5

votes

Conundrum? So sugar feeds cancer cells, but fruit (containing sugars) contains cancer-fighting antioxidants?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 17, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Is fruit, containing natural sugars, a cancer promoter, or is fruit, as it contains antioxidants, a cancer prevention/fighter?

26b0f1261d1a0d916825bd0deeb96a21

(5798)

on September 18, 2012
at 09:28 PM

Jake, look up the meaning of "akin." I wasn't saying sugar WAS a poison, merely making a comparison to it's harmful- oh, never mind, I give up.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on September 16, 2012
at 09:47 PM

i didn't call you a retard. i said what you were saying is retarded, take it as you will but if you look at the definition of retarded - "slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress." it seems to fit just fine by me. i believe that if you think fruit is comparable to poison you show a slow intellectual process. sorry i tried to save a few words.

26b0f1261d1a0d916825bd0deeb96a21

(5798)

on September 15, 2012
at 08:10 PM

I think using the word "retarded" in a derogatory sense is extremely immature.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on September 15, 2012
at 02:49 AM

no offense, but comparing fruit to poison is retarded

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 17, 2012
at 08:26 PM

I think the weak link in his chain on logic is his contention that carbs or even insulin increases IGF-1. This is not an idea well supported by evidence.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:52 PM

Even if polyphenols *are* antioxidants, like most things, we *can* get too much of a good thing. Going crazy on antioxidants isn't always a good thing. Many of the detox processes in the body *get rid* of things by *oxidizing* them. Too many anti-oxidants can actually prevent the *normal*/*beneficial* oxidation of substances in the body.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 17, 2012
at 01:35 PM

^ Thats a fair comment, and an interesting study. Cheers.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 17, 2012
at 10:04 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11728810

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 17, 2012
at 10:04 AM

I just wanted to add something to your awesome answer; it's not completely inaccurate to refer to polyphenols as antioxidants. I've done enough (too much) iodometric titration of tea to know polyphenols do have some antioxidant activity in a test tube. And while the human body isn't a test tube, this can be important during digestion; peroxidation of pufa's can occur in the gut. This is bad. But polyphenols can inhibit this process by being antioxidants. So if you're consuming some fish oil or just cant avoid some vegetable oil, eating it with a polyphenol rich food might be a good idea.

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:46 AM

Go reread the second sentence in my answer about poison and antidote being together.

76211ec5301087de2588cfe3d6bccba9

(1178)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:35 AM

how can you be against fructose but neutral on fruit?

26b0f1261d1a0d916825bd0deeb96a21

(5798)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:30 AM

No offense, but this isn't helpful, at all. This is akin to taking poison until it kills you, then don't take poison. Or you may take poison, to build up a tolerance, until you take too much and die.

0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

(5150)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:13 AM

It might prevent cancer, but that's assuming you don't already have cancer. In which case, the fruit is not an ideal food to eat at all.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on August 17, 2012
at 02:58 AM

And thus, we have grounds for just about every nutritionism argument out there, deconstructing food to its components gets us nowhere. The good is often packaged with the bad, making for decent neutral impact in most cases. Much like the bruhaha over vegetable oils. Cold pressed vegetable oils with the vitamin E intact don't seem to screw with the liver the way the processed stuff does, making even the omega 3:6 oil balancing act arguments that I had taken as for gospel for years now a bit of a red herring.

  • 26b0f1261d1a0d916825bd0deeb96a21

    asked by

    (5798)
  • Views
    1.6K
  • Last Activity
    1430D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

4 Answers

best answer

8
Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:35 AM

Polyphenols have not been demonstrated to function as anti-oxidants in vivo. In such studies, they demonstrate no anti-oxidant effects. In fact, in high doses they cause cancer.

An good example is kaempferol. It occurs in brocolli and tea. There are studies showing that a high consumption of kaempferol while pregnant, is linked to leukemia in the unborn child. At lower doses it appears "protective". And its not only been "linked", they have the smoking gun: These flavanols/flavanoids etc, appear to be genotoxic , at least, to certain genes in varying degrees, in clinical genotoxicity studies. All chemicals in this family appear to have similar traits (to varying degrees).

The body eliminates them as quickly as a recognised toxin. They probably function via hormesis. Ie, they are somewhat carcinogenic and moderate regular amounts keep your body fit for fighting cancer like exercise keeps you ready to move. Dr Kurt Harris talks about this here:

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/28/william-munny-eats-his-vegetables.html

True anti-oxidants, are the kind that operate as such in your body, such as coenzyme q10, uric acid, etc - and they actually fight oxidative stress.

I would not take alot of polyphenols if I had cancer. I would consume moderate amounts of a broad variety of colourful veggies and fruit to prevent cancer. All these people downing reverestrol and drinking massive amounts of green tea should be aware that like exercise, you can overdo polyphenols. They are not anti-oxidants, despite them always being referred to as that.

I tend to think its safer to assume that almost every individual substance (barring to some degree water soluble vitamins and other nutrients the body can easily rid itself of in excess) that can be healthful has a "u curve" - way too little is harmful, way too much is harmful. In the middle, or just right, is where the good stuff happens.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on August 17, 2012
at 01:35 PM

^ Thats a fair comment, and an interesting study. Cheers.

Fd70d71f4f8195c3a098eda4fc817d4f

(8014)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:52 PM

Even if polyphenols *are* antioxidants, like most things, we *can* get too much of a good thing. Going crazy on antioxidants isn't always a good thing. Many of the detox processes in the body *get rid* of things by *oxidizing* them. Too many anti-oxidants can actually prevent the *normal*/*beneficial* oxidation of substances in the body.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 17, 2012
at 10:04 AM

I just wanted to add something to your awesome answer; it's not completely inaccurate to refer to polyphenols as antioxidants. I've done enough (too much) iodometric titration of tea to know polyphenols do have some antioxidant activity in a test tube. And while the human body isn't a test tube, this can be important during digestion; peroxidation of pufa's can occur in the gut. This is bad. But polyphenols can inhibit this process by being antioxidants. So if you're consuming some fish oil or just cant avoid some vegetable oil, eating it with a polyphenol rich food might be a good idea.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 17, 2012
at 10:04 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11728810

3
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 17, 2012
at 02:22 PM

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on August 17, 2012
at 08:26 PM

I think the weak link in his chain on logic is his contention that carbs or even insulin increases IGF-1. This is not an idea well supported by evidence.

3
510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:30 AM

Imagine that. Nature providing the poison and antidote together. I'm against fructose but I'm neutral on fruit (unless you're trying to lose weight). Normally I skip fruit just because I don't like it enough. But now that I know more I don't feel guilty for skipping the fruit. It's just a filler. I do advocate skipping it if you're trying to kill your sugar demons, though.

510bdda8988ed0d4b0ec0b738b4edb73

(20888)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:46 AM

Go reread the second sentence in my answer about poison and antidote being together.

76211ec5301087de2588cfe3d6bccba9

(1178)

on August 17, 2012
at 03:35 AM

how can you be against fructose but neutral on fruit?

0
155427f71750149dd3be84899f39cfb0

on September 15, 2012
at 01:43 AM

I think the real threat is processed sugars more than natural sugars. A banana is much better than highly processed high fructose corn syrup, or artificial sweeteners (which still have carbs). Your body will process the differently. This isn't to say that you should go carb/fruit crazy though.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!