Re: Lycopene Doesn't Work?

[Guest guest]

At 05:45 AM 5/23/2007, you wrote:

Hi folks:

So yet another 'supplement du jour' is now discredited, if this is to

be believed:

http://www.nutritionhorizon.com/newsmaker_article.asp?

idNewsMaker=14062 & fSite=AO545 & next=nh

http://snipurl.com/1loiw

R

--Wow. Another ray of hope ground out, and the association with

beta-carotene is not encouraging!

--But we still have red wine to help us in our battles for our prostates,

right?

;-)

Maco

[Guest guest]

my .015 cents...

I am not suprised at all that another isolated

ingredient fails. Do we have any yet, that, over

time, havent, in this regard?

Vit A, Vit E, Vit C, Selenium, Folate, Beta Carotene,

etc etc have all had their hey day, and all have

fallen from grace.

And, my guess is, resveratrol will soon join the ranks

of the fallen.

But we still find that the basic principles of eating

well from a diet based on a wide variety of whole

unrefined plant foods, continues to prove to be the

most effective plan.

I like to say that the main reason we have to rely on

whole foods is because of Vitamin X.

I dont know what Vitamin X is, that is why I call it

Vitamin X, but i do know one thing... it is in whole

foods but it is not in isolated and concentrated

single or multiple nutrient supplments.

This is also why I think focusing on " Super " foods,

foods that are popular because they are rich in a

single nutrient (milk for calcium, tomatoes for

lycopene) is actually a hinderance and a distraction,

from good nutrition.

Real Super foods, are plant foods that are rich in

most all nutrients (per calorie), like green leafy

vegetables, and not just one or two nutrients.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

As always, your .015 cents (to be rounded up) are worth infinitely more

than at least my equivalently valued admonishments.

Probably, it will end up coming down to, for the foreseeable future, the

unsurprisingly common yet underpracticed observation " no pain

[interpreted as change from natural habits], no gain. "

Maco

At 06:10 AM 5/23/2007, you wrote:

my .015 cents...

I am not suprised at all that another isolated

ingredient fails. Do we have any yet, that, over

time, havent, in this regard?

Vit A, Vit E, Vit C, Selenium, Folate, Beta Carotene,

etc etc have all had their hey day, and all have

fallen from grace.

And, my guess is, resveratrol will soon join the ranks

of the fallen.

But we still find that the basic principles of eating

well from a diet based on a wide variety of whole

unrefined plant foods, continues to prove to be the

most effective plan.

I like to say that the main reason we have to rely on

whole foods is because of Vitamin X.

I dont know what Vitamin X is, that is why I call it

Vitamin X, but i do know one thing... it is in whole

foods but it is not in isolated and concentrated

single or multiple nutrient supplments.

This is also why I think focusing on " Super " foods,

foods that are popular because they are rich in a

single nutrient (milk for calcium, tomatoes for

lycopene) is actually a hinderance and a distraction,

from good nutrition.

Real Super foods, are plant foods that are rich in

most all nutrients (per calorie), like green leafy

vegetables, and not just one or two nutrients.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

moderation and variety.

Certainly moderation in relying on any supplements. A wide variety of

fruits and veggies is the best insurance, because as we've often said in the

past here, we really have no idea how these nutrients interact or even if

there's something in the whole food that we have yet to discover!

> From: Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

> Reply-< >

> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 05:10:27 -0700 (PDT)

> < >

> Subject: Re: [ ] Lycopene Doesn't Work?

>

> my .015 cents...

>

> I am not suprised at all that another isolated

> ingredient fails. Do we have any yet, that, over

> time, havent, in this regard?

>

> Vit A, Vit E, Vit C, Selenium, Folate, Beta Carotene,

> etc etc have all had their hey day, and all have

> fallen from grace.

>

> And, my guess is, resveratrol will soon join the ranks

> of the fallen.

>

> But we still find that the basic principles of eating

> well from a diet based on a wide variety of whole

> unrefined plant foods, continues to prove to be the

> most effective plan.

