Carrots May Cure Cancer

Haydn Fenton writes "A group of researchers from the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne in England have discovered a link between the naturally formed pesticide found in carrots, falcarinol, and a substantial reduction in cancerous tumor formation in rats. The researchers hope that the discovery will lead to new anti-cancer drugs and new methods of production to maximize falcarinol production in crops. Dr Kirsten Brandt one of the researchers told the press "We already know that carrots are good for us and can reduce the risk of cancer but until now we have not known which element of the vegetable has these special properties."

Comments

Once proven in trials

[dtfinch]

The drugs will be approved 10 years later and sold for $100 a pill. And in 20 years, some poorer countries will have access to them as well. If you're terminally ill, you still can't take experimental drugs unless you're in the trials.

Re:Once proven in trials

[bill_mcgonigle]

The drugs will be approved 10 years later and sold for $100 a pill. And in 20 years, some poorer countries will have access to them as well.

Quit whinin' and propose a workable alternative. Or is it just "socialize all medical research"?

If you have a slow approval process you get people like this complaining about it - if you have a fast approval process you have drugs like Vioxx slip through.

I know, all we want is a fast and perfect system. For free.

Of course terminally ill people should have access to whatever they want, but then again so should healthy people (excepting issues of public health risk, e.g. antibiotics).

Re:Once proven in trials

[digitalchinky]

You swing between extremes. Removing a lot of the government mandated overhead to get 'approved for humans' would certainly help real people. I think if it was someone you knew or cared for, you'd be less inclined to 'put up with the current system'

This does not in any way mean socialism, besides, it's cancer, who gives a shit about the poor greedy corporation that wants to sit on the cure while waiting for the highest bidder, or the best way to screw over the world for a great big fat return of investment.

People like to get things that are 'free' - this is obvious - people also appreciate items that are priced based on the cost of raw materials, not on the cost of the CEO.

That's what I think anyway.

Re:Once proven in trials

[bill_mcgonigle]

Removing a lot of the government mandated overhead to get 'approved for humans' would certainly help real people.

In some cases, yes. In others, it would hurt real people. Are you familiar with the cardiovascular effects of Vioxx and other selective COX-2 inhibitors?

I think if it was someone you knew or cared for, you'd be less inclined to 'put up with the current system'

Are you talking about the terminally ill, for which I already advocated a completely open position? Or are you talking about using untested drugs on other people I care about?

This does not in any way mean socialism, besides, it's cancer, who gives a shit about the poor greedy corporation that wants to sit on the cure while waiting for the highest bidder, or the best way to screw over the world for a great big fat return of investment.

So you're saying if someone develops a cure for cancer and you were in charge, you'd confiscate it from them? If that becomes policy nobody will put R&D money into the search. Then who has been helped?

People like to get things that are 'free' - this is obvious - people also appreciate items that are priced based on the cost of raw materials, not on the cost of the CEO.

So in your view R&D costs shouldn't be recouped? Where's the incentive for progress if you're not advocating a socialist system? The computer you're using is probably worth about $14 in raw material costs, if you're lucky but I bet you payed more than that for it.

Re:Once proven in trials

[digitalchinky]

Vioxx and COX-2 are not alone. Bad choices get made.

We are all 'terminal' some of us simply faster than others. This is where I'm at, not selectively choosing one sickness over another.

If someone developed a cure for all cancer, no, I would not condone confiscation, but neither would I condone a price tag beyond the reach of 'anyone' with cancer. That's the extent of my argument.

Your last point is a little hard to disagree with in its entirety. So what is the solution? Leave the suffering to suffer simply because they can't afford to pay? (This already happens in some countries - Philippines for example)

I do agree R&D money has to come from somewhere, but without competition it is a common theme that prices tend to go up, never down.

I don't disagree with your statements, but I would like to hope there is some middle ground that is not purely about money or socialism. Human kindness and all.

Make someone healthy, they can contribute back to society - at gunpoint if needed :-)

The whole thing is not so black and white for everyone.

Re:Once proven in trials

[PsiPsiStar]

For starters, since this chemical is naturally occuring, it can't be patented in the first place.
Maybe the refinment process, but not the chemical itself. You'd have to alter it in some slight way to 'improve' it if you wanted a patent.

But here's what I'd suggest in terms of fixes;

1. Don't prevent people from buying drugs which are in use in other countries. Why should Americans support the majority of the R&D costs while other (developed) countries get the same drugs for less because they have price controls. If companies start refusing to sell drugs in price controlled countries, we'll have a fairer defrayal of drug costs.

2. Don't rely so damn much on proscriptions. Doctors just proscribe what drug companies tell them to, anyways. I've been able to make better decisions by researching the matter myself. That should be my choice. If people don't think they can handle this, they can go to the doctor and get an expert opinion.

3. End corruption at the FDA by preventing those people who make decisions from accepting money from drug companies while they work there or engaging in any conflict of interest for several years afterwards (i.e. if you helped approve drug A then you can't go to work later for the company that produced it.) This will stop fiascos like the unreasonably low setting for 'healthy' levels of cholesterol and the overproscription of lipitor and other statin drugs due to the head of the FDA accepting money from Lipitor's manufacturer. I think more drugs 'slip through' because of deliberate corruption than because of insufficient trials.

