Do treatments to preserve OJ kill phytochemicals & enzymes?

[Fuel]

@groman

Because it is impossible to evaluate every chemical difference between juice and soda (considering every type of juice and every type of soda), so you have to isolate specific phytochemicals by name and present cites that they are beneficial if you want them considered.

I thought the experts know about the major phytochemicals in OJ and already have info on their effects? If this is true, why hasn’t this “expert information” found its way into you guys’ discussion on the health benefits of soda v. fruit juice?

[tremorviolet]

And to add to what Excalibre just said, the reason I provided the nutrient differences above was not to convince people to drink OJ but to point out that even the mechanical process of juicing contributes to significant vitamin and mineral loss.

If you’re really concerned about the “phytochemicals” and losing them, just eat the whole freakin’ orange. It’s that simple.

[Fuel]

If we stop talking about OJ’s sugar content, this discussion on phytochemicals will go more smoothly. (I don’t even drink OJ because it is unnatural to consume something like that.) Let’s switch to sweet potatoes and carrot juice. Carry on.

[Excalibre]

@Fuel

If we stop talking about OJ’s sugar content, this discussion on phytochemicals will go more smoothly. (I don’t even drink OJ because it is unnatural to consume something like that.) Let’s switch to sweet potatoes and carrot juice. Carry on.

This discussion is about fruit juice. Don’t tell the rest of us what we are allowed to discuss, and drop the “carry on.” If you wish to raise a new issue, do so. Don’t tell us whether we get to talk about something or not.

If you wish to find specific information on phytochemicals, why don’t you go do some research? Do you think the SDMB is your research assistant to crack the books for you? You find the information. And try to find more reliable sources than whatever you’ve been looking at so far.

[NoPretentiousCodename]

@Excalibre

I’d be fascinated to read the book if you can find it without too much trouble.

I believe it is this one. Taken from my references page of my research paper:

McKinnell, R., Parchment, R., Perantoni, A., & Pierce, G. B. (1998). The Biological Basis of Cancer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

The book was a general book on cancer and the stuff I mentioned was within the first few chapters. It only took up a page or two, so the second cite I linked to in my above post would have more information on this subject. But the book was very informative on many aspects of cancer. As I recall, it went into a bit of depth, so be prepared if you choose to research it.

@Excalibre

I’m very interested to hear. This puts some interesting information into this kneejerk “natural is good and artificial is bad” sort of non-reasoning. Plants exist for their own benefit - they don’t grow in order to cure diseases in the things that eat them. Why shouldn’t their natural defenses against infestation affect humans as well?

Seriously, Strychnine is natural. People say things like “I don’t want to put chemicals in my body.” :rolleyes: I tend to treat “Natural is good, artificial is bad” the same way I treat all blanket statements and generalizations… Furthermore, the stronger rhetoric of fear a person uses, the more I suspect they might be trying to sell me something, be it an ideal or a product. Fear tends to blow things way out of perspective.

[NoPretentiousCodename]

Oh, and here is the relevant passage from my research paper. I’m pretty sure this was from an early stage of my paper’s development, so forgive anything that may be rough-draft-y.

[…]Some nutritionists and environmentalists use the specter of cancer as a selling point for their ideals (and perhaps their products); it is “common knowledge” that the chemicals pumped into the environment and preservatives used in in food are huge causes of cancer. While it is undeniable that mankind does affect the environment in many ways, manmade carcinogens (e.g. Orange Dye no. 17) are not believed to be more than one ten-thousandth as numerous in terms of human exposure as natural ones. These include the natural pesticides and antibiotics which constitute 5-10% of any plant’s dry weight, many of which have been found to be carcinogenic. Controls can be so strict on manmade substances as to ban a chemical (Orange Dye no. 17) that would be expected to cause one cancer in nineteen billion lifetimes at the worst. Some natural substances are thought to cause hundreds of cancers per million lifetimes and have no such strictures enforced. […] (McKinnell, 1998, pp. 79-114)

So, there you have it. It was the book I mentioned above. Page numbers included on that in-text cite and everything!

[Shalmanese]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Sorry, the OJ still ain’t much better than the soda. Most people are not lacking in vitamins or trace minerals. 8 oz. of coca cola has 26 gms of carbs and 97 calories. 8 oz. of fresh OJ has 26 grams of carbs and 112 calories (it has more calories thanks to a bit of fat and protein in it). Both have a large sugar load.

So all you guys seemed to have managed to prove is that eating an extra orange is less bad than drinking OJ because you get slightly more vitamins and mineral (which a normal person doesn’t need) and slightly less sugar (which is still bad). What are the actual health benifits of eating fruit then assuming I’m not nutritionally deficit?

[Excalibre]

@Shalmanese

So all you guys seemed to have managed to prove is that eating an extra orange is less bad than drinking OJ because you get slightly more vitamins and mineral (which a normal person doesn’t need) and slightly less sugar (which is still bad). What are the actual health benifits of eating fruit then assuming I’m not nutritionally deficit?

The vitamins and minerals present and the considerable amount of fiber (which most Americans don’t get enough of). Plus it’s a food that’s not energy-dense, so if you eat a lot of fruit in preference to starchy or fatty foods, then you’re taking in fewer calories.

[tremorviolet]

@Shalmanese

So all you guys seemed to have managed to prove is that eating an extra orange is less bad than drinking OJ because you get slightly more vitamins and mineral (which a normal person doesn’t need) and slightly less sugar (which is still bad). What are the actual health benifits of eating fruit then assuming I’m not nutritionally deficit?

And one effect of the fiber is that it fills you up. So you would rarely sit down and eat as many oranges as are in a glass of juice and so wouldn’t consume as many calories or sugar (both of which Americans generally over do).

[Pushkin]

@hauss

but what other living things (besides the microbes) are in the OJ that have been killed off? Phytochemicals? Enzymes?

Bolding mine, just wondering, are they alive? I didn’t think all enzymes were.
And why is it phytochemicals seem to have popped up so often in the Pit of late (oh look hauss is banned )

[Excalibre]

@Pushkin

Bolding mine, just wondering, are they alive? I didn’t think all enzymes were.
And why is it phytochemicals seem to have popped up so often in the Pit of late (oh look hauss is banned )

No, of course chemicals and enzymes are not alive. Enzymes are just proteins that perform particular chemical reactions. In some cases, they can be inactivated by heating - but what evidence is there that orange juice protein plays some biological role in animals? And if it did, why would anyone assume it was a positive one? You’re not an orange - why would you want an orange’s biochemical systems at work within your body?