oracs

[Guest guest]

Hi Rodney and everyone,

Here is the USDA site with some ORAC's. I am not sure which chart I cited as

I downloaded last night late (Dutch time) from different sites. But they are

more or less the same.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm

I don't remember which site I got the wolfberry info on, it's on several if

you just google it in (wolfberries orac) and they all cite the usda and

tufts university.

Sorry Rodney, I should've included the url's- very silly of me to have

forgotten.

Interesting info on the Positive effects of fructose on the prostate!

many thanks,

MM

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

While we are on the topic ............ I was searching my bookmarks

hoping to find the source that gave pomegranate a gigantic ORAC

value. But didn't find it. What I found, though, is probably

better. It was posted here about a year ago, possibly by RJB.

(Where are you RJB?) This table shows, at the bottom of the list,

ORAC score per calorie. Which to us, of course, is what REALLY

matters.

There are a lot of interesting things hiding in this list. Perhaps

even more interesting than what is at the top of the list is what is

near the bottom!

http://optimalhealth.cia.com.au/OracLevels.htm

Have fun,

Rodney.

No, I don't know the original source of their data. We could email

them and ask, perhaps.

> Hi Rodney and everyone,

> Here is the USDA site with some ORAC's. I am not sure which chart I

cited as

> I downloaded last night late (Dutch time) from different sites. But

they are

> more or less the same.

> http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm

>

> I don't remember which site I got the wolfberry info on, it's on

several if

> you just google it in (wolfberries orac) and they all cite the usda

and

> tufts university.

> Sorry Rodney, I should've included the url's- very silly of me to

have

> forgotten.

>

> Interesting info on the Positive effects of fructose on the

prostate!

>

> many thanks,

> MM

[Guest guest]

Where? What do you see??

> > Hi Rodney and everyone,

> > Here is the USDA site with some ORAC's. I am not sure which chart I

> cited as

> > I downloaded last night late (Dutch time) from different sites. But

> they are

> > more or less the same.

> > http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm

> >

> > I don't remember which site I got the wolfberry info on, it's on

> several if

> > you just google it in (wolfberries orac) and they all cite the usda

> and

> > tufts university.

> > Sorry Rodney, I should've included the url's- very silly of me to

> have

> > forgotten.

> >

> > Interesting info on the Positive effects of fructose on the

> prostate!

> >

> > many thanks,

> > MM

[Guest guest]

Also it appears that C & E scores are high... I prefer to get from food

than supplement. (e.g. orange) This is another great chart!

drsusanforshey wrote:

>Where? What do you see??

>

>

>

>

>>Hi folks:

>>

>>While we are on the topic ............ I was searching my bookmarks

>>hoping to find the source that gave pomegranate a gigantic ORAC

>>value. But didn't find it. What I found, though, is probably

>>better. It was posted here about a year ago, possibly by RJB.

>>(Where are you RJB?) This table shows, at the bottom of the list,

>>ORAC score per calorie. Which to us, of course, is what REALLY

>>matters.

>>

>>There are a lot of interesting things hiding in this list. Perhaps

>>even more interesting than what is at the top of the list is what is

>>near the bottom!

>>

>>http://optimalhealth.cia.com.au/OracLevels.htm

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Well here are the things that immediately come to mind when

considering adding some of the items on that list to my shopping list.

First, it is ORAC per calorie that matters. Presumably no one here

will need an explanation as to why. Second, do we really know

whether all ORAC scores are equivalent? In other words, are we

reasonably confident, for example, that 100 calories of prunes will

provide the same level of ORAC benefit as 100 calories of dark

chocolate - as the list suggests?

Will our intestines absorb the same amount of the ORAC capacity of

each? Do we have evidence that our intestines absorb **any** of this

stuff? If we **are** confident about that then we probably should

simply just swallow one clove a day and be done with it. But do we

know that?

This raises the ugly issue, which has been discussed here previously,

as to whether we should believe, and take to heart, the

theoretical/hypothetical view of things, or instead be more willing

to accept empirical evidence.

I have previously declared my bias in this matter. We all have

biases based on our individual life experiences. While I find it

interesting to hear something like: " logically substance X should be

of great benefit in preventing disease Y, because of reasons A, B, C

and D " , I will rarely pay much attention to it. If I read that

someone has said that: " an experiment in a test tube shows that

substance X beneficially affects something related to disease Y " I

will pay a little more attention. But not much more.

However, if I see a report that: " a thousand people who regularly

eat X are found to suffer from disease Y a lot less than those who

don't " I will immediately sit up and pay very close attention - even

if there is no established logic as to how such a benefit might

occur.

The reason for this attitude of mine is that during my life I have

seen too many cases where some statement like: " well obviously,

logically, X should be expected to cause Y " , has been shown to be

klaptrap when someone takes the trouble to test whether it actually

happens in the real world.