>

> I like to say that the main reason we have to rely on

> whole foods is because of Vitamin X.

>

> I dont know what Vitamin X is, that is why I call it

> Vitamin X, but i do know one thing... it is in whole

> foods but it is not in isolated and concentrated

> single or multiple nutrient supplments.

>

> This is also why I think focusing on " Super " foods,

> foods that are popular because they are rich in a

> single nutrient (milk for calcium, tomatoes for

> lycopene) is actually a hinderance and a distraction,

> from good nutrition.

>

> Real Super foods, are plant foods that are rich in

> most all nutrients (per calorie), like green leafy

> vegetables, and not just one or two nutrients.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff.

I agree high unprocessed plant food is the best (thanks to you and the

high level input of a few others here that have helped me make this

" right " choice, at this point in time). But on one hand you seem to

argue against the possibility that any one nutrient will be found to

have great benefit in some way at any dose, but on there you imply

that these very same nutrients when eaten in abundance in food and

collectively will positively influence health and longevity.

I agree that what we eat is significant, and the other side of the

coin, those foods, macronutrients that we DON'T eat or greatly limit

are just as important if not more so. But I feel my present dietary

choices are more an article of faith on my part or a feeling that this

is the better way. When it comes to the facts as I know them to be

this decision to eat high plant seems to based mostly on the heart/CV

benefits. When is comes to cancer prevention, other degenerative

disease i am less sure and place more hope on the CR (than I do on the ON)

Let's take the specific example of prostate cancer. Why should it be

surprising that a specific nutrient such as lycopene taken at a

high(er) chronic dosage may exhibit a " pharmacologic " effect on

certain cells or tissue? You believe that, collectively, these

nutrients when eaten in the whole plant an effect will be seen? Or do

you believe that once the minimum is met, ie RDA (or whatever the new

metric), that no further physiologic benefit may be had?

Let's take another example, do you believe there may be a connection

between dairy consumption and prostate cancer? If so, why or why not?

Hope I am no rambling; greatly appreciate your thoughts, and those

from others.

bill4cr

>

> my .015 cents...

>

> I am not suprised at all that another isolated

> ingredient fails. Do we have any yet, that, over

> time, havent, in this regard?

>

> Vit A, Vit E, Vit C, Selenium, Folate, Beta Carotene,

> etc etc have all had their hey day, and all have

> fallen from grace.

>

> And, my guess is, resveratrol will soon join the ranks

> of the fallen.

>

> But we still find that the basic principles of eating

> well from a diet based on a wide variety of whole

> unrefined plant foods, continues to prove to be the

> most effective plan.

>

> I like to say that the main reason we have to rely on

> whole foods is because of Vitamin X.

>

> I dont know what Vitamin X is, that is why I call it

> Vitamin X, but i do know one thing... it is in whole

> foods but it is not in isolated and concentrated

> single or multiple nutrient supplments.

>

> This is also why I think focusing on " Super " foods,

> foods that are popular because they are rich in a

> single nutrient (milk for calcium, tomatoes for

> lycopene) is actually a hinderance and a distraction,

> from good nutrition.

>

> Real Super foods, are plant foods that are rich in

> most all nutrients (per calorie), like green leafy

> vegetables, and not just one or two nutrients.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

What I find disconcerting about this one is that it isn't just saying

lycopene is of no benefit in helping prevent prostate cancer. It is

saying that not even tomatoes have benefit.

It really makes me wonder, because of the previous studies that had

found the opposite, whether one can take any of these papers

seriously ........... for any food or food component for any

disease.

One small study had found much smaller prostate cancers when patients

had been supplemented (I forget whether it was with tomato or

lycopene) before surgical removal of the prostate. Has that paper

been confirmed or refuted, I wonder?

Hmmmmm.

Rodney.

>

> moderation and variety.

