Posted by Larry Hoover on May 24, 2006, at 19:43:05
In reply to Re: which of the TCA's are genotoxic ? » Meri-Tuuli, posted by linkadge on May 24, 2006, at 18:42:31
Have you ever heard of the Ames test for mutagenicity? Bruce Ames? Here's what he has to say about the subject.
Comments at the bottom.
Mutat Res. 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20.
DNA damage from micronutrient deficiencies is likely to be a major cause of cancer.Ames BN.
University of California, 94720-3202, Berkeley, CA, USA. bnames@uclink4.berkeley.edu
A deficiency of any of the micronutrients: folic acid, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, niacin, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, iron, or zinc, mimics radiation in damaging DNA by causing single- and double-strand breaks, oxidative lesions, or both. For example, the percentage of the US population that has a low intake (<50% of the RDA) for each of these eight micronutrients ranges from 2 to >20%. A level of folate deficiency causing chromosome breaks was present in approximately 10% of the US population, and in a much higher percentage of the poor. Folate deficiency causes extensive incorporation of uracil into human DNA (4 million/cell), leading to chromosomal breaks. This mechanism is the likely cause of the increased colon cancer risk associated with low folate intake. Some evidence, and mechanistic considerations, suggest that Vitamin B12 (14% US elderly) and B6 (10% of US) deficiencies also cause high uracil and chromosome breaks. Micronutrient deficiency may explain, in good part, why the quarter of the population that eats the fewest fruits and vegetables (five portions a day is advised) has about double the cancer rate for most types of cancer when compared to the quarter with the highest intake. For example, 80% of American children and adolescents and 68% of adults do not eat five portions a day. Common micronutrient deficiencies are likely to damage DNA by the same mechanism as radiation and many chemicals, appear to be orders of magnitude more important, and should be compared for perspective. Remedying micronutrient deficiencies should lead to a major improvement in health and an increase in longevity at low cost.
Okay, anybody want to tell me why our doctors and governments aren't all over this? We are surrounded by propaganda, both negative (i.e. the absence of good information) and positive (i.e. the presence of false information). The more I study nutrition, the more I am convinced that we are being led down a path. A path to sickness. But, why? I can only think of one thing. Money. People would sue their *sses. Or something.It is impossible to obtain the RDA threshold of nutrients, from diet alone, while maintaining reasonable caloric intakes. It is impossible, and I challenge anybody to prove me wrong. The USDA has a database. Go to it. I did the math. It can't be done. Prove me wrong. Please.
Another aspect of nutrition, and one that ties directly back to the original subject, antidepressants....
In the following study, consider that sugar consumption is really a surrogate marker for food processing in general. Sugar is a food extract. A pure substance, normally found associated with all sorts of vitamins, and minerals, and fiber. But what do we do? We process the hell out of it, and derive this pure substance, sucrose. And we add it to everything. Do you have any idea how much B-vitamins are required to metabolize pure sugar? And the thing is, it doesn't come with any vitamins. 7 to 11 teaspoons, per can of soda. Remember what I said, though. I think sugar consumption is really a measure of food processing, more generally. But, consider this:
Depress Anxiety. 2002;16(3):118-20.A cross-national relationship between sugar consumption and major depression?
Westover AN, Marangell LB.
Mood Disorders Center (MDOC), Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. anwestover@yahoo.com
We have preliminarily investigated the hypothesis that sugar consumption may impact the prevalence of major depression by correlating per capita consumption of sugar with the prevalence of major depression. Major depression prevalence data (annual rate/100) was obtained from the Cross-National Epidemiology of Major Depression and Bipolar Disorder study [Weissman et al., 1996]. Sugar consumption data from 1991 was obtained from the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. For the primary analysis, sugar consumption rates (cal/cap/day) were correlated with the annual rate of major depression, using the Pearson correlation coefficient. For the six countries with available data for the primary analysis, there was a highly significant correlation between sugar consumption and the annual rate of depression (Pearson correlation 0.948, P=0.004). Naturally, a correlation does not necessarily imply etiology. Caveats such as the limited number of countries with available data must be considered. Although speculative, there are some mechanistic reasons to consider that sugar consumption may directly impact the prevalence of major depression. Possible relationships between sugar consumption, beta-endorphins, and oxidative stress are discussed.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:647031
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060520/msgs/648051.html