 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2006Grains a Good Thing: Bound antioxidant phytochemicals in grains survive intact long enough to reach the colon to prevent cancer
J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 9;50(21):6182-7. Antioxidant activity of grains. Adom KK, Liu RH. Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Stocking Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853-7201, USA. "Epidemiological studies have shown that consumption of whole grains and grain-based products is associated with reduced risk of chronic diseases. The health benefits of whole grains are attributed in part to their unique phytochemical composition. However, the phytochemical contents in grains have been commonly underestimated in the literature, because bound phytochemicals were not included. This study was designed to investigate the complete phytochemical profiles in free, soluble conjugated, and insoluble bound forms, as well as their antioxidant activities in uncooked whole grains. Corn had the highest total phenolic content (15.55 +/- 0.60 micromol of gallic acid equiv/g of grain) of the grains tested, followed by wheat (7.99 +/- 0.39 micromol of gallic acid equiv/g of grain), oats (6.53 +/- 0.19 micromol of gallic acid equiv/g of grain), and rice (5.56 +/- 0.17 micromol of gallic acid equiv/g of grain). The major portion of phenolics in grains existed in the bound form (85% in corn, 75% in oats and wheat, and 62% in rice), although free phenolics were frequently reported in the literature. Ferulic acid was the major phenolic compound in grains tested, with free, soluble-conjugated, and bound ferulic acids present in the ratio 0.1:1:100. Corn had the highest total antioxidant activity (181.42 +/- 0.86 micromol of vitamin C equiv/g of grain), followed by wheat (76.70 +/- 1.38 micromol of vitamin C equiv/g of grain), oats (74.67 +/- 1.49 micromol of vitamin C equiv/g of grain), and rice (55.77 +/- 1.62 micromol of vitamin C equiv/g of grain). Bound phytochemicals were the major contributors to the total antioxidant activity: 90% in wheat, 87% in corn, 71% in rice, and 58% in oats. Bound phytochemicals could survive stomach and intestinal digestion to reach the colon. This may partly explain the mechanism of grain consumption in the prevention of colon cancer, other digestive cancers, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, which is supported by epidemiological studies." PMID: 12358499 http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/whole-grains.html -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 18 web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ >J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 9;50(21):6182-7. > > Antioxidant activity of grains. It's been a good laugh reading your theories, but maybe it's time you f.cked off as it's getting old! > >J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 9;50(21):6182-7. > > > > Antioxidant activity of grains. > > It's been a good laugh reading your theories, but maybe it's time you f.cked > off as it's getting old! Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Why don't you ask around who Mr. Iron is and how long he has been posting his crap? "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in > Why don't you ask around who Mr. Iron is and how long he has been > posting his crap? Mate, I really don't care, you are just not interesting anymore and this is getting really boring. Is your life so empty that you have to find entertainment on a USENET forum? > "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is your life so empty that you have to find entertainment on a USENET forum? Whose life is boring? Maybe you should try eating more food in order to make your pain go away? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Get a hobby. Get a life! "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message > Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Get a hobby. Get a life! LOL, this moron is trying to push a low fat solution on a high fat forum and he's telling me to get a life! LOLOLOLOL > "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOL, this moron is trying to push a low fat solution on a high fat forum > and he's telling me to get a life! LOLOLOLOL LOL Yea, Mr Whole-grain only has half a brain.  SignatureJoe W T2 Nov '05 30mg Actos, 3gr(1/2 tsp or 500mg pill) Cinnamon, Diet(>100 carbs) & 30 minute walk(everyday) & BowFlex 3x/week *****Diabetes, be proactive, not reactive.***** I didn't know this was a high fat forum. While I eat a mediterranean type diet and use olive oil and fatty fish, I didn't realize that this forum was not for people with an opposite view. Ornish and Pritikin seem to have gotten very good results with their diets although exercise plays a prominent part in their eating plans. I have to admit that I eat whole grains and think they are an important part of my diet. But so are fish and olive oil and occasional chicken and turkey. I think the Atkins diet is dangerous to one's health but like to read information about it. Who knows? Maybe I will change my mind about it. It wouldn't be the first time. Is it just one person's opinion that this is only a high fat forum or do most people agree with this? Was this forum originally meant to be a high fat forum? Dolores Dolores > I didn't know this was a high fat forum. While I eat a mediterranean > type diet and use olive oil and fatty fish, I didn't realize that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > most people agree with this? Was this forum originally meant to be a > high fat forum? You're cross-posted to about 6 groups. So far as I know, none of them are "high fat forums", especially the diabetes groups I'm seeing it on. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:28:50 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote in <news:_ZmdnWw0xZ4WY5_ZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com> on alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.paleolithic,alt.health.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.nutrition >> most people agree with this? Was this forum originally meant to be a >> high fat forum? > > You're cross-posted to about 6 groups. Indeed. I am reading this thread on sci.med.nutrition > So far as I know, none of them are > "high fat forums", especially the diabetes groups I'm seeing it on. I guess Dorsy was referring to the low-carb group. I looked up Google Groups for the charter of alt.support.diet.low-carb. It just says: |Charter: This group is for the discussion of low-carbohydrate weight |loss plans, and for providing emotional support to others who follow |those plans. BTW, how "low" is "low-carbohydrate"? X'Posted to: alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.paleolithic,alt.health.