[volleyball]

Hear is a news article that under certain circumstances, vitamin C goes from a cancer fighter to a promoter.
Discovery Health :: HealthDay :: Vitamin C Plus Fat Might Spur Cancer

How are we ever going to know what is good for us?

[tanyatype1]

That's interesting. I quickly scanned to article, but I guess taking the Vitamin C first thing in the morning on an empty stomach is the way to go. Actually no, not for me 'cause I put fattening cream in my coffees. Hmmmm.

[REDLAN]

It all sounds very exciting, if you ignore several somewhat pertinent facts...

All the study demonstrates is that vitamin c when in the presence of 10% fat accelerates the conversion of nitrites to nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are believed to increase cancer risk.

1) the conditions are rather specific - i.e. 10% fat, why not 11% or 9%? Is there any data indicating that this is a typical environment in a human stomach? I suspect not, seeing as the typical human diet usually contains somewhat more than 10% fat. If the condition doesn't exist then the research doesn't have any relevance.

2) Your body has to deal with cancer causing chemicals all the time. It has a very large and adequate array of cancer fighting chemicals all of it's own. What matters is the dose. A cancer causing chemical can only cause cancer once it's threshold dose is reached - below this dose it has no effect. The study does not indicate whether the doses reached any known thresholds - don't think it was done in that well known stomach mimic - the good old fashioned test-tube by any chance?

3) Find me the clinical study that shows that vitamin C is linked with any kind of stomach/bowel cancer, and I will wire you large sums of money (I was thinking 5 quid) - and I bet there are a load of studies into vitamin C out there. If there was a link it would already be there.

Writing in the September issue of Gut, the team theorized that this interaction explains why vitamin C supplements have not had significant success in reducing cancer risk.

so let me get this right... the researchers are theorising that vitamin C both protects against cancer and promotes cancer at the same time...

hmmm I see we have nipped off to fairy never never land yet again - they're claiming that vit C's cancer fighting benefits are reversed in the presence of fat.... ergo if you administer vit c you increase cancer risk (it's protective benefit is lost)... and so should increase cancer risk, not have NO effect...

...bang head on table... bang head on table...

All the study does is show that vit C does something unexpected under certain special conditions - it's interesting because it gives researchers an insight into other actions of vitamin C, and may mean that vitamin C may work differently in adipose tissue, or have a role in digestion, but it most certainly does not mean that vitamin C causes cancer.

the chances are the effect is not significant.

[wiseguy]

So I guess if you have a glass of OJ with your bacon and eggs you're a goner. What a load of garbage. There is absolutely nothing that a person can eat, drink, inhale, or come in contact with, that some fool won't think it has the potential to cause cancer.

[Olidus]

Crazy - It almost seems that everything causes Cancer these days.
Infact - I bet somehow, someway, me being on DF is giving me Cancer as we speak.

[princesslinda]

Originally Posted by Olidus

Crazy - It almost seems that everything causes Cancer these days.
Infact - I bet somehow, someway, me being on DF is giving me Cancer as we speak.

Probably from waves radiating from the computer screen.

[Olidus]

Originally Posted by princesslinda

Probably from waves radiating from the computer screen.

OMG!
I was just joking - now you have me thinking, and GOOGLE'ING x1000

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by volleyball

... How are we ever going to know what is good for us?

A good rule of thumb is that stuff you get around the perimeter of the supermarket is generally good for you - fresh produces, meat, fish, nuts, milk, yoghurt, fresh pasta etc. Stuff you get in the aisles is typically loaded with preservatives, colourants and artificial sweeteners. And too much of it is probably bad for you. Generally, natural foods are better for you than processed foods.

As far as cancer causing cancer is concerned, it can be argued that anything that increases oxidative stress does this. Which includes eating, breathing and exercise.

[dgrilli]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

A good rule of thumb is that stuff you get around the perimeter of the supermarket is generally good for you - fresh produces, meat, fish, nuts, milk, yoghurt, fresh pasta etc. Stuff you get in the aisles is typically loaded with preservatives, colourants and artificial sweeteners. And too much of it is probably bad for you. Generally, natural foods are better for you than processed foods.

