Friday, December 31, 2010

Eat Your Veggies: They're Poisonous

In a recent post, the question came up whether it's "possible that many of the health effects of foods that have been attributed to antioxidants may actually be some other mechanism such as hormesis?" The answer to that is in the affirmative, since the putative antioxidant-containing foods, mainly fruits and vegetables, do not in fact contain much in the way of antioxidants, and in addition these compounds are rapidly cleared from the circulation, so actual physiologic concentrations of antioxidants are too low and too transient to do much of anything.

What about supplementing with antioxidants to get a larger dose? As it turns out, that might not be a good idea:
Conclusions Treatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.
A paper published in Free Radical Biology and Medicine asserts that something other than antioxidant capacity must be going on with flavonoids, which mainly come from fruits and vegetables:
Increased fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with a decreased incidence of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and other chronic diseases. The beneficial health effects of fruits and vegetables have been attributed, in part, to antioxidant flavonoids present in these foods. Large, transient increases in the total antioxidant capacity of plasma have often been observed after the consumption of flavonoid-rich foods by humans. These observations led to the hypothesis that dietary flavonoids play a significant role as antioxidants in vivo, thereby reducing chronic disease risk. This notion, however, has been challenged recently by studies on the bioavailability of flavonoids, which indicate that they reach only very low concentrations in human plasma after the consumption of flavonoid-rich foods. In addition, most flavonoids are extensively metabolized in vivo, which can affect their antioxidant capacity. Furthermore, fruits and vegetables contain many macro- and micronutrients, in addition to flavonoids, that may directly or through their metabolism affect the total antioxidant capacity of plasma. In this article, we critically review the published research in this field with the goal to assess the contribution of dietary flavonoids to the total antioxidant capacity of plasma in humans. We conclude that the large increase in plasma total antioxidant capacity observed after the consumption of flavonoid-rich foods is not caused by the flavonoids themselves, but is likely the consequence of increased uric acid levels.
In all likelihood, the fact that "flavonoids are extensively metabolized" means that the body is trying to rid itself of them, i.e. they're poisonous.
The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to
naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.
So, it appears that when you eat fruits and vegetables, you're poisoning yourself, and that's a good thing.

16 comments:

  1. Dennis, you're so well-read on this stuff, will you please come up with a primer for the nutritional heathen to help us figure out which kinds of poison are good and which are bad. I assume that high-fructose corn syrup is not "strengthening our bodies through hormesis" but rather "weakening us by creating a constant state of inflammation". Plant flavonoids are so bad that they're good, but antioxidants are just plain bad at high doses, though they are generally thought to be good at moderate and high doses.

    What is it about sugar and antioxidants that hurt us in the bad way while flavonoids and UV light hurt us in the good way? Any convenient road signs?

    My first-pass guess is that most any mild irritant is a good thing in small doses, and that we go astray mainly through addiction. You haven't railed against UV overexposure because suntan addiction isn't as common as sugar addiction. In contrast, while noöne (or hardly anybody) is strictly addicted to darkness, lots of people are addicted things that keep them in the dark (sloth, heroin, video games), etc. Am I getting warm?

    My second-pass guess adds the caveat that some people can only be poisoned in the bad way by certain things, because they lack an inherent ability to react. For UV light there are albinos, for carbs there are diabetics, so perhaps for other "good poisons" there are equivalents.

    Right now I eat mainly by common sense which is better than nothing, but perhaps not as good as Mangan-style read-before-you-eat.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Juices or tea must contain an awful lot of soluble flavonoids

    ReplyDelete
  3. B Lode: That's a good question. Fructose, for instance, might be hormetic in the relatively small doses which paleo man would have eaten; it's shunted to the liver and quickly metabolized, which indicates (to me, an amateur) that something like that may be occurring. In the absurdly high doses which are consumed today, it's just a poison full stop, would be my guess.

    Paul Jaminet wrote (somewhere) about a woman who was hospitalized from eating huge amounts of kohlrabi (or something similar), which presumably would be hormetic in normal amounts.

    I'm not sure if there's a simple rule that separates hormetic from poisonous substances/processes. By definition, however, hormesis involves very small doses of what would otherwise be poisonous, but some compounds may have no hormetic effect. Even something like secondhand smoke may be hormetic.

    "Eating by common sense" is probably a decent way to go. As Jack LaLanne said, "If man made it, don't eat it."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "hormesis involves very small doses of what would otherwise be poisonous..."

