1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    10 Jul '14 15:16
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-07-antioxidants-cancers-dont.html

    Taking anti-oxidant supplements increases anti-oxidants in cells but in the wrong place it seems. So all these anti-oxidant foods and supplements are basically worthless to reduce cancer.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78684
    10 Jul '14 16:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-07-antioxidants-cancers-dont.html

    Taking anti-oxidant supplements increases anti-oxidants in cells but in the wrong place it seems. So all these anti-oxidant foods and supplements are basically worthless to reduce cancer.
    Yep, no randomized controlled trial has ever shown any benefit to taking dietary supplements and in some cases have shown harms, most famously beta-carotene for smokers. It's interesting to see why - the article indicated that the anti-oxidants end up in the wrong place in cells. Possibly one could design a supplement containing the precursors to anti-oxidants and let our bodies cells produce them in the right places.

    The importance of the research quoted seemed to me to do with the possibility of taking targeted oxidants against existing cancers.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    10 Jul '14 16:43
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yep, no randomized controlled trial has ever shown any benefit to taking dietary supplements and in some cases have shown harms, most famously beta-carotene for smokers. It's interesting to see why - the article indicated that the anti-oxidants end up in the wrong place in cells. Possibly one could design a supplement containing the precursors to anti- ...[text shortened]... ed seemed to me to do with the possibility of taking targeted oxidants against existing cancers.
    That seems to be what radiation does. Would be nice to find a less drastic solution though.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Jul '14 07:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That seems to be what radiation does. Would be nice to find a less drastic solution though.
    Drinking red wine?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Jul '14 08:04
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Drinking red wine?
    Wine is both bad for you and good for you. I believe that in moderation and old age it has a net benefit, but it almost certainly also has downsides even then.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    11 Jul '14 13:58
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Wine is both bad for you and good for you. I believe that in moderation and old age it has a net benefit, but it almost certainly also has downsides even then.
    And no matter how sloppy drunk you get, it won't cure cancer.
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    12 Jul '14 02:33
    If you want to read about what can help with cancer, you might want to read this.

    http://www.nsc24.com/CancerR.htm
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    12 Jul '14 17:281 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If you want to read about what can help with cancer, you might want to read this.

    http://www.nsc24.com/CancerR.htm
    I think the best tactic is to choose the right parents.....

    That link doesn't seem to be anything but a long drawn out ad.
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    13 Jul '14 01:59
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think the best tactic is to choose the right parents.....

    That link doesn't seem to be anything but a long drawn out ad.
    I gave the link specifically for this fact mentioned in it:

    Sugar is the food of cancer with a cancer cell having 92 sugar receptors compared to a normal cell with 4! Cancer could be increasing because we now eat an average of 150 lbs a year of sugar compared to only 5 lbs in 1904!
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    14 Jul '14 04:01
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I gave the link specifically for this fact mentioned in it:

    [b] Sugar is the food of cancer with a cancer cell having 92 sugar receptors compared to a normal cell with 4! Cancer could be increasing because we now eat an average of 150 lbs a year of sugar compared to only 5 lbs in 1904!
    [/b]
    That is only one of many factors in cancer. Its ability to hide from the immune system is one of them also.
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78684
    14 Jul '14 13:11
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That is only one of many factors in cancer. Its ability to hide from the immune system is one of them also.
    An important change in cancer cells is the switching off of the apoptosis mechanism. There are a lot of things that need to go wrong before a cell becomes cancerous.
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    14 Jul '14 18:31
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That is only one of many factors in cancer. Its ability to hide from the immune system is one of them also.
    If you starve the cell, then you limit its ability to grow.

    Yes, it hides from the immune system, but link I gave is for a company that sells a product that helps the immune system to see the cancer cell by taking away the cancer cell's protective layers and helping to improve the body's natural defense system.

    In any case, if you limit sugar you will help to fight the cancer.
Back to Top