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.
It's a RESEARCH article! One research project! Has it been replicated in the last 8 years?
My guess is that not only are you not a doctor, but that you are very young, and have not seen your own genes play a few tricks on you!
Correct, I'm not a doctor. Wrong, I am 51. I'm retired from IT. No meds, no pills, no cancer, no heart "disease", 114 total cholesterol, triglycerides in the 30's, BP 105 range over 60's range, 6'2", 170-175lbs, body fat in the single digits, athletic/muscular, active, whole foods plant based eater for a few decades now. In my 30's, before I straightened out my diet/got more active, my cholesterol and BP were much higher, I weighed in the low 220's/developed a nasty gut. See? no genes.....my choice. I expressed my genes to the negative based on my lifestyle choices. Genes often don't go wrong on their own.....they need to be "expressed". Fascinating area to research. My mom was on a bunch of pills throughout her life as was my dad later in life and choose a different lifestyle route than I. Fortunately my mom is getting off her pills one by one over the last few years as she cleaned up her diet significantly. Never to late to change in full view. But thanks for the compliment on calling me very young....I certainly feel very young/vibrant, much better than my 30s. I attribute much of that to my life style choices/diet as many of my friends haven't fared so well and made other choices in their lifestyle and are on the pill bandwagon and have health issues. Can someone eat/behave perfect and still get a brain tumor? Of course! Someone eat horrible, be a nasty person, have nasty habits and live to their 80's? Of course! But the bell curve in the center is where most of us fall. But this isn't about you or I so let's depersonalize and get back on topic, yes?
As for one research project, that was the one I posted, correct. I posted others on how sugar impacts/can start cancer. There are many more out there in JAMA, the journal of nutrition, etc that I invite you to pursue on your own. Here's another one referenced here that comes close to the numbers in the research study I posted and it comes from the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research, 2 groups you might have more faith in perhaps, based on the data that is currently out there:
"The American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research bothestimate that more than 30 percent of cancer can be prevented through healthy diet, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight. Smoking also accounts for over 30 percent of cancers. This means that through appropriate lifestyle choices, more than 50 percent of cancers and cancer-related deaths could be avoided."
Another in particular that is wide in scope /detail that you might find interesting to read and analyze is the Okinawan Study. While the data is detailed/most interesting, done over decades on a large population group, what's most telling is the macro implications of the study and that's how the current generation of Okinawan's abandoned their ultra healthy lifestyle/lifestyle for the most part and how horrible the health is of the current generation in regards to heart disease, cancer rates, obesity, etc. Same genetic pool.....same environment.....different lifestyle choices and huge health outcome differences. You, me, or anyone else doesn't need an MD attached to our name or fancy advanced degree, or publications showing studies at the cellular level on animals to need proof to see the obvious cause/effect conclusion in full scope at the macro level in regards to the Okinawan study, past generation vs current generation.
I was posting this information in a way that might help people/parents to see there is a different choice beyond pills/procedures, a more proactive approach that you appear to take defensive with so I don't know what to say about that but you are free to feel any way you want. Nothing is 100% in life but there is much we all can do to lower the odds of getting lots of ugly health issues, especially cancer, heart disease, and diabetes and for parents to instill such good habits early on in life of kids and stop blaming everything on genes. You apparently feel otherwise, perhaps take the common belief today that the absence of health is caused by a lack of drugs and procedures. We agree to disagree.
Correct, I'm not a doctor. Wrong, I am 51. I'm retired from IT. No meds, no pills, no cancer, no heart "disease", 114 total cholesterol, triglycerides in the 30's, BP 105 range over 60's range, 6'2", 170-175lbs, body fat in the single digits, athletic/muscular, active, whole foods plant based eater for a few decades now. In my 30's, before I straightened out my diet/got more active, my cholesterol and BP were much higher, I weighed in the low 220's/developed a nasty gut. See? no genes.....my choice. I expressed my genes to the negative based on my lifestyle choices. Genes often don't go wrong on their own.....they need to be "expressed". Fascinating area to research. My mom was on a bunch of pills throughout her life as was my dad later in life and choose a different lifestyle route than I. Fortunately my mom is getting off her pills one by one over the last few years as she cleaned up her diet significantly. Never to late to change in full view. But thanks for the compliment on calling me very young....I certainly feel very young/vibrant, much better than my 30s. I attribute much of that to my life style choices/diet as many of my friends haven't fared so well and made other choices in their lifestyle and are on the pill bandwagon and have health issues. Can someone eat/behave perfect and still get a brain tumor? Of course! Someone eat horrible, be a nasty person, have nasty habits and live to their 80's? Of course! But the bell curve in the center is where most of us fall. But this isn't about you or I so let's depersonalize and get back on topic, yes?