    I'll bet homeopaths are laughing like crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The beneficial health effects of fruits and vegetables have been attributed, in part, to antioxidant flavonoids present in these foods."

    Well, at least in the case of heart disease and possibly cancer health benefits can also be attributed to the fiber in fruits and vegetables. Water-soluble fiber removes cholesterol from the bloodstream, for example. Apart from its role in heart disease, cholesterol is a building block for testosterone. Male vegans and vegetarians are known to have lower testosterone levels than meat eaters - that's a bummer if you're trying to be a competitive power lifter but has all sorts of positive health benefits otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like coming to Mangan's blog since it features lots of anti-establishment, even radical lines of thoughts.

    A lot of the ideas are based on fairly poor argumentation and evidence, but there is more grist for the meal of future ideas here than in most other places on the net.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DJP said...

    A lot of the ideas are based on fairly poor argumentation and evidence, but there is more grist for the meal of future ideas here than in most other places on the net.

    Thanks! I think.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Similar effects (maybe) for radiation...

    http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=10006

    "The health effects of radiation from atomic explosions in Japan were completely different from those due to radiation from the Co-60 contaminated apartments in Taiwan. The sudden exposure to acute radiation in extremely high doses killed Japanese people, and harmed the survivors in lower doses as shown by increased cancer mortality, especially the leukemia based on the LNT model. The chronic radiation received by the residents unknowingly in the Co-60 contaminated apartments in Taiwan, even in higher doses, caused no excess cancer deaths; on the contrary their spontaneous cancer deaths were sharply reduced to only about 2.5% of that of the general population, and hereditary defects in their offspring were only 5%–7% of those of the normal population."

    ...and parasitic worms:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-worms-within-2010-12-17

    "According to one theory, first proposed in the 1980s, the super-sanitized lifestyle of the western world may have curtailed some diseases but created new ones. The prevalence of asthma, allergies, and a number of autoimmune-related ills —from rheumatoid arthritis to Type I diabetes—has skyrocketed in recent decades, especially in wealthy countries. "Roughly 4 in 10 Americans suffer from allergies, and nearly 1 in 10 develop an autoimmune disorder," Parker said. "We generally don’t see these diseases in developing countries.""

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some people are using hookworms to control their allergies, in some cases with very good results. Low numbers of hookworms are practically harmless to a healthy person. There has/is some research being done on it. Rx companies will probably try to figure out how to synthesize the chemicals that hookworms release, and market them as drugs, if that's the mechanism behind it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hookworms? Apparently non-drowsy antihistamines don't do the trick for everyone?

    They do the trick for me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. An interesting one-line entry in Dr. Dean Ornish's "Program for Reversing Heart Disease" from the early 90s:

    "Ingesting the insecticide DDT will raise your HDL or "good" cholesterol, but that's not an advisable way to do it."

    ReplyDelete
  12. "hormesis involves very small doses of what would otherwise be poisonous..."

    Allergy injection therapy is a perfect example of hormesis in action.

    "I'll bet homeopaths are laughing like crazy."
    Nah. Homeopaths don't really advocate ingesting tiny doses of what's ailing you in order to build up tolerance, like the operative mechanism in allergy shots.

    Rather, they have weird ideas about diluting unrelated substances that cause the same symptoms. Also, they advocate dilutions so extreme that the original substance is no longer present, yet somehow the dilution water supposedly maintains the "memory" -- and that the more dilute, the STRONGER the "remedy."
    Bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Report on a fraudulent research paper on vitamin supplements and intelligence in the aqed.

    Seems likely that many of this guy's 200+ papers are fraudulent as well.

    Wonder which other areas have fraudulent papers?

    ReplyDelete
  14. JSM, thanks for pointing that out. Homeopathy is deceptively similar to certain real medical processes like exposing people to cowpox to fight against smallpox. I've heard many people mistake homeopathy for real science along those lines.

    Also, everyone should read the Uncyclopedia article on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Hookworms? Apparently non-drowsy antihistamines don't do the trick for everyone? "

    Haha... wait, you're not joking are you? They're mostly useless to a lot of people with serious allergy problems.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No, my jokes are never that funny. Non-drowsy anti-histamines have utterly cured my hay fever and dust problems, but of course I can't compare them to ringworms or earthworms or whatever the cognoscenti are using these days. I was just exercising some "hopeful thinking" re. the effectiveness of Claritin et al. among the general public.

    ReplyDelete

Please post a civil and intelligent comment, preferably using a screen name other than "anonymous". Comments are not currently moderated and their publication does not imply the agreement of the blog's author.