Say no to antiandrogens and cancer.
Where is this dumb belief coming from? In elderly cancer accounts for 20% of all deaths (in the US).
Most of cancers are triggered by environmental pollutants…
Having read the original article, I wouldn’t give it any heed. If you look at most of the “experts” quoted, they’re mostly working for institutions that promote high-priced products such as organic food or “hormone-free” milk or grass-fed beef or what have you. They are not unbiased; just the opposite.
One can look at any food and find some theoretical safety issue. When I was in a nutrition science program (oh yeah, I have advanced degrees in nutrition and biochemistry, BTW) I took a course in food toxicology. The food toxicologists would play a game called “have a nice lunch” where they would each sit with their lunch and the other would point out all of the “theoretical” safety issues in the others food. Point is, don’t change your diet based on this article and be careful about other advice you see.
I’ve just realised how stupid I’ve come over in some of the things I’ve said, and apologise for that.
I’ve read up a lot more on a few things and realise different things now.
I may well change my canned products for alternatives - thanks to the people that argued against what I was saying otherwise if I didnt get challenged I may not have opened my mind up a little more.
[Was told a long time ago by my 'rents that theres no point worrying about cancer, cause ultimately old age will get you with something… I dont know why I thought it was cancer :s either way, yes, that was dumb]
Thanks Bigfoot from Australia ,maybe my question should’ve been ‘were there extensive studies and related illnesses that precipitated the change from unlined to lined cans of food?’
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
I’ve read up a lot more on a few things and realise different things now.
I may well change my canned products for alternatives - thanks to the people that argued against what I was saying otherwise if I didnt get challenged I may not have opened my mind up a little more.[/quote]
That is greatly to your credit. 
So many people will not re-evaluate their thoughts. Yet absolutely everyone comes up with thoughts needing re-evaluation.
I obviously haven’t seen the Nalgenes (2L labware ones) up close, but they look to be of the “softer plasic” kind, which I know usually contain BPA. Biotest should point to product information directly from Nalgene to confirm whether or not the bottle contains BPA.
However, unless you are heating the bottle or keeping it in direct sunlight, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Also, regarding canned tomatoes…
Come on. How many cans a week of tomatoes are you consuming? Doesn’t the body have a limited capacity to remove waste and toxic chemicals (such as BPA)? If so, wouldn’t the body be able to remove the xenoestrogens from the body if canned food consumption is low enough that such nasty stuff doesn’t overwhelm the body’s natural ability to detoxify itself?
I could be wrong. Bill or someone with more education than me on the matter…please chime in.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
[quote]Ben_VFR85 wrote:
I’ve read up a lot more on a few things and realise different things now.
I may well change my canned products for alternatives - thanks to the people that argued against what I was saying otherwise if I didnt get challenged I may not have opened my mind up a little more.[/quote]
That is greatly to your credit.
So many people will not re-evaluate their thoughts. Yet absolutely everyone comes up with thoughts needing re-evaluation.
[/quote]
My initial thoughts agreed with his and I still stick by mine though I admit I may have came by as harsh as well.
Its just that I think before we concern ourselves with plastic bottles and lids, we should first strive to have the major things in order first. Thats what my example was about. In my opinion, if eating vegetables or meat from a can means avoiding McDonalds, then I would say that thats a better alternative.
However, if you eat pretty healthy, then making decisions such as avoiding platics and canned foods may help out even further, and would benefit you.
And you guys are right. Some people don’t even worry. It doesn’t take much thought for people to make these decisions. Mind you most of us don’t think like the majority. But the general population indeed does worry. When I told my mother to not eat so many damn carbs, she said “well what am I supposed to eat then? Its always this is good and this is bad with you”. I sighed and rolled my eyes, because obviously theres plenty to eat, even if you reduce your carbs. So if a reduction of carbs made her panic, I can only imagine what her reaction would be if I told her about this. It would be “another list of foods I can’t have”
I’ll assume thats apology accepted then!
I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong if I see I am wrong, but I’m still a firm believer on the mantre, if you believe something, defend it to the death… sometimes makes you look a little foolish though 
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I obviously haven’t seen the Nalgenes (2L labware ones) up close, but they look to be of the “softer plasic” kind, which I know usually contain BPA. Biotest should point to product information directly from Nalgene to confirm whether or not the bottle contains BPA.
