Author Topic: Prepared Food & Cancer nick Moderator Member # 5 posted October 17, 2005 10:23 PM                       "Foods Causing Cancer" is very interesting. I found a report on The National Cancer Institute's site about HCA in prepared cooked food. NCI report I understand the point you make between cooked meat and how vegetables cause less cancer. I also see the point you make about (endogenous) oxidative radicals being necessary and healthy, while exogenous radicals are unhealthy. I totally understand how antioxidants are 'there' to control the natural radicals. This makes perfect sense. I understand that radicals have an unpaired electron and then steal one from another molecule thus making that molecule a radical. It's unbalanced? "One of the insidious things about free radicals is that in interacting with other molecules to gain a stable configuration of electrons, they convert that target molecule into a radical. So a chain reaction begins that will propagate until two radicals meet each other and each contributes its unpaired electron to form a covalent bond linking the two." -http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/ROS.html quote: WaiSays:Where do those external radicals come from ? From inhaling polluted air and from consuming prepared foods, containing damaged proteins or too much minerals. Most damaged protein cannot easily be decomposed by enzymes in the digestive tract. Both decomposed- and partly-decomposed proteins are absorbed into the lymph and the blood. And in the blood radicals and enzymes decompose all substances that shouldn’t be there, step by step. Decomposing these substances, very often radicals originate. And sometimes these radicals damage cells before they are completely decomposed. So this breakdown process of protein is very important, and when damaged protein is broken down, step by step, these radicals originate because of how complicated this process is??? What exactly makes free radicals originate from damaged protein? Is this not a natural process for our body? Can anything be a radical? damaged fat? I take it damaged protein is more of a culprit because it takes longer/more complex to breakdown? What gives oxidative radicals the ability to damage cell DNA/RNA (which could cause a mutation, thus cancer?). I understand that cancer is a mutated cell that reproduces until death. Thanks once again RRM. IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 18, 2005 05:21 AM                       quote: So this breakdown process of protein is very important, and when damaged protein is broken down, step by step, these radicals originate because of how complicated this process is??? No, just because of the breaking down. quote: What exactly makes free radicals originate from damaged protein? Is this not a natural process for our body? Yes, it's natural. But, there are different types of radicals; long- or short-living (simple) ones. Toxins are long-living, and specific toxins may bind to receptors in the brain. Due to the breakdown / utilization of nutrients, mostly just short-living simple radicals originate. quote: Can anything be a radical? Anything that can be broken down; molecules (including the clean air that we breath), but not elements, such as minerals (potassium etc)and trace elements (selenium etc) quote: damaged fat? All fats, carbs and protein. quote: I take it damaged protein is more of a culprit because it takes longer/more complex to breakdown? The biggest danger from damaged protein are the stable toxins that originate due to the maillard reaction. But, yes, molecules that are not broken down by digestive enzymes in the digestive tract, but instead by decomposing enzymes in the blood and lymphe, will indeed cause some damage in these systems, and organs. quote: What gives oxidative radicals the ability to damage cell DNA/RNA (which could cause a mutation, thus cancer?) As you pointed out, radicals may cause a chain reaction until they meet another radical. This may happen at the outside of a cell, going on inside the cell and into the nucleus. Its as if the radical is a lone fighter that tries to fight his way into the palace to kill the king. His fighting skills are passed on to and from each inhabitant of the palace, but come to an end if the inhabitant is an armed guard (also a radical, or an antioxidant). Since there are a lot of guards in the palace, chances are slim that the king will get killed, but if these penetrations take place very often, the king may get hurt at some point. Toxins are way more dangerous than such unstable radicals because they are stable; they are 'ninja fighters' that can only be slightly wounded by a guard, and they therefore are way more capable in reaching the king. quote: I understand that cancer is a mutated cell that reproduces until death. All cells reproduce until death. Normally, cells do what they are designed for, reproducing at a normal pace. Tumors are clusters of cells that do not function normally, due to damgae done to their DNA/RNA (by radicals or toxins). In malign tumors, this damage specifically has damaged the cells capacity to inhibit their own growth, causing these cells to produce way more of one or more growth factors / hormones than inhibitors, accelerating their reproduction. Thus, these malign tumors grow very fast, overtaking normal functioning cells, which may lead to disfunctioning organs, and death. IP: Logged nick Moderator