4. Focus on informed consent rather than outright prohibition.

5. Punish companies and indivduals who submit false information as part of the drug approval process.

6. Don't 'gift' discoveries to companies. The government has, at times, given patents to companies for them to develop. The gov should negotiate better on our behalf, rather than simply allowing sweetheart financial deals. If that means developing the government develops the drug, so be it. This is not more socialist than giving patents away and getting nothing in return.

7. End the tax break given to companies for health care. Company health coverage boosts the cost of health care by increasing the paperwork and allowing companies to charge more (because it'll be covered.) The system is practically set up to drive up the cost of health care.

Allow the government to offer deals - an extra year of patents in return for price fixing. That allows for more affordable drugs and companies can still recoup costs. Of course, this would probably be abused, so it might be a bad idea.

Re:Once proven in trials

[Mr. Slippery]

So you're saying if someone develops a cure for cancer and you were in charge, you'd confiscate it from them? If that becomes policy nobody will put R&D money into the search.

"Confiscate"? Knowledge isn't property, and patents are a state intervention in the market. When you start out with the premise that the state failing to use force to stop other people from implementing the cure is confiscation you're pretty far off the rails already.

Then you bring "socialism" into it. Publicly funded research has nothing to do with an economic system based on the exchange of labor rather than the ownership of capital.

So, yes, I'd say public funding is an option. (Indeed, I'd argue that for medical research on infectious disease, that's part of the state's role to "provide for the common defense".)

Or exercise eminent domain on life-saving patents, buy 'em out. Or require drug companies to agree to certain research as a condition of other patents being granted ("you can have your monopoly on penis pills, diet drugs, and baldness cures, so long as you keep working on the cancer thing").

Re:Once proven in trials

[k98sven]

We are all 'terminal' some of us simply faster than others. This is where I'm at, not selectively choosing one sickness over another.

So basically, if someone turns out a drug which say, causes liver cirrhosis, then it doesn't matter whether it's a drug against cancer or a drug against acne?

That's a weird position. It's not 'government overhead'. It's a protection system which is there for a very good reason. I guess you never heard of Thalidomide?

To paraphrase you, I think that if you knew more drug chemistry, you'd have a greater appreciation of why the system works the way it does.

If someone developed a cure for all cancer, no, I would not condone confiscation, but neither would I condone a price tag beyond the reach of 'anyone' with cancer.

Bad example. Cancer is a completely insignificant killer in the third-world. They simply don't live long enough there to develop cancer.

I do agree R&D money has to come from somewhere, but without competition it is a common theme that prices tend to go up, never down.

The prices do go down. They go down rapidly, once the patent expires and the generic-drug makers take over. From patenting a drug to the stage of commercial release, it's about 12 years. That give s you 5-8 years to sell your commercial drug under patent, and recoup those development costs. (Because a corporation like Pharmacia, doing research and production in Sweden, simply cannot undercut a generic-drug developer who does no research and has production in Puerto Rico.)

The problem here isn't greed. It's not like the drug companies don't realize that in poor nations, they either sell their drug at a low price or not at all.

The problem here is how to stop those drugs from being re-imported into western countries and sold at a lower price and undermining the patent-monopoly. (If you don't think that'll happen, I guess you've never gotten a Viagra spam either?)

Drug companies aren't evil. But they're not saints either. They're businesses which make money. But they certainly contribute back to society, more so than most businesses, because of the patent system. The result of all their R&D billions become public property after less than a decade on the market. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Re:Once proven in trials

[jsoffron]

And then the government will ban carrots, and then there will be hippies starting movements for legalizing medical carrots when really all they want is to eat them, and then the world will have finally had enough and all humans will be hurtled into space as the earth stops rotating because it's "sick of this stupid-ass sh*t."

Most interesting of all, we will discover that, low and behold, Leprechauns are real, and they will emerge from deep within the earth to start a new, gold-based economy. Then they'll unlink their currency from gold, and then they'll ban (etc., until leprechauns are hurtled from earth).

-j.

Re:Once proven in trials

[SacredNaCl]

So basically, if someone turns out a drug which say, causes liver cirrhosis, then it doesn't matter whether it's a drug against cancer or a drug against acne?

That's a weird position. It's not 'government overhead'. It's a protection system which is there for a very good reason. I guess you never heard of Thalidomide?

Thalidomide is currently being used as a very effect agent against 3 different types of cancer, and is in trials for some types of neuropathic pain, as well as a host of other uses. Just because a drug is bad for pregnant women doesn't mean it's a bad drug. Generally speaking, any drug useful in chemo is going to be an "X" for pregnancy. Look at Methotrexate. Also generally speaking, most of the chemo drugs are useful in rheumatic conditions like Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Crohn's disease.

I know you are trying to bring images of deformed babies into the arguement, but you can do that with about 1/5-1/4 of the FDA approved drugs for other indications, and most of them haven't even been tested in that circumstance, hell most of them haven't even been tested on teenagers, much less children, todlers, newborns, the unborn...etc A fair portion of the drugs approved by the FDA have never been subject to any testing or formal approval process at all, they were simply grandfathered in. Even drugs that are approved are rarely tested in human trials beyond 6-10 weeks.

