U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2016, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,608,156 times
Reputation: 7672

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
I don't think that anyone would argue with you that having a healthy diet and plenty of exercise is good for you.

However, the thread topic and the link were that OMG eat hotdogs once a week and KPOW! Brain Cancer!
City view threads can take off in all sorts of interesting directions for sure.

To me it's very hard to prove that one food is solely responsible for this/that health issue with so many other variables in the picture. In regards to processed foods overall, often with a long list of ingredients, I error on the side of caution and avoid them except for a once in a great while treat. As for hot dogs, I gave up eating them a long time ago.

Last edited by stevek64; 01-20-2016 at 08:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2016, 08:14 PM
 
2,721 posts, read 3,252,811 times
Reputation: 1536
Default I like Hot Dogs too, Rarely eat them- a nutritional nightmare,

However.....after the recent news of human DNA being found in hot dog meat , well, I have had second thoughts about ever eating another ever since.
How in hell did human DNA get into hot dogs? Maybe someone lost a finger into the meat grinder in the hot dog factory? Someone fell in ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayden22 View Post
I eat hotdogs at 7eleven all the time
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 08:30 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,746,785 times
Reputation: 3656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I think this is what G-fused meant! You didn't pick up on the sarcasm, maybe. BTW, sugar does not cause cancer.
Sugar causes cancer
Cancer causes: Popular myths about the causes of cancer - Mayo Clinic
I think you should have read your own sources. From the very Mayo Clinic page you linked to:

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
But is it the sugar, the alcohol, or something else? See how difficult this gets? And I still find it distasteful (no pun intended) to blame these women for their cancers, as the PP did.
There are certainly cancers that arise due to the actions of the individual. I do not know in which cases we can make such judgments and in which cases we cannot, but the idea that no one is ever the cause of their own cancer is silly. Particularly when looking at a large population of people, it may very well be possible to say that X% of cancers arose due to the actions of the person.

Are you implying that to say such a thing is in essence "victim blaming"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
You seem to like to blame patients for their illnesses. Are you a doctor?
I don't think a person need to be a doctor to repeat something doctors are in agreement on. Do I need to be an oncologist to say that smoking tobacco raises the risk of lung cancer? No, because qualified researchers have already made that conclusion, and they've published their results in a manner that is accessible to be, a lay person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,090 posts, read 99,190,340 times
Reputation: 31569
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Wow, goodness, Katarina, you sound like a bitter/vindictive individual, knocking my career choice, wishing ill will on me with your "promise" who have a different approach/outlook on life and simply share it on a forum that is suppose to be about sharing ideas, agreeing/disagreeing, etc. without personalizing it all. Yikes.

As for my health stats, it was to prove a point that the data I am providing can indeed have real world benefits from someone who walks the walk, not about putting me on a "high horse". Remember I also shared my less than ideal stats in my 30's that you conveniently decided to ignore/not comment on, simply for the benefit of others to know what's possible, not to boast.....in any case.....

On one more constructive note that you might personalize/look at it as an attack but figure I'll say it anyways, hopefully to share experience with others who see it as constructive.....the cholesterol numbers sound like my wife who had the same issue with very high total cholesterol. She tried everything the "experts" told her to do without meds and the result? Her total went up a few points. Go figure. She was on 40mg of a statin drug for years and had her total up to 300+ without it. The only thing that got hers down in a big way is a 100% whole foods plant based diet. Her total is now in the 160's without any meds. It took her cholesterol just a few months to come down that much without the meds but if she as much looks at any food that contains cholesterol, even eats an ounce or 2 of food that contains it, her numbers skyrocket quickly.

I truly wish you the best.

Steve
I'm sure you do (wish me the best).

I'm not criticizing your career; I'm just saying you don't have a biology background. You are definitely not qualified to be giving out health advice.

The only thing that brought my cholesterol down was medication. I have been a cholesterol counselor and seen that story repeated many times over.

I don't wish you ill; virtually everybody lucky enough to live long enough gets some sort of chronic disease.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:15 PM
 
15,812 posts, read 13,261,648 times
Reputation: 19712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
I think you should have read your own sources. From the very Mayo Clinic page you linked to:

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.





There are certainly cancers that arise due to the actions of the individual. I do not know in which cases we can make such judgments and in which cases we cannot, but the idea that no one is ever the cause of their own cancer is silly. Particularly when looking at a large population of people, it may very well be possible to say that X% of cancers arose due to the actions of the person.

Are you implying that to say such a thing is in essence "victim blaming"?



I don't think a person need to be a doctor to repeat something doctors are in agreement on. Do I need to be an oncologist to say that smoking tobacco raises the risk of lung cancer? No, because qualified researchers have already made that conclusion, and they've published their results in a manner that is accessible to be, a lay person.
There is a big difference between being LINKED to cancer and CAUSING cancer. There is a list of carginogens. These are chemicals who directly cause cancer. Diets can only be linked to cancer because they maybe causing some sort of metabolic pathway that at some point may or may not increase the risk of developing cancer. Smoking causes cancer because of the known carcinogenic compounds but an unhealthy diets are linked because the "cause" of the cancer is unknowable, despite the fact we can observe a statistical increase.