Member # 5 posted October 18, 2005 11:37 AM                       quote: Yes, it's natural. But, there are different types of radicals; long- or short-living (simple) ones. Toxins are long-living, and specific toxins may bind to receptors in the brain. Due to the breakdown / utilization of nutrients, mostly just short-living simple radicals originate. I see the difference between toxin and radical. Beta-carbolines have toxic properties. These HCA, from the "New Substances in Prepared Food", I take it that all HCA are bad? These HCA are those Malliard Reactant products, from the sugars and proteins. I take it HCA has do with the chemical make-up/arrangement of these damaged proteins. quote: The biggest danger from damaged protein are the stable toxins that originate due to the maillard reaction. But, yes, molecules that are not broken down by digestive enzymes in the digestive tract, but instead by decomposing enzymes in the blood and lymphe, will indeed cause some damage in these systems, and organs. Because of the radicals that originate, which are then eventually 'caught' by a gaurd. That makes sense. quote: As you pointed out, radicals may cause a chain reaction until they meet another radical. This may happen at the outside of a cell, going on inside the cell and into the nucleus. Do you mean it starts at the outside, then progresses to the inside then into the nucleus. Like a step by step process? quote: Its as if the radical is a lone fighter that tries to fight his way into the palace to kill the king. His fighting skills are passed on to and from each inhabitant of the palace, but come to an end if the inhabitant is an armed guard (also a radical, or an antioxidant). Since there are a lot of guards in the palace, chances are slim that the king will get killed, but if these penetrations take place very often, the king may get hurt at some point. Great analogy, that makes it so much easier to visualize! However, when you mean king, do you mean the nucleus of a cell? Does the palace mean that one individual cell, or do you mean the entire body? This analogy seems to have a double description of how an individual cell would respond, and how all the cells in the body would respond as well. Does that make sense? quote: Toxins are way more dangerous than such unstable radicals because they are stable; they are 'ninja fighters' that can only be slightly wounded by a guard, and they therefore are way more capable in reaching the king. These toxins could be HCA and beta-carbolines, correct? Which is what makes them so much more dangerous. Because they are totally different from radicals, they are substances that on their own are toxic. quote: All cells reproduce until death. Normally, cells do what they are designed for, reproducing at a normal pace. Tumors are clusters of cells that do not function normally, due to damage done to their DNA/RNA (by radicals or toxins). I was reading that when a radical or toxin gets to the nucleus it damages certain genes, such as the oncogene, and when this damage isn't repaired, it leads to abnormal cell reproduction(mitosis). Thus leading to tumors=uncontrolled cell division. quote: In malign tumors, this damage specifically has damaged the cells capacity to inhibit their own growth, causing these cells to produce way more of one or more growth factors / hormones than inhibitors, accelerating their reproduction. Thus, these malign tumors grow very fast, overtaking normal functioning cells, which may lead to disfunctioning organs, and death. When these malign tumors produce one or more growth factors/hormones, does this increase the hormone level throughout the body, or just in those cells/tumors? So cancer is uncontrolled cell division that takes control over other cells. How do these cancerous infect/takeover other cells. By attacking their DNA? Thanks IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 18, 2005 02:57 PM                       quote: Originally posted by nick: These HCA, from the "New Substances in Prepared Food", I take it that all HCA are bad? No, it totally depends on their molecular structure whether they contain toxic properties, or the property to 'just' influence receptors in the brain or other organs. quote: These HCA are those Malliard Reactant products, from the sugars and proteins. I take it HCA has do with the chemical make-up/arrangement of these damaged proteins. Yes; the name HCA is specific for a group of protein-sugar maillard products, named after their molecular structure. quote: Do you mean it starts at the outside, then progresses to the inside then into the nucleus. Like a step by step process? Yes, this MAY happen, but chances are slim, since these attackers have no will; they just randomly attack whatever may come in their path. So, that is why you can imagine that endogenous normal radicals are very unlikely to cause cancer, though it is possible in theory. Even when they last long enough, and even when they end up in the nucleus, chances are furthermore very slim that specifically that part of the DNA/RNA is damaged that holds the information to balance growth hormones /factors and their inhibitors. quote: However, when you mean king, do you mean the nucleus of a cell? Hmm, good question. Maybe much more specifically: that part of the DNA/RNA where the information about balancing growth stimulators and inhibitors is located, since only damage to that part may cause cancer (if 