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

There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

startribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#41

Post by redwall_hp »

vacri wrote: post #36
tachyonbeam wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that. There's a huge problem with selective bias here. People think that "healthy foods" automatically means good health, and bad health is automatically a result of processed foods, "bad health habits", etc. Bad health is your own damn fault for profoundly insulting mother nature by feeding your body Kraft Diner a few too many times. News at 11: cancer is a natural occurrence. You could exclusively eat…

Your comment suffers from the affliction that "if it doesn't completely eradicate -foo-, then there's no point at all". If there was a magic food that cut your chance of getting any sort of cancer by a factor of 1000, your statement of 'you could still get heart attack/cancer in your 50s' would still be true. The main article does this a little as well; there's something of a tone that says 'healthy food has all thes…

I'd go so far as to say that any claims of cereus types of foods being "healthier" are specious as well. As long as you're getting the required sustanence and not dying of anaphylaxis or whatever, you're good.

Everyone, even doctors, find a new food to demonize every few years, then flip and say it's the bet thing ever a decade later. Anyone remember when eggs were killing you? Or when the fad diet was low carbohydrate? Now eggs cure cancer and gluten is "literally Hitler."

Health nuts, as a rule, have no clue what they're talking about. They're just desperately looking for something to blame for their (or others') problems and using pseudoscience to justify it. (As for weight loss/gain, it's just simple thermodynamics. Caloric intake minus expenditure equals "duh.")

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#42

Post by stephengillie »

tachyonbeam wrote: post #13
epistasis wrote: post #2

This shouldn't surprise anyone... People need to realize that research publications are not textbooks. They are communications to other researchers about the way that the evidence is pointing, that helps them design new experiments, that justifies expensive and spendy clinical trials, which eventually find conclusive evidence. The idea that one can open a science journal and find interpretable truth revealed is a per…

It's not just that. There's a huge problem with selective bias here. People think that "healthy foods" automatically means good health, and bad health is automatically a result of processed foods, "bad health habits", etc. Bad health is your own damn fault for profoundly insulting mother nature by feeding your body Kraft Diner a few too many times. News at 11: cancer is a natural occurrence. You could exclusively eat…

I think what caused such robust health among paleolithic humans is they didn't drive. They had to walk everywhere. Literally miles to find food.

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#43

Post by paul_f »

fthssht wrote: post #18

Certain kinds of fat are likely healthy. Certain population s of indigenous people thrived on high fat diets.

The title of the article really annoys me. Not all fat is unhealthy. What is especially bothersome is that food companies are creating "low fat" foods by replacing fat with sugar, making them much less healthy than the original yogurt or sour cream or whatever.

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#44

Post by yaketysax »

redwall_hp wrote: post #41
vacri wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment suffers from the affliction that "if it doesn't completely eradicate -foo-, then there's no point at all". If there was a magic food that cut your chance of getting any sort of cancer by a factor of 1000, your statement of 'you could still get heart attack/cancer in your 50s' would still be true. The main article does this a little as well; there's something of a tone that says 'healthy food has all thes…

I'd go so far as to say that any claims of cereus types of foods being "healthier" are specious as well. As long as you're getting the required sustanence and not dying of anaphylaxis or whatever, you're good. Everyone, even doctors, find a new food to demonize every few years, then flip and say it's the bet thing ever a decade later. Anyone remember when eggs were killing you? Or when the fad diet was low carbohydra…

"Everyone, even doctors, find a new food to demonize every few years, then flip and say it's the bet thing ever a decade later."

Uh ya. New evidence comes to light, people change their minds. That's not necessarily a fault of the methodology.

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#45

Post by [deleted] »

joshpadnick wrote: post #12

The primary thrust of the article seems to be that because (1) the American Association for Cancer Research conference had a very small number of sessions on diet and cancer, and (2) a single follow-up study in 2007 concluded there was little link between diet and cancer that it must be true. This is only one view and hardly comprehensive. If you read http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vegetables_cancer.aspx by Joel Fu…

[deleted]

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#46

Post by justsomeguynpdx »

ribs wrote: post #39
relampago wrote: post #32

A sensationalist title with no links to any studies cited. Why the misinformation? Are we, the readers, expected to be so ignorant to think that foods grown in our gardens are equal (in health) to those found at our local fast food restaurant? No mention of the relationship between genetically modified foods, artificial sweeteners, organic food, oxygen, etc to disease. Another failure of the fourth-estate to inform t…

I find the evidence for your claims to be lacking. GM foods? Are you kidding me? There's no evidence that GM foods are bad for your health. Perhaps some evidence will turn up. (It's possible; I doubt it will happen.) But there is none. And organic foods? Come on, you're thinking like some ancient Greek who took Aristotelean "essential natures" seriously. Like you're going to paste bird feathers on your flying machine…

There's quite a bit of evidence that organic foods have higher levels of antioxidants. (This is not a first source, but it references quite a few) http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/15/1/4.pdf

