Lawan Kanker Hati Dengan Kulit Apel

JANGAN KUPAS: Kulit apel kandung antioksidan 4,7 kali lebih banyak dari buah apel dan memiliki zat quarcetin untuk lawan penyakit hati


JAKARTA - Mengkonsumsi satu apel setiap hari sudah terbukti menjadikan tubuhsehat. Namun itu tak berlaku jika anda memakan apel dengan mengupas kulitnya terlebih dahulu. Sebaiknya, buanglah kebiasaan tersebut karena anda akan kehilangan zat quercetin yang berpotensi melawan kanker dan penyakit hati.

Kulit apel memiliki aktivitas antioksidan dan bioaktivitas yang lebih tinggi dari pada buah apel karena mengandung antisoksidan yaitu quercetin. Vitamin C yang terdapat pada daging buah apel hanya mempunyai aktivitas antioksidan 1, sedangkan quercetin mempunyai aktivitas antioksidan hingga 4,7 kali.

Tentunya zat gizi yang terkandung dalam satu butir buah apel bukan hanya itu. Kemampuan apel sebagai pencegah penyakit juga terletak pada kandungan karoten dan pektinnya. Karoten memiliki aktivitas sebagai vitamin A dan juga antioksidan yang berguna untuk menangkal serangan radikal bebas penyebab berbagai penyakit degeneratif seperti kanker dan diabet melitus.

Sedangkan pektin merupakan satu tipe serat pangan yang bersifat larut dalam air. Karena merupakan serat yang berbentuk gel, pektin dapat memperbaiki otot pencernaan dan mendorong sisa makanan pada saluran pembuangan.

Pektin juga dikenal sebagai antikolesterol karena dapat mengikat asam empedu yang merupakan hasil akhir metabolisme kolesterol. Makin banyak asam empedu yang berikatan dengan pektin dan terbuang ke luar tubuh maka makin banyak kolesterol yang termetabolisme.

Selain itu pektin juga dapat menyerap kelebihan air dalam usus, memperlunak feses, serta mengikat dan menghilangkan racun dari usus. Konsumsi apel secara teratur juga dapat menjaga keseimbangan gula darah serta menurunkan tekanan kolesterol darah.

Semua zat-zat yang dikandung apel selain yang tersebut diatas juga mempunyai khasiat mencegah pembentukan tumor usus dan mencegah serangan tumor. Zat gizi tersebut tentunya tidak hanya terkandung di daging buah saja tapi juga kulitnya. Dengan demikian mengkonsumsi apel dengan kulit lebih baik dibandingkan tanpa kulit.

Namun beberapa apel impor biasanya dilapisi lilin dengan tujuan menghambat laju proses pembusukan. Karena lebih baik dimakan beserta kulitnya perlu upaya untuk menghilanhkan lapisan lilin tersebut dengan cara mencelupkan apel ke dalam air hangat agar lapisan lilin mencair kemudian digosok hingga bersih dan kering.

Saat membeli apel pun harus diperhatikan kondisi buah. Pilihlah apel yang kulitnya mengkilap, ujung buah bekas kelopak tampak merenggang dan bila dijentikan dengan jari akan terdengar suara nyaring.

Kandungan zat gizi dalam 100 gram buah apel adalah 58 kkal energi, 4 g lemak, 3 g protein, 14,9 karbohidrat, 900 IU vitamin A, 7 mg tiamin, r mg riboflavin, 2 mg niacin, 5 mg vitamin C, 0,04 mg vitamin B, 6 mg kalsium, 3 mg zat besi, 10 mg fosfor dan 130 mg potasium./cr1/itz
sumber :http://republika.co.id/berita/34351/Lawan_Kanker_Hati_Dengan_Kulit_Apel

What Can Evolution Teach us About the Human Diet?

Vegetarians deserve our respect. They're usually thoughtful, conscientious people who make sacrifices for environmental and ethical reasons. I was vegetarian for a while myself, and I have no regrets about it.