In the case of ORAC values, if we know that something absorbs oxygen

radicals in a test tube, how do we know it also does so in the body?

Does it survive the alkaline environment of the saliva? Does it

survive the hydrochloric acid in the stomach? If it does get this

far does it get absorbed from the intestine? If it does get

absorbed, is it able to reach the place it needs to go, without being

converted first to something else in the chemical soup our bodies

are, so that it can come in contact with the stuff that needs to be

neutralized?

This is why I am paying a fair amount of attention to the pomegranate

issue. The study about that posted recently purports to show that a

mere 50 mls of pomegranate juice daily quite dramatically reduces the

thickness of the deposits clogging the carotid arteries over a twelve

month period, while the arteries of controls not taking the

pomegranate juice became even more clogged than they had been. Why

would pomegranate juice unclog arteries? I dunno. And what is more

I don't much care either. Even if the effect is purely psychosomatic

it would make no difference to me, because, assuming it is a

legitimate study, IT WORKS. It also indicates that at least one of

the benefical components of pomegranate does survive digestion. Of

course we do not know if it is the ORAC component that is responsible

for the carotid artery benefits.

But with all the hypothetical stuff that appears to work in test

tubes, we really have no idea whether it will work 'in vivo'. So I

will usually wait until someone demonstrates that it really does work

in people, or monkeys, or whatever, before taking it seriously. Of

course if it survives a rat's intestine it does not **prove** it will

survive mine. But there is a point at which I will sit up and take

notice.

Now there is an exception to my insistence on in vivo tests. I will

make an exception where the possible benefit seems to be considerable

and where I assess any risk associated with the 'treatment' to be

very low, and the cost is inconsequential.

In the case of ORAC values, the benefits could be considerable. Can

I imagine that eating a clove or a few wolfberries a day, or using

thyme, oregano, savory or cinnamon on a regular basis might be

risky? Not likely. Is it expensive? No. But I will not be

startled if we were to discover a couple of years down the road,

after empirical studies have been done, that, to paraphrase Dr.

: " ORAC has absolutely nothing to do with health " !!!

As for the individual foods ranked in the posted ORAC list there are

a number of perhaps obvious observations. The first is that for the

purpose of ORAC intake one might as well only pay attention to the

top ten items on the list. If one believes the numbers are relevant

then it looks like one clove a day will provide about as much ORAC as

everything else on the list combined. But clearly there are other

excellent foods that provide other benefits that are further down the

list. Berries and green vegetables, especially.

Also worth noting that some foods that are shown very near the top of

the list of ORAC per 100 grams are way down the list in ORAC per

calorie. Prunes is an example. It is ranked second in the top list,

but is twenty-second on the per-calorie list, with a content per

calorie that is 97% (!!!!!) less than the item which comes second on

the per-calorie list. Which perhaps demonstrates why the per-calorie

list is what is relevant.

Also notable that some of the foods one might expect (if you listen

to the conventional wisdom propaganda) to have some serious benefits

appear not far from the bottom of this list. Apples, for example. I

have previously noted that an analysis I did years ago of the

micronutrient contents (per 100 calories) of a wide variety of foods

showed apples to be below 'bacon double cheeseburger' and not far

above 'salt pork'. Apples put in a miserable performance on this

list too. As do a number of other fruits. But notably NOT berries.

Perhaps significant also is the score of wolfberry JUICE. While I am

not sure how to interpret its number in the table it APPEARS to be

quite unimpressive. If so then it suggests that the benefit is in

the skin or flesh of the fruit. Of course the juice will contain

almost 100% of the sugar in the fruit, thereby dropping the per-

calorie score, even if most of the ORAC benefit is in the liquid

component.

Also I find it interesting that no legumes appear high on the list.

Including, apparently, soybeans. Even kidney beans (red) are

unimpressive. This is a little surprising because of information

posted here a few months ago suggesting that 'little red beans' had a

remarkably high anti-oxidant value. Perhaps not?

So, in summary, while I am paying atention to the top items on this

list, what I would like to see is some empirical data showing health

and lifespan among rats/mice whose diets are supplemented with some

of the top six items on the per-calorie list. In ten years we will

probably have those data.

Rodney.

> > > Hi Rodney and everyone,

> > > Here is the USDA site with some ORAC's. I am not sure which

chart I

> > cited as

> > > I downloaded last night late (Dutch time) from different sites.

But

> > they are

> > > more or less the same.

> > > http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm

> > >

> > > I don't remember which site I got the wolfberry info on, it's

on

> > several if

> > > you just google it in (wolfberries orac) and they all cite the

usda

> > and

> > > tufts university.

> > > Sorry Rodney, I should've included the url's- very silly of me

to

> > have

> > > forgotten.

> > >

> > > Interesting info on the Positive effects of fructose on the

> > prostate!

> > >

> > > many thanks,

> > > MM