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.nutrition > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:28:50 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote in > <news:_ZmdnWw0xZ4WY5_ZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com> on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > You're cross-posted to about 6 groups. It was Mr. Natural that cross posted the original message to all the groups, probably in a desperate effort to show off his ignorance. For some reason, he seems to be Trolling on the LC newgsgroup recently and apparently he is unhappy that he isn't able to get everyone to see the "whole grain light" so he is probably branching out to the paleolithic and diabetes groups and throwing in the sci.med.nutrition for good measure. > Indeed. I am reading this thread on sci.med.nutrition > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > BTW, how "low" is "low-carbohydrate"? It is as low as it needs to be for the individual, is determined on an individual basis, and is a real "Your Milage May Vary" topic. There is no "magic" number such as under 30% or 10% like is common with low fat, with the exception of Atkin's recommendation that you start out at under 20g of carbohydrates per day as his (experimental) experience showed that this level was affective for 95% of the poeple. Re: cross posting. Being computer illiterate and a former web tv user, I wouldn't know how to cross post, but when I replied to the person who criticized someone for being a moron because he is posting on a high fat group, my computer screen said I had posted to several different groups. If that is bad, I do not know how to correct it since I just click on the word reply at the bottom of the posts. In the late nineties, I had web tv and I remember there were many debates on sci.med.nutrition about high carb vs low carb but I don't ever remember that it was considered a low carb, high carb or high fat group. That's why I wanted to know if things had changed over the years to a high fat forum as DB said it is. Dolores > Re: cross posting. Being computer illiterate and a former web tv user, > I wouldn't know how to cross post, but when I replied to the person who > criticized someone for being a moron because he is posting on a high > fat group, my computer screen said I had posted to several different > groups. If that is bad, I do not know how to correct it since I just > click on the word reply at the bottom of the posts. When using Google, don't use the "Reply" at the bottom of the message. Use the "Reply" at the top, in the heading. It will give you more options. One of them is you'll be able to see (and remove or add) groups in the "To" header. The groups are separated by commas, so just remove all but the one you want to reply to. Carmen > > Re: cross posting. Being computer illiterate and a former web tv user, > > I wouldn't know how to cross post, but when I replied to the person who [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Carmen Click on the "Show Options" then the "Reply". Just to clarify. TC > > > Re: cross posting. Being computer illiterate and a former web tv user, > > > I wouldn't know how to cross post, but when I replied to the person who [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Just to clarify. Oops. I forgot that part. Thanks. :-) Carmen some x-posts cut. >Re: cross posting. Being computer illiterate and a former web tv user, >I wouldn't know how to cross post, but when I replied to the person who >criticized someone for being a moron because he is posting on a high >fat group, my computer screen said I had posted to several different >groups. If that is bad, I do not know how to correct it since I just >click on the word reply at the bottom of the posts. Then learn. It's like learning manners when you were growing up. Read the "help" files in your newsreader. Just delete all the newsgroups apart from your own from the send addresses. It really isn't hard to learn how. Ignorance is a very poor excuse. Alan, T2, Australia. > > So far as I know, none of them are > > "high fat forums", especially the diabetes groups I'm seeing it on. > > I guess Dorsy was referring to the low-carb group. > > BTW, how "low" is "low-carbohydrate"? Depends on the plan and on the individual. Generally 100 grams per day per less will count as low carb by most but some chose lower boundaries. Also, since Atkins as the actual directions go is a process that is custom tuned based on the body's actual reactions, the final carb level a person ends up at might not even count as low carb or miht be as low as 15 grams per day. It varies that much from person to person, though either extreme is rare. It really follows the usual bell-shaped curve with losing centered near 50 and maintenance centered near 100. So for an encore will Mr Natural ignore the high rate of lactose intolerance worldwide and go on a campaign about how wonderfull dairy must automatically be to every human on the planet? ;^) > I didn't know this was a high fat forum. While I eat a mediterranean > type diet and use olive oil and fatty fish, I didn't realize that this > forum was not for people with an opposite view. A mediterranean diet isn't necessarilly an opposite view. This is a Low Carb newsgroup and for many of the regulars here the choice to go LC has been a miracle of a decision. From what I know about a mediterranean diet I would guess that much of your philosophy agrees with the concensus with the possibility of pasta being an exception. That being said, if you stick around long enough you will probably find that the regulars are generally quite accepting of others views. The problem is that for some reason this group tends to attract a lot of Trolls who do nothing but attempt to stir things up. > Ornish and Pritikin > seem to have gotten very good results with their diets although > exercise plays a prominent part in their eating plans. Does here too. As far as Ornish and Pritkin their plans do work for some individuals and for those it works quite well. For others, myself included, attempting to eat a low fat high carbohydrate diet does nothing but put us off the binging cliff. We have found that our own body chemistry is such that it doesn't