As for one research project, that was the one I posted, correct. I posted others on how sugar impacts/can start cancer. There are many more out there in JAMA, the journal of nutrition, etc that I invite you to pursue on your own. Here's another one referenced here that comes close to the numbers in the research study I posted and it comes from the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research, 2 groups you might have more faith in perhaps, based on the data that is currently out there:
"The American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research bothestimate that more than 30 percent of cancer can be prevented through healthy diet, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight. Smoking also accounts for over 30 percent of cancers. This means that through appropriate lifestyle choices, more than 50 percent of cancers and cancer-related deaths could be avoided."
Another in particular that is wide in scope /detail that you might find interesting to read and analyze is the Okinawan Study. While the data is detailed/most interesting, done over decades on a large population group, what's most telling is the macro implications of the study and that's how the current generation of Okinawan's abandoned their ultra healthy lifestyle/lifestyle for the most part and how horrible the health is of the current generation in regards to heart disease, cancer rates, obesity, etc. Same genetic pool.....same environment.....different lifestyle choices and huge health outcome differences. You, me, or anyone else doesn't need an MD attached to our name or fancy advanced degree, or publications showing studies at the cellular level on animals to need proof to see the obvious cause/effect conclusion in full scope at the macro level in regards to the Okinawan study, past generation vs current generation.
I was posting this information in a way that might help people/parents to see there is a different choice beyond pills/procedures, a more proactive approach that you appear to take defensive with so I don't know what to say about that but you are free to feel any way you want. Nothing is 100% in life but there is much we all can do to lower the odds of getting lots of ugly health issues, especially cancer, heart disease, and diabetes and for parents to instill such good habits early on in life of kids and stop blaming everything on genes. You apparently feel otherwise, perhaps take the common belief today that the absence of health is caused by a lack of drugs and procedures. We agree to disagree.
Ha! IT, eh? That says a lot. Last bio class, high school? Junior high maybe? I don't think you know even as much about genetics as I do. Don't break your neck falling off your high horse about your great health stats. I can PROMISE you something will come back to bite you in the butt. My friend and I walk together, almost every day. Our diets and BMIs are similar. Yet her HDL is up there in the stratosphere, her trigs are normal, and mine aren't. In fact, we had a good laugh about that once. These articles about walking always talk about how walking will raise your HDL and lower your trigs. Yet we basically walk the same, and her values are great and mine are. . . not. So OK, bash me over the head about what I'm doing wrong, and how I deserve any bad health that comes my way.
I've never fed my children hot dogs. Yves makes a great "meat free" hot dog alternative that is meat by product free and good for children's parties and summer parties.
Hot dogs are not a wholesome food. Just a quick look at the list of ingredients, are enough to turn almost anyone off.
But they are easy and tasty, with all of the fixins. I highly recommend Yves brand.
Ha! IT, eh? That says a lot. Last bio class, high school? Junior high maybe? I don't think you know even as much about genetics as I do. Don't break your neck falling off your high horse about your great health stats. I can PROMISE you something will come back to bite you in the butt. My friend and I walk together, almost every day. Our diets and BMIs are similar. Yet her HDL is up there in the stratosphere, her trigs are normal, and mine aren't. In fact, we had a good laugh about that once. These articles about walking always talk about how walking will raise your HDL and lower your trigs. Yet we basically walk the same, and her values are great and mine are. . . not. So OK, bash me over the head about what I'm doing wrong, and how I deserve any bad health that comes my way.
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 have presented my experience, observations, and provided data/science on the matter. If someone makes poor choices in life in regards to their diet, decides to smoke, drinks like a fish, lives on a bad diet/makes poor food choices, etc., would I say based on the science that such a person could have more than likely/greatly increased their odds that their own life style choices could have caused their sickness/illness? Absolutely. It would be naive to say otherwise. Why tip toe around the reality of science when it can be beneficial to humans in regards to prevention for those who choose to make choices that can greatly reduce the chance of becoming seriously ill? And for parents to look at the data, and more importantly, practice/teach their kids good habits early on in life to greatly reduce the odds of getting a serious illness like cancer later on in their life. A true prevention model, not a react to the symptoms later and try to quash it. And a label of MD or otherwise is not needed to reach such a basic conclusion if one analysis the data that is freely available on the internet. Specifically, again, on the topic of cancer:
According to this data, 5-10% would be in the "no blame" category as the roots are genetic. And taking out external environmental factors that let's say are uncontrollable, according to this study, that leaves 70%-85% cancer cases that could have been prevented if people made certain life choices. So use any term you want from "blame" on.....people indeed have choices in life to greatly diminish the risk of getting cancer according to the science. Though we are of course free to believe what we want/assign terms like "blame" if one so chooses and ignore the science of it all. Or look at it as positive, don't ignore the elephant in the room, and react to the science in a unemotional way that tells us we can prevent a great deal of pain/suffering if certain decisions are made by an individual.