Vegetarianism and especially veganism can get pretty ideological sometimes. People who have strong beliefs like to think that their belief system is best for all aspects of their lives and the world, not just some aspects of it. Many vegetarians believe their way of eating is healthier than omnivory. One of the classic arguments for vegetarianism goes something like this: our closest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are mostly vegetarian, therefore that's the diet to which we're adapted as well. Here's the problem with that argument:

Where are chimps (Pan troglodytes) on this chart? They aren't on it, for two related reasons: they aren't in the genus Homo, and they diverged from us 5-7 million years ago. Homo erectus diverged from our lineage about 1.5 million years ago. I don't know if you've ever seen a Homo erectus skull, but 1.5 million years is clearly enough time to do some evolving. Homo erectus  ate animals as a significant portion of its diet.

If you look at the chart above, Homo rhodesiensis (often considered a variant of Homo heidelbergensis) is our closest ancestor, and our point of divergence with neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis). Some archaeologists believe H. heidelbergensis was the same species as modern Homo sapiens. I haven't been able to find any direct evidence of the diet of H. heidelbergensis from bone isotope ratios, but the indirect evidence indicates that they were capable hunters who probably got a substantial proportion of their calories from meat. In Europe, they hunted now-extinct megafauna such as wooly rhinos. These things make modern cows look like chicken nuggets.

H. heidelbergensis was a skilled hunter and very athletic. They were top predators in their ecosystems, judged by the fact that they took their time with carcasses, butchering them thoroughly and extracting marrow from bones. No predator or scavenger was capable of driving them away from a kill.

Our closest recent relative was Homo neanderthalensis, the neanderthal. They died out around 30,000 years ago. There have been several good studies on the isotope ratios of neanderthal bones, all indicating that neanderthals obtained most of their protein from meat. They relied both on land and marine animals, depending on what was available. Needless to say, neanderthals are much more closely related to humans than chimpanzees, having diverged from us less than 500,000 years ago. That's less than one-tenth the time between humans and chimpanzees.

I don't think this means humans are built to be carnivores, particularly since there is accumulating evidence of diverse plant consumption by neanderthals, but it certainly blows away the argument that we're built to be vegetarians. Historical human hunter-gatherers had very diverse diets, but on average were meat-heavy omnivores. 

Statistics

Ricardo just sent me a link to the British Heart Foundation statistics website. It's a goldmine. They have data on just about every aspect of health and lifestyle in the U.K. I find it very empowering to have access to this kind of information on the internet.

I've just started sifting through it, but something caught my eye. The U.K. is experiencing an obesity epidemic similar to the U.S.:
Here's where it gets interesting. This should look familiar:

Hmm, those trends look remarkably similar. Just like in the U.S, the British are exercising more and getting fatter with each passing year. In fact, maybe exercise causes obesity. Let's see if there's any correlation between the two. I'm going to plot obesity on the X-axis and exercise on the Y-axis to see if there's a correlation. The data points only overlap on three years: 1998, 2003 and 2006. Let's take a look:
By golly, we've proven that exercise causes obesity! Clearly, the more people exercise, the fatter they get. The R-value is a measure of how closely the points fall on the best-fit line. 0.82 isn't bad for this type of data. If only we could get all British citizens to become couch potatoes, obesity would be a thing of the past! OK, I'm kidding. The obesity is obviously caused by something else. I'm illustrating the point that correlations can sometimes be misleading. Even if an association conforms to our preconceived notions of how the world works, that does not necessarily justify saying one factor causes another.  Controlled experiments can often help us strengthen a claim of causality.

Belajar Internet Marketing Gratis

Sehilangnya dengan artikel-artikel tentang Internet Marketing di www.CosaAranda.com kayaknya tambah bikin gede aja rintangan untuk meraih sukses di Internet Marketing. Pasalnya situs ini bisa dibilang situs informasi yang lengkap dan gratis. Mudah-mudahan om Cosa masih bisa memberikan informasinya kepada kita-kita.