'not only injured, but fatally injured'). Damage to 'other royals' (other parts of the DNA/RNA) will only affect functioning of those cells (the cell plus its 'offspring'). quote: Does the palace mean that one individual cell, or do you mean the entire body? Maybe every cell represents a kingdom, with the nucleus being the palace, and the DNA/RNA the rooms where the royals sleep. That part of the DNA/RNA where the information about balancing growth stimulators/inhibitors is located, is the king. quote: This analogy seems to have a double description of how an individual cell would respond, and how all the cells in the body would respond as well. Does that make sense? I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Could you be more specific? quote: These toxins could be HCA and beta-carbolines, correct? Yes, they could (beta-carbolines are a specific group of HCA). quote: I was reading that when a radical or toxin gets to the nucleus it damages certain genes, such as the oncogene, and when this damage isn't repaired, it leads to abnormal cell reproduction(mitosis). Thus leading to tumors=uncontrolled cell division. If a toxin reaches the nucleus (palace), it doesn't necessarily kill one of the royals. And even if that does happen, this doesn't have to be disastrous, unless its the king. If another member of the royal family gets killed, that cell may stop functioning properly (the kingdom may fall apart), without leading to cancer (the kingdom becoming an evil, agressive empire). With cancer, normal functioning cells cannot compete because reproduction of the disfunctioning cells is accelerated, due to a lack of growth inhibitors (because that part of the DNA/RNA has been damaged). If the damage is not repaired, those cells will continue to reproduce at a faster pace, and they will therefore overpower normal functioning cells. A tumor is not the same as uncontrolled cell division. A tumor is a group of cells that don't function normally; they seem useless / out of place. If the reproduction rate is not accelerated, it is a benign tumor, and our own protein-decomposing enzymes may get rid of it eventually, or not. If reproduction is accelerated, it is a malign tumor. quote: When these malign tumors produce one or more growth factors/hormones, does this increase the hormone level throughout the body, or just in those cells/tumors? Every cell produces growth hormones / factors, but this is balanced by growth inhibitors, so that growth is controlled. Only if sufficient growth inhibitors are produced, will reproduction be accelerated. Depending on what growth stimulator is over-active, that tumor is named after that growth stimulator. For example: in a prolactinoma the level of prolactine is increased. If the blood-prolactine level is increased (in the above example), the cancer is likely to be widespread already. In the first stages of cancer an increased level of prolactine may not get noticed; it starts in the cell, with some of it leaking outside, so that only a large group of such cells will increase serum prolactine level. quote: So cancer is uncontrolled cell division that takes control over other cells. How do these cancerous infect/takeover other cells. By attacking their DNA? They simply grow faster, 'suffocating' other cells; taking away their nutrients / starving them. There is no 'evil design' in cancer cells other than accelerated reproduction. IP: Logged nick Moderator Member # 5 posted October 18, 2005 10:37 PM                       quote: Yes, this MAY happen, but chances are slim, since these attackers have no will; they just randomly attack whatever may come in their path. So, that is why you can imagine that endogenous normal radicals are very unlikely to cause cancer, though it is possible in theory. Even when they last long enough, and even when they end up in the nucleus, chances are furthermore very slim that specifically that part of the DNA/RNA is damaged that holds the information to balance growth hormones /factors and their inhibitors. But the more cooked food that you eat, more of the 'attacks' occur, the higher the probability of something harmful occuring? Makes sense to me. quote: Hmm, good question. Maybe much more specifically: that part of the DNA/RNA where the information about balancing growth stimulators and inhibitors is located, since only damage to that part may cause cancer (if 'not only injured, but fatally injured'). So when the cells are attacked by these radicals, and they fatally injure the part that regulates growth-stimulators/-inhibitors. Like you said the radical has no will, so is it just a matter of chance that it hits the growth regulation part of the DNA? Does it take just ONE cell to be fatally attacked which could lead to cancer through out the body, depending on the type (aggressive, less aggressive), as it will grow exponentially? quote: Damage to 'other royals' (other parts of the DNA/RNA) will only affect functioning of those cells (the cell plus its 'offspring'). This doesn't cause cancer, but does it cause health-problems? I would think so. quote: A tumor is not the same as uncontrolled cell division. A tumor is a group of cells that don't function normally; they seem useless / out of place. If the reproduction rate is not accelerated, it is a benign tumor, and our own protein-decomposing enzymes may get rid of it eventually, or not. If reproduction is accelerated, it is a malign tumor. Do