Dragging Vioxx into this is also kind of poor. There is another NSAID which has risks far higher, it's called Toradol, and while it's fairly effective at blunting pain and reducing inflammation, it's the most likely of all of them to cause people to bleed out. Did they pull it off the market? No. It took a bit of time to reeducate doctors & get people to follow the reccomendation to only give it for a few days duration, but it's still a widely used and useful drug in hospitals. Vioxx is still a useful drug, and if not for them pulling it, would still be widely used even with those risks. It offered some benefits (not a sulfa drug for instance), less chance of bleeding out due to GI problems, useful post surgical because it doesn't interfere with clotting, and yes, it doubled the risks of heart attacks and strokes. That last thing is relative though to what the risks actually are for any given person at that point in their life though. For an 18 year old, otherwise healthy - that's a pretty low risk. For a few days post surgical it's not much of a risk.

The difference between a good drug and a bad drug is often in the eye of the beholder & in the way they are prescibed.

Re:Once proven in trials

[k98sven]

Thalidomide is currently being used as a very effect agent against 3 different types of cancer, and is in trials for some types of neuropathic pain, as well as a host of other uses. Just because a drug is bad for pregnant women doesn't mean it's a bad drug.

I didn't say that it was a "bad" drug. It was a (very) badly tested drug, when it was released onto the market. And this resulted in thousands of victims.

Today it is a very well tested drug. The risks are well-known. And that makes all the difference.

The difference between a good drug and a bad drug is often in the eye of the beholder & in the way they are prescibed.

And how do you suppose drugs are supposed to be prescribed properly without clinical testing? This is exactly my point. A drug which may be useful in one circumstance may do more harm than good in another.

A fair portion of the drugs approved by the FDA have never been subject to any testing or formal approval process at all, they were simply grandfathered in.

How is that an argument against testing new drugs? If a drug has been for decades, it's effects and risks are well known.

[..] hell most of them haven't even been tested on teenagers, much less children, todlers, newborns, the unborn...etc [..] Even drugs that are approved are rarely tested in human trials beyond 6-10 weeks.

So your arguments here is that since the testing isn't infinitely rigorous, then you shouldn't have testing at all? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I did not bring up Vioxx, that was someone else.

Re:Once proven in trials

[CAIMLAS]

This is why holistic folks have been keen on such natural remedies for years.

Isn't it a small mystery that the medical establishment claims that things like vitamin C and garlic don't help your body fight off colds and various other such things?

My grandfather has completely cured himself of Lyme's disease (something which essentially puts you on treatment for months at a time via damaging chemicals) three times and hepetitis A once, mainly by consuming copious amounts of vitamin C, garlic, and various other herbs. He also did it in a matter of days, versus weeks or months, as would be the case with medical nonsense. He's also had lymphatic cancer for the last two years, which usually kills a person very quickly even with "medical treatment" - which he hasn't had any of. He's no worse off now, seemingly, than 2 years ago, and you might even say there's been regression.

My mom had Crohn's disease when she was in high school, and managed to cure herself of it through copious amounts of, again, vitamin C mostly. (There were various other herbs and vitamins involved, but C was the main one). She had to get part of her bowels removed at the time, but all but recovered: there's no sign of it in her body now, not even in remission. In case you didn't know, Crohn's disease doesn't simply disappear; it's thought to be an autoimmune reaction. My mom's now 48, and it's quite uncommon for something like this to simply 'disappear' like this for 30 years. (Granted, she eats healthy food now, doesn't eat things like potato chips and beer, etc., so I don't doubt that helps.)

Yet the medical establishment still claims that C has a negligible effect on the health of the person taking it. They say this about every natural remedy which they have not yet figured out a means to produce a synthetic form of yet. That's all most thearapies are now: synthesized homeopathic remedies. It's pretty sick.

(Sorry, I don't have any links to such medical establishment-sponsored and rigged studies atm.)

Decisions decisions

[Dancin_Santa]

Food prepared in England or dying of cancer.

Both are horrible ways to go.

Re:Decisions decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Go further north.
Go hunting for a haggis.
If you catch one.
Serve it on a bed of carrots.

Re:Decisions decisions

[hplasm]

Are you French?

Re:Decisions decisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Fatty, sugary crap sold in the US or dying horribly from all diseases associated with extreme obesity.

Re:Decisions decisions

[RevDobbs]

s/ or / and /g

Carrots

[Doctor Sbaitso]

My great-grandmother would always say "you should eat your carrots while they're still good for you."

This was, of course, a joke having to do with all those "x food causes y disease" studies that seem to pop up on a weekly basis.

Fortunately, it seems like carrots are still healthy to eat!

Re:Carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the studies is that by the time you hear them on the evening news, they have been digested and simplified by so many people that what is left is only the most sensational appearing statement that can be gleaned from the study. If everyone would bother to read and understand them, they wouldn't appear to be quite so contradictary as the media show.

Re:Carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

All these studies are rediculous if you ask me. Everybody knows that the cure to EVERY health problem is MORE EXERCISE, MORE VEGETABLES, LESS MEAT, DRINKING, SMOKING, AND SITTING IN FRONT OF COMPUTERS AND TV!! If we all just lived to some form of those standards, we wouldn't need wonder drugs for cancer.

Re:Carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

All these studies are rediculous if you ask me. Everybody knows that the cure to EVERY health problem is MORE EXERCISE, MORE VEGETABLES, LESS MEAT, DRINKING, SMOKING, AND SITTING IN FRONT OF COMPUTERS AND TV!! If we all just lived to some form of those standards, we wouldn't need wonder drugs for cancer.

Let me get this straight. . .

