Posted on 04/24/2016 8:11:42 PM PDT by Innovative
Except when they’re not.
Oh, you're supposed to EAT it ?
I looked up the location of the prostate and just assumed....
Beets feed your gag reflex.
—
Exactly. The first sentence distracted me from reading the rest of the article. If the nutritionist didn’t know that, I am not sure I can trust the rest of what they have to say.
A "botanical" fruit is not necessarily a "culinary" one, and a "culinary" fruit is not necessarily a "botanical" one. The Tomato Distinction is never even consistently made by its followers--only rarely do people mention cucumbers and peppers, even more rarely do people mention different uses of the word "fruit," and no one ever seriously says things for any other category, like "lettuce is leaves, not a vegetable" or "a beet is a root, not a vegetable."
So it is that wben I find the insistence that "the tomato is actually a fruit," I find myself distracted in similar fashion.
"and no one ever seriously says things like that for any other category"
Okay, maybe it wasn’t the best way for them to start the article. It distracted from the point.
Now that I have some more time, I looked to see if this Barbara Quinn had anything else to say. Here's something from montereyherald.com that has "fruits and vegetables" with the same list of produce:
Barbara Quinn: At risk of prostate cancer? Think red
Part of that benefit might be from lycopene, a reddish pigment that gives color to fruit and vegetables like tomatoes, apricots, guavas and watermelons.
I don't intend to ask anyone on the other site why the original article in this thread mentions only "red vegetables." (It may simply be an editing error, but if it is, someone should've seen it before publishing.)
My little distraction was different: I find it unremarkable that a tomato may be a "red vegetable," but I find it odd that an apricot, guava, or watermelon may be. (They are "vegetable" in the "animal, vegetable, mineral" sense, but most people don't usually talk about lumber or daffodils as "vegetable.") The wording in the montereyherald.com version also sounds more accurate to me in another way: most apricots aren't what I'd call red, but many have some red to them.
In other words, I definitely agree that some things can be distracting, heh. We're discussing something from the original article of this thread, but it's not (I hope) what the writer had in mind--I hope that writers and editors don't resort to odd word choices to provoke "discussion."
I don’t intend to ask anyone on the other site why the original article in this thread mentions only “red vegetables.”
My guess is that a lot of vegetables are a great ally against prostate cancer. And a lot of vegetables would likely be a great ally against several types of cancer.
Additionally, so many men have prostate surgery that shouldn’t be having it. Often times, the cancer is so slow growth (or no growth) that it would never impact the life of the patient. I’ve read that 30% or more of the surgeries are unnecessary or ill advised.
Oh, I meant that the article talks about "red vegetables" without a mention of "red fruits" in the same sentence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.