As far as cancer causing cancer is concerned, it can be argued that anything that increases oxidative stress does this. Which includes eating, breathing and exercise.

Like about whats left in the perimeter in my grocery stores about 6 1/2 percent Good 93 1/2 MSG,Trans Fat, ect.. **** even the bread I used to get that had great ingredients now has High Fruitcose Corn Syrup in it.

It's like there is this Giant Conspiracy to make me sick and go to the Doctor.

It's Like getting a Lipton Ice Green Tea sweetened with HONEY, I then read the label and guess what HIGH FRUITCOSE CORN SYRUP. Now my question to the Lipton Con Artist Company why would you need anything else to sweeten your Tea if it is sweetened with Honey. ( Hay Don't Label It Honey if it's HIGH FRUITCOSE SYRUP ) This has got to stop. This like labeling something as 13 Carbs and it really contains 210 carbs in my book.

LIPTON Company thinks we are idiots. They put one molecule of Honey and the rest POISON.

LIPTON I HATE YOU

[wiseguy]

Originally Posted by dgrilli

Like about whats left in the perimeter in my grocery stores about 6 1/2 percent Good 93 1/2 MSG,Trans Fat, ect.. **** even the bread I used to get that had great ingredients now has High Fruitcose Corn Syrup in it.

It's like there is this Giant Conspiracy to make me sick and go to the Doctor.

It's Like getting a Lipton Ice Green Tea sweetened with HONEY, I then read the label and guess what HIGH FRUITCOSE CORN SYRUP. Now my question to the Lipton Con Artist Company why would you need anything else to sweeten your Tea if it is sweetened with Honey. ( Hay Don't Label It Honey if it's HIGH FRUITCOSE SYRUP ) This has got to stop. This like labeling something as 13 Carbs and it really contains 210 carbs in my book.

LIPTON Company thinks we are idiots. They put one molecule of Honey and the rest POISON.

LIPTON I HATE YOU

I hear ya.. high fructose corn syrup should be outlawed. I know it would be difficult, but everyone needs to refuse to buy anything that has this listed in the ingredients. I already have.

[REDLAN]

They put one molecule of Honey and the rest POISON.

I was rather curious about the sugar content of honey, and so looked it up. Be prepared to be very scared...

...or more likely amused

HFCS - high fructose corn syrup contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Sucrose - ordinary table sugar, contains 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

Honey, that pure natural allegedly really good for you product contains 38% fructose and 31% glucose (the rest is water and other sugars such as maltose).

Amusingly the ratio of fructose to glucose in honey works out to be 55% fructose to 45% glucose.

Doesn't this ratio sound rather familiar?

I can see it now...

Liptons tea with a new wonder ingredient....

High Fructose Honey Syrup

sugar is sugar is sugar...

your body really can't tell the difference between fructose derived in a shiny factory from mashed up sweetcorn, and fructose harvested by hive insects from flower pollen.

honestly, it really can't.

source: Honey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[JediSkipdogg]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

A good rule of thumb is that stuff you get around the perimeter of the supermarket is generally good for you - fresh produces, meat, fish, nuts, milk, yoghurt, fresh pasta etc. Stuff you get in the aisles is typically loaded with preservatives, colourants and artificial sweeteners. And too much of it is probably bad for you. Generally, natural foods are better for you than processed foods.

I partially have to disagree with that and say that the rule of thumb should be if YOU grow it it's good for you.

The problem is pesticides are used on the fruits and vegetables. And I'm sure there's cases of cancers linked to even ones we use today. Heck, meat, fish, milk could all be argued that they include products given to the cows to make them fatter and by us eating them it's like we ate them.

Nothing is good for you unless you live off your own land.

[volleyball]

Originally Posted by REDLAN

I was rather curious about the sugar content of honey, and so looked it up. Be prepared to be very scared...

...or more likely amused

HFCS - high fructose corn syrup contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Sucrose - ordinary table sugar, contains 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

Honey, that pure natural allegedly really good for you product contains 38% fructose and 31% glucose (the rest is water and other sugars such as maltose).