The cure to EVERY health problem:

• MORE EXERCISE
  
• MORE VEGETABLES
  
• LESS MEAT
  
• DRINKING
  
• SMOKING
  
• SITTING IN FRONT OF COMPUTERS AND TV
  

Except for the "Less Meat" item, I'm ALL FOR IT!!!

... and in related news ...

[bigsteve@dstc]

... Benson and Hedges announce the availability of a new line of carrot-tipped health cigarettes.

Re:... and in related news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd smoke it!

Re:... and in related news ...

[Scaba]

Hmmmm...I think I still prefer tomacco

a worry...

[sailforsingapore]

I really want this to be true and valid...but I can't help but seeing all of these scientific studies as one big logical fallacy:

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Just because one event happens after another does not mean that event 1 caused event 2. I know, it is a necessary evil to have limited size studies, but after hearing the 10th or 11th flip-flop over if eggs are going to kill me or save me, I can't put too much faith in this.

Re:a worry...

[mc6809e]

Just because one event happens after another does not mean that event 1 caused event 2.

And yet, the only thing we can mean by "cause" is that event 1 always seems to be followed by event 2.

Re:a worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have a case if this wasn't a controlled experiment where the use of falcarinol was compared against a negative control (and falcarinol via carrots was compared against falcarinol alone). In this situation, it is pretty clearly causation.

I agree that most medical real-world studies can have problems accounting for complicating factors, and that correlation doesn't always mean causation. However, in this case it was a nicely controlled experiment.

Of course, we need to have confirmational experiments carried out, and tests to see if falcarinol has this effect in other types of animals (or cell cultures...then animals).

Re:a worry...

[sailforsingapore]

It just seems as though there could be a thousand other factors involved that led to these results, aside from carrots, or even that the statistical signifigance of the "cured" sample isn't really sufficent. I guess I've just seen a few too many studies like this.

Re:a worry...

[Skjellifetti]

There is a test in Econometrics known as Grainger causality. Basically, A variable x causes y if y can be predicted more efficiently by taking into account information on the history of x. There was a paper published 10 or 15 years ago in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics that tried to apply the test to the age old conundrum "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Using something like weekly production data, they were able to provide an answer that showed which caused which. The kicker was that they said that if they'd used monthly data, they'd as likely have gotten the other answer. It is a funny cautionary tale on the use of archane statistics to prrove causality.

Re:a worry...

[biz0r]

WRONG, thats not the only thing people mean when they say X 'caused' Y. How dare you think that everyone thinks as you do, let alone in an unguided logic-lacking, stupid method. I certainly do not think in such a manner (or atleast try not to).

It SHOULD mean that there is sufficient empirical evidence that event X caused Y to occur.

that may be right indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever seen a donky with cancer?

Re:that may be right indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever seen a donky with cancer?

My uncle was a real ass. Does that count?

Re:that may be right indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Never seen a donky either. What is it?

Re:that may be right indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think GP means hors.

Re:that may be right indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I'm quite familiar with hors, been with enough of them.

New Label on Carrots

[pi_is_after_you]

New Label on Carrots: On front of product X: "Current British research suggests that carrots may cure cancer..." On bottom of product X: "This product believed to cause cancer in the State of California..."

Making good carrots

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I hated carrots until about 4 months ago when I had them prepared PROPERLY.

Don't boil them, don't cook them too little. That's the secret.

Get a skillet, put a little oil in it. 1 teaspoon or so. Add 200 grams of carrots. Add a cup of water. Cook the carrots on high heat until the water is gone. If the carrots aren't soft, add more water. When the carrots are soft, keep cooking them. The goal is to brown the sides of the carrots. Turn them over when they are brown on one side, and cook some more. Total cooking time is maybe 20 minutes on relatively high heat. Olive oil is good but you need to watch it because it can't take as much heat. It's important to cook them enough. 20 minutes AT LEAST. Not enough cooking makes carroty carrots. If you like carroty carrots, feel free. If you don't, keep on cooking.

When they are cooked that way, the carrots don't taste so carroty, but actually become sweet. They are absolutely delicious like that, and you'll never go back to plain old steamed carrots.

Yummmay!

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

Mushy carrots suck. In fact, cooked carrots of any kind suck (unless they are in carrot cake). Carrots, like revenge and Gespatcho, are a dish best served cold.

Re:Making good carrots

[Cabriel]

Prepared properly? I just buy a bag at the store, and while I'm at home, I grab one from the bag and eat it. No preperation. It's the only way a man should ever eat his carrots. :P

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh. I've never tried then that way. Thanks for the suggestion!

Re:Making good carrots

[lux55]

Agreed. Skin and all, a carrot should be had au natural.

Also, cooking them in water until the water evaporates is the equivalent of steeping tea leaves then throwing out the water and eating the leaves once the water has absorbed all the flavour, and more importantly, the nutrients. That recipe is simply a how-to on butchering a good vegetable.

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

fresh carrots dipped in chocolate sauce

mmmmmmm...

Re:Making good carrots

[famebait]

Another good one which differs more from the steamed ones more than you'd think:

Heat butter or olive oil or a mixture in a thick-bottomed pan, and chop carrots into wheels (or whatever size pieces you want), adding them into the fat as you go along.
Let them fry a little in the fat whole you chop some onion coarsely, and add that too. Let fry a little more. Then add some green peas.

The frying is just to cut cooking time, btw; you can dump it all in at once, but it will need to cook lonmger.