Bagi kamu-kamu yang membutuhkan informasi tentang internet marketing gratis ga ada salahnya kamu mengikuti program gratis www.AsianBrain.com yang diadakan tanggal 1-24 Maret 2009 ini. Dengan jangka 24 hari ini kamu bisa mendownload program-program serta e-book e-book yang dibutuhkan dalam menjalankan Internet Marketing seperti :

- Cara Membuat Website
- Cara Mengorganisasikan Komputer
- Cara Mencari Niche Market
- Target Marketing

dan banyak sekali informasi yang bisa kamu dapatkan dengan mendaftar di www.AsianBrain.com. Buruan daftar dan sikat e-booknya sekarang juga... he.. he.. he... ^^

Dietary Fiber and Mineral Availability

Health authorities tell us to eat more fiber for health, particularly whole grains, fruit and vegetables. Yet the Diet and Reinfarction Trial, which determined the effect of eating a high-fiber diet on overall risk of death, came up with this graph:



Oops!  At two years, the group that doubled its fiber intake had a 27% greater chance of dying and a 23% greater chance of having a heart attack. The extra fiber was coming from whole grains. The difference wasn't statistically significant, so we can't make too much out of this. But at the very least, it doesn't support the idea that increasing grain fiber will extend your life. 

Why might fiber be problematic? I read a paper recently that gave a pretty convincing answer to that question: "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability", by Dr. Barbara F. Hartland. By definition, fiber is indigestible. We can divide it into two categories: soluble and insoluble. Insoluble fiber is mostly cellulose and it's relatively inert, besides getting fermented a bit by the gut flora. Soluble fiber is anything that can be dissolved in water but not digested by the human digestive tract. It includes a variety of molecules, some of which are quite effective at keeping you from absorbing minerals. Chief among these is phytic acid, with smaller contributions from tannins (polyphenols) and oxalates. The paper makes a strong case that phytic acid is the main reason fiber prevents mineral absorption, rather than the insoluble fiber fraction. This notion was confirmed here.

Whole grains would be a good source of minerals, if it weren't for their very high phytic acid content. Even though whole grains are full of minerals, replacing refined grains with whole grains in the diet (and especially adding extra bran) actually reduces the overall absorption of a number of minerals (free text, check out table 4). This has been confirmed repeatedly for iron, zinc, calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. 

Refining grains gets rid of the vitamins and minerals, but at least refined grains don't prevent you from absorbing the minerals in the rest of your food. Here's a comparison of a few of the nutrients in one cup of cooked brown vs. unenriched white rice (218 vs. 242 calories):

Brown rice would be quite nutritious if we could absorb all those minerals. There are a few ways to increase mineral absorption from whole grains. One way is to soak them in slightly acidic, warm water, which allows their own phytase enzyme to break down phytic acid. This doesn't seem to do much for brown rice, which doesn't contain much phytase.

A more effective method is to grind grains and soak them before cooking, which helps the phytase function more effectively, especially in gluten grains and buckwheat. The most effective method by far, and the method of choice among healthy traditional cultures around the world, is to soak, grind and ferment whole grains. This breaks down nearly all the phytic acid, making whole grains a good source of both minerals and vitamins.

The paper "Dietary Fibre and Mineral Bioavailability" listed another method of increasing mineral absorption from whole grains. Certain foods can increase the absorption of minerals from whole grains high in phytic acid. These include: foods rich in vitamin C such as fruit or potatoes; meat including fish; and dairy.

Another point the paper made was that the phytic acid content of vegetarian diets is often very high, potentially leading to mineral deficiencies. The typical modern vegetarian diet containing brown rice and unfermented soy products is very high in phytic acid, and therefore it may make sense to ensure plentiful sources of easily absorbed minerals in the diet, such as dairy. The more your diet depends on plant sources for minerals, the more careful you have to be about how you prepare your food.