However, unless you are heating the bottle or keeping it in direct sunlight, it shouldn’t be a problem.
Also, regarding canned tomatoes…
Come on. How many cans a week of tomatoes are you consuming? Doesn’t the body have a limited capacity to remove waste and toxic chemicals (such as BPA)? If so, wouldn’t the body be able to remove the xenoestrogens from the body if canned food consumption is low enough that such nasty stuff doesn’t overwhelm the body’s natural ability to detoxify itself?
I could be wrong. Bill or someone with more education than me on the matter…please chime in.[/quote]
I had never made a specific study of bisphenol-A. I had seen a couple of times in peer-reviewed literature where the pharmacological action of amounts such as commonly occur in the diet was found to be substantial. I’ll look into it further. At the present time, my understanding is that the compound is so potent at estrogen-related-receptor gamma that dietary intake rather readily has real effect.
On the general question of detoxication: Rates of enzymatic reactions, such as detoxification, depend on level. This is why you see the phenomenon of half-lives occurring with most compounds: rather than removing so many milligrams or micrograms per hour, instead the body might eliminate half of a compound in say 8 hours, half of what is still remaining (thus 1/4 of the original amount) in the next 8 hours, and so on.
Thus levels don’t stay at zero, but if something is taken on an ongoing basis, levels build up until the rate of detoxification is high enough to match the rate of intake. Sometimes this will be a substantial level.
(Note: the above is ignoring first-pass metabolism, but the same principle applies: that with ongoing intake the body can’t detoxify down to zero levels.)
How did you get so awesome Bill?
This is what I was told by an “expert” about detoxification once; that it was ok to smoke cigarretes as long as I took the appropriate anti oxidants for it.
I wouldn’t use the word “awesome,” but I studied medicinal chemistry both as an undergrad as electives (my degree however is in microbiology) and for 4 years in the UF medicinal chemistry graduate program. I completed all the education, research, and qualifiers for a PhD in medicinal chemistry, but obtained gainful employment before even starting on writing my thesis (though each part of the research was written up and published), and stupidly never did finish my thesis so never got the degree.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I completed all the education, research, and qualifiers for a PhD in medicinal chemistry, but obtained gainful employment before even starting on writing my thesis (though each part of the research was written up and published), and stupidly never did finish my thesis so never got the degree.[/quote]
So, are you saying competence is the anti oxidant for stupidity?
Relax ladies. It’s still better than McDonalds and donuts!
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
I obviously haven’t seen the Nalgenes (2L labware ones) up close, but they look to be of the “softer plasic” kind, which I know usually contain BPA. Biotest should point to product information directly from Nalgene to confirm whether or not the bottle contains BPA.[/quote]
No BPA in the Nalgene labware bottle. I guess you missed my post some 9 replies up, but the bottle says PETE which does not have BPA in it: [quote]The ANACONDA bottle is PETE (#1) and PETE does not contain BPA, although I’m not so sure about what the lid is made out of. Insert lame joke here.[/quote]
Dang, I eat a lot of apples…
i don’t think that paying attention to this stuff is ‘majoring in the minors’. For me, I already go to Whole Foods once or twice a month. It’s easy to add the safer brands of canned tomatoes to my shopping list.
BTW, you can get wild Alaskan salmon in a can, in most grocery stores. Bumblebee is one brand that sells wild Alaskan salmon, and there are probably several others.
Microwave popcorn - wow - besides the lining of the bag which the article mentioned, the artificial butter flavor is also bad stuff (contains diacetyl, a ketone which is a solvent I believe). Diacetyl allegedly causes lung cancer, asthma and bronchitis. Popcorn manufacurers have started to phase the diacetyl out, but the chemical they’re replacing it with is similar to diacetyl and supposedly just as bad.
More on microwave popcorn:
[quote]
Two years ago, Orville Redenbacher soared from the graveyard and announced in weeks of TV ads that his popcorn was now free of diacetyl. That’s the chemical in artificial butter flavoring that has been blamed for sickening hundreds of workers, killing a handful and destroying the lungs of at least three microwave popcorn addicts.
Almost every other popcorn maker followed suit.
But now, government health investigators are reporting that the “new, safer, butter substitutes” used in popcorn and others foods are, in some cases, at least as toxic as what they replaced.
Even the top lawyer for the flavoring industry said his organization has told anyone who would listen that diacetyl substitutes are actually just another form of diacetyl.[/quote]