One is causal, the other is a statistical relationship. Unless we are talking about a known carcinogen and the specific type of cancer it causes we cannot know what caused a cancer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,090 posts, read 99,190,340 times
Reputation: 31569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
I think you should have read your own sources. From the very Mayo Clinic page you linked to:

However, there is some evidence that consuming large amounts of sugar is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, including esophageal cancer. It can also lead to weight gain and increase the risk of obesity and diabetes, which may increase the risk of cancer.





There are certainly cancers that arise due to the actions of the individual. I do not know in which cases we can make such judgments and in which cases we cannot, but the idea that no one is ever the cause of their own cancer is silly. Particularly when looking at a large population of people, it may very well be possible to say that X% of cancers arose due to the actions of the person.

Are you implying that to say such a thing is in essence "victim blaming"?



I don't think a person need to be a doctor to repeat something doctors are in agreement on. Do I need to be an oncologist to say that smoking tobacco raises the risk of lung cancer? No, because qualified researchers have already made that conclusion, and they've published their results in a manner that is accessible to be, a lay person.
There is an urban legend that cancer "feeds" on sugar. That is untrue. That is what has gotten into general "urban legend" circulation, and people start freaking out about putting a teaspoon of sugar in their tea.

When someone has cancer, it is inappropriate to "blame" them, even for lung cancer. They probably already know that anyway, that their smoking caused it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:21 PM
 
15,812 posts, read 13,261,648 times
Reputation: 19712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
There is an urban legend that cancer "feeds" on sugar. That is untrue. That is what has gotten into general "urban legend" circulation, and people start freaking out about putting a teaspoon of sugar in their tea.

When someone has cancer, it is inappropriate to "blame" them, even for lung cancer. They probably already know that anyway, that their smoking caused it.
This one bothers me too. All cells require sugar, hell brain cells can only utilize glucose for cellular respiration. The myth comes from the fact that many cancers, particularly aggressive rapidly growing ones are perpetually in the mitosis stage of the cell cycle and therefore utilize quite a bit of any fuel. But limiting sugar isn't going to stop cancer from continuing to occur. In all likelihood the link between high sugar diets and risks of certain cancers is likely metabolic and far more complex than "feeding" cancer cells.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:25 PM
 
Location: southwestern PA
20,426 posts, read 35,917,169 times
Reputation: 38840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
When someone has cancer, it is inappropriate to "blame" them, even for lung cancer. They probably already know that anyway, that their smoking caused it.
There are many other causes of lung cancer than smoking.
I know two people who died of it, neither of whom ever smoked in their life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,608,156 times
Reputation: 7672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I'm sure you do (wish me the best).

I'm not criticizing your career; I'm just saying you don't have a biology background. You are definitely not qualified to be giving out health advice.

The only thing that brought my cholesterol down was medication. I have been a cholesterol counselor and seen that story repeated many times over.

I don't wish you ill; virtually everybody lucky enough to live long enough gets some sort of chronic disease.
Though I and others on this thread/on CD are "qualified" to express our views, experience, and opinions based on data provided by people that are far more experts on a topic than *gasp* yourself and I. I think Wittgenstein's Ghost expressed it best:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
I don't think a person need to be a doctor to repeat something doctors are in agreement on. Do I need to be an oncologist to say that smoking tobacco raises the risk of lung cancer? No, because qualified researchers have already made that conclusion, and they've published their results in a manner that is accessible to be, a lay person.
It's nice to come down from one's high horse once in a while and realize degrees in this/that/the other thing don't have all the answers as you seem to feel they do. That's a controlling type mentality in my view.

As for you being a "cholesterol counselor", my wife had experience with "Experts" as yourself who are "qualified" to offer health advice in regards to her cholesterol and as I previously stated, one "expert", a "licensed nutritionist" gave the standard approach on how to lower cholesterol via diet. When that didn't work with strict compliance by my wife, actually raising her cholesterol a few points, the other "Expert" MD said statins are the only choice for her. Both didn't offer the non-drug alternative that my wife was looking for and she and I discovered it on our own....eating a 100% whole food plant based diet. So based on our experience, the "experts" that you talk so highly about didn't know what we figured out all our our own. So again, based on our experience, your degrees and "expertise" in this case were trumped by "unqualified" people like my wife and I. For us, it pays to be open minded and not look down on people who don't hold pieces of paper on a subject in thinking they can't figure out solutions on their own that the self-appointed "experts" claim a monopoly on.

Last edited by stevek64; 01-20-2016 at 09:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2016, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,090 posts, read 99,190,340 times
Reputation: 31569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Chick View Post
There are many other causes of lung cancer than smoking.
I know two people who died of it, neither of whom ever smoked in their life.
Well, yes, but I was referring to the smokers.

Smoking does cause 80%-90% of lung cancer. Of course, even 10% of cases are a lot of cases.
http://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-...act-sheet.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top