ORAC
By Alice R. Laule MD
The subject for this newsletter is another potent way in which food interacts
with the body, that of providing us with antioxidants. ORAC (Oxygen Radical
Absorbance Capacity) is the name of a scale that measures the antioxidant
capacity of food. The word “radical” in this case refers to free
radicals, molecules with an unpaired electron in an outer orbit, which run
around looking for electrons to steal. When they steal a molecular from your
tissues they do damage that can lead to premature aging, and even cancer. While
there are those who still argue about the free radical theory of aging and
cancer, most scientists are pretty well convinced that free radicals play a
strong role. Many of the free radicals in our body are oxygen radicals, similar
to “rust.” Excess oxygen is actually somewhat toxic, even though we need it to
live. So oxygen radical absorbence capacity is the ability a food has to absorb
(and neutralize) oxygen based free radicals.
Fluorescein is used to test the ORAC, the same fluorescein your eye doctor uses
to test for glaucoma, the orange colored eye drops. Under cobalt blue light,
fluorescein fluoresces green. As it is degraded by oxidation, it fluoresces
less and less. The oxidative decay of fluorescein is slowed in the presence of
anti-oxidants. Therefore when a high oxidative capacity food is combined with
fluorescein and the green fluorescence measured, it lasts longer than with a
food that is not as good an anti-oxidant. The rest of the technicalities
of the way this is determined are probably a bit too much for a newsletter, and
in fact the methodology was updated in 2004. If you’ve heard of the ORAC scale
from before 2004, the list on page three will be an update from previous lists,
and is more accurate.
These numbers are still a little tricky to evaluate, because there are
different ways in which the scale is calculated. One scale is calculated as
antioxidant capacity per weight of food, another by a standardized serving of
the food. In a chart calculated by the weight of a food, a dried food like a
raisin (less water weight) would have a higher ORAC than the fresh food, in
this example, the grape. One way to get around this confusion is to calculate
ORAC per calorie. The most recently released list includes this data.
Epidemiological studies show
that people who eat foods rich in anti-oxidants have less incidence of
cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and eye diseases. Overall, eating
the foods with the highest ORAC should have the tendency to reduce your risk
for cancer, heart disease and age related disease of all kinds.
Take a look at the list on page three and use that information to make
adjustments in your diet. After I learned about this, I changed my perspective
on the cost of the fresh blueberries in the store. A tiny package of them costs
almost $3.00. That used to seem too expensive to me. However, I thought nothing
of buying a $2.50 package of cookies made with white flour and sugar. A light
bulb went off in my head when I heard information about the ORAC, as well as
more information about the healthy carotenoids and flavonoids that are in all
colorful foods. My perception changed, and somehow paying fifty cents more for
a snack that would actually be good for my health made sense. I buy the berries
now. (I know that makes me sound dumb, but it really did happen that way.)
I have read about hamburgers being made in which the meat was mixed with
freshly diced red cherries. As I recall, the mix was about 2/3 by volume ground
beef, and 1/3 ground cherries. I understand the taste and texture were very
pleasing. I don’t eat beef any longer, because of the antibiotics, hormones and
other chemical additives. Organic beef I tolerate fine, but the ordinary
feed-lot fed stuff can send me back into chronic fatigue syndrome in 24 hours,
and it lasts for days. Therefore, I have not tried this recipe. If any of you
try it, I would love to hear feedback, and pass it on to others in the
newsletter.
As an additional point of interest I discovered in researching this topic, just
a few years ago the ORAC of patients’s serum was tested. The numbers were very
low in anorexia nervosa, diabetic neuropathy and cardiomyopathy (deterioration
of the heart muscle). The ORAC was actually increased (!) in kidney failure.
The authors postulate that this is because urea accumulates in the blood, and
although it is a waste product it is also an anti-oxidant. Surprisingly to me,
there was no decline in ORAC in Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s. Both of
these are now known as “brain on fire” syndromes, where the brain is burning
up, so to speak, with free radicals. Perhaps the blood-brain barrier contains
the free radicals? I find this intriguing. People with depression and
schizophrenia also had a normal ORAC of their serum.
McKesson, the article stated, is petitioning congress and HCFA that medicine is
pure science, and given the same diagnostic codes and patient age, gender,
etc., EVERY physician should always prescribe exactly the same way.
That means that EVERY patient with the diagnostic code of 272.0 (high
cholesterol) and an age of let’s say 64, female, 120 pounds, would get the
exact same dose of the exact same lipid lowering medication. Always!
Do you find that offensive? I do. People are not widgets. We didn’t come off an
assembly line, all identical, all tagged with a UPC code. We are individual in
our desires and needs. Someone I saw just this morning would have fallen under
the above category when first seen four months ago, but instead I gave her dietary
recommendations which she followed. Today, 4 months later, her lipids are
absolutely perfect, and she never needed any medication at all.
We all need to remind congress, HCFA and other officials of this fact often —
people are not widgets. My whole concept of a medical practice, and now of our
new weight loss clinic, is all based on individualizing all care to a person’s
diagnosis, lifestyle and preferences.
Alice Laule, M.D.