Beauty Health for Life

In a forthcoming review article from Nutrition and Cancer: An International Journal, a publication of Routledge, researchers review available evidence that links orange juice with cancer chemoprevention. The review article, "Orange Juice and Cancer Chemoprevention" discusses the putative mechanisms involved in the process, the potential toxicity of orange juice, and the available data in terms of evidence-based medicine.

Orange juice has many potential positive effects when it comes to cancer, particularly because it is high in antioxidants from flavonoids such as hesperitin and naringinin. Evidence from previous in vitro studies has indicated that orange juice can reduce the risk of leukemia in children, as well as aid in chemoprevention against mammary, hepatic, and colon cancers. Biological effects of orange juice in vitro are largely influenced by the juices composition, which is dependent on physiological conditions of the oranges such as climate, soil, fruit maturation, and storage methods post-harvest.

The researchers acknowledge potential toxicity from orange juice if consumed in excess amounts -- especially for children, hypertensive, kidney-compromised, and diabetics. Excessive drinking of orange juice for individuals from these groups has the potential to create noxious effects, hyperkalemia, and has been associated with both food allergies and bacterial outbreaks in cases where the juice was unpasteurized. "Excessive intake of any food, even for the healthiest, can lead to oxidative status imbalance," wrote the researchers.

Further research is highly recommended to determine the biological connection between orange juice and cancer chemoprevention. Issues such as the type of cultivar and the amount consumed will also need clarification.

Overall, the review article summarizes several biological effects of orange juice that can contribute to chemoprevention, including antioxidant, antimutagenic and antigenotoxic, cytoprotective, hormonal, and cell signaling modulating effects. Orange juice has antimicrobial and antiviral action and modulates the absorption of xenobiotics. "OJ could contribute to chemoprevention at every stage of cancer initiation and progression," the researchers explained. "Among the most relevant biological effects of OJ is the juices antigenotoxic and antimutagenic potential, which was shown in cells in culture and in rodents and humans."

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 63 percent of the deaths that occurred in 2008 were attributed to non-communicable chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, Type 2 diabetes and obesity—for which poor diets are contributing factors. Yet people that live in societies that eat healthy, plant-based diets rarely fall victim to these ailments. Research studies have long indicated that a high consumption of plant foods is associated with lower incidents of chronic disease. In an article entitled The Chronic Disease Food Remedy in the October issue of Food Technology magazine, Senior Writer/Editor Toni Tarver discusses recent discoveries in nutritional genomics that explain how plant-based diets are effective at warding off disease.

The article indicates that bioactive compounds in plant foods play a role in controlling genetic and other biological factors that lead to chronic disease. For example, antioxidants in plant foods counter free radicals that can cause chronic inflammation and damage cells. And other plant compounds help control a gene linked to cardiovascular disease and plaque buildup in arteries and the genes and other cellular components responsible for forming and sustaining tumors.

William W. Li, M.D., President and Medical Director of the Angiogenesis Foundation in Cambridge, Mass., says that all consumers should look at their diets as if food is the medicine necessary to maintain healthy, disease-free lives. “Prevention is always better than a cure,” said Li. Foods that may help prevent cancer and other chronic diseases include artichokes, black pepper, cinnamon, garlic, lentils, olives, pumpkin, rosemary, thyme, watercress, and more. For a more comprehensive list of medicinal foods, read “The Chronic Disease Food Remedy” in the October 2012 issue of Food Technology.

Last week, we discussed defining the word “healthy” in relation to food, and decided it meant … oh, wait. We didn’t decide anything. As it turns out, a universally acceptable explanation of “healthy” is really hard to pin down.
But never fear, because it’s CHG readers to the rescue. Quite a few of you guys chimed in with your ideas on “healthy,” and there were a ton of solid points not mentioned in my post. Even better, we might have stumbled over a working definition. (It’s at the end.)

But first, in seven easy-to-follow categories, in near-original form, here are your thoughts.

(Note: there were some minor edits made for length, but otherwise, reader comments were left largely untouched.)

"Healthy" is MODERATION AND BALANCE

Anonymous: Healthy = moderation. In all things. Including moderation.

Wosnes: Someone else said it: moderation in all things, including moderation. There are definitely times to be immoderate. Not every day, but some days.

Wheatlessfool: It all comes down to balance and payoff for me … sometimes, that fudgy brownie IS healthy. Just not every day, and not replacing the foods I DO need to keep me feeling my best.

jenniferocious!: There has to be balance in life and while I strive to eat a majority of my meals from recipes and foods I would qualify as healthy, I also know its okay to indulge in a bowl of macncheese or having a frou frou coffee drinks once in awhile.

