North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Richard Moyer <ramoyer@gmail.com>]

Mark, Stephen and others;
During the Berry Health Benefits Symposium last week, I discussed with
Balz Frei, the author of the paper you cite, certain aspects of the
health benefits of fruit.  I've asked the conference coordinator if
the abstracts are online, as they could be of interest to many NAFEX
members.

In brief, there are other human health endpoints than increases in
serum antioxidant levels from the paper cited.  Fruits contain
thousands of chemicals, some of which reduce inflammation or are
antibioitic, for example.

The conference featured blueberries, blackberries, raspberries,
cranberries, strawberries and elderberries as the current focus of
considerable research with humans, either for disease prevention or
treatment.

Richard Moyer
King College
Bristol, TN
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:39:23 -0700
> From: "Mark Lee" <markl@nytec.com>
> Subject: [NAFEX] why apples are healthful
> To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <00bf01c575cf$c325ed90$f4b839cc@NytecFremont.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
> 
> http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/fw04/apples.html
> 
> The link above will take you to a discussion about why apples are
> healthful.  It is a simplified version of a study published last year in
> the journal called Free Radical Biology and Medicine (Lotito, S.B., and
> Frei, B. (2004) The increase in human plasma antioxidant capacity
> following apple consumption is due to the metabolic effect of fructose
> on urate, not apple-derived antioxidant flavonoids. Free Rad. Biol. Med.
> 37, 251-258).
> 
> The conclusion of the study is that apples are healthful because of the
> fructose they contain.  The antioxidant flavonoids are getting in the
> news lately, but this study found that this substance is not making its
> way into the bloodstream.  If this study is true, it would make much of
> the effort to promote flavonoid-rich fruits seem like a waste of money.
> It also would mean fructose is not the evil substance that nutrition
> experts are making it out to be.
> 
> I have contacted both authors on the paper and some others involved in
> flavonoid research, and asked for comments on the study.  I haven't
> received any replies yet.  Are there any fruit explorers out their doing
> nutrition research in their day job that can comment on this paper?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark Lee
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:45:51 -0600
> From: "Rodney Eveland" <reveland@collinscom.net>
> Subject: [NAFEX] why apples are healthful
> To: <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <000301c575d9$0ff67410$c27ba8c0@IBMWTKEQZ8JB5T>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> I found it interesting that Red Delicious seemed to be the best.
> 
> Rodney in NE Wy.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:59:16 -0700
> From: "Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org>
> Subject: RE: [NAFEX] why apples are healthful
> To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <20050620205936.259454C00B@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> The paradox stated at the start of that article is correct, but the
> conclusion, though possible, is not definitive.  There are other
> explanations, such as catalysis in the liver, that could explain why apples
> increase antioxidant action in the blood at a greater degree than would be
> expected by their apparent serum metabolites.
> 
> It's happened several times in nutrition that we think food compounds are
> poorly absorbed but find that the actions that those compounds would have
> caused still occur.  This is exactly the paradox here.  In the past there
> has been an underestimation of the complexity of absorption and conversion
> of those food compounds.
> 
> You just can't adequately measure uptake (and utility) of many food-borne
> compounds by measuring serum metabolites, although the method certainly
> works for, say, testing for certain drugs or chemicals.
> 
> What would work is seeing what's left over - in this case the amount of
> flavonoids - in the portion of the animal's waste directly attributable to
> the apple.  Another thing that works is looking at the resultant antioxidant
> effect then backing up the chemistry, reaction by reaction, to the source.
> 
> BTW, this study doesn't mean you need to switch to Red Delicious.  Red
> apples would generally have more action than green, and cider apples
> probably more than eating apples (but no so much the cider - you need to eat
> the fruit).
> 
> Stephen Sadler, Ph.D.
> USDA 9, AHS heat zone 8,
> Sacramento CA - Mediterranean climate
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mark Lee
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: 'North American Fruit Explorers'
> Subject: [NAFEX] why apples are healthful
> 
> http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/fw04/apples.html
> 
> The link above will take you to a discussion about why apples are
> healthful.  It is a simplified version of a study published last year in
> the journal called Free Radical Biology and Medicine (Lotito, S.B., and
> Frei, B. (2004) The increase in human plasma antioxidant capacity
> following apple consumption is due to the metabolic effect of fructose
> on urate, not apple-derived antioxidant flavonoids. Free Rad. Biol. Med.
> 37, 251-258).
> 
> The conclusion of the study is that apples are healthful because of the
> fructose they contain.  The antioxidant flavonoids are getting in the
> news lately, but this study found that this substance is not making its
> way into the bloodstream.  If this study is true, it would make much of
> the effort to promote flavonoid-rich fruits seem like a waste of money.
> It also would mean fructose is not the evil substance that nutrition
> experts are making it out to be.
> 
> I have contacted both authors on the paper and some others involved in
> flavonoid research, and asked for comments on the study.  I haven't
> received any replies yet.  Are there any fruit explorers out their doing
> nutrition research in their day job that can comment on this paper?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark Lee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nafex mailing list
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
> All other messages are discarded.
> No exceptions.
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be used