This is a classic example of why you should not take statistics about populations and apply them to individuals.
BTW, this is a meta-analysis and not an actual research paper and they have taken multiple studies with different methodologies, controls and statistical analysis and made broad generalizations from them. These types of analyses are useful for making meta decisions like those on the population level i.e. public health guidelines and so on but they have very little use on the individual level as they tend to amplify errors in statistics as you group data sets together.
Please be aware, that taking the inverse of this, that if 30% of cancers are linked to diet that changing your diet will lower your risk by 30% is just not true.
This is a classic example of why you should not take statistics about populations and apply them to individuals.
BTW, this is a meta-analysis and not an actual research paper and they have taken multiple studies with different methodologies, controls and statistical analysis and made broad generalizations from them. These types of analyses are useful for making meta decisions like those on the population level i.e. public health guidelines and so on but they have very little use on the individual level as they tend to amplify errors in statistics as you group data sets together.
Please be aware, that taking the inverse of this, that if 30% of cancers are linked to diet that changing your diet will lower your risk by 30% is just not true.
In the end I think it's just about lowering the odds of one coming down with something like cancer and that's the takeaway I think. There will always be some outside of the bell curve while the majority will still cluster in the middle somewhere. There are many large individual studies to a particular type of cancer that have clear links to diet that would probably be included in a meta-analysis study like this one published recently in JAMA:
Good point on the population aspect. That's why in a later post I provided an example of a large/real world population group, the Okinawan's, and what happened there between generations when their traditional lifestyle/diet was largely abandoned within the same gene pool. Outside of the lab is where reality exists.
I agree, in the end, it's just about lowering the odds of one coming down with something like cancer and that's the takeaway I think. There will always be some outside of the bell curve while the majority will still cluster in the middle somewhere. There are many large individual studies to a particular type of cancer that have clear links to diet that would probably be included in a meta-analysis study like this one published recently in JAMA:
Good point on the population aspect. That's why in a later post I provided an example of a large/real world population group, the Okinawan's, and what happened there between generations when their lifestyle/diet was largely abandoned within the same gene pool. Outside of the lab is where reality exists.
If you acknowledge that population dynamics cannot be applied to individuals than you should acknowledge that it is impossible to quantify "lower the odds" for an individual, yes?
For example, my grandmother smoked nearly two packs a day her entire life, was naturally thin but ate a diet loaded with nitrates, cholesterol, fat, salt, and so on. She finally got high blood pressure at the age of 91 and died by the time she was 97. She never had cancer, barely had HT, and died in her sleep of non-identified reasons. Compared to nearly any one else she certainly was not lowering her risks of anything. I appear to take after her as I am naturally thin, barely gained any weight with pregnancy even. My point is, that genetics clearly plays a role and well beyond the cut and dried mendelian stuff, and more of the epigentic variety of which we are clearly beginning to scratch the surface.
It is not only inaccurate to take studies of population and use them to decide if one individual or another is healthy/not healthy due to their lifestyle choice it is also not scientifically valid.
If you acknowledge that population dynamics cannot be applied to individuals than you should acknowledge that it is impossible to quantify "lower the odds" for an individual, yes?
For example, my grandmother smoked nearly two packs a day her entire life, was naturally thin but ate a diet loaded with nitrates, cholesterol, fat, salt, and so on. She finally got high blood pressure at the age of 91 and died by the time she was 97. She never had cancer, barely had HT, and died in her sleep of non-identified reasons. Compared to nearly any one else she certainly was not lowering her risks of anything. I appear to take after her as I am naturally thin, barely gained any weight with pregnancy even. My point is, that genetics clearly plays a role and well beyond the cut and dried mendelian stuff, and more of the epigentic variety of which we are clearly beginning to scratch the surface.
It is not only inaccurate to take studies of population and use them to decide if one individual or another is healthy/not healthy due to their lifestyle choice it is also not scientifically valid.