>

> Certainly moderation in relying on any supplements. A wide

variety of

> fruits and veggies is the best insurance, because as we've often

said in the

> past here, we really have no idea how these nutrients interact or

even if

> there's something in the whole food that we have yet to discover!

>

>

> > From: Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

> > Reply-< >

> > Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 05:10:27 -0700 (PDT)

> > < >

> > Subject: Re: [ ] Lycopene Doesn't Work?

> >

> > my .015 cents...

> >

> > I am not suprised at all that another isolated

> > ingredient fails. Do we have any yet, that, over

> > time, havent, in this regard?

> >

> > Vit A, Vit E, Vit C, Selenium, Folate, Beta Carotene,

> > etc etc have all had their hey day, and all have

> > fallen from grace.

> >

> > And, my guess is, resveratrol will soon join the ranks

> > of the fallen.

> >

> > But we still find that the basic principles of eating

> > well from a diet based on a wide variety of whole

> > unrefined plant foods, continues to prove to be the

> > most effective plan.

> >

> > I like to say that the main reason we have to rely on

> > whole foods is because of Vitamin X.

> >

> > I dont know what Vitamin X is, that is why I call it

> > Vitamin X, but i do know one thing... it is in whole

> > foods but it is not in isolated and concentrated

> > single or multiple nutrient supplments.

> >

> > This is also why I think focusing on " Super " foods,

> > foods that are popular because they are rich in a

> > single nutrient (milk for calcium, tomatoes for

> > lycopene) is actually a hinderance and a distraction,

> > from good nutrition.

> >

> > Real Super foods, are plant foods that are rich in

> > most all nutrients (per calorie), like green leafy

> > vegetables, and not just one or two nutrients.

> >

> > Regards

> > Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps we have an unrealistic expectation to find some magical nutrient(s) that will prevent disease, restore youth, or whatever our personal demon.Nutrition seems to be the most powerful in the negative. i.e. nutritional deficiencies cause well know maladies, adequate nutrition doesn't. Too much nutrition is just too much of a good thing, but presumably harmless within a modest energy balance diet.Trying to parse out micro-nutrient effects is often complicated by systemic responses. A little dose of poison, up-regulates a protective response that may have wider benefit. Some of our magical plant nutrients are probably just our strong response to natural insecticides in them.I have low expectations for finding magic foods and would not be surprised if the combination or overdosing of minor toxins, rather than producing a stronger benefit, accumulate to actually be toxic. Moderation in all things.JROn May 23, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Rodney wrote:Hi folks:What I find disconcerting about this one is that it isn't just saying lycopene is of no benefit in helping prevent prostate cancer. It is saying that not even tomatoes have benefit.It really makes me wonder, because of the previous studies that had found the opposite, whether one can take any of these papers seriously ........... for any food or food component for any disease.One small study had found much smaller prostate cancers when patients had been supplemented (I forget whether it was with tomato or lycopene) before surgical removal of the prostate. Has that paper been confirmed or refuted, I wonder?Hmmmmm.Rodney.>> moderation and variety.> > Certainly moderation in relying on any supplements. A wide variety of> fruits and veggies is the best insurance, because as we've often said in the> past here, we really have no idea how these nutrients interact or even if> there's something in the whole food that we have yet to discover!> > > > From: Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>> > Reply-< >> > Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 05:10:27 -0700 (PDT)> > < >> > Subject: Re: [ ] Lycopene Doesn't Work?> > > > my .015 cents...> > > > I am not suprised at all that another isolated> > ingredient fails. Do we have any yet, that, over> > time, havent, in this regard?> > > > Vit A, Vit E, Vit C, Selenium, Folate, Beta Carotene,> > etc etc have all had their hey day, and all have> > fallen from grace.> > > > And, my guess is, resveratrol will soon join the ranks> > of the fallen.> > > > But we still find that the basic principles of eating> > well from a diet based on a wide variety of whole> > unrefined plant foods, continues to prove to be the> > most effective plan.> > > > I like to say that the main reason we have to rely on> > whole foods is because of Vitamin X.> > > > I dont know what Vitamin X is, that is why I call it> > Vitamin X, but i do know one thing... it is in whole> > foods but it is not in isolated and concentrated> > single or multiple nutrient supplments.> > > > This is also why I think focusing on "Super" foods,> > foods that are popular because they are rich in a> > single nutrient (milk for calcium, tomatoes for> > lycopene) is actually a hinderance and a distraction,> > from good nutrition.> > > > Real Super foods, are plant foods that are rich in> > most all nutrients (per calorie), like green leafy> > vegetables, and not just one or two nutrients.> > > > Regards> > Jeff>

