Exercise May Protect Against Deadly Covid-19 Complication, Research Suggests

This article states what might be obvious to many readers here. It proposes that exercise is an antioxidant. A single bout of exercise can elevate levels of a potent endogenous antioxidant- superoxide dismutase. The academic paper is below, which covers cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal diseases. Covid-19 is mentioned briefly, but seems to be the headline generator.

Extracellular superoxide dismutase, a molecular transducer of health benefits of exercise

Have you guys heard of NRF2 Pathways?

To Greg Glassman, I wasn't referring to CrossFit HQ, I was talking about Sports and Fitness industry in general, as well as those that ride on your coattails on the sport of Crossfit. Just this morning, in Morning Chalk-up there is an advertisement for Hemp CBD recovery drink.  This is a supplement intended to aid "recovery".  Where is the evidence it does this, and what is the primary endpoint that defines "recovery".  That's what I meant.

I generally agree with this article on the role of antioxidants, but in this time of C19, I just wanted to point out that flavonoids protect ACE2 receptors from coronavirus S-protein spikes.  Flavonoids are also considered to be antioxidants, but this is a viral-blocking function not related to whether it is also an antioxidant.  So I would continue to eat flavonoid-rich vegetables (and some fruit).

Absolutely love these articles and discussion!  Hormetic stress and cumulative dose considerations are something I have been researching a lot about over the last few years.  This issue comes up routinely with both athletes I coach and patients I see in the clinic - basically every time there is new YouTube video touting the benefits of any one of many hormetic stressors (fasting, cold, heat, antioxidants, hypoxia).  Next thing I know I've got a 30 year old Type A CF athlete in the gym doing bike sprints while wearing a gag ball mask during a 3 day fast after sitting in ice water - plus or minus electrified nipple clamps for added adrenaline!  I jest - but only barely.  

Interestingly enough it seems that moderate level CF athletes and very sick patients seem to be well primed for the kind of masochism needed to embrace the pain usually associated with hormetic stressors, while those in the middle of the road don't seem to give two shits.  The moderate level athletes think this is going to be the "thing" to put them in the elite category and the really sick are willing to try anything to get better.  Overall, I think these articles highlight two general principles of hormesis.  
1.  Dose matters - particularly cumulative and additive dose.  The cell, organ or organism must be able to mount an appropriate response to the stressor applied.  We should not assume that hormetic stressors can be "layered" on one another and still result in positive adaptations - as the studies with antioxidants and exercise point out. 
2.  An evolutionary context is very important in evaluating hormetic stressors.  Nearly every compound/chemical functions as a hormetic stressor but clearly our bodies do not respond in a positive manner to many man made (and the occasional natural) chemicals.  For instance there is strong hormetic response of yeast cells and cultured human tissue to DDT, similar in magnitude to the chemical ECGC (green tea antioxidant).  So why aren't I telling my patients to make sure and get a dose of DDT with their morning green tea?  The answer is that the hormetic dose range of DDT is fairly tight and the mechanisms to reduce free DDT in the system prior to it entering cells have not evolved.  In contrast ECGC is ingested as a liquid with hundreds of other phytochemicals, is then subject to multiple actions (intestinal cell excretion, first pass hepatic metabolism) prior to it ever reaching the cellular level.  In essence - we are old buddies and playmates from an evolutionary perspective.  Our bodies know what to do with it and how to handle it to keep it in the hormetic response dose range.  The idea that we can extract a chemical from real food - mass produce it in a laboratory and ingest it and then expect it to act the same way is fundamentally flawed.  We are trying to bypass the delicate biochemical dance that we developed with this substance as we co-evolved over the last hundred of thousands of years and it probably won't work well in most situations.   This is the main reason why I think the data so far does not show (and probably won't show) any strong benefit to supplementation (in the absence of malnutrition) over food or other natural sources of hormetic stressors.  

Take home point for me is that after all the geek out and discussion - the CF prescription for diet and exercise still remain unchallenged.  All the other crap that everyone wants to buy, consume or torture themselves with on top of this adds little to the sum total.

For tons more geek out material on this - read or watch material of Edward Calabrese from Umass on the subject of hormesis.  Great stuff.  I would love to see him speak at a future DDC (if that ever happens again!)

Over

Rest evolution in garage gym:  Day 26 without human contact aside from 3 stir-crazy children.
Echo Bike ride 10km (200 cals);
5x5 shoulder press 115lbs, 2 min rest between sets standing on wobble board;
5x5 push press 135lbs; 
5x5 jerk 165lbs; and 
6 x 100m farmer’s walk alternating hand carrying 2 pood KB.

Back to teaching long-division, fractions, and how to incorporate various weights and measures in a single workout.

M/44/13.5 stone

Did CrossFit.com get hacked or something???

Bravo.

It's a pleasure to read a well thought-out, evidence-based opinion piece that stresses quality evidence.

Which brings us back to standard science-based nutritional advice, of eating a broad-based, diverse healthy diet.
CrossFit HQ has done a good job of pointing out the conflicts of interest that over the past half-century have contaminated governmental advice on macronutrient intake. They have been right to do so.

At the same time, there are plenty of conflicts of interest in Sports and CrossFit and the Fitness Industry, recommending supplements and other potions without hardly a shred of any evidence to back claims of improved health, or its subcomponents.  Certainly not high quality evidence.  I applaud this objective piece and hope many others are to follow.

All right Tyler, I gotta defend myself a little. My comment on part 1 was only a very small spoiler alert! This is a far more eloquent and expansive summary.  Thank you. But also, sorry about that ;) 

I especially appreciate the theoretical model presented here. It's entirely consistent with what I teach in my university classes on exercise-induced inflammation and oxidative stress. I pose the topic to students as: If ROS are bad, and exercise increases ROS, how can exercise be good? (I let them sit there for a while.. in panic, questioning everything they thought they knew.. if it sounds evil and fun, it is).  

The answer lies in whether or not the stressor is resolved. Chronic disease is a problem of unresolved stress, including chronically elevated ROS and inflammatory factors. Exercise, on the other hand, stimulates large but transient increases in the same inflammatory signals and ROS that trigger adaptive processes rendering the cell (and, by extension, the entire body) resilient to future stressors (e.g., novel viruses of zoonotic origin...). The stressor signals these beneficial adaptations (documented in depth in the Ristow papers) but are largely resolved upon cessation of exercise. 

With that perspective, then, it makes total sense that oral antioxidants, and any other agents with antioxidant effects underpinning at least part of their putative therapeutic benefit (e.g. statins, metformin), would inhibit the beneficial effects of exercise training. It's like turning the air conditioning on in your house but placing a large piece of furniture squarely in front of the vent and wondering why the house isn't cooling off. Of course it doesn't work. You've messed up the feedback loop. 

I wanted to comment on one statement: "Ristow and Merry admit the total body of evidence against antioxidant supplementation is not conclusive but argue there is a growing body of evidence to suggest it 'may hamper or prevent the signalling of important adaptations such as muscle mitochondrial biogenesis, insulin sensitivity and hypertrophy.'"  I'd suggest that Ristow and Merry are a bit modest here. The research evidence they and others have produced is pretty compelling. That the data do not necessarily comport with mainstream consensus on the 'benefits' of antioxidant doesn't do much for me. Haven't we learned about the shortcomings, fallacies, and dangers of consensus science elsewhere on this website? More evidence is not better. Convincing evidence is better.