Add only a little water (ebough to keep the bottom moist and from burning for a while, but you should nowhere near enough to see it initially). Season with salt, pepper, and optional herbs of choice.

Cover and cook gently for at least 20 minutes. Sounds dead boring, but is a really nice side-dish.

Re:Making good carrots

[psifishdot]

Prepared properly? I just buy a bag at the store, and while I'm at home, I grab one from the bag and eat it.

Absolutely! The only thing better is a carrot straight from my garden. Given that I live in western Canada, I have to settle for the store bought carrots this time of year.

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to self: Wash carrots off before eating them directly from fertilizer-rich loamy soil.

Re:Making good carrots

[Teppy]

This is one of my favorite recipes: Begin by chopping three medium sized carrots into slivers.Sautee them as you suggest, but with some good quality butter, rather than olive oil. Add two cups of heavy cream and reduce until the cream thickens. Fry up a pound of bacon and chop into small pieces. Toss with some bread crumbs to firm this all up. Reserve the rendered bacon fat.

Form the above mixture into small patties. Coat in a beer batter and deep-fry. Use the reserved bacon fat, along with the yolks of 6 eggs to make a bacon fat hollendaise. Cover the patties in hollendaise sauce, and serve, accompanied by milkshakes.

I can't begin to tell you how relieved I was to discover that carrots are considered healthy.

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

To get that good cooked sweet carrot experience, try also roasting them in the over, and also basting them with honey glaze and frying them! Mmmmmm!

Re:Making good carrots

[Jason Ford]

Obligatory Simpsons Reference:

(Marge offers Homer a rice cake that has only 35 calories)
Marge: You can put a little something on top for flavor.
Homer: Now you're talking! (He fumbles around a bit and pulls a multi-decker sandwich sitting on the rice cake out of the microwave) Mmm. Only thirty-five calories.

Seriously, though, have you ever noticed that these discoveries are never about eating cows, or pigs, or chickens? You don't hear things like: 'Hmmm, this new study sugguests that pork might help prevent heart disease' or 'Wouldya look at that: beef reduces your risk of colon cancer'.

Of course, studies are constantly touting the benefits of eating fish, but then the government warns us not to eat too much, because of the mercury and other toxins.

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably aren't getting the health benefits this article is talking about. Typically, cooking vegetables destroys many of the vitamins that makes them so good for you. Raw vegetables are the best nutritionally.

Re:Making good carrots

[colmore]

So... eh... what's up, doc?

Re:Making good carrots

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You know, I eat a lot more than just carrots... Right now for example, I have a spoon in one hand, and a tub of lard in another.

Re:Making good carrots

[Anonymous Coward]

you just spent 20 minutes making carrots...

Re:Making good carrots

[tverbeek]

Also, cooking them in water until the water evaporates is the equivalent of steeping tea leaves then throwing out the water and eating the leaves once the water has absorbed all the flavour, and more importantly, the nutrients.

If the water is evaporating (rather than being poured out as a liquid), it probably isn't taking the flavor or nutrients with it, but leaving them behind.

Of course you're right that carrots are just fine uncooked as well.

Re:Making good carrots

[zsau]

There is no way of preparing carrots that beat them fresh out of the ground, except washing/peeling them fresh out of the ground. Any adulteration is unacceptable.

Re:Making good carrots

[whitis]

Cooking carrots is likely to reduce their cancer fighting ability. Likewise, while carrot extracts such as described in the article may be profitable for drug manufacturers (and the researchers who get grants from them), I have a hunch fresh carrot juice extracted with a centrifical juice extractor could be more effective and cheaper. Carrot juice provides a way of consuming large quantities of carrot nutrients including anti-oxidants in their natural proportions without consuming too much insoluable fiber. It also is a good base for juices of less palatable vegetables that also have cancer fighting properties.

Re:Making good carrots

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I am pretty surprised at the response that I've gotten to my carrot preparation notes. Quite a lot of people responded to say the same thing as you. If I had known the depth of the religious feeling on the matter I would have recommended eating the carrots (properly cooked) while using emacs.

But I understand how you feel. I think that both fish and beef should be cooked as little as possible.

Re:Making good carrots

[zsau]

Yeah, I read at +4 or +5 (with various changes) so I didn't see most of them ... only another who recommended cooking. Didn't mean to say anything about you. But my parents have always had this thing about cooking carrots ... which, even though they just steam them, makes them way too sweet to go on the dinner table IMHO.

But when I say fresh out of the ground, I don't mean raw from the shop: I mean fresh out of the ground. If you've never tried that, I really do recommend it. Though I s'pose you mightn't like that if you ain't a fan of raw carrot anyway... Same with snowpeas. Nothing beats raw snowpeas straight out of the ground, either. The benefits of having had grandparents who lived on a farm ;)

PS: I eat my carrots with VIM, I've done it all my life. It makes them taste quite funny, but it keeps them on the knife! (I bet you never knew VIM and funny rhymed.)

Re:Making good carrots

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Don't like raw carrots at all. The other people who suggested that my colon will rot off will be heartened to know that I do like broccoli, green beans, peapods, bean sprouts, lettuce, cabbage, tomatoes, corn, onions, bell peppers, and mushrooms completely raw.

Also never lived on a farm, but I have thrown hay into a barn. That will kick your ass if you're not in shape.

Re:Making good carrots

[mpmansell]

I find roasting them has very good results.

Cut carrots into 'sticks'. about 1/3 inch by 3 inches.