[Guest guest]

OK, but let's keep in mind that Lycopene has also been touted for bone

health and protecting against skin cancer. Perhaps it's still a good

idea to eat those tomatoes (and other reddish fruits & veggies).

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> So yet another 'supplement du jour' is now discredited, if this is to

> be believed:

>

> http://www.nutritionhorizon.com/newsmaker_article.asp?

> idNewsMaker=14062 & fSite=AO545 & next=nh

>

> http://snipurl.com/1loiw

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> So yet another 'supplement du jour' is now discredited, if this is to

> be believed:

I haven't seen the full study, but my impression is that they looked

at plasma levels of lycopene, rather than actual tomato product

consumption. So this study doesn't necessarily negate earlier

studies showing a benefit of benefits of tomato product consumption

for prevention of prostate cancer.

Personally, I consume 3 heaping tablespoons of dried tomato flakes

(obtained from www.bulkfoods.com) every morning as part of my

breakfast. [i started with tomato powder, but switched to flakes

because I prefer the texture and reduced oxidation surface area.]

I think I started doing this after reading the abstract below.

[My Father died of prostate cancer, so I think about this.]

Thanks,

Todd

1: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Nov 5;95(21):1578-86.

Prostate carcinogenesis in N-methyl-N-nitrosourea

(NMU)-testosterone-treated rats fed tomato powder, lycopene,

or energy-restricted diets.

Boileau TW, Liao Z, Kim S, Lemeshow S, Erdman JW Jr, Clinton SK.

Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign, IL (TWMB, JWE).

BACKGROUND: Consumption of tomato products or lycopene and

energy restriction have been hypothesized to reduce the risk

of human prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of these

dietary variables in a rat model of prostate carcinogenesis.

METHODS: Male rats (n = 194) treated with N-methyl-N-nitrosourea

and testosterone to induce prostate cancer were fed diets

containing whole tomato powder (13 mg lycopene/kg diet),

lycopene beadlets (161 mg lycopene/kg diet), or control beadlets.

<snip>

RESULTS: Risk of death with prostate cancer was lower for

rats fed the tomato powder diet than for rats fed control beadlets

(hazard ratio

---

= 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]

= 0.59 to 0.93; P =.009). In contrast, prostate cancer-specific

mortality of the control and lycopene-fed rats was similar (P =.63).

The proportions of rats dying with prostate cancer in the control,

lycopene, and tomato powder groups were 80% (95% CI = 68% to 89%),

72% (95% CI = 60% to 83%), and 62% (95% CI = 48% to 75%),

respectively. Rats in the diet-restricted group experienced

longer prostate cancer-free survival than rats in the ad libitum-fed

group (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.96; P =.029). The proportion

of rats that developed prostate cancer was 79% (95% CI = 69% to 86%)

for ad libitum-fed rats and 65% (95% CI = 54% to 74%) for rats fed

restricted diets. No interactions were observed between diet

composition and dietary restriction.

CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of tomato powder but not lycopene

inhibited prostate carcinogenesis, suggesting that tomato

products contain compounds in addition to lycopene that modify

prostate carcinogenesis. Diet restriction also reduced the risk

of prostate cancer. Tomato phytochemicals and diet restriction

may act by independent mechanisms.

PMID: 14600090 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]