Anti-cancer power in the peel? (/ orange pith)

About consuming fruits; fresh, dried or juiced.
Post Reply
esprit
Posts: 23
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007 09:11

Anti-cancer power in the peel? (/ orange pith)

Post by esprit »

Today in my Medscape newsletter:
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.
So what to do?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

The peel just contains more than the rest of the fruit. Since we already eat lots of fruits and get everything we need from that, the extra peel contents don't make much of a difference. Besides, if you prevent getting cancer, you don't need anti-cancer compounds anyway. ;)
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

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.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I agree with Oscar. This might seem too radical, but chemo therapy is anti cancer. It's also toxic. I wouldn't take chemo unless, I had a reason not just as a preventitive thing.
sungvimil
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed 16 May 2007 14:18

Post by sungvimil »

johndela1 wrote:
I wouldn't take chemo unless, I had a reason not just as a preventitive thing.
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.

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.
sungvimil
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed 16 May 2007 14:18

Post by sungvimil »

Oscar wrote:
The peel just contains more than the rest of the fruit.
Isn´t the peel difficult to digest anyway?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

It contains more fiber than the rest of the fruit, so in that sense yes.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

sungvimil wrote:johndela1 wrote:
I wouldn't take chemo unless, I had a reason not just as a preventitive thing.
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.
That is a form of chemo...

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.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

sungvimil wrote:Isn´t the peel difficult to digest anyway?
Yes. Not just because of the fiber, but also because of the antinutrients.
sungvimil
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed 16 May 2007 14:18

Post by sungvimil »

johndela1 wrote:
Chemotherapy is the use of chemical substances to treat disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
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...¨

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.
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.
Maybe I should have used that term to make the distinction; traditional vs. alternative chemo.


RRM wrote:
Yes. Not just because of the fiber, but also because of the antinutrients.
... and most of the pesticides present in the fruit are there too.
Kookaburra
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon 18 Jan 2010 14:28

Pith of Orange

Post by Kookaburra »

Is that white layer of flesh edible? Are they anti-nutrients?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Pith of Orange

Post by RRM »

It tastes bitter, because of the anti nutrients.
Its edible, but not good for you.
Post Reply