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

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by copperx »

stephengillie wrote: post #42
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…

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.

I remember reading a study on paleolithic humans that said that even they had atherosclerosis.

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

#52

Post by nl »

I don't think any credible health organisation or government body has ever claimed that what you eat has a serious effect on cancer incidence. I'm sure there are plenty of random books written by self-appointed experts who claim that though. They probably recommend coffee enemas for cancer treatment, too.

OTOH, heart disease has long been thought to be associated with eating high levels of saturated fat. Recent evidence is beginning to challenge that though[1].

[1] http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and...

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

#53

Post by nl »

stephengillie wrote: post #42
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…

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.

What evidence is there that paleolithic humans had robust health?

I suspect there was a real (literal!) survivor bias is the healthiness of paleolithic humans while they were alive. In a hunter/gatherer society you had to remain healthy enough to be mobile. If you didn't you were probably left behind, and then you died pretty quickly.

Does the high levels of "fitness" of those alive mean they had "robust health" in general? I'd question that: I think cause and effect has been switched, and the only paleolithic humans left alive were those who remained in "robust health".

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

#54

Post by Exenith »

return0 wrote: post #35
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…

There's a great TEDx talk debunking the myths of paleo diets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

That video didn't debunk anything. It's just 22 minutes of straw man. It's never been about eating exactly what hunter-gatherers ate, and it has never followed any assumption that the hunter-gatherer diet is best possible diet.

It is based on evidence that hunter-gatherers showed excellent health, and those transitioning to a neolithic diet showed a health decline. Following that, it takes the sensible action and imitates the fundamentals of the diet, backed up by more cutting-edge studies starting to go against the "high-grain, low fat" spiel. It never claims to be "the best possible diet", nor the actual diet that hunter-gatherers ate. It doesn't need to be either to be a smart decision for your health.

Of course, I get the feeling that this is not really about whether or not the diet is valuable. People tend to take sides on the matter, and videos like these only worsen the problem. Most diets around are healthier than what you normally eat.

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

#55

Post by nl »

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…

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.

This is true, so far as it goes. But obesity is unhealthy, and some food types are much more likely to make people obese than others. Specifically, "foods" (in quotes because often the worst offenders are drinks) with high caloric density and low satiability mean people take on huge amounts of calories without feeling full.

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

#56

Post by encoderer »

"Cures Cancer" is a high bar for anything.

Eat healthy food because you'll have a better life if you do.

Hell, just try it for a month. Don't eliminate carbs, reduce them. Don't skip meals, shrink portion sizes. Add veg that you've never used before. Instead of mashed potatoes, go for mashed cauliflower or (even better imo) celery root puree. Toss veggies in EVOO, salt, pepper and roast on a baking sheet at 425* until tender. Get high quality proteins and cook in a little fat with simple seasonings. Eat less than you do now. Just because you're not full doesn't mean you're hungry. I found that last lesson hard to learn.

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

#57

Post by Exenith »

csallen wrote: post #50
yaketysax wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Let's put that straw man logic more realistically:

  P1. If you want to have a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine, you should eat food that gives you a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine
  P2. Successfully reproducing in an environment without modern medicine requires food that supports or does not tarnish a good degree of health
  P3. Paleolithic humans successfully reproduced in an environment without modern medicine
  C. If you want to have a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine, eating what paleolithic humans ate will support or not tarnish that goal
Of course the problems with your reasoning are numerous. That's why intelligent people who eat the paleo diet don't make them. And they likely wouldn't propose the logic I did here. That's why they use studies comparing the health of hunter-gatherers to neolithic farmers. That's why they discuss scientific studies in support of meat/fat, and in opposition to grains. That's why they get angry at people who misappropriate their views.

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

#58

Post by rayiner »

nl wrote: post #53
stephengillie wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What evidence is there that paleolithic humans had robust health? I suspect there was a real (literal!) survivor bias is the healthiness of paleolithic humans while they were alive. In a hunter/gatherer society you had to remain healthy enough to be mobile. If you didn't you were probably left behind, and then you died pretty quickly. Does the high levels of "fitness" of those alive mean they had "robust health" in g…

Bingo. Hunter gatherer societies are far less forgiving of the weak and sick.

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

#59

Post by csallen »

Exenith wrote: post #57
csallen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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…

Let's put that straw man logic more realistically: P1. If you want to have a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine, you should eat food that gives you a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine P2. Successfully reproducing in an environment without modern medicine requires food that supports or does not tarnish a good degree of health P3. Paleolithic humans successfully reproduced in…

Au contraire, plenty of intelligent people who follow the paleo diet make the flawed argument I just presented. I know a few myself.

In addition, I'd argue that the reasoning I presented falls much more closely in line with what's found on Wikipedia's "Paleo diet" article and top Paleo sites than does yours, which, strangely, seems to focus heavily on avoiding modern medicine. But this is irrelevant, since you yourself claim that "intelligent" followers of paleo likely wouldn't propose your logic, either.

So I must ask you: What reasoning would these people propose? "Using studies" is a supplement to proposing a logical framework that justifies a conclusion, not a replacement. Research isn't cited in a vacuum: it's cited to argue for or against some premise or conclusion. Also, the types of studies you refer to could just as easily be used to supplement the framework I provided as it could yours or any other. Thus, the fact that some paleo advocates would cite these studies isn't an argument for or against the accuracy of my characterization.

It seems a bit disingenuous to label one's reasoning a strawman without providing specific reasons as to why, or even providing the allegedly correct reasoning. If a group refuses/fails to articulate its position clearly and publicly, then who is truly to blame for those views being misappropriated?

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

#60

Post by aaron695 »

If you read the actual title which seems much less misleading than the subtitle it tells a different story.

Foods aren't 'good' for you.

But it seems to fail to mention is the important bit. Some foods aren't bad and some food help stop you eating as much bad foods.

Post reply on HN