Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
....re plants...
not directly as they don't "mentate" (there
is rumor most people don't either ), but
if they kill off all of their seed dispersers
then they will eventually be outdone by
the other plants that are "nicer".


Try to get it into that dormant organ that resides between your ears,
that "organic agriculture" doesn't increase flavonids, it simply
doesn't suppress them as insecticides do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavono...gical_activity
....
Potential for biological activity
Flavonoids (specifically flavanoids such as the catechins) are "the
most common group of polyphenolic compounds in the human diet and are
found ubiquitously in plants".[4] Flavonols, the original
bioflavonoids such as quercetin, are also found ubiquitously, but in
lesser quantities. Both sets of compounds have evidence of
health-modulating effects in animals which eat them.
The widespread distribution of flavonoids, their variety and their
relatively low toxicity compared to other active plant compounds (for

"relatively low toxicity" (i.e. they are not completely
harmless).

just shot yourself in the foot there...


instance alkaloids) mean that many animals, including humans, ingest
significant quantities in their diet. Resulting from experimental
evidence that they may modify allergens, viruses, and carcinogens,
flavonoids have potential to be biological "response modifiers", such
as anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory,[5] anti-microbial[6] and
anti-cancer activities shown from in vitro studies.[7]
[edit]

neutral to supportive to your point,
but as mentioned elsewheres we're
already getting plenty.


Antioxidant activity in vitro
Flavonoids (both flavonols and flavanols) are most commonly known for
their antioxidant activity in vitro.
Consumers and food manufacturers have become interested in flavonoids
for their possible medicinal properties, especially their putative
role in prevention of cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Although
physiological evidence is not yet established, the beneficial effects
of fruits, vegetables, and tea or even red wine have sometimes been
attributed to flavonoid compounds rather than to known micronutrients,
such as vitamins and dietary minerals.[8]
Alternatively, research conducted at the Linus Pauling Institute and
evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority indicates that,
following dietary intake, flavonoids themselves are of little or no
direct antioxidant value.[9][10] As body conditions are unlike
controlled test tube conditions, flavonoids and other polyphenols are
poorly absorbed (less than 5%), with most of what is absorbed being
quickly metabolized and excreted.

this sounds like a body having to do
work to get rid of a substance that there
is too much of. i.e. having less of it in
plant products is probably putting less
stress on the liver (which is in fact
one of the things i mentioned originally --
this is a point in my favor if the science
holds up).


The increase in antioxidant capacity
of blood seen after the consumption of flavonoid-rich foods is not
caused directly by flavonoids themselves, but most likely is due to
increased uric acid levels that result from metabolism of
flavonoids.[11] According to Frei, "we can now follow the activity of
flavonoids in the body, and one thing that is clear is that the body
sees them as foreign compounds and is trying to get rid of them."

*ding ding!*


[edit]
Other potential health benefits

"potential"


[edit]
Cancer
Physiological processing of unwanted flavonoid compounds induces
so-called Phase II enzymes that also help to eliminate mutagens and
carcinogens, and therefore may be of value in cancer prevention.

"may"


Flavonoids could also induce mechanisms that may kill cancer cells and

"could"


inhibit tumor invasion.[11] UCLA cancer researchers have found that
study participants who ate foods containing certain flavonoids, such
as catechins found in strawberries and green and black teas;
kaempferol from brussel sprouts and apples; and quercetin from beans,
onions and apples, may have reduced risk of obtaining lung cancer.[12]

"may" but that could be due to other factors (like
fiber) or other compounds. a true study of
flavonols in isolation would be needed to pin this
down.

the point to consider further is that there might
be the case that everything we currently eat is
bad for us in one form or another. some vegetables
just might be the least noxious. like i said before
evolution is not optimal, there might be other
pathways which can be demonstrated to be
better. we don't know yet.


Research also indicated that only small amounts of flavonoids may be
needed for possible benefits.

"small amounts" which are available in
what is grown now. this is not a point in
your favor.


Taking large dietary supplements likely
provides no extra benefit and may pose risks. However, certainty of
neither a benefit nor a risk has been proven yet in large-scale human
intervention trials.[11]

"neither a benefit nor a risk has been proven yet"

another point in my favor.


[edit]
Diarrhea
A study done at Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland, in
collaboration with scientists at Heinrich Heine University in Germany,
has shown that epicatechin, quercetin and luteolin can inhibit the
development of fluids that result in diarrhea by targeting the
intestinal cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator Cl*
transport inhibiting cAMP-stimulated Cl* secretion in the
intestine.[13] [edit]
Capillary stabilizing agents
Bioflavonoids like rutin, monoxerutin, diosmin, troxerutin and
hidrosmin have potential vasoprotective proprieties still under
experimental evaluation.[citation needed]
[edit]

"are still under experimental evaluation"

most of these pretty much prove my initial
statements accurate enough for general
conversational purposes. good job!


songbird