Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

AP Article on Antioxidants

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tom Cular - 12 Dec 2005 11:10 GMT
Experts Urge Less Focus on Antioxidants
By J.M. HIRSCH
Associated Press Writer

Tired of trying to keep track of all the so-called superfoods you're
supposed to eat?
You know, oregano that packs 42 times more antioxidants than apples, cooked
tomatoes that may prevent prostate cancer, and chocolate and wine that may
or may not be health foods?

Then here's the good news - you can stop trying.

Leading researchers say all those breathless headlines, food packaging
claims and seemingly contradictory studies about what antioxidants can and
can't do have fostered a faulty silver bullet mind-set that can hinder
health more than help.

Instead, experts advise focusing on balance, moderation and variety, and
leaving the phytochemicals, flavanols and phenolic acids to scientists.

Researcher Jeffrey Blumberg acknowledges that "doesn't seem to be a very
sexy message. People would rather be told there is a superfood, a term I
hate because in fact there is no such thing."

Foods labeled as antioxidant-rich - everything from bottled tea to bags of
frozen berries - have become a $526 million industry that continues to grow.

Even foods that otherwise have seen sales slump are getting a boost from
antioxidant claims, says Phil Lempert, a food industry analyst and editor of
SupermarketGuru.com. Sales of blueberry preserves, for example, are up,
though overall jam sales are down.

"It's clear that regardless of whether or not people understand what 'rich
in antioxidants' means, it is certainly a logo or a stamp that says 'Buy me!
I'm going to help you live forever,'" Lempert says.

Maybe. Maybe not. Experts aren't suggesting antioxidants aren't important or
that people shouldn't eat foods that contain them. Instead, they're saying
not enough is known about how they work to justify focusing one's diet on
any particular antioxidant or food.

It's all about quashing free radicals, harmful chemicals produced by the
body and found in the environment that damage cells. That damage has been
linked to a host of chronic conditions, from heart problems to cancer, even
aging.

Diets rich in antioxidants - which are in countless foods - seem to minimize
this damage. What's not clear is whether that benefit is due to the
antioxidants themselves or to the overall diet and the way the antioxidants
and other nutrients in it interact.

The evidence increasingly suggests the latter, says Howard Sesso, a
professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. That means
eating patterns make a difference, but probably not eating particular foods
or taking supplements.

Diets rich in beta carotene, for example, have been found to help prevent
heart disease and cancer, but studies of beta carotene supplements alone
have been mostly disappointing. And there is little evidence that one
antioxidant is better than another.

Also unknown is whether quantity counts. Manufacturers brag about the amount
of antioxidants in their products, but studies have yet to establish that
more is better, or whether the body can even absorb the amounts contained in
most foods.

Blumberg, a scientist at Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition,
worries that the hype about antioxidants creates a false sense of security.
Eating a daily handful of almonds - believed good for heart health - won't
make up for a diet otherwise laden with saturated fat and cholesterol.

So how should people work antioxidants into their diets? Think big picture.

Healthy diets are like healthy investment portfolios - diversified, says
John Erdman Jr., a professor of internal medicine at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Eating a variety of produce and whole grains
ensures the best mix of all nutrients.

There's probably not much harm in eating a lot of blueberries, but that
can't be said of all antioxidant-rich foods. The calories in fruit juice and
alcohol, for example, add up quickly and obesity negates the benefits of
even the healthiest foods.

Even people trying to address specific health problems would do better to
eat a broad mix of foods than to tailor their diets around certain
ingredients, the experts say.

"When people get prostate cancer, all of the sudden they make all the
changes in their diet," Erdman says. "We don't even know if those changes
make a difference then. But we know that if people eat that diet before
getting cancer, you don't tend to get it."

Consumers also must be critical of companies' health claims about
antioxidants, many of which are unregulated and unsupported by science. And
studies often are funded by the industries that benefit when products are
dubbed superfoods.

Bottom line - eat a balanced diet and don't get hung up on the particulars.
I. P. Freely - 13 Dec 2005 00:23 GMT
"Tom Cular" posted ...
> Experts Urge Less Focus on Antioxidants
> By J.M. HIRSCH
> Associated Press Writer

> Tired of trying to keep track of all the so-called superfoods you're
> supposed to eat?
> Then here's the good news - you can stop trying.
> Leading researchers say . . . Snip

I've been preaching this since the '90s, and I surely wasn't the first.
Mother Nature packages nutrients with the OTHER micronutrients necessary to
metabolize them, and we're probably closer to cracking the DNA code than the
"micronutrient code".

I.P.
Tom Cular - 13 Dec 2005 01:51 GMT
I.P.,
I'm certainly not a nutrition expert, but the idea of a balanced diet was
taught to me as a child, (I've since reduced the red meat  and fat intake. I
haven't stopped it, because as you've often said, QOL IS IMPORTANT ). If I
were to follow the nutritional supplement recomendations offered by the
famous Dr. D. in FL I'd have a tough time paying for , not to mention
swallowing all that @#&+ ( I tried to be nice )

Tom

> "Tom Cular" posted ...
>> Experts Urge Less Focus on Antioxidants
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> I.P.
I. P. Freely - 13 Dec 2005 05:42 GMT
> I've reduced the red meat  and fat intake. I haven't stopped it, because
> as you've often said, QOL IS IMPORTANT ).

So are many nutrients common in red meats. We CAN get them elsewhere, but
occasional, very lean, trimmed, properly cooked red meat surely is a tasty,
convenient, and generally healthy way to get them. And we NEED some sat fats
(but the only folks who say we need trans fats sell trans fats.)

Would Glassman have avoided PC if he had dropped his high-sat-fat diet
decades ago?
Did the huge quantities of sat fats, including red meat, I ate until the
1980s give me PC and CC?
Will his continued fatty diet or my continued low-sat-fat diet hurt or help
either one of us in the future?
Statistics and genes have their opinions, but nobody knows about any one
individual.

BTW, bystanders: pork is red meat, despite what their ads say. Red meat =
mammal meat. (Someone actually asked me about that once.)

I.P.
Bob Anthony - 14 Dec 2005 22:21 GMT
I wonder why the Asians get less pc than the western countries. Must be
something that we ate. But some have (Japanese) a higher rate of stomach
cancer. Who really knows how to prevent and protect and really cure. Let
me know asap.
I. P. Freely - 14 Dec 2005 23:27 GMT
>I wonder why the Asians get less pc than the western countries. Must be
>something that we ate. But some have (Japanese) a higher rate of stomach
>cancer. Who really knows how to prevent and protect and really cure. Let me
>know asap.

I could tell ya, but Glassman would tell ya just the opposite, leaving you
back at Square One. So it's just like PC advice: get it from the experts --  
universities, hospitals, huge peer-reviewed independent trials, megastudies
of many huge peer-reviewed independent trials, etc. -- rather than us
anecdotal weiners.

But if your genes encourage cancer and you live in the western world, all
you can do is shift the odds a bit (?) in your favor, so there's no point
getting absolutely obsessed by diet.

I.P.
(Hint: What I'd tell ya COMES from those experts.)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.