Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Palm oil favors tumor expansion

irbbarcelona.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#91

Post by humanrebar »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #89
humanrebar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And there’s little survival advantage for people who can effectively fight cancer after their reproductive age. I don't know how to quantify it, but having healthy grandparents in the picture is a survival advantage.

Its different when your grandparents are in their late 30's, early 40's. Modern reproductive ages are much, much later than they have been both historically and prehistorically. Grandparents 600-4k years ago would have been in their late thirties, mid forties for all but a very few. Still unlikely to generate significant selection pressure considering that the vast majority of cancers are late in life. https://www.nc…

OK. Replace "grandparents" with "elderly relatives".

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#92

Post by tpush »

whalesalad wrote: post #24

Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Palm, Canola, Rapeseed, Soybean, etc, they're all terrible. I avoid this shit like the plague.

What effect are you talking about? And what does the production process for vegetable oils have to do with anything? This article is about palmitic acid which apart from obviously palm oil, is most abundant in animal fats like butter (~30%), tallow (26%) etc. since its a saturated fatty acid.

Most vegetable oils like canola and soybean have much less palmitic acid.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#93

Post by gruez »

AamosSinervo wrote: post #57
gruez wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Mind elaborating? Without specific details it reeks of the naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days".

How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better? Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [ https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678 ] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxyco…

>How would the opposite not be true? "an appeal to the modern". Just because something like palm oil is new, must it be better?

What gave you the indication I was appealing to modernity? Being against naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" doesn't mean I'm arguing "well it's new so it must be better!". I'm simply saying that we shouldn't give either side preference just because it's new or old.

>Consider that for years the "new" advice was to recommend aspirin to prevent heart attacks. [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678] If you ignored this advice some smarmy pill pusher would say you're appealing to nature. What about non-addictive painkillers like oxycotton.

This seems like a massive strawman/misrepresentation. People weren't taking/recommending asprin because it was new, they were taking it because it's what the clinical evidence was suggesting. Some reasonable objections might be that the studies were poorly done, or wasn't replicable, but "it's not natural" isn't one of them. Just because "it wasn't natural" produced the right result, doesn't really mean we should endorse it, or continue using it. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology)

>Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence" [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13835...].

>Mouse experiments showed weight gain and memory loss/alzheimers [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17373-3]

Early studies showed that aspirin was beneficial for preventing heart attacks. You seemed to suggest that was bad. However, trusting one study saying that glyphosate causes cancer is okay? The wikipedia article for glyposate describes the overall evidence for glyposate causing cancer as "inconclusive". The IARC also said there was "limited evidence" for the type of cancer you described. If you want to make the case that appeal to nature is good, you really should have used something less contentious.

>Then the oil is bleached for a more palatable color.

Well is that bad? If they're literally dumping household bleach into the oil, I might be a little worried. Then again, they also put bleach (chlorine) into tap water, so should we be worried about that too?

> It refined like other industrials oils and often interchangeable for machining uses.

We also put nuclear plant coolant (dihydrogen monoxide) into our foods. Should we be worried about that as well?

>Seed oil advocates themselves appeal to "the good ol days", as many peoples have allegedly used rape seed oil over history.

Right, and that's bad regardless of which side it's on.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#94

Post by whalesalad »

ldiracdelta wrote: post #84
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> naturalistic fallacy or the "good old days" This is not a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect Ray Peat has been warning about seed oils for decades, I'm not sure if its bullet-proof but at least its interesting: https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml

Also, those "good old days", might describe "natural selection". You can't be certain that some of the survival benefits of your ancestors are NOT an adherence to traditions that give them a survival or reproductive advantage.

You can't possibly be comparing the wisdom of our ancestors with the agricultural-industrial complex? They do everything in their power to produce the lowest-cost version of "food" (some could argue it is not food) that people will pay for.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#95

Post by podgaj »

f6v wrote: post #47

For everyone spooked by this. Cancer thrives on many things. And there’s little survival advantage for people who can effectively fight cancer after their reproductive age. All novel carcinogens aside(radiation, air pollution, baby powder), humans often are just not equipped to fight cancer. Certain diets probably can make it a bit better or worse, but they might not be the game changer. Our best bet is technology, l…

Palmitic acid affects oxidative stress. This is not only important in cancer, but in heart disease as well.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00144...

