Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hot Pepper Kills Prostate Cancer

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the cajun-health-food dept.

brian0918 writes "U.S. and Japanese researchers have announced results of a study showing that capsaicin, the chemical that makes peppers hot, can cause prostate cancer cells to kill themselves. 'Capsaicin led 80 percent of human prostate cancer cells growing in mice to commit suicide in a process known as apoptosis, the researchers said.' This led to tumors one fifth the size of those in untreated mice."

4 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Three to eight... by FireballX301 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lehmann estimated that the mice ate the human equivalent of 400 milligrams of capsaicin three times a week. That is about the amount found in three to eight fresh habanero peppers, depending on how hot the peppers are.

    I may be a lightweight bastard, but I cannot eat a single habanero without violently vomiting.

    400 mg of Capsaicin is basically like eating pepper spray. Even if it's in capsule pill form you may vomit it up from your stomach. I wonder if there's any way for a local application to the prostate instead of standard ingestion.

    1. Re:Three to eight... by modecx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Capsaicin doesn't do a thing to tissues that don't have neurons to which the molecules can bind. I keep telling this to people that insist that eating peppers all the time will destroy your stomach... But some people just don't listen to reason, but instead to old wives tales. It seems that many membranes have the neurons that capsaicin triggers, and they're mostly on the face, and in and around the anus, of all places. If you managed to swallow a habanero whole, it shouldn't cause a problem unless some of that capsaicin survives the digestion process, and then you'll be singing a Johnny Cash song.

      Most birds, incidentally, don't have receptors that capsaicin works with, so they can eat peppers all day long and not have a problem.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  2. Re:Quick Google Scholar Search by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have issues with all "[insert product here] causes cancer" studies. The mechanisms that cause a cingle cell to become cancerous are not known. Ther are people who smoke for 30 years and don't develop cancer. Then there are folks like my father in law. Smoked 20 years, and got skin cancer, but not lung cancer. Until someone figures out DEFINITIVELY(sp?) how cancer starts, how can they say anything "causes" cancer?

    --
    0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
  3. Re:Quick Google Scholar Search by JavaRob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Carbs evil! Eat meat! No, eat carbs! Tofu FTW!"

    Huh? Tofu is pretty much all protein, not carbs.

    Anyway, if your conclusion from "we get contradictory info, and we're all going to die someday anyway" is "ignore all the info" that's just another extreme approach that's going to hurt you.

    It's like you should probably avoid the extreme diets premised on dubious (or little-explored) studies. But you aren't choosing between that and eating Ho-Hos and pizza for every meal. There's a ton we *do* know about leading a healthy life. Don't spend hours a day counting calories, but get some exercise, avoid the junk food (just don't even bring it home unless you have an iron will), and start eating less if you start getting fat. It's not that hard once you're in the habit, and you'll live a much better life than anyone swinging between the extremes.

    About cancer... often it's worth checking into actual incidence rates of different cancers before you make choices of what recommendations you want to ignore. Some carcinogens have a tiny effect. Something like smoking has a pretty huge effect (something like 1 in 19 people get lung cancer in their lives, and 90% of people who die from lung cancer are smokers.. and that's ignoring all of the other health effects of smoking, including other cancers).

    In the end, you do have to balance the benefit against the gain, but it IS worth putting some thought into ...and actually reading the numbers.

    Yes, freaking out at every headline isn't much use (since many of the reporters don't always seem to understand the actual significance of the studies they're reporting on... they just want the big headline), but that doesn't mean useful info isn't readily available. If you don't want to parse it yourself, talk to your doctor about it.