Perhaps I worded something unclear but I think that yes, overall, population numbers simply just imply the chance that one will more or less likely get or not get something. Of course there are no guarantees as there are none in life except we all eventually die. Your grandmother indeed was lucky/was on the outside of the bell curve. The vast majority of people aren't anywhere near that lucky, with just the smoking factor alone. And I agree on genetic angle. There are some people who can do what your grandmother can do but the vast majority can't. No matter how many bad/harmful habits they have, their genes protect them. Most of us aren't that lucky and have less than ideal genes and the research I've read on the topic say those people have to be extra careful with not "expressing" their less than ideal genes via lifestyle choices. My wife is a good example. We joke if she looks at food with cholesterol naturally in it, her numbers skyrocket to a 300+ total level in short order. Her genes are setup that way. However, with her clean diet, those less than idea cholesterol genes don't come into play as they aren't expressed. They don't matter in a sense on the issue of cholesterol if she eats a certain way. And your grandmother on the other side of the coin could probably eat everything/anything and barely express some genes in a negative way.
Correct, I'm not a doctor. Wrong, I am 51. I'm retired from IT. No meds, no pills, no cancer, no heart "disease", 114 total cholesterol, triglycerides in the 30's, BP 105 range over 60's range, 6'2", 170-175lbs, body fat in the single digits, athletic/muscular, active, whole foods plant based eater for a few decades now. In my 30's, before I straightened out my diet/got more active, my cholesterol and BP were much higher, I weighed in the low 220's/developed a nasty gut. See? no genes.....my choice. I expressed my genes to the negative based on my lifestyle choices. Genes often don't go wrong on their own.....they need to be "expressed". Fascinating area to research. My mom was on a bunch of pills throughout her life as was my dad later in life and choose a different lifestyle route than I. Fortunately my mom is getting off her pills one by one over the last few years as she cleaned up her diet significantly. Never to late to change in full view. But thanks for the compliment on calling me very young....I certainly feel very young/vibrant, much better than my 30s. I attribute much of that to my life style choices/diet as many of my friends haven't fared so well and made other choices in their lifestyle and are on the pill bandwagon and have health issues. Can someone eat/behave perfect and still get a brain tumor? Of course! Someone eat horrible, be a nasty person, have nasty habits and live to their 80's? Of course! But the bell curve in the center is where most of us fall. But this isn't about you or I so let's depersonalize and get back on topic, yes?
As for one research project, that was the one I posted, correct. I posted others on how sugar impacts/can start cancer. There are many more out there in JAMA, the journal of nutrition, etc that I invite you to pursue on your own. Here's another one referenced here that comes close to the numbers in the research study I posted and it comes from the American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research, 2 groups you might have more faith in perhaps, based on the data that is currently out there:
"The American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research bothestimate that more than 30 percent of cancer can be prevented through healthy diet, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight. Smoking also accounts for over 30 percent of cancers. This means that through appropriate lifestyle choices, more than 50 percent of cancers and cancer-related deaths could be avoided."
Another in particular that is wide in scope /detail that you might find interesting to read and analyze is the Okinawan Study. While the data is detailed/most interesting, done over decades on a large population group, what's most telling is the macro implications of the study and that's how the current generation of Okinawan's abandoned their ultra healthy lifestyle/lifestyle for the most part and how horrible the health is of the current generation in regards to heart disease, cancer rates, obesity, etc. Same genetic pool.....same environment.....different lifestyle choices and huge health outcome differences. You, me, or anyone else doesn't need an MD attached to our name or fancy advanced degree, or publications showing studies at the cellular level on animals to need proof to see the obvious cause/effect conclusion in full scope at the macro level in regards to the Okinawan study, past generation vs current generation.
I was posting this information in a way that might help people/parents to see there is a different choice beyond pills/procedures, a more proactive approach that you appear to take defensive with so I don't know what to say about that but you are free to feel any way you want. Nothing is 100% in life but there is much we all can do to lower the odds of getting lots of ugly health issues, especially cancer, heart disease, and diabetes and for parents to instill such good habits early on in life of kids and stop blaming everything on genes. You apparently feel otherwise, perhaps take the common belief today that the absence of health is caused by a lack of drugs and procedures. We agree to disagree.
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!
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.
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.
I attribute much of that to my life style choices/diet as many of my friends haven't fared so well and made other choices in their lifestyle and are on the pill bandwagon and have health issues. Can someone eat/behave perfect and still get a brain tumor? Of course! Someone eat horrible, be a nasty person, have nasty habits and live to their 80's? Of course! But the bell curve in the center is where most of us fall. But this isn't about you or I so let's depersonalize and get back on topic, yes?
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.
Doctors Are Urging You To Stop Feeding Your Children Hot Dogs