radicals orginate these tumors? or can damaging some of the royals produce non-normal functioning cells which can cause tumors? quote: In the first stages of cancer an increased level of prolactine may not get noticed; it starts in the cell, with some of it leaking outside, so that only a large group of such cells will increase serum prolactine level. serum=measurable in the blood? much like serum cholesterol, etc... quote: They simply grow faster, 'suffocating' other cells; taking away their nutrients / starving them. There is no 'evil design' in cancer cells other than accelerated reproduction. I used to think that cancer cells were malicious and full of evil intent, but I see the picture much clearer now. So when a certain cancer is aggressive it makes it much harder to combat, because they take away nutrients from other cells and since there are more cancer cells growing, they demand more and more of the supply for there accelerated growth rate. I take it that the bodies' immune response isn't sufficient (depending on the cancer), when it comes to ever-increasing cancer cells? I find myself looking information at this biology site and learning more and more and connecting dots and so on. Its very interesting how it all fits together. Thanks again! IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 19, 2005 10:59 AM                       quote: But the more cooked food that you eat, more of the 'attacks' occur, the higher the probability of something harmful occuring? Yes. quote: Like you said the radical has no will, so is it just a matter of chance that it hits the growth regulation part of the DNA? Yes. quote: Does it take just ONE cell to be fatally attacked which could lead to cancer through out the body, depending on the type (aggressive, less aggressive), as it will grow exponentially? Yes, just one cell... quote: RRM: Damage to 'other royals' (other parts of the DNA/RNA) will only affect functioning of those cells (the cell plus its 'offspring'). quote: Nick: This doesn't cause cancer, but does it cause health-problems? No, because such cells normally are decomposed, and even when they are not, only benign tumors originate. Only if this happens frequently (eating cooked foods regularly), ageing of these cells is accelerated, which is indeed a health problem. quote: Do radicals orginate these tumors? That's highly unlikely, but possible in theory. quote: or can damaging some of the royals produce non-normal functioning cells which can cause tumors? No, only if that part of the DNA/RNA is damaged where the info about the balance between growth stimulation and inhibition is located (the king). quote: serum=measurable in the blood? much like serum cholesterol, etc... Yes. quote: So when a certain cancer is aggressive it makes it much harder to combat, because they take away nutrients from other cells Exactly. quote: and since there are more cancer cells growing, they demand more and more of the supply for there accelerated growth rate. I take it that the bodies' immune response isn't sufficient (depending on the cancer), when it comes to ever-increasing cancer cells? Immune response is essential indeed, but I don't know to what extend. quote: Thanks again! You are welcome! IP: Logged nick Moderator Member # 5 posted October 23, 2005 10:13 PM                       What do you think about the beyond veg website? You mentioned their site in your "Genetic is a Lie" article. They think that fire was created 125,000 years ago, with some very good facts and arguementation. They also have research on heating/cooking and the toxins they originate. I haven't read the whole article though. In that case, what are some of the other causes of cancer besides cooked food and high levels of radiation? I understand that ones susceptibility to cancer isn't genetic, but that susceptibility to cooked food toxins definitely plays a role in the probability of developing cancer. Thanks IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 24, 2005 11:17 AM                       quote: What do you think about the beyond veg website? That it contains lots of good information, and some less good. quote: They think that fire was created 125,000 years ago, with some very good facts and arguementation. Yes, that might be. 1.6 million years ago, humans had already fully developed in over 6 feet tall beings. 0.1 million years is not much on the scale of evolution. By nature, we have the capacity to neutralize some of the toxins present in smoke from (forrest)fires, which are partly the same as in cigarette smoke and cooked foods. So, yes, we can neutralize such toxins to some degree, by nature, that doesn't mean we have adapted to the toxins in cooked foods. We still are susceptible to those toxins, as they are also present in cigarette smoke; smoking increases lung cancer risk. quote: what are some of the other causes of cancer besides cooked food and high levels of radiation? Air pollution, (passive) smoking, dairy products, consuming too much hard fiber (coloncancer), Phtalates from soft plastic, excessive sunlight exposure (skin cancer). Probably miss a few. quote: I understand that ones susceptibility to cancer isn't genetic, but that susceptibility to cooked food toxins definitely plays a role in the probability of developing cancer. Yes; to what extend specific enzymes can neutralize such toxins is genetic, though many toxins cannot be neutralized by these enzymes. IP: Logged