View Full Version : Green Tea and Test

08-09-2001, 12:28 PM
Hey I came across this article and wanted to see what the rest of you peeps thought of it. I haven't been taking green tea much lately, but I have a bag of it at my desk at work and was wondering if anyone could add to this report or tell me to what extent green tea can reduce testosterone levels, and other growth factors.

Ben May Institute for Cancer Research, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Tang Center for Herbal Medicine Research, University of Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA.

Green tea polyphenols, especially the catechin, (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have been proposed as a cancer chemopreventative based on a variety of laboratory studies. For clear assessment of the possible physiological
effects of green tea consumption, we injected pure green tea catechins ip into rats and studied their acute effects on endocrine systems. We found that EGCG, but not related catechins, significantly reduced food intake; body weight; blood levels of testosterone, estradiol, leptin, insulin,
insulin-like growth factor I, LH, glucose, cholesterol, and triglyceride; as well as growth of the prostate, uterus, and ovary. Similar effects were observed in lean and obese male Zucker rats, suggesting that the effect of EGCG was independent of an intact leptin receptor. EGCG may interact
specifically with a component of a leptin-independent appetite control pathway. Endocrine changes induced by parenteral administration of EGCG may relate to the observed growth inhibition and regression of human prostate
and breast tumors in athymic mice treated with EGCG as well as play a role in the mechanism by which EGCG inhibits cancer initiation and promotion in various animal models of cancer.

08-09-2001, 12:39 PM
not sure what to make of it...however be wary of results of experiments where a specific "active component" is pulled out of a whole food (or plant in this case) and studied.

ie - Beta carotene - it was found that foods high in beta carotene helped prevent cancer. well, a couple of studies were done, using people who smoked regularly, had smoked in the past, or worked with asbestos, and they gave them lab-created beta-carotene to see whether it would prevent cancer. Well they had to cut the study 2 years early, because the beta-carotene group actually developed a 28% higher rate of cancer then the placebo group.

yet...eating foods high in beta-carotens consistently show to lower cancer risks.

you see what i'm getting at? the whole is a sum of it's parts, not it's "active" constituents.

08-09-2001, 05:28 PM
Beta-carotene study = bollox.

I thought we established this, gooface.

the doc
08-09-2001, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Cackerot69
Beta-carotene study = bollox.

I thought we established this, gooface.

whats your beef with this study

08-09-2001, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by the doc

whats your beef with this study


08-09-2001, 06:04 PM
Well, it's basically one of those "one against the masses" studies, it goes against everything we thought we knew about it, so the media jumped all over it, made a huge deal about it, just because it was "interesting". There were a few problems withn the study, the dose was lower than all the other studies, it was i think 6mg. The subjects were Finns who are the most unhealthy population in existence (bad diets, high rate of smoking) and they had an average of 22 years of smoking behind them...is anything going to counter-act 22 years of smoking? In the end they concluded that beta-catotene may increase the risk on cancer which has basically been written off as bollox.

There are a few others like the CARET study that gooface is referring to, but when you look up the abstract it basically doesn't say what people say it says...they noticed an increase in cencer in people who inhaled cancer promoting substances, no sh*t they got more cancer! Of course this was publicized a lot as well cuz it makes for a good story...but it's also been considered bollox.

There are also two other trials of the CARET study, and both of them show that beta-carotene has NO effect on cancer, in other words they couldn't duplicate the results, which makes the study basically mean nothing.

In summary: Beta-carotene study(s) = bollox.

08-10-2001, 04:32 AM
you are getting your studies confused gooface, and you are extrapolating incorrectly for the point i made:

Caret Study details (http://www.os.dhhs.gov/news/press/1996pres/960118b.html)

again....my point was...that isolating a specific component for study results, may skew your findings against a whole food, because it's not just what we presume is the "active ingredient" doing the work.

08-10-2001, 02:07 PM
I'm not going to read that long pile of poo, but if you read the actual abstract, and the two other trials that show this study to mean nothing, you will see it's bollox.

08-10-2001, 02:09 PM
whatever man...i'm not sure how you mean it's wrong? or wtf you are so anti-Caret about...but fine, have it your way!:p

08-10-2001, 04:11 PM
I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong, but it sure as hell isn't right.

Think about that one for a bit ;)

08-10-2001, 04:24 PM
*drinks his green tea, looks at porn*

No problems here.

08-10-2001, 04:26 PM
Green tea is great...but the beta-carotene study ain't.

08-10-2001, 06:03 PM
d00d....all the beta carotene study proved was that it was not good for preventing cancer....

yet at the same time..foods high in beta carotene do seem to increas cancer prevention. are you still not getting my point?

active constituents do not necessarily do the trick.

08-10-2001, 06:16 PM
Don't make me kick your ass.

08-10-2001, 06:41 PM
shut up gooface!

you can't kick my ass.


08-20-2001, 04:24 AM
Interesting what you say about the BC study Cackerot - you seem really very knowledgable - how do you kow so much??

I can give another ref on green tea and catechin - ie its thermogenic effects:
Dulloo, et al - Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 70: 1040-5

08-20-2001, 08:13 AM
pfft...he's 15...he spends all his time surfing the web looking for studies to bash people over the head with...*lol*

i still think he's got his studies confused, but since he would rather read an abstract, as opposed to the entire study, so be it....he's a gooface.;)

Gyno Rhino
08-20-2001, 08:47 AM
*laugh* He don't know nearly as much as he be thinkin' he do.

08-20-2001, 08:52 AM
But he's hyooge.

08-20-2001, 05:30 PM
I'm just dumb and skinny....