5 ms·

From my understanding, the article means the "environment in which your body finds itself in" rather than "you're living in an environment and that's all the ma

by miseg 11y ago

From my understanding, the article means the "environment in which your body finds itself in" rather than "you're living in an environment and that's all the matters". What I mean is that much of your "environment" is what you, your body, puts in itself and does to itself. (In other words, eat well and exercise to give your body a good "environment".)

akerro 11y ago
>"environment in which your body finds itself in Yes, you are what you eat. If you eat cancerous substances once per week, you put yourself in risk zone. It's what you eat, drink and breath with build your body cells, you give them weak building material and treat them poorly, they are weak and can be attacked easier. Already decades ago some scientists said that cancer is environmental and you decided whether you got it or not. Eat healthy, not processed meat, fresh vegetables (not frozen), drink clean water. The same rule applies to other illnesses like alzheimer, it's something "new". First alzheimer was described in modern history, while thousands of others illnesses were described and diagnosed even 3000 years ago by Egiptians.
- danielschonfeld 11y ago
  I think both of you have over simplified a much more complex eco system. It's not a winners vs losers. Yes, sure, eat shit die faster but that's not what an environmental vs bad gene pool comes to teach us. If cancer was an absolute case of being born to the bad gene pool we'd have to tackle the problem in how do we advance our genes to be more error resistive. Being that it's more of an environmental, the problem suddenly change to how do we as a whole bring up our environment several levels up to a more healthier region. You can et the healthiest stuff there is, it still won't help you when the can lining is full of BPA. You can excursive every day and it won't help you if the weights contain materials you breathe which disrupt cellular functions. You can eat the most nutritious fish and vegetables and you're still going to be hit by the cancerous materials they've been brought up in. Adopting the attitude you do, does nothing to better everybody. Only creates yet another us vs them partition in an already well divided society.
  - miseg 11y ago
    Great point. For me it means there are separate implications: 1. What you can do to help your body day to day (and longer term about where you live, for example) 2. What society and policy makers can do to improve the environment as a whole
    - miseg 11y ago
      I would like to know why there are down-votes :)
  - tkyjonathan 11y ago
    I do not fully agree with your point, because it is not black or white, it is a spectrum. So, short of living next to a leaking power station or contaminated waters, the food you eat is the most intimate way you make contact with your environment. Do not forget that your body fights free radicals and oxidative stress. If you give it the proper nutrition it needs to repair itself and eliminate waste then you are statistically in a very good position. Also, about Genes: you may have genes that are more sensitive to certain chronic diseases, but it is your environment that activates those genes. Example, if you are at risk of diabetes, but eat very well, you may never get diabetes.
- noondip 11y ago
  Sorry to nit-pick, but can you tell me why you perceive frozen vegetables to be cancer-promoting, whereas (unprocessed) meat not to be? Edit: Actually, you may be right about the former, at least w.r.t. frozen cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, and some inert enzymes. This is pretty interesting: > Frozen broccoli can provide a cheaper product, with a longer shelf life and less preparation time than fresh broccoli. We previously showed that several commercially available frozen broccoli products do not retain the ability to generate the cancer-preventative agent sulforaphane. We hypothesized that this was because the necessary hydrolyzing enzyme myrosinase was destroyed during blanching, as part of the processing that frozen broccoli undergoes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915112 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915112 Good news, though, at least if you like radishes: > Daikon radish root supported some sulforaphane formation even when heated at 125 °C for 10 min, a time and temperature comparable to or greater than microwave cooking. Daikon radish (0.25%) added to frozen broccoli that was then allowed to thaw supported sulforaphane formation without any visual alteration to that of untreated broccoli. What's more: > Sulforaphane has been shown to provide cancer prevention through a number of mechanisms including the upregulation of detoxification enzymes and epigenetic changes. Optimal temperature and pH for sulforaphane formation from broccoli was determined. Sulforaphane formation was measured in three commercially frozen broccoli samples pre- and post-cooking. The results show that in these products, there was very little potential to form sulforaphane prior to cooking and essentially none after the recommended cooking method was performed. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464613000510 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464613... Looks like sprinkling some radishes, horseradish, and even wasabi revitalizes the sulforaphane production, though. Not such good news for kale though - looks like we're better off eating it fresh than frozen, indeed (in vitro, cancer cells were suppressed ~10x more with fresh Brassica) > Brassica vegetables contain a diverse range of phytochemicals with biological properties such as antioxidant and anticancer activity. However, knowledge about how biological activities are affected by processing is lacking. A green cultivar and a red cultivar of curly kale were evaluated for water/methanol-soluble phytochemicals before and after processing involving blanching, freeze storage, and boil-in-bag heat treatment. In both kale cultivars, processing resulted in a significant decrease of total phenolics, antioxidant capacity, and content and distribution of flavonols, anthocyanins, hydroxycinnamic acids, glucosinolates, and vitamin C. Interestingly, the red curly kale cultivar had a higher capacity to withstand thermal loss of phytochemicals. The extracts of both green and red curly kale inhibited the cell proliferation of three human colon cancer cell lines (Caco-2, HT-29, and HCT 116). However, extracts from fresh plant material had a significantly stronger antiproliferative effect than extracts from processed plant material. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf300875f http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf300875f