Place on a sheet of foil and add a splash of oil (virgin sunflower, if you can get it, or light olive oil) and some honey. Finally, close the sheet of foil making a sealed envelope. It helps to turn the edges up to avoid any liquid escaping.

Put the envelope in the oven with whatever else is roasting. Time taken to cook will depend on how hot the oven is and how firm the carrots. I usually find 30-40 minutes is required.

The carrots can also be opened towards the end of cooking to brown if preferred.

This makes for the most amazingly sweet carrots and, unlike boiling, you don't lose a ton of nutrients in the water (they just get mangled by the heating :) )

Re:Making good carrots

[Alsee]

To really enhance the flavor you need to eat it while smoking a filterless menthol cigarette. MMMmmm MMMmmmmm good! Love those carrots!

-

Actual research abstract/paper

[FleaPlus]

Here are links to the actual research abstract and paper.

Abstract text:

Inhibitory Effects of Feeding with Carrots or (-)-Falcarinol on Development of Azoxymethane-Induced Preneoplastic Lesions in the Rat Colon

Morten Kobæk-Larsen, Lars P. Christensen, Werner Vach, Jelmera Ritskes-Hoitinga, and Kirsten Brandt

The effects of intake of dietary amounts of carrot or corresponding amounts of (-)-(3R)-falcarinol from carrots on development of azoxymethane (AOM)-induced colon preneoplastic lesions were examined in male BDIX rats. Three groups of eight AOM-treated rats were fed the standard rat feed Altromin supplemented with either 10% (w/w) freeze-dried carrots with a natural content of 35 g falcarinol/g, 10% maize starch to which was added 35 g falcarinol/g purified from carrots, or 10% maize starch (control). After 18 weeks, the animals were euthanized and the colon was examined for tumors and aberrant crypt foci (ACF), which were classified into four size classes. Although the number of small ACF was unaffected by the feeding treatments, the numbers of lesions as a function of increasing size class decreased significantly in the rats that received one of the two experimental treatments, as compared with the control treatment. This indicates that the dietary treatments with carrot and falcarinol delayed or retarded the development of large ACF and tumors. The present study provides a new perspective on the known epidemiological associations between high intake of carrots and reduced incidence of cancers.

Re:Actual research abstract/paper

[dtfinch]

I nominate this for the worst jobs in science: Examining rat colons for tumors and aberrant crypt foci.

Re:Actual research abstract/paper

[Seumas]

You know, I heard a woman on the Art Bell program almost a full decade ago who had supposedly miraculously cured herself of cancer despite the expectations of the medical community. She was supposedly a doctor in her own right and had decided to follow her own regimine rather than just the one prescribed by her doctors.

She ditched the chemo and, among other things, consumed an extraordinary amount of carrots, carrot juice and orange juice in her diet. Granted, this was on the Art Bell show, but I thought it was interesting when I saw this supposed research paper.

Re:Actual research abstract/paper

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, eating carrots may not be the best thing.

Carrots, though high in nutrients, are also high in Vitamin A. Excess Vitamin A has been shown to increase the size of cancerous tumors, so consuming more carrots may lead to uninhibited growth of cancerous cells.

Obviously it is difficult to say what happened with the lady from the Art Bell show, but scientifically, she ought to be dead. Good for her that it worked out.

However, if we could isolate the good carrot chemicals without also introducing the unneeded nutrients, this might just be a really good thing.

Re:Actual research abstract/paper

[Muad'Dave]

Have they determined if falcarinol inhibits all preneoplastic lesions, or just those induced with azoxymethane?

Also, there's a greek mu missing in the text of the parent post. It sould read "35 ug" instead of "35 g". They're pretty good if they can find carrots with "... a natural content of 35 g falcarinol/g"!

Re:Actual research abstract/paper

[d_i_r_t_y]

as far as i know, carrots are not so much high in vitamin A as they are in retinol, vitamin A's direct precursor (vit A is formed from 2 molcules of retinol). too much vitamin A is bad, i don't believe retinol suffers the same problem.

esp. lung cancer. Maybe that's why they taste good

[jago25_98]

They're supposed to be particularly good for lung cancer.

My favorite vegetable has always been carrots.

I have a gene increasing my chances of lung cancer.

So my body seems to know what it needs.

logical fallacy?

[N3wsByt3]

If you don't have much faith in all these yummy healthy vegetables, I have another option for you, without any fallacy present as far as I can see:

It just so happens, that I have a (magical) stone with me, that keeps away any form of cancer. The proof? I have had that stone for years, and during those years I have not had one cancer, no sirree!

I'm willing to sell you that stone for a meager 1000 bucks! What do you say? I'll even throw in some drops of holy water for free, taken from good christian holy sources, where it has been proven without any doubt, by overwhelming anecdotal evidence, that wonders have occured.

You are fully right to dismiss science! The only way to come to the truth is sound christian/catholic reasoning coppled with a strong belief that something actually exists! Myriads of people have shown this, so it must be true.

Away with science and its logical fallacies!!

Re:logical fallacy?

[lux55]

Woah, where did that come from? The parent post may not have been totally correct (science has its share of validation issues, but it is not totally invalid because of that -- not that that is what he claimed anyway, although it seems to be your interpretation of it), but I don't see where the logical leap from "I think I see a logical fallacy" to "I'm a religious bigot" can be made.