Debbie: I love my mama’s homemade mac & cheese, fried pork chops and green bean casserole. … If I ate it every day, I’d die in approximately 4.2 months, because … it’s high in fat, calories. BUT. If I only eat it once or twice a year – say, for my birthday – then it’s not bad at all. It’s an indulgence.

"Healthy" is LONGTERM

Kristen@TheFrugalGirl: Its important to look at the overall diet instead of trying to make sure every. single. thing. you eat is bursting with nutrition. I eat a lot of whole grains, fresh produce, and fresh dairy, and so I dont think a little dessert every day is going to kill me.

Joy Manning: When we are assessing the relative health of our diets, we should look at a whole week or month or year of meals and consider the variety of nutrition it provides, but also the pleasure. Getting pleasure from meals is, by my definition, part of a healthy diet. Whole ingredients + time and effort cooking + a wide variety of delicious real food = healthy over time.
"Healthy" is SMART SUBSTITUTING

Rebecca: By [the] strict definition, things like macaroni and cheese may not be "healthy", but they do qualify as "healthier" than typical versions of the same dish. And besides, who wants to be perfectly virtuous all the time?

Allison: Im always interested in making unhealthy dishes healthy or even a little healthier. For example, I substitute pureed potato for cream and butter in any "cream of" soup, swap applesauce, mashed bananas, and avocados for milk and butter in baked goods, etc. Recently, I experimented with baked green tomatoes - still not exactly "health food," but at least a healthier version of a caloric - but oh-so-yummy! - treat.

"Healthy" is UNPROCESSED FOOD

Relishments: For me, healthy food is food thats has a low or reasonable amount of sugars and fats. Its not overly processed-ideally its something I made, not something that came out of a box.

Kristen@TheFrugalGirl: I generally think that healthy food is food thats fairly unprocessed (real yogurt vs. watermelon Gogurt, homemade granola vs. Cocoa Puffs, fresh green beans vs. the canned sort, etc).

Daniel: I use a really simple shorthand to define healthy. If its a first-order food with little processing, its healthy enough. If its a second-order food, meaning a food thats packaged and processed, its unlikely to be healthy.

April: I think fake food is a much bigger health issue than fat. Skim milk may be lower in fat than whole milk, but it is a fake food--it certainly doesnt come out of the cow that way! … One could argue that God (or evolution, if thats what you believe in) knew what He/it was doing, and doesnt need to really be improved on.

Healthy is ACTUAL FOOD

Regina Terrae: For me, healthy food is produce-focused, like you said; fresh and seasonal and varied; uses naturally-raised meat as a condiment or at least in smallish portions; simple, unprocessed, whole.

Libby: For me, healthy means that the meal contains whole grains, beans and/or nuts, lots of veggies, and no meat or dairy. its also important to me that the meal is high in fiber and has little to no saturated fat (poly and mono are fine).

Allison: I have my own definition of healthy largely based on my own health goals: lots of healthy fats, calcium, garlic, leafy greens, berries, and protein - for … maintaining good heart, skin, bone, and muscle condition.

Wosnes: My own mantra is "mostly homemade." I aim for the opposite of Sandra Lee: 70% (or more) fresh food and 30% (or less) ready made products. I think Im at about 85/15, including condiments.

Becca: Healthy to me is whole foods or just one step away (for example, I use frozen veggies when fresh arent in season). … That being said, I am currently providing child care for a two year old and my 6 month old, so sometimes mac and cheese from the box keeps me sane.
"Healthy" is RELATIVE

Ross: Whether a person is overweight or underweight has food allergies or medical, religious, or ethical issues the definition is vastly different. … When I was a kid in my early 20s, eating healthily meant eating a piece of fruit or a salad once a month. Now it means watching how many calories Im taking in a day, limiting my fat intake and the like. So, even as a person progresses through life their perceptions of eating healthy change.

"Healthy" is HOLISTIC

Marcia: Healthy isnt just the contents of an individual dish. Its also the content of your diet and lifestyle.

Regina Terrae: For me, healthy diet cannot be looked at in isolation from healthy lifestyle, i.e. getting the body moving every day.

Laura: “Healthy" is so much more than what you put in your mouth. Its a whole mental/emotional state. I try to eat things that are good for me. I also eat things that are happy for me. I find Im much healthier and happier overall that way.

AmandaLP: "Healthy" is something that nourishes my mind and my body. I don’t care if what I am eating has tons of fiber and no sugar and lots of protein, if I hate eating it, then it is not healthy for me.