> to change other email options):
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
> 
> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list
> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
> Please do not send binary files.
> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
> 
> Message archives are here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex
> 
> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:08:39 -0700
> From: "Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org>
> Subject: RE: [NAFEX] why apples are healthful
> To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <20050620210858.BFA474C00B@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> 
> Oh, and the amount of fructose in fruit is probably just right, and
> accompanied by a perfect balance of fiber and nutritious compounds.  The
> dietary problem seems to be the effect of the massive amounts of liquid
> high-fructose corn syrup we take in in sodas and processed foods.  That may
> well lead to metabolic dysregulation.
> 
> One of the classic approaches to restoring proper metabolism includes
> consumption of many servings of fresh fruits and veggies, including apples.
> 
> Used to be we thought sucrose was the culprit in that problem, and fructose
> was fine.  Oops.  But fructose is still just dandy, as are all sugars, in
> place in whole fruits.
> 
> 
> ~ Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:09:53 -0600
> From: "Rodney Eveland" <reveland@collinscom.net>
> Subject: [NAFEX] why apples are healthful
> To: <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002301c575dc$67bece60$c27ba8c0@IBMWTKEQZ8JB5T>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> More on fructose...... http://fructose.biography.ms/
> 
> ---------------------------------------An extract from above
> HEALTH EFFECTS:
> 
> Fructose depends on glucose to carry it into the blood stream via
> GLUT-5 [1]. Absorption of fructose without glucose present is very
> poor, and excess fructose is carried into the lower intestine where it
> provides nutrients for the existing flora. It may also cause water
> retention in the intestine. These effects may lead to bloating,
> excessive flatulance, loose stools, and even diarrhea depending on the
> amounts eaten and other factors.
> 
> Fructose is a reducing sugar, as are all monosaccharides. However, it
> is approximately ten times more active [2] [3] in the formation of
> glycations than glucose so should be limited in consumption in order
> to limit the consequent damage to cellular and molecular function.
> This may be an important contribution to senescence and many
> age-related chronic diseases [4].
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It looks like fructose can have the same side effects as those carb
> blockers.
> 
> How's your flora?
> 
> One more thing. Karo light syrup is High in fructose so it
> would seem that drinking a half cup of straight Karo would
> be as good as eating an apple. Finally here is the definition of
> "reducing sugar" for those who care to know.
> http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/reducing_sugar
> What's it all mean? Beats me............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:29:38 -0500
> From: "loneroc" <loneroc@mwt.net>
> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] grafting
> To: "North American Fruit Explorers" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <00f401c57600$b21dc460$6750becf@computer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Michelle,
> 
> I just used the tape for binding then painted the scion and union with Doc 
> Farwells.
> 
> The tape worked much better than the rubber bands that I use for bench 
> grafting.  Really quite slick.
> 
> Steve Herje, Lone Rock, WI
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Charles Paradise
>  To: North American Fruit Explorers
>  Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 11:50 AM
>  Subject: Re: [NAFEX] grafting
> 
> 
>    if using this splicing tape--is that used  all alone?  Does it stablize 
> the graft enough?  Or is it just a cover over the rubbers? Michelle Horner  
> zone 4/5 SE WI
>    Michelle, Yes, if you're using a tape similar to the one I use.  You put 
> a little pull stretch on the tape and it can be enough on most grafts to 
> cover the graft and also provide enough of the splinting action the rubbers 
> would provide to the job in total with just the grafting tape.
>    There are many different causes of grafting failure.  You didn't mention 
> what you're grafting.  One cause frequently cited is beginners leave the 
> cut wood exposed too long.  Experienced grafters become a little frequent 
> working fast and that's one reason they start to look sometimes a little 
> possessed when grafting.
> 
>    Charlie Paradise
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>  _______________________________________________
>  nafex mailing list
>  nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> 
>  **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
>  All other messages are discarded.
>  No exceptions.
>  ----
>  To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be 
> used to change other email options):
>  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
> 
>  File attachments are NOT stripped by this list
>  TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
>  Please do not send binary files.
>  Use plain text ONLY in emails!
> 
>  Message archives are here:
>  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex
> 
>  NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex/attachments/20050620/bb426784/attachment.htm
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nafex mailing list
> nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> **YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO POST!**
> All other messages are discarded.
> No exceptions.
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to the bottom of this page (also can be 
> used to change other email options):
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
> 
> File attachments are NOT stripped by this list.
> TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM COMPUTER VIRUSES!
> Please do not send binary files.
> Use plain text ONLY in emails!
> 
> Message archives are here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/nafex
> 
> NAFEX web site:   http://www.nafex.org/
> 
> 
> End of nafex Digest, Vol 29, Issue 46
> *************************************
>