Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
pipeline.corante.com
Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#2While the logic here may be sound, you would expect the statistics to bear it out and since antioxidants are a well-studied area even weak correlation between antioxidants and cancer should be present in these studies and to my knowledge, it's not.
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#3While the logic here may be sound, you would expect the statistics to bear it out and since antioxidants are a well-studied area even weak correlation between antioxidants and cancer should be present in these studies and to my knowledge, it's not.
It's entirely possible that antioxidants make it less likely for you to get cancer but more likely to make cancer worse once you have it. Depending on how the two effects interact, the correlation could go either way.
Interesting random blog page describing research that shows a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet may actually be bad for you: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacie...
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#4While the logic here may be sound, you would expect the statistics to bear it out and since antioxidants are a well-studied area even weak correlation between antioxidants and cancer should be present in these studies and to my knowledge, it's not.
It's entirely possible that antioxidants make it less likely for you to get cancer but more likely to make cancer worse once you have it. Depending on how the two effects interact, the correlation could go either way. Interesting random blog page describing research that shows a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet may actually be bad for you: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacie...
Ah, that is a good point. I hadn't thought of that. It should be possible to test for that with present data though, so you would think that somebody would have uncovered it before now since antioxidants are apparently given to cancer patients as a form of treatment. If it increased mortality rates in cancer patients looking at the data should be able to uncover that.
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#5While the logic here may be sound, you would expect the statistics to bear it out and since antioxidants are a well-studied area even weak correlation between antioxidants and cancer should be present in these studies and to my knowledge, it's not.
It's entirely possible that antioxidants make it less likely for you to get cancer but more likely to make cancer worse once you have it. Depending on how the two effects interact, the correlation could go either way. Interesting random blog page describing research that shows a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet may actually be bad for you: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacie...
two notes from that blog posting:
> Plants have no claws or teeth, nor can they run from predators, so they have chemical defenses instead.
some do, sure. but plenty of plants rely on animals to disperse their seeds, and making it dangerous to eat them is an evolutionary mistake. fruits taste good because they want you to eat them, process their seeds, and 'deposit' them elsewhere in the world.
>After 7.3 years of follow-up care, the two groups had almost identical invasive cancer incidence, 16.7% in the intervention group, and 16.9% in the control group. Increasing intake of produce appeared to have no effect on cancer recurrence despite changes in blood levels of antioxidants.
and this couldn't have anything to do with anything else? environment? lifestyle? genetics? affluence? etc.? there's more than one way to get cancer, diet alone will not save you.
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's entirely possible that antioxidants make it less likely for you to get cancer but more likely to make cancer worse once you have it. Depending on how the two effects interact, the correlation could go either way. Interesting random blog page describing research that shows a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet may actually be bad for you: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacie...
Ah, that is a good point. I hadn't thought of that. It should be possible to test for that with present data though, so you would think that somebody would have uncovered it before now since antioxidants are apparently given to cancer patients as a form of treatment. If it increased mortality rates in cancer patients looking at the data should be able to uncover that.
After a little more Googling around, it looks like there are some studies showing increased cancer rates when people are given antioxidants: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/anti...
(And some going the other way, too.)
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's entirely possible that antioxidants make it less likely for you to get cancer but more likely to make cancer worse once you have it. Depending on how the two effects interact, the correlation could go either way. Interesting random blog page describing research that shows a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet may actually be bad for you: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacie...
two notes from that blog posting: > Plants have no claws or teeth, nor can they run from predators, so they have chemical defenses instead. some do, sure. but plenty of plants rely on animals to disperse their seeds, and making it dangerous to eat them is an evolutionary mistake. fruits taste good because they want you to eat them, process their seeds, and 'deposit' them elsewhere in the world. >After 7.3 years of fo…
some do, sure. but plenty of plants rely on animals to disperse their seeds...
Yes, and that's noted in the article, a few paragraphs later:
Some hunter-gatherer tribes do eat substantial amounts of fruits and vegetables (wild types, which have even higher concentrations of poisons), yet remain free of cancer and heart disease. Significantly, hunter-gatherers tend to consume more fruits than vegetables. Fruits have lower toxin levels and enable a plant to work symbiotically with animals/predators to increase reproductive success.
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
two notes from that blog posting: > Plants have no claws or teeth, nor can they run from predators, so they have chemical defenses instead. some do, sure. but plenty of plants rely on animals to disperse their seeds, and making it dangerous to eat them is an evolutionary mistake. fruits taste good because they want you to eat them, process their seeds, and 'deposit' them elsewhere in the world. >After 7.3 years of fo…
some do, sure. but plenty of plants rely on animals to disperse their seeds... Yes, and that's noted in the article, a few paragraphs later: Some hunter-gatherer tribes do eat substantial amounts of fruits and vegetables (wild types, which have even higher concentrations of poisons), yet remain free of cancer and heart disease. Significantly, hunter-gatherers tend to consume more fruits than vegetables. Fruits have l…
indeed he does. but, at the end of a large "eating a lot of plants is bad for you" essay, to tack on the short note "oh wait, fruits? maybe those aren't bad for you" type of statement undercuts the credibility of the entire argument for me.
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#9While the logic here may be sound, you would expect the statistics to bear it out and since antioxidants are a well-studied area even weak correlation between antioxidants and cancer should be present in these studies and to my knowledge, it's not.
It's entirely possible that antioxidants make it less likely for you to get cancer but more likely to make cancer worse once you have it. Depending on how the two effects interact, the correlation could go either way. Interesting random blog page describing research that shows a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet may actually be bad for you: http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2009/08/phytochemical-fallacie...
What I got from that blog post was 'there are lots of bad things in fruits and vegetables along with the good things'. Isn't that the truth for anything? Unless we start making foods that are homogeneous mixtures, every natural food that we eat will have good and bad things in it.
I somehow don't think that the solution is to have a diet that's heavy in meats and carbohydrates. I think that it would be interesting to take a look at cancer rates in Ireland (pre-potato famine). Most of the farmers/serfs there had a diet of mostly potatoes as I understand it. Did they have higher or lower cancer rates?
Re: Antioxidants and Cancer: Have we got it Backwards?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
some do, sure. but plenty of plants rely on animals to disperse their seeds... Yes, and that's noted in the article, a few paragraphs later: Some hunter-gatherer tribes do eat substantial amounts of fruits and vegetables (wild types, which have even higher concentrations of poisons), yet remain free of cancer and heart disease. Significantly, hunter-gatherers tend to consume more fruits than vegetables. Fruits have l…
indeed he does. but, at the end of a large "eating a lot of plants is bad for you" essay, to tack on the short note "oh wait, fruits? maybe those aren't bad for you" type of statement undercuts the credibility of the entire argument for me.
It does? I think the vast majority of plants that most people (at least, where I live) eat are non-fruit. Potatoes, beans, rice and other grains...