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/354235

On the role of Oxidative Stress and cancer, it's complicated, but it is there:

https://www.med.or.jp/english/pdf/2001_12/535_539.pdf (PDF)

Go to Trader Joe's and look at the ingredients, everything has Palm Oil as an ingredient.

This is important, and having a diet that suits your oxidative stress profile is important. And I do not care what anyone tells me, these oils are not something the body can handle well and are probably healthy only at low levels.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#96

Post by whalesalad »

tpush wrote: post #92
whalesalad wrote: post #24

Take one look at the modern production process for vegetable oil and this sort of effect is starting you right in the face. Palm, Canola, Rapeseed, Soybean, etc, they're all terrible. I avoid this shit like the plague.

What effect are you talking about? And what does the production process for vegetable oils have to do with anything? This article is about palmitic acid which apart from obviously palm oil, is most abundant in animal fats like butter (~30%), tallow (26%) etc. since its a saturated fatty acid. Most vegetable oils like canola and soybean have much less palmitic acid.

Palm oil is a vegetable oil. The production of vegetable oil (read: palm oil) creates an end product that looks and feels like oil, but has all kinds of other bad shit in it. It gets refined, heated, bleached, heated, deoderized, etc...

The same thing happens to flour. We process the living shit out of it, then bleach it, then we have to add-in all the stuff we removed so that it still has some semblance of nutrition.

It's like the deep fried pickle. A pickle in and of itself is a pickle, but when you deep fry it, is it still a pickle? Some will argue yes. Does it still have the same general health characteristics, or more importantly, the lack of negative characteristics as the deep-fried one? No.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#97

Post by mleonhard »

kazinator wrote: post #74

If palm oil killed cancer cells, would that make it appealing and safe to eat? If errantly reproducing cells can use a substance, it must be bad: is that the reasoning here? I would imagine that a source of water also favors tumor expansion. Cut a tumor off H2O and it will shrivel and die.

I think you did not read the article. In the future, please put more effort into your comments or refrain.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#99

Post by f6v »

clairity wrote: post #60
f6v wrote: post #47

For everyone spooked by this. Cancer thrives on many things. And there’s little survival advantage for people who can effectively fight cancer after their reproductive age. All novel carcinogens aside(radiation, air pollution, baby powder), humans often are just not equipped to fight cancer. Certain diets probably can make it a bit better or worse, but they might not be the game changer. Our best bet is technology, l…

> "humans often are just not equipped to fight cancer." blanket statements like this are almost never correct. our bodies are certainly equipped to fight cancer, having evolved a number of mechanisms in that regard, it's just that cancer is relentless and the cumulative probabilities tend to catch up with a number of us eventually, which necessarily skews mortalities older. with that said, we're certainly unlikely to…

There’s a big difference between “often” and “not at all”.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#100

Post by btown »

f6v wrote: post #47

For everyone spooked by this. Cancer thrives on many things. And there’s little survival advantage for people who can effectively fight cancer after their reproductive age. All novel carcinogens aside(radiation, air pollution, baby powder), humans often are just not equipped to fight cancer. Certain diets probably can make it a bit better or worse, but they might not be the game changer. Our best bet is technology, l…

> there’s little survival advantage for people who can effectively fight cancer after their reproductive age

While there's less evolutionary advantage, it's far from trivial. See, for instance, https://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9637 :

> In some species, postreproductive females make substantial contributions to their descendants, either through direct parental care or through grandparental care. Such contributions continue after birth in all mammals (most notably primates), all birds, many insects, and some fish (15). Postreproductive bottle-nose dolphins and pilot whales baby-sit, guard, and even breastfeed their grand-children (15). Selection against the mortality of postreproductive individuals in such species would be expected to continue.

Post reply on HN