So, to sum, “healthy” (in relation to food) involves: a holistic, relative approach to eating implemented over the long term that emphasizes balance and moderation, smart substitutes, and unprocessed edibles/actual food.

I don’t know about you guys, but that sounds good to me. Huge thanks to everyone who wrote in. Yall are pretty good at this.

(Photos courtesy of Daily Mobile, Taylorshocks Weblog, and How Stuff Works.)

_http://cheaphealthygood.blogspot.com/2009/09/reader-replies-healthy-defined-as-best.html

A chemical found in red wine remains effective at fighting cancer even after the bodys metabolism has converted it into other compounds.

This is an important finding in a new paper published in the journal Science Translational Medicine by Cancer Research UK-funded researchers at the University of Leicesters Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine.

The paper reveals that resveratrol – a compound extracted from the skins of red grapes – is not rendered ineffective once it is metabolised by the body.

This is an important development, as resveratrol is metabolised very quickly – and it had previously been thought that levels of the extracted chemical drop too quickly to make it usable in clinical trials.

The new research shows that the chemical can still be taken into cells after it has been metabolised into resveratrol sulfates.

Enzymes within cells are then able to break it down into resveratrol again – meaning that levels of resveratrol in the cells are higher than was previously thought.

In fact, the results appear to show resveratrol may be more effective once it has been generated from resveratrol sulfate than it is if it has never been metabolised because the concentrations achieved are higher.

The team, led by University of Leicester translational cancer research expert Professor Karen Brown, administered resveratrol sulfate to mice models.

They were subsequently able to detect free resveratrol in plasma and a variety of tissues in the mice.

This is the first direct sign that resveratrol can be formed from resveratrol sulfate in live animals, and the researchers think it may help to show how resveratrol is able to have beneficial effects in animals.

The study also showed that resveratrol generated from resveratrol sulfate is able to slow the growth of cancer cells by causing them to digest their own internal constituents and stopping them from dividing.

Professor Karen Brown said: "There is a lot of strong evidence from laboratory models that resveratrol can do a whole host of beneficial things – from protecting against a variety of cancers and heart disease to extending lifespan.

"It has been known for many years that resveratrol is rapidly converted to sulfate and glucuronide metabolites in humans and animals – meaning the plasma concentrations of resveratrol itself quickly become very low after administration.

"It has always been difficult to understand how resveratrol is able to have activity in animal models when the concentrations present are so low, and it has made some people skeptical about whether it might have any effects in humans.

"Researchers have hypothesized for a long time that resveratrol might be regenerated from its major metabolites in whole animals but it has never been proven.

"Our study was the first to show that resveratrol can be regenerated from sulfate metabolites in cells and that this resveratrol can then have biological activity that could be useful in a wide variety of diseases in humans.

"Importantly, we did all our work with clinically achievable concentrations so we are hopeful that our findings will translate to humans.

"Overall, I think our findings are very encouraging for all types of medical research on resveratrol. They help to justify future clinical trials where, previously, it may have been difficult to argue that resveratrol can be useful in humans because of the low detectable concentrations.

"There is considerable commercial interest in developing new forms of resveratrol that can resist or overcome the issue of rapid metabolism. Our results suggest such products may not actually be necessary to deliver biologically active doses of resveratrol to people."

How well does genetic make-up predict risk for type 2 diabetes? This recent review finds that genes arent a good predictor:

Predicting Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Genetic Risk Models on the Basis of Established Genome-Wide Association Markers: A Systematic Review, American Journal of Epidemiology, Online: September 2013

"In conclusion, [Genetic risk models] showed a low predictive performance for risk of type 2 diabetes, irrespective of study design, participants’ race/ethnicity, and the number of genetic markers included."

The researchers analyzed data from 23 studies and found that genetic testing was not as useful as conventional risk factors, e.g. weight and age, in determining risk for type 2 diabetes.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gives these conventional risk factors for type 2 diabetes:

• Age greater than 45 years
• Diabetes during a previous pregnancy
• Excess body weight (especially around the waist)
• Family history of diabetes
• Given birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
• HDL cholesterol under 35 mg/dL
• High blood levels of triglycerides, a type of fat molecule (250 mg/dL or more)
• High blood pressure (greater than or equal to 140/90 mmHg)
• Impaired glucose tolerance
• Low activity level (exercising less than 3 times a week)
• Metabolic syndrome
• Polycystic ovarian syndrome
• A condition called acanthosis nigricans, which causes dark, thickened skin around the neck or armpits

NIH recommends that everyone over age 45 have a blood sugar (glucose) test at least every 3 years, more often if there is a higher risk for diabetes.
________