The point in his second paragraph is quite valid too. I've lost count how many times it was determined that butter was worse than margarine, then the reverse, then back again. Empirical observation is flawed too. For example, prove by use of the empirical method that the empirical method is correct. Heck, use logic too. You'll still end up in a circular proof, with two logical bits pointing at each other, shrugging their shoulders, and saying "but it _must_ be true!"

"Myriads of people have shown this, so it must be true" is fairly close to "Myriads of lab tests have shown this, so it must be true" since we can't know all causes nor all effects to a cause.

Re:logical fallacy?

[sailforsingapore]

Hmm...you don;t believe in reading much do you? I'm hardly a religious zealot, as that would mean I would have to relly even more on a logically unsound system. I'm just saying that the next time someone tells me that Hedgehogs cause cancer, I'm going to take it with a grain of salt, and the media probably should, too.

Re:logical fallacy?

[N3wsByt3]

"Hmm...you don;t believe in reading much do you?"

It depends: does it actually exist? And is is catholic/christian sound? ;-)

Actually I'm afraid you read to much in it; it was only a post meant to be modded 'funny'.
I was actually alluding to the Simpson episode where Lisa sells Homer a stone that 'keeps away tigers' and even though Lisa explains the obvious logical fallacy ('you don't see any tigers around, do you?'), homer buys the stone anyway.

Re:logical fallacy?

[sailforsingapore]

ahh...I must confess I have a distinct gap in my knowledge about the Simpsons (I never watched the show much)...sorry about the reflex defense mechanism.

I'll be...

[N3wsByt3]

Why, I...never...!...hmpf...

Are you insinuating you found some level of irony in my former post!?

Maybe I *am* a religious bigot, you potentially unsensitive clod!!

Re:I'll be...

[lux55]

I see, I see. My apology. ;)

I thought...

[KontinMonet]

...an apple a day keeps the doctor away.

Trouble is, of course, if you buy a lot of apples and fall seriously ill, you're fucked...

Old news?

[tod_miller]

I have learned many years ago that Carrots and Tomatos share the same anti-carcinogen, anti-oxidant and removal of free radical properties.

Falcarinol, this is new to me, but sounds like a specialisation of known properties. But, bugs bunny eats carrots and he is well over 65 and still a lovable cross-dressing character. So must be good for you!

The Reality

[psifishdot]

Just because one event happens after another does not mean that event 1 caused event 2. I know, it is a necessary evil to have limited size studies, but after hearing the 10th or 11th flip-flop over if eggs are going to kill me or save me, I can't put too much faith in this.

This is one of the major problems between communicating science from scientists to lay people. For instance, I have two rather large binders sitting on my desk. These binders are filled with journal articles from 1949 to the present and are all concerned with a nuclear measurement of Helium-4. After 55 years, there is less than a consensus. If you approach each article and read about the experimental set-up, how the experiment was performed and the statistics used, it makes sense. However, to put it together with the big picture requires much interpretation. The interpretation of the results seems to change about every decade or so.

This is the way science is really done. There's no factual certainty in current research. There is only interpretation.

Re:The Reality

[ChrisMaple]

There's no factual certainty in current research.

Are you certain of this?

Re:The Reality

[NoData]

There's no factual certainty in current research.

Are you certain of this?

Well, that's what current research indicates anyway.

Main-lining brocolli better than heroin

[Nicademous]

Vegetables might be nasty, but they're good for you. Researchers have found similar tumor-squashing results by injecting a brocolli compound directly into cancer cells. The brocolli composition disrupts the cancer cells ability to divide, thus neutralizing the cancer.

Only catch is, they're not sure yet about the effects of simply eating brocolli. For now, you'll have to inject. And mommy said needles were bad.

Re:Main-lining brocolli better than heroin

[Anonymous Coward]

Brocolli is good, but for a more intense rush try bruselsprouts. If you're really feeling adventurous you could even try the ol' bruselsprout + turnip speedball. Ohhhh yeah.

Carrot-Injected Ciggarettes?

[AnonymousCactus]

Mmmm...

No, no, no

[barakn]

Just bump your intake up to two apples a day and the doctor will be right over. I believe the principle at work here is "too much of a good thing."

Cooked carrots are disgusting

[barakn]

... 'cause they're way too sweet. The best way to make a palatable carrot for my particular taste buds is to peel them and eat them raw. The peel contains a bitter substance. Of course this may be an issue related to nontasters, tasters, and supertasters, which makes recommending a particular vegetable cooking style a crapshoot. You might think I'm lucky to be a supertaster, but my cancer risk is apparently higher.

I at least agree with the "don't boil them" statement.

Re:Cooked carrots are disgusting

[Hognoxious]

You might think I'm lucky to be a supertaster, but my cancer risk is apparently higher.

According to the article, only because the bitter taste might make you eat less nice veggies. FWIW, I like bitter things (spinach, really hoppy beers, that paint they put on kids' nails to stop them biting them) so presumably not a problem.

Oh, and carrots? Drop em into boiling water, as soon as it comes to the boil again they're done; they only need to be warmed through.

Re:Cooked carrots are disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the carrots in a fucking salad. Problem solved.

Re:Cooked carrots are disgusting

[ChrisMaple]

Only in America can a draft-dodging, cocaine-snorting, drunk-driving cowboy-poseur get elected on "moral values."

Compared to his predecessor, a draft-dodging rapist and accessory to murder, he is moral.

So that's . . .