work. I tend to agree with Atkins when he said in his book that Ornish and Pritkin are to be commended because they are attempting to do something about a "growing" problem. In his own book he says that they have acchieved successfully results., but their plan doesn't work for everyone and for that matter niether does LC. > I have to admit > that I eat whole grains and think they are an important part of my > diet. But so are fish and olive oil and occasional chicken and turkey. > I think the Atkins diet is dangerous to one's health but like to read > information about it. Who knows? Maybe I will change my mind about > it. It wouldn't be the first time. Why do you believe that it is dangerous? Reading this group alone will provide you with a lot of testimonials from individuals who's health has improved dramatically, according to their doctors. Is it dangerous because it allows consumption of saturated fat? Recent studies are (finally) proving that saturated fat isn't the nemesis that it was ASSUMED to be. > Is it just one person's opinion > that this is only a high fat forum or do most people agree with this? > Was this forum originally meant to be a high fat forum? > > Dolores > Dolores LC is not Low Fat and if it is not Low Fat there may be a natural to call it High Fat. Of course this idea will put fear into many because they have been successfully brain washed that low fat is the only healthy option. Many beginners think that the only things you can eat are meat, eggs and cheese. While this is probably how many begin after a short while you learn to include a wider variety of foods. A common statement is that after getting used to LC that you start eating a hell of a lot more vegetables and some fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. All of these healthy items are taking the place of what was predominantly processed carbohydrates and sugar. As far as being "high fat" when one considers the percentage of calories that come from fat, yes it is probably a 'high fat' diet. However, the amount total fat that is consumed is quite often no higher than it was prior to going LC/ >I didn't know this was a high fat forum. While I eat a mediterranean > type diet and use olive oil and fatty fish, I didn't realize that this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that this is only a high fat forum or do most people agree with this? > Was this forum originally meant to be a high fat forum? Since you're cross-posting to about half a dozen newsgroups, how can anyone answer your question? > I didn't know this was a high fat forum. Which one? You're posting to several. > While I eat a mediterranean type diet and use olive oil and fatty > fish, I didn't realize that this forum was not for people with an > opposite view. Ornish and Pritikin seem to have gotten very good > results with their diets although exercise plays a prominent part in > their eating plans. I wouldn't consider exercise to be part of an eating plan at all. You can have an eating plan and an exercise plan (or one and not the other), and there's no relationship between the two except what you make up in your own mind. > I think the Atkins diet is dangerous to one's health but like to > read information about it. You haven't studied it yet, but you already think it's dangerous. Interesting. SignatureAaron -- aaron_baugher@yahoo.com -- 285/245/200 http://360.yahoo.com/aaron_baugher one x-post cut. I won't see the answer:-) >I didn't know this was a high fat forum. <snip> >I didn't realize that this >forum was not for people with an opposite view. <snip> >Was this forum originally meant to be a high fat forum? Oh? Which forum from alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.paleolithic, alt.health.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.nutrition are you talking about? 'bye. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 2x500mg SignatureEverything in Moderation - Except Laughter. > > "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Whose life is boring? Maybe you should try eating more food in order > to make your pain go away? Hello again John! I see you're still with us in ASDLC. That tells me you've decided that you're ready to make a change. I'm sure you'll find plenty of support as you abandon some of the not-so-healthy aspects of your "whole grain". From now on you can count on me (and I'm sure others will jump in as well) to take an active hand in guiding you along. Okay, first things first. You aren't overweight so this process is going to be primarily about eating healthier for you. Step one is the painful one. You're going to have to get rid of the junk food masquerading as whole grain in your kitchen. Granola bars - big no-no. Yes, they're "whole grain". They're also sugar-laden crap. Throw them all out. Same with granola and muesli if it's sweetened. Rice cakes, puffs, popcorn, all go in the garbage. If the label has added sugars they're crap. Honey, molasses, it doesn't matter what they call it - it's crap. Good luck! Carmen > > > "Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Carmen Ha! Good post. >J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 9;50(21):6182-7. SNIP! See ya tomorrow spammer SignatureJoe W T2 Nov '05 30mg Actos, 3gr(1/2 tsp or 500mg pill) Cinnamon, Diet(>100 carbs) & 30 minute walk(everyday) & BowFlex 3x/week *****Diabetes, be proactive, not reactive.***** *Grains are poison.* Now, serving number 43? Who was first? NEXT! Don't you love how these highly anally precise scientists who become instant speculators whenever they need to kick out some pre-prepared soundbite for the people who funded their research. They go thru this whole precise description of the process and the various bio-chemical compounds involved only to end with this wild a.s guess: "This *may* *partly* explain the mechanism of grain consumption in the prevention of colon cancer, other digestive cancers, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, which is supported by epidemiological studies." All this proves is just how far these "researchers" are willing to bend over for their paymasters. "Rui Hai Liu, Ph.D., Department of Food Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY." He works for the College of Agriculture. His job is to push grains no matter what. TC > J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 9;50(21):6182-7. > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > sharper terminology than ever before. > http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.