Oscar Moderator Member # 14 posted October 25, 2005 11:28 AM                       I'm wondering about excessive sunlight causing skin cancer. Does this mean that people around the equator have more skin cancer than people further away from it? Or do they have more protection against the sunlight? And does diet have an influence on that protective aspect and the susceptibility to skin cancer? IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 25, 2005 11:41 AM                       quote: Originally posted by Oscar: I'm wondering about excessive sunlight causing skin cancer. Does this mean that people around the equator have more skin cancer than people further away from it? Or do they have more protection against the sunlight? People around the equator naturally have a darker skin, which protects them against the sun indeed. quote: And does diet have an influence on that protective aspect and the susceptibility to skin cancer? I don't think so; it's more that the darker your skin (by nature), the better you are protected. Though it might be that excessive vitamin E increases skincancer risk. http://www.3.waisays.com/ IP: Logged nick Moderator Member # 5 posted October 25, 2005 02:14 PM                       quote: Tumors are clusters of cells that do not function normally, due to damgae done to their DNA/RNA (by radicals or toxins). In malign tumors, this damage specifically has damaged the cells capacity to inhibit their own growth, causing these cells to produce way more of one or more growth factors / hormones than inhibitors, accelerating their reproduction. So these benign tumors, there DNA/RNA has been damaged in a different area than malign tumors (reproduction rate). Ok, that makes sense! From the "Milk Causes Cancer Too" quote: In cystic breasts, breast-cells are more sensitive to substances stimulating cell-fission, and therefore cell-reproduction-rate is higher. What exactly is a cystic breast? Does cell-fission mean reproduction? Why are cystic breasts more sensitive to substances that stimulate cell-fission? quote: And by taking testosterone, prostate- and muscle-cells are more stimulated to reproduce. In tissues where reproduction-rate is increased, growth of mutated cells is stimulated as well, increasing cancer-risk. Who would be taking testorone? Wieght Lifters? Athletes? People with certain conditions? Are we talking about a higher than average intake of testorone? Which would increase the testosterone level above what is normal? quote: By absorbing external growth factors, tumors can originate. And tumors can become malignant when they, due to a mutation, start producing more growth factors, stimulating their own reproduction. Does the body increase it own levels of growth inhibitors to counteract this influx of external growth factors? How do external growth factors orginate tumors? By damaging their DNA/RNA? much like radicals? In that case, external growth factors can cause cancer indirectly? (by influencing cell growth of healthy and mutated cell?) From the "Foods Causing Cancer" article quote: Phyto-estrogens are 'weak' estrogens, and can replace common (powerful) estrogens. And because excessive estrogen can cause breast cancer, these phyto-estrogens are regarded as 'good' substances. Soya contains most phyto-estrogen. So these 'weak' estrogens occupy the same receptors as endogenous estrogen would, therefore decreasing the amount of estrogen created by the body? Which could lead to infertility as mentioned in the article. quote: To prevent cancer caused by estrogens, you should not use hormonal contraceptives Don't they decrease the level of estrogen? So how they could cause cancer? From the "New Substances in Prepared Food" article quote: Some HCA in prepared food are mutagenic. DNA-damage increases linearly with intake of HCA. How cancerous HCA are is partly dependent on how much nitrogen they contain. Salt, protein and nitrite (from vegetables) can supply nitrogen to react upon HCA. And nitrosated HCA are even more cancerous. Some of the most widespread mutagenic HCA in prepared foods are : pyridoindole (80) (amino-gamma-carboline) 2-amino-9H-pyrido(2,3-b)indole (81) (amino-alpha-carboline) 2-amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido(2,3-b) (82) 3-amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido(4,3-b)indole (83) 3-amino-1-methyl-5H-pyrido(4,3-b)indole (84) 1-methyl-3-carbonyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-beta-carboline (85). 4-aminobiphenyl (86) 4,4'-methylenedianiline (87) 3,2'-dimethyl-4-aminobiphenyl (88) 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (89) phenyl-hydroxylamine (90) O-acetyl-N-(5-phenyl-2-pyridyl)-hydroxylamine (91) 2-amino-3-methylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoline (92) 2-amino-3-methylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoxaline (93) 2-amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoline (94) 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoxaline (95) 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo(4,5-b)pyridine (96) 2-amino-3,4,8-trimethylimidazo(4,5-f)quinoxaline (97) 2-amino-3,7,8-trimethylimidazo(4,5-f)-quinoxaline (98) 2-amino-n,n,n-trimethylimidazo-pyridine (99) 2-amino-n,n-dimethylimidazopyridine (100) 2-amino-4-hydroxymethyl-3,8-dimethylimidazo-(4,5-g)-quinoxaline (101) 2-amino-1,7,9-trimethylimidazo-(4,5-g)-quinoxaline (101) 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo-(4,5-b)-pyridine (102) How do carcinogens attack the DNA/RNA? Do they work like oxidative radicals? Mutagenic means the ability to cause cancer, so when these substances are broken-down, radicals orginate thus increasing cancer risk, or do these toxins directly attack the cell DNA/RNA? Thanks! IP: Logged Oscar Moderator Member # 14 posted October 26, 2005 05:42 AM                       quote: I don't think so; it's more that the darker your skin (by nature), the better you are protected. Right. But because of the diet, I feel my skin change (as we probably all feel), so I wonder if that change also means the skin becomes more resistant against all kinds of harmful influences? And thus also sunlight? IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 26, 2005 10:44 AM                       quote: Originally posted by nick: What exactly is a cystic breast? Breasts that swell up (in the hormonal cycle, or due to getting pregnant). quote: Does cell-fission mean reproduction? Fission is part of the replication process indeed. (reproduction may not be the correct term) quote: Why are cystic breasts more sensitive to substances that stimulate cell-fission? Because their receptor sensitivity to such stimulating substances has been increased because they are supposed to be cystic at that time; when pregnant for example. quote: Who would be taking testorone? Weight Lifters? Athletes? People with certain conditions? Indeed. quote: Are we talking about a higher than average intake of testorone? Which would increase the testosterone level above what is normal? Any intake of testosterone may increase serum testosterone above normal. quote: Does the body increase it own levels of growth inhibitors to counteract this influx of external growth factors? Yes. quote: How do external growth factors orginate tumors? By damaging their DNA/RNA? much like radicals? No, by stimulating growth where that shouldn't happen; they may stimulate growth of cells that (due to a mutation) have become more sensitive to such a stimulating influence, to such an extend that they grow faster than our own defense system can break them down. quote: In that case, external growth factors can cause cancer indirectly? (by influencing cell growth of healthy and mutated cell?) Yes. quote: So these 'weak' estrogens occupy the same receptors as endogenous estrogen would, therefore decreasing the amount of estrogen created by the body? Not the amount created, but the actual level in the blood and especially total estrogen activity. quote: To prevent cancer caused by estrogens, you should not use hormonal contraceptives quote: Don't they decrease the level of estrogen? So how they could cause cancer? Some increase estrogen level. all contraceptives dominate / overpower our natural hormone metabolism. quote: How do carcinogens attack the DNA/RNA? Do they work like oxidative radicals? They have direct toxic (damaging) properties, directly damaging cells / cellDNA quote: Mutagenic means the ability to cause cancer, Mutagenic means the ability to cause mutations (to cell DNA/RNA). IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 26, 2005 10:46 AM                       quote: Originally posted by Oscar: I wonder if that change also means the skin becomes more resistant against all kinds of harmful influences? And thus also sunlight? I have no idea. A more 'pumped up' skin (retaining more water) better protects you against bruises though. Your skin is not just softer now, but also a bit more sensitive and vulnerable. IP: Logged Oscar Moderator Member # 14 posted October 26, 2005 06:07 PM                       Really? Hmmm, I seem to feel that, although my skin is softer, it also feels thicker (my nails too) and less vulnerable. But I haven't yet bruised myself, so I have to wait and see I guess... IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 27, 2005 03:12 PM                       When you want to pop a blackhead, you will find out that applying as much pressure as you used to do, you will now cause more damage to the skin (resulting in a small wound or redness) Maybe you feel that your skin is thicker now because you no longer apply chemicals to your skin that make your skin peel? (so that your skin has regained its natural thickness?) IP: Logged Oscar Moderator Member # 14 posted October 27, 2005 04:51 PM                       Hmm, I haven't noticed more 'popping' damage yet, but you could be right about the chemical thing. On a totally different note: I was wondering what is considered to be "a lot" of fiber, when combining foods? Avocado has 6% fiber, so can it be combined with tomato and cucumber, or even fish, or should it be eaten alone? IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 28, 2005 12:11 PM                       You cant just put a number on it, because it depends whether you talk about overal fiber intake, or about food-combining. Maybe its better to see "not too much fiber" advice as a general one, and look into food combining more specifically. Avocado with egg yolks is fine, for example, but avocado with raw fish might be less perfect somehow. And...it also differs individually very much... IP: Logged Oscar Moderator Member # 14 posted October 28, 2005 05:41 PM                       Ah, thanks! I guess I'll just experiment a bit... IP: Logged RRM Administrator Member # 2 posted October 30, 2005 01:34 PM                       Yes, that's the best way! IP: Logged