[JJ]

. . . and a substantial reduction in cancerous tumor formation in rats . . .

. . . what is keeping the little buggers alive.

food vs. supplements-supplements can kill you

[The Datamangler]

Actually, eating carrots IS the BEST thing. Taking supplements is NOT. A study using just betacarotene was terminated early when it was found to increase cancer in heavy smokers. You say Excess Vit A increased tumor growth. Guess what, just carrots reduced cancer in women smokers. You go here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10530619&dopt=Abstrac t

to see about carrots and cancer from smoking.

The problem with isolating the supposedly "good" additives is they are also selectively taken up by the cancer cells, and used as antioxidants to protect themselves from free radicals that would damage the growing cancer cell. A study in mice has shown that antioxidant use during chemotherapy actually inhibited the functioning of the chemo. So if you are doing chemo, do chemo, don't sneak behind your oncologists back and do juicing etc at the same time.

And yes, the lady juiced carrots and cured herself of cancer. There are numerous ancedotal stories of people being written off by the western medical community and then curing themselves through any of a number of programs that usually have 5 things in common- no meat, no dairy, no alcohol, no caffiene,no sugar . And also doing lots of live foods. The problem with studying this "weird non-western" way of treatment, is it is hard to do double blind studies with random large population control groups. Ahh, the joys of industrial medicine.
The following was lifted from http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/s-s00/recommend.html

Evidence that beta-carotene supplementation is ineffective against cancer and might actually be deleterious was provided by the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (ATBC) Cancer Prevention Study in Finland. In this study of over 29,000 men, mostly heavy smokers, supplementation with 20 mg/day of beta-carotene for seven years significantly increased the risk of developing lung cancer. The CARET (Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial) was conducted in the U.S. with over 18,000 men and women at high risk for lung cancer. This study was terminated early when it became evident that daily supplementation with 30 mg beta-carotene and 25,000 IU vitamin A was increasing the rate of lung cancer.

Or...

[Mr. Underbridge]

...just eat some fucking carrots, you numbnut.

And for dessert....

[_newwave_]

Kick back and enjoy a nice Havana cigar

New news!

[dustmite]

From the FS (Summary), never mind the FA:

We already know that carrots ... can reduce the risk of cancer but until now we have not known which element of the vegetable has these special properties.

This is new (and good) news, they've discovered what element (or, at least one of the elements) that has the anti-carcinogen properties.

I must say I find rather tiresome the seemingly endless lineup of people eagerly waiting to reveal their "cleverness" by shooting down every single article as "old news", even when it's not.

Re:New news!

[tod_miller]

no, I meant just to say that carrots and rat tests have been shown.

If the news article was clearer, then it would have shown to me that the new part of it was the chemical, in retrospect it was clear, but the title should have been:

'anti-carinogen isolated in carrots'

My whole office is on a 2 carrots a day scheme after we calculated that 1/3 of us has a direct relative (or by direct relative marriage) dying of cancer.

Wake up call... I am healthy for now... but carrots it is (and tomatos)

Re:New news!

[dustmite]

'anti-carinogen isolated in carrots'

Yup, you're right, it should have been! But I noticed long ago that the /. editors avoid sensibly and unambiguously written submissions and sensible titles, because that doesn't provide nearly as many 'hooks' to generate a lot of "lively discussion", and "lively discussion" = pageviews = ad revenue. If two people submit the same story, but one is clear, well-written and objective, the other subjective with some confused ambiguous sentences and a few typos, they'll always pick the latter.

My whole office is on a 2 carrots a day scheme after we calculated that 1/3 of us has a direct relative (or by direct relative marriage) dying of cancer.

That's pretty interesting .. and a good policy. Interesting from a purely economic perspective too; healthy employees are probably more productive, and the cost of the carrots and tomatoes is probably less than the economic cost if an employee gets cancer. I've also recently tried to start eating at least one carrot and tomato daily, but don't always remember.

Freebase

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to freebase the carrots to cure lung cancer.

Juice them instead

[artemis67]

Seriously. I hated carrots, myself, all my life. Then my dad tried to turn me on to fresh carrot juice. It took a couple of years before I would even try it.

However, juiced carrots with some apple slices tossed into the juicer for sweetness is actually surprisingly delicious.

Cooking the carrots kills a lot of the enzymes that are beneficial to you. Raw is the best way to eat vegetables.

Re:Juice them instead

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Point ONE: I don't care about enzymes. I can't remember the last time someone died in my family under 100 years old. Really. I have good genes. What I do care about is enjoyment of my food. I'll skip the enzymes in my carrots, because the over two dozen veggies that I do eat raw will make up for it. And if they don't, then I'm sure the cigarettes I smoke will contain what I am missing. Just kidding.

Point TWO: I posted another note to someone else listing all the veggies that I do like raw. In fact, most veggies I like raw, and I eat a lot of veggies. Seriously. Like, most meals are nothing but veggies and cereals, no meat.

Point THREE: My colon wants to talk now. It says (in a surprisingly odor-free baritone voice) that while it appreciates your concern about colonic health and a cancer free future, you shouldn't worry because he's getting lots of fiber - from the bowl of oatmeal in the morning to the apple at the end of the day - everything is free flowing.

POINT FOUR: The other organs of my body are nodding in agreement. My toungue adds "I just don't like raw carrots. Is that a crime?"

POINT FIVE: My prostate wants to talk too, but I'm saving that for later. It's Valentine's day.