Amusingly the ratio of fructose to glucose in honey works out to be 55% fructose to 45% glucose.

Doesn't this ratio sound rather familiar?

I can see it now...

Liptons tea with a new wonder ingredient....

High Fructose Honey Syrup

sugar is sugar is sugar...

your body really can't tell the difference between fructose derived in a shiny factory from mashed up sweetcorn, and fructose harvested by hive insects from flower pollen.

honestly, it really can't.

source: Honey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not see anything difinitive that said HFCS was the same as honey. Yes the percentages may be the same but there are other variables. HFCS is processed, honey is not. honey has some pollen in it which is good for us, HFCS does not. Rolled oats and steel cut oats are the exact same grain, yet even that will affect us differently. Check you BG after eating one and then next day the other.
HFCS is part of modern life, it is a cheap sweetener. I am glad it is around, that means that sugar or honey or even splenda is in less demand and I can afford it. HFCS is bad for diabetics as is milk for lactose intollerant and wheat for celiacs. Doesn't mean it is bad for everyone. I know HFCS is bad, I've consumed less of it in the years since I found out than in the week before I learned.

[wiseguy]

Originally Posted by REDLAN

your body really can't tell the difference between fructose derived in a shiny factory from mashed up sweetcorn, and fructose harvested by hive insects from flower pollen.

honestly, it really can't.

Not true. The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream. The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat.

Honey is sugar, but is natural and unrefined, and contains a host of nutrients and enzymes that have a multitude of beneficial attributes.

High fructose corn syrup has no nutritional value.

[REDLAN]

the issue with fructose as I understand it as follows...

the metabolic pathway for fructose bypasses a metabolic control point. This has been known for the last 20+ years (I was taught this when I did biochem). The significance is not entirely clear, however my understanding is as follows -

fructose can not be metabolised directly for energy - mammalian hexose enzymes have a very high affinity for glucose - so fructose has to be converted to either glucose or fat.

The rate at which fructose is converted to glucose depends on the fructose:glucose concentration gradient - e.g. low glucose/high fructose will enable the body to convert fructose to glucose. Otherwise leftover fructose is converted to fat.

generally speaking though, fructose is converted to fat and is stored in adipose tissue. This isn't very exciting and is what happens to excess glucose anyway.

much is made of the ratio of the fructose to glucose ratio. I personally believe that this is bogus. However the argument runs that a 50:50 fructose:glucose mix is OK, and doesn't cause metabolic problems. Sucrose has a 50:50 mix. Deviating from this 50:50 ratio, it is argued causes metabolic problems.

I did not see anything difinitive that said HFCS was the same as honey.

The argument against HFCS was that it has a fructose:glucose ratio of 55:45. My point was that this ratio is identical to honey.

ergo...

if you argue that HFCS is bad for you because the ratio of fructose:glucose is 55:45 then you have to argue that honey is also bad for you.

Honey is sugar, but is natural and unrefined, and contains a host of nutrients and enzymes that have a multitude of beneficial attributes.

Sorry this argument is bogus and is used time and time again - the notion that natural somehow equals healthy, and artificial equals unhealthy has no scientific basis.

there is nothing to indicate that artificially made chemicals are any different than naturally made ones - if this was the case then a huge amount of scientific endeavour would simply collapse.

If you believe that honey has nutritional value, while HFCS does not, then this must mean that you believe that maltose has significant nutritional value. Eating local honey is supposed to alleviate symptoms of hayfever, however I don't know if there is any solid clinical evidence to back this up.

(actually maltose is composed of 2 glucose molecules bonded together - which if you are smart you will realise that it would alter the fructose:glucose ratio of honey)

For those who don't wish to read the stuff above (it is rather dull), then the point to take away is as follows...

the nutritional value of honey is actually very similar to the nutritional value of HFCS.

or to put it another way...

sugar is sugar, is sugar, is sugar

ps I like these kind of debates volleyball and wiseguy - I'm not trying (or intending) to flame anyone who disagrees, and I don't feel that this is anything other than a friendly difference of opinion in which we get the opportunity to test out different view through debate (",)