"Organic strawberries had significantly higher total antioxidant activity (8.5% more), ascorbic acid (9.7% more), and total phenolics (10.5% more) than conventional berries (Table 2), but significantly less phosphorus (13.6% less) and potassium (9.1% less) (Table 1)." Organically managed surface soils also supported significantly greater microbial biomass (159.4% more), microbial carbon as a percent of total carbon (66.2% greater), readily mineralizable carbon (25.5% more), and microbial carbon to mineralizable carbon ratio (86.0% greater) (Table 6). These indicate larger pools of total, labile, and microbial biomass C and a higher proportion of soil total and labile C as microbial biomass. All measures of microbial activity were significantly greater in the organically farmed soils, including microbial respiration (33.3% more), dehydrogenase (112.3% more), acid phosphatase (98.9% more), and alkaline phosphatase (121.5% more). The organically farmed soils had a significantly lower qCO2 metabolic quotient, indicating that the microbial biomass in the organically farmed soils was 94.7% more efficient or under less stress than in the conventionally farmed soils [40]. These same differences, except for qCO2, alkaline phosphatase, iron, boron, and sodium, were also observed in soils from the bottom of the mounds (20–30 cm depth). http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...

Glyphosate, used with GM soy, adversely affects good gut bacteria in poultry at levels of 5ppm while bad bacteria are highly resistant to it. http://www.netwerkvlv.nl/downloads/2012-Krueger,%20M-glyphos...

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#47

Post by relampago »

ribs wrote: post #39
relampago wrote: post #32

A sensationalist title with no links to any studies cited. Why the misinformation? Are we, the readers, expected to be so ignorant to think that foods grown in our gardens are equal (in health) to those found at our local fast food restaurant? No mention of the relationship between genetically modified foods, artificial sweeteners, organic food, oxygen, etc to disease. Another failure of the fourth-estate to inform t…

I find the evidence for your claims to be lacking. GM foods? Are you kidding me? There's no evidence that GM foods are bad for your health. Perhaps some evidence will turn up. (It's possible; I doubt it will happen.) But there is none. And organic foods? Come on, you're thinking like some ancient Greek who took Aristotelean "essential natures" seriously. Like you're going to paste bird feathers on your flying machine…

I'm just pointing out that none of these topics can be or were addressed head on by the author. He instead chose to infer by generalization that food is food, with no supporting documentation just a tactically written "scientific" opinion piece.

For evidence look into the work of Jeffrey Smith. Here's just a 2min clip of some of what you seek, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvopGRiPHdE. Also check out Joel Salatin. Best of luck on your journey.

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#48

Post by DenisM »

teichman wrote: post #21

This newspaper article states "In 2007, a major follow-up [to the 1997 AICR report] all but reversed the findings." They don't cite the study or provide a link, but it's almost certainly the 2007 AICR report. Fortunately you can take a look for yourself [0]. The published research findings are pretty much the opposite of the Star Tribune's claims that eating healthy has no effect on cancer. These are the AICR recomme…

That's odd. The same article was in New York Times, do you know how did they manage to get the opposite conclusions? Maybe it's a different study after all?

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#49

Post by jpatokal »

Now this is what I call dogfooding your own recommendations:

That evening at a reception hosted by the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, guests partook of a sumptuous buffet that included thick slabs of roast beef, a variety of rich cheeses and generous servings of wine. Afterward came the cancer research association’s grand celebration known for its dessert buffet.

Re: There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it

#50

Post by csallen »

yaketysax wrote: post #16
tachyonbeam wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that. There's a huge problem with selective bias here. People think that "healthy foods" automatically means good health, and bad health is automatically a result of processed foods, "bad health habits", etc. Bad health is your own damn fault for profoundly insulting mother nature by feeding your body Kraft Diner a few too many times. News at 11: cancer is a natural occurrence. You could exclusively eat…

"News at 11: cancer is a natural occurrence." So what? Something being "natural" has no bearing on whether it is favorable or preventable. "You could exclusively eat prime quality fish, raw organic fruits and veggies and still get a heart attack at 52 and cancer at 58." Of course it's possible. But if you had any amount of sense, you wouldn't be making conclusions from a single case. "In other news, I seriously quest…

>> "The claim most paleo advocates seem to be making is that you should eat food that the body is adapted to eating."

In full, their claims fall closer to the following:

  P1. You should eat healthy foods.
  P2. Foods that the body is "adapted" to eating are healthy.
  P3. If paleolithic humans ate something, it means our bodies are "adapted" to it.
  C. We should eat what paleolithic humans ate.
The problems with the above line of reasoning are numerous. While most everyone would prefer to eat healthy when possible, the word "adapted" is ambiguous, and the argument that it's healthier to eat foods we're "adapted" to lacks evidence and is overly ambitious.

It's hard enough to examine healthiness on a food-by-food (or even an ingredient-by-ingredient) basis, so labeling broad categories of food as healthy or unhealthy is bound to be even harder.

Post reply on HN