So what to do?Apple's Power Lies in the Peel
The anti-cancer power of apples may lie in the peel, according to a report in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Analysis of apple peels found a high concentration of phytochemicals that have been shown to have powerful antioxidant properties against at least 3 different types of human cancer cells, including breast, colon, and liver. The peel also proved to contain the majority anti-cancer and anti-disease compounds compared to apple flesh.
Anti-cancer power in the peel? (/ orange pith)
-
- Posts: 23
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Thu 10 May 2007 09:11
Anti-cancer power in the peel? (/ orange pith)
Today in my Medscape newsletter:
You know why the peel contains more of those so called anti-cancer agents (flavonoids)?
Because they are anti-nutrients as well. They are concentrated in the peel because the peel is the only 'line of defence' against unwanted consumption. Humans, which are 'targetted consumers' (as they spread the seeds), are less affected by these specific anti-nutrients than very small animals (unless they are specifically 'armed' against those antinutrients).
Now about those 'anti-cancer' agents:
They have anti-cancer properties because they have anti-cell properties; they are toxic to some extend (some more, some less). You may see them as natural drugs / medicins.
And what we certainly dont need is taking drugs / medicins to 'prevent disease', as ALL (including natural) drugs have side effects.
Also remember that most synthetical drugs are based on the properties of 'natural medicins'; there is no distinction possible, other than whether they are synthetised, or not.
You cannot prevent cancer through medication.
Even taking large amounts of 'anti-cancer agents' (with severe adverse health effects) could never prevent cancer when you still ingest toxins on a daily basis (cooked food, cigarette smoke etc).
The only thing that can, is minimizing the intake of those toxins.
Because they are anti-nutrients as well. They are concentrated in the peel because the peel is the only 'line of defence' against unwanted consumption. Humans, which are 'targetted consumers' (as they spread the seeds), are less affected by these specific anti-nutrients than very small animals (unless they are specifically 'armed' against those antinutrients).
Now about those 'anti-cancer' agents:
They have anti-cancer properties because they have anti-cell properties; they are toxic to some extend (some more, some less). You may see them as natural drugs / medicins.
And what we certainly dont need is taking drugs / medicins to 'prevent disease', as ALL (including natural) drugs have side effects.
Also remember that most synthetical drugs are based on the properties of 'natural medicins'; there is no distinction possible, other than whether they are synthetised, or not.
You cannot prevent cancer through medication.
Even taking large amounts of 'anti-cancer agents' (with severe adverse health effects) could never prevent cancer when you still ingest toxins on a daily basis (cooked food, cigarette smoke etc).
The only thing that can, is minimizing the intake of those toxins.
johndela1 wrote:
Normal cells can disarm these compounds, but apparently abnormal cells can´t do it so efficiently - or at all - since they have metabolic alterations. That´s why also malignant brain cancer responds well to ketogenic diets, because tumoral tissue can´t tolerate the shift from glucose to ketone metabolism, while normal neurons can perfectly do it.
I wouldn´t take chemo even if I had cancer. I would rely instead on mild-toxic - not so damaging as chemoterapy drugs - substances present in vegetables and other natural sources. For instance, normal cells can protect themselves against laetrile (vit B17) - which is present in apricot seeds - while cancerous cells can´t.I wouldn't take chemo unless, I had a reason not just as a preventitive thing.
Normal cells can disarm these compounds, but apparently abnormal cells can´t do it so efficiently - or at all - since they have metabolic alterations. That´s why also malignant brain cancer responds well to ketogenic diets, because tumoral tissue can´t tolerate the shift from glucose to ketone metabolism, while normal neurons can perfectly do it.
That is a form of chemo...sungvimil wrote:johndela1 wrote:I wouldn´t take chemo even if I had cancer. I would rely instead on mild-toxic - not so damaging as chemoterapy drugs - substances present in vegetables and other natural sources. For instance, normal cells can protect themselves against laetrile (vit B17) - which is present in apricot seeds - while cancerous cells can´t.I wouldn't take chemo unless, I had a reason not just as a preventitive thing.
Chemotherapy is the use of chemical substances to treat disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
There are cases where traditional chemo can help. There are cases where it has saved lives. I believe it has a use but is widly misused.
I wouldn't jump at the chance to do it if I had cancer but I also wouldn't rule it out. There are also ways to make it much more effective when combined with testing which type to use based on the response of the specific cancer.
johndela1 wrote:
You are right in the definition of chemoterapy. As the link you have posted explains, cytotoxic drugs used for treating cancer are toxic for normal cells also. I was just making a distinction between different degrees of citotoxicity shown by different types of chemical substances; intravenous vitamin C vs. vincristin, for example. Some non-conventional substances aren´t toxic for normal cells, at all.
RRM wrote:
From your link: ¨In its modern-day use, it refers primarily to cytotoxic drugs used to treat cancer. In its non-oncological use, the term may also refer to antibiotics...¨Chemotherapy is the use of chemical substances to treat disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
You are right in the definition of chemoterapy. As the link you have posted explains, cytotoxic drugs used for treating cancer are toxic for normal cells also. I was just making a distinction between different degrees of citotoxicity shown by different types of chemical substances; intravenous vitamin C vs. vincristin, for example. Some non-conventional substances aren´t toxic for normal cells, at all.
Maybe I should have used that term to make the distinction; traditional vs. alternative chemo.There are cases where traditional chemo can help. There are cases where it has saved lives. I believe it has a use but is widly misused.
RRM wrote:
... and most of the pesticides present in the fruit are there too.Yes. Not just because of the fiber, but also because of the antinutrients.
-
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28
Pith of Orange
Is that white layer of flesh edible? Are they anti-nutrients?
Re: Pith of Orange
It tastes bitter, because of the anti nutrients.
Its edible, but not good for you.
Its edible, but not good for you.