by miseg 11y ago

akerro 11y ago

>"environment in which your body finds itself in Yes, you are what you eat. If you eat cancerous substances once per week, you put yourself in risk zone. It's what you eat, drink and breath with build your body cells, you give them weak building material and treat them poorly, they are weak and can be attacked easier. Already decades ago some scientists said that cancer is environmental and you decided whether you got it or not. Eat healthy, not processed meat, fresh vegetables (not frozen), drink clean water. The same rule applies to other illnesses like alzheimer, it's something "new". First alzheimer was described in modern history, while thousands of others illnesses were described and diagnosed even 3000 years ago by Egiptians.

danielschonfeld 11y ago
I think both of you have over simplified a much more complex eco system. It's not a winners vs losers. Yes, sure, eat shit die faster but that's not what an environmental vs bad gene pool comes to teach us. If cancer was an absolute case of being born to the bad gene pool we'd have to tackle the problem in how do we advance our genes to be more error resistive. Being that it's more of an environmental, the problem suddenly change to how do we as a whole bring up our environment several levels up to a more healthier region. You can et the healthiest stuff there is, it still won't help you when the can lining is full of BPA. You can excursive every day and it won't help you if the weights contain materials you breathe which disrupt cellular functions. You can eat the most nutritious fish and vegetables and you're still going to be hit by the cancerous materials they've been brought up in. Adopting the attitude you do, does nothing to better everybody. Only creates yet another us vs them partition in an already well divided society.
- miseg 11y ago
  Great point. For me it means there are separate implications: 1. What you can do to help your body day to day (and longer term about where you live, for example) 2. What society and policy makers can do to improve the environment as a whole
  - miseg 11y ago
    I would like to know why there are down-votes :)
- tkyjonathan 11y ago
  I do not fully agree with your point, because it is not black or white, it is a spectrum. So, short of living next to a leaking power station or contaminated waters, the food you eat is the most intimate way you make contact with your environment. Do not forget that your body fights free radicals and oxidative stress. If you give it the proper nutrition it needs to repair itself and eliminate waste then you are statistically in a very good position. Also, about Genes: you may have genes that are more sensitive to certain chronic diseases, but it is your environment that activates those genes. Example, if you are at risk of diabetes, but eat very well, you may never get diabetes.
noondip 11y ago
Sorry to nit-pick, but can you tell me why you perceive frozen vegetables to be cancer-promoting, whereas (unprocessed) meat not to be? Edit: Actually, you may be right about the former, at least w.r.t. frozen cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, and some inert enzymes. This is pretty interesting: > Frozen broccoli can provide a cheaper product, with a longer shelf life and less preparation time than fresh broccoli. We previously showed that several commercially available frozen broccoli products do not retain the ability to generate the cancer-preventative agent sulforaphane. We hypothesized that this was because the necessary hydrolyzing enzyme myrosinase was destroyed during blanching, as part of the processing that frozen broccoli undergoes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915112 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915112 Good news, though, at least if you like radishes: > Daikon radish root supported some sulforaphane formation even when heated at 125 °C for 10 min, a time and temperature comparable to or greater than microwave cooking. Daikon radish (0.25%) added to frozen broccoli that was then allowed to thaw supported sulforaphane formation without any visual alteration to that of untreated broccoli. What's more: > Sulforaphane has been shown to provide cancer prevention through a number of mechanisms including the upregulation of detoxification enzymes and epigenetic changes. Optimal temperature and pH for sulforaphane formation from broccoli was determined. Sulforaphane formation was measured in three commercially frozen broccoli samples pre- and post-cooking. The results show that in these products, there was very little potential to form sulforaphane prior to cooking and essentially none after the recommended cooking method was performed. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464613000510 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756464613... Looks like sprinkling some radishes, horseradish, and even wasabi revitalizes the sulforaphane production, though. Not such good news for kale though - looks like we're better off eating it fresh than frozen, indeed (in vitro, cancer cells were suppressed ~10x more with fresh Brassica) > Brassica vegetables contain a diverse range of phytochemicals with biological properties such as antioxidant and anticancer activity. However, knowledge about how biological activities are affected by processing is lacking. A green cultivar and a red cultivar of curly kale were evaluated for water/methanol-soluble phytochemicals before and after processing involving blanching, freeze storage, and boil-in-bag heat treatment. In both kale cultivars, processing resulted in a significant decrease of total phenolics, antioxidant capacity, and content and distribution of flavonols, anthocyanins, hydroxycinnamic acids, glucosinolates, and vitamin C. Interestingly, the red curly kale cultivar had a higher capacity to withstand thermal loss of phytochemicals. The extracts of both green and red curly kale inhibited the cell proliferation of three human colon cancer cell lines (Caco-2, HT-29, and HCT 116). However, extracts from fresh plant material had a significantly stronger antiproliferative effect than extracts from processed plant material. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf300875f http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf300875f