the part that did not work.
COSMOS — the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study — followed more than 21,000 adults aged 60 and older for about five years. Half received a daily cocoa extract delivering 500 mg of cocoa flavanols, including 80 mg of epicatechin. Half received placebo.
The primary endpoint was total cardiovascular events. The cocoa group saw roughly a 10% reduction. That result was not statistically significant. By the standard the trial set for itself before it began, the primary endpoint did not hit.
A secondary endpoint did. Cardiovascular death fell 27% in the cocoa group, and that result was statistically significant. Among participants who actually took the capsules consistently, it was 39%.
What should you do with that? Carefully, is the answer. A secondary endpoint that hits after a primary endpoint misses is a reason to run another trial, not a reason to declare the question settled. Any brand quoting you the 27% without mentioning the primary endpoint is telling you half of a story they know the other half of.
It is still a real signal from a very large, very well-run study, and it points the same direction as decades of population data. It is just not proof, and I would rather hand you the whole thing than the flattering half.
Where our bars actually sit in this
Let me be precise, because this is exactly the kind of section where food brands get loose.
Every LAST bar is built on cinnamon and turmeric plus one more botanical — cacao in PB Cacao and Café Mocha, ginger in Lemon Ginger. Those are not decorative. They are among the more polyphenol-dense ingredients in an ordinary kitchen, and they are in there at food amounts, in a food matrix, alongside protein and fiber.
A bar is not a 500 mg flavanol capsule, and I am not going to suggest it is. COSMOS tested a concentrated extract at a specific dose. Our bars are food. What they offer is the thing the research actually keeps supporting — polyphenol-rich plants in normal amounts, eaten regularly, as part of a diet — rather than the thing it keeps failing to support, which is a concentrated dose of an isolated compound.
And you will not find an ORAC score anywhere on our packaging. Now you know why.
The one nobody orders
Café Mocha Latte with Cacao Nibs is our least-ordered flavor. By ingredient, it is also the most polyphenol-dense bar we make: cacao nibs, cocoa powder, coffee powder, coffee fruit extract, cinnamon, and turmeric, all in one wrapper.
Cacao and coffee are two of the most-studied polyphenol sources in the human diet, and that bar is the only place we put both together.
If you have been ordering around it, this is the post where I ask you to reconsider.
How to actually eat for this
No scoring system required. The practical version is almost boringly simple.
Instead of
Do this
Why
Chasing a high ORAC number
Eating deeply pigmented plants
Color tracks polyphenol content better than any printed score
A megadose antioxidant pill
Food amounts, most days
The mechanism depends on modest, repeated exposure
One "superfood"
Variety across many plants
Different polyphenol families trigger different pathways
Thinking of it as damage control
Thinking of it as training
You are prompting your own defenses, not substituting for them
Berries, dark chocolate, coffee, green tea, olive oil, red onion, herbs and spices, anything deep purple or deep red or deep green. That is the list. It has not changed in twenty years and it does not require a subscription.
The same rule that governs the rest of this series applies here: read the ingredient list, not the front of the package. If you want the method for that, it is in Part 2 — and the fiber version of this same argument is in Part 4.
What I changed my mind about
I came into this believing roughly what the packaging told me. Antioxidants neutralize free radicals, free radicals cause aging, therefore more antioxidants is better, therefore the number on the label means something.
Three of those four turned out to be wrong or badly incomplete.
Free radicals are not simply villains — they are part of how your body knows to defend itself. More is not better, and the trials that tested more found worse. The number on the label was retired by the agency that created it, for the specific reason that companies were using it the way I was reading it.
What survived is the part that was never really about antioxidants at all. Eat a lot of different plants, including the darkly colored ones, in ordinary amounts, most days, for years. Your body does the rest, and it does it better when you give it something to respond to rather than something to replace it.
That is a less exciting claim than the front of a juice bottle. It is also the one that holds up.
Cinnamon, turmeric, and cacao in every bite. Twelve grams of plant protein. No ORAC score, because it would not mean anything.
Try Café Mocha Latte
This post is part of the Resetting Normal Series. Read the full series: Part 1: Resetting Normal · Part 2: What's Actually in Your Protein Bar · Part 3: Protein and Muscle as We Age · Part 4: Fiber, Your Gut, and Aging Well · Part 5: The Most Overused Word on a Health Label
Here’s to aging well… Cheers!
Joel J. Montesano
Founder, Five Plus Protein
References
Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C. Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2007;297(8):842–857. 68 trials, 232,606 participants.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Withdrawal of the USDA ORAC Database for Selected Foods, 2012 — antioxidant capacity values have no demonstrated relevance to the effects of specific bioactive compounds and were being routinely misused in product promotion.
Perrone P, D’Angelo S. Hormesis and health: molecular mechanisms and the key role of polyphenols. Food Chemistry Advances. 2025;7:101030.
Sesso HD, Manson JE, et al. Effect of cocoa flavanol supplementation for the prevention of cardiovascular disease events: the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS) randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2022. n > 21,000 adults aged 60+, 500 mg cocoa flavanols daily.
Baker LD, et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: a randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2023 — the COSMOS-Mind cognitive arm.