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

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#81

Post by dtech »

outworlder wrote: post #61
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 But we are? The immune system is constantly at work killing malignant (or otherwise dysfunctional) cells. Cells themselves have mechanisms to commit suicide (apoptosis) if they are not working properly. It's only when the several mechanisms we have get defeated at the same time (often due to mutations) that cancer can even develop. If you mean, we are not as equipp…

> If you mean, we are not as equipped as elephants or whales to fight cancer, then that's true.

There's some debate as to whether they have better cancer fighting mechanisms, or whether their size means they are less fast affected by cancers, and/or whether they are large enough that their cancers split into competing cancers before they are affected.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#82

Post by moffkalast »

QuercusMax wrote: post #66
moffkalast wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's the most horrifying sentence I've read in the past few months.

Why is it horrifying? That a naturally occurring long-chain fatty acid is found in multiple natural sources? The parent comment is NOT indicating that palm oil is in these things.

Well the article was about palm acid, not palm oil.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#83

Post by caeril »

wongarsu wrote: post #79
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…

We have selective pressure to survive cancer for the first 40 years of our life (and not just barely survive but be unhindered by it). After that there are more subtle selective forces at work: having grandparents that are in good health and helping find food or care for children can certainly improve your survival chances. And of course the machinery we have developed to survive the first 40 years doesn't suddenly s…

> having grandparents that are in good health and helping find food or care for children

Maybe, certainly since the advent of nuclear families. But our much longer genetic lineage selects around tribes, such that direct grandparents' longevity may not be as critically important. Third-and-fourth cousins likely easily filled this role.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#84

Post by ldiracdelta »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #58
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".

> 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.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#86

Post by DoingIsLearning »

moffkalast wrote: post #4

Yet another thing on the cancerogenic pile sigh At some point you have to ask yourself if everything but water gives us cancer.

Not trying to be pedantic but carcinogenic is something that _causes_ cancer, that is not the mechanism this study is describing with palmitic acid.

The study claims that palm oil promotes the growth of metastasis of an original cancer tumour. So it is not that palm oil _causes_ cancer but that it will _potentially_ promote more agressive copying of tumurous cells into other regions of the body.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#87

Post by guruz »

headmelted wrote: post #28
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.

Honest question - how? Isn't it in almost everything?

Check the "What To Eat" section here: https://fireinabottle.net/the-croissant-diet-specification/

This is also sometimes the topic in those subreddits: https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SaturatedFat/

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#88

Post by wongarsu »

caeril wrote: post #83
wongarsu wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have selective pressure to survive cancer for the first 40 years of our life (and not just barely survive but be unhindered by it). After that there are more subtle selective forces at work: having grandparents that are in good health and helping find food or care for children can certainly improve your survival chances. And of course the machinery we have developed to survive the first 40 years doesn't suddenly s…

> having grandparents that are in good health and helping find food or care for children Maybe, certainly since the advent of nuclear families. But our much longer genetic lineage selects around tribes, such that direct grandparents' longevity may not be as critically important. Third-and-fourth cousins likely easily filled this role.

If your great-great-grandfather has a random genetic mutation, he can pass that down to both you and your third cousin. If that mutation helps your third cousin help you bring children to the world, you have a selective advantage. Of course that chain grows exponentially less likely the further you are from each other on the family tree, as the gene has to spread far enough by pure chance.

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#89

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

humanrebar wrote: post #80
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…

> 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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97292/

Re: Palm oil favors tumor expansion

#90

Post by justinator »

vmception wrote: post #62
justinator wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, we're in a constant state of almost having cancer, it's just that our immune system handles the little stuff before it gets out of control. Nothing causes cancer, but certain things tip the scales towards the cancer getting out of control. (about is all simplified of course)

And also things can directly cause cancer by directly damaging DNA in the right places at the right time. No need to take the optimistic route. If it makes you feel better: some cancers.

Oh, well: I didn't think conceptualize, "we are always in a state of having cancer" was an optimistic view, just realistic :). But DNA gets damaged all by itself, but you're right: something like smoking for decades doesn't help matters.
Post reply on HN