I am often asked: “Russ, what is the ORAC value of Zija, or Zija products?” My answer is simple, there is none, because the scale is not empirically based. Zija products are real science, not fiction.
Additionally, I am often asked: “Russ what is the Glycemic Load, Or Glycemic Index, of Zija, or Zija products?” My answer, again, is these are false and misleading scales, that are also NOT empirically based.
All three of the above fake comparison scales (or bait and switch marketing tactics) are designed to confuse, or convince, an unknowledgeable consumer, or user, of real products, that really work, like Zija.
These so-called marketing scales FAIL to measure any ingredients or products, at specific dosage, potency, absorption, from a specific source, in a specific individual, of specific predispositions, of other specific other caloric or prescription in-takes, over a specific period of time, for any specific net measurable results.
When you are asked these questions, KNOW you are dealing with either someone who does not have an empirical background in the benefits of real nutrition and absorption, or some slick marketer of a product that more than likely does not do what they claim, or they are (feebly) trying to compare to products that really work.
Among empirical sources to demonstrate the fact these scales DO NOT WORK AND ARE FALSE are (my additions are in the parenthesis):
http://brunswicklabs.com/orac_data.shtml that states: “CAN I USE PUBLISHED ORAC DATA FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES? No. In the middle of the 1990’s, Cao and coworkers published ORAC values of some vegetables and fruits(1). The results primarily demonstrate that the ORAC assay (maybe) a valuable tool to evaluate the antioxidant activity (of those specific samples tested). However, due to the limited sample sizes and varieties, the published ORAC values of vegetables and fruits are not comprehensive (or empirically based). Importantly, the most published ORAC results are obtained using the old method (empirically discredited); therefore they are not valid anymore. Furthermore, the naturally occurring antioxidants actually are the secondary metabolites of the natural products (meaning without these naturally occurring values and enzymatic activity as well as amino acid sequencing in the botanical little is absorbed in the body). Mother Nature has a profound influence on their biosynthesis (metabolic and human pathways). For instance, the geographic locations, weather conditions, and the varieties of the species have been determined to influence the antioxidant property chemically and physiologically. We screened over 1000 vegetables last year (mean the results are only as good as the samples tested); the conclusion is that ‘not every broccoli is create equally” (2).” (Basically a FULL omission that ORAC is not empirically based).
1. Cao, G.H.; Sofic, E; Prior, R. L. Antioxidant capacity of tea and common vegetable. Journal Of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 1996, 44, 3426-3431.
2. Ou, B; Huang, D.; Hampsch-Woodlill M.; Flanagan, J.; Deemer, E.; Analysis or antioxidant activity of common vegetable employing Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) and Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) assays. A competitive study. Journal Of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 2002, in press.
Additional links: http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/articles/2004/03/antioxidants-tes ‘An ORAC Update’ by Ginny Bank & Alex Schauss
http://intl.ajcn.or/cgi/contant/full/87/5/1247?ck=nck “The validity and reproducibility of food-frequency questionnaires-based total antioxidant capacity estimates in Swedish women” by Susanne Rautiainen, Mauro Serefini, Ralf Morganstern Ronald L. Prior and Alicja Wolk (this article has a large bibliography of data and published studies on the nonefficacious ORAC Scale).