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.
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.
Of course we cannot know what the specific cause of particular person's cancer was in most cases. However, it may be possible to deduce that information on a population level if we know certain things about a group's behavior. For example, if we know that group A consumes a food that is known to increase colon cancer rates by 18%, we can infer what percentage of those cases are attributable to consuming that food.
I'm well aware than "linked" and causation are not the same thing. They are at different points on the epistemic scale. Many things that are linked to cancer likely do cause cancer, but there just hasn't been a study that has yet been able to isolate enough variable to conclude that.
The recent WHO report on processed meat consumption was a claim about causation. A statement such as "consuming processed meat five times per week (or whatever it was) raises colon cancer risk by 18%" is a statement about causation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
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.
You and I don't disagree, then. It is true that many people caused their own cancer, but it would be impolite to tell a specific person such a thing. I'm not sure there's harm in saying such a thing about no one in particular while on the internet, though.
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 ?
The same way Creuzfeld-Jacoub got into the animal food chain. Somebody needed to dispose of a body, so they fed it into the grinder. The meat gets cooked off the bones and the bones get milled into bone meal fertilizer. Meanwhile, it's hard to convict someone of murder without a body.
I do like chili dogs, but don't eat them often. When I buy hot dogs, I stick to Hebrew National kosher franks, which contain far fewer nightmares.
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.
Sugar is generally not necessary for a balanced diet, and can be hard on someone with diabetes or pre-diabetic insulin tolerance. I have replaced all sweetened soft drinks with a pitcher of water with a half a cup of reconstituted lemon juice. It's refreshing and contains nothing but the natural fructose in the lemon juice. My urologist actually told me to drink that because it retards the growth of kidney stones, which are a problem for me. I can chug a 12 ounce glass without feeling guilty. I buy the lemon juice by the gallon at a bulk food store, and it's very economical. I don't know of any long term studies on the health effects of drinking that much lemon juice, so I guess I just have to take my chances. Whatever, it's unlikely to be more painful than kidney stones.
Years ago they used to treat external animal parasites with an application of Lindane insecticide in a spray or powder. Then it was discovered that one application of Lindane doubled a person's lifetime chance of brain cancer. Lindane is still on the market for treatment of scabies and lice in humans, though it has been banned from agricultural use. It was used to control insect infestations in animal facilities until 2002. There's a chance that the hot dogs in the studies were contaminated with Lindane or other chemicals that have since been removed from the food chain. Our food supply is getting safer all the time.
Sugar is generally not necessary for a balanced diet.
Sugar aka glucose is literally the ONLY fuel brain cells can utilize. Now perhaps you mean added sugar, but the first sentence is not only not true in regards to a balanced diet, but sugar is necessary for LIFE. Additionally, low carb diets have a temporary effect on cognition, so no sugars, preferrably in their natural form, are absolutely necessary and should be part of any diet that calls itself "balanced".
Of course we cannot know what the specific cause of particular person's cancer was in most cases. However, it may be possible to deduce that information on a population level if we know certain things about a group's behavior. For example, if we know that group A consumes a food that is known to increase colon cancer rates by 18%, we can infer what percentage of those cases are attributable to consuming that food.
I'm well aware than "linked" and causation are not the same thing. They are at different points on the epistemic scale. Many things that are linked to cancer likely do cause cancer, but there just hasn't been a study that has yet been able to isolate enough variable to conclude that.
The recent WHO report on processed meat consumption was a claim about causation. A statement such as "consuming processed meat five times per week (or whatever it was) raises colon cancer risk by 18%" is a statement about causation.
You and I don't disagree, then. It is true that many people caused their own cancer, but it would be impolite to tell a specific person such a thing. I'm not sure there's harm in saying such a thing about no one in particular while on the internet, though.
Using a statistical inference to point at someone and say "You caused your cancer by eating hot dogs" is a misuse of science and stats and is not even particularly likely to be correct.
Sugar is generally not necessary for a balanced diet, and can be hard on someone with diabetes or pre-diabetic insulin tolerance. I have replaced all sweetened soft drinks with a pitcher of water with a half a cup of reconstituted lemon juice. It's refreshing and contains nothing but the natural fructose in the lemon juice. My urologist actually told me to drink that because it retards the growth of kidney stones, which are a problem for me. I can chug a 12 ounce glass without feeling guilty. I buy the lemon juice by the gallon at a bulk food store, and it's very economical. I don't know of any long term studies on the health effects of drinking that much lemon juice, so I guess I just have to take my chances. Whatever, it's unlikely to be more painful than kidney stones.
Years ago they used to treat external animal parasites with an application of Lindane insecticide in a spray or powder. Then it was discovered that one application of Lindane doubled a person's lifetime chance of brain cancer. Lindane is still on the market for treatment of scabies and lice in humans, though it has been banned from agricultural use. It was used to control insect infestations in animal facilities until 2002. There's a chance that the hot dogs in the studies were contaminated with Lindane or other chemicals that have since been removed from the food chain. Our food supply is getting safer all the time.
Nor is there any reason to remove sugar from your diet d/t fears of cancer.
Sugar aka glucose is literally the ONLY fuel brain cells can utilize. Now perhaps you mean added sugar, but the first sentence is not only not true in regards to a balanced diet, but sugar is necessary for LIFE. Additionally, low carb diets have a temporary effect on cognition, so no sugars, preferrably in their natural form, are absolutely necessary and should be part of any diet that calls itself "balanced".
You don't eat glucose unless you pay for chemical supplements.
Nor is there any reason to remove sugar from your diet d/t fears of cancer.
No, but there are plenty of other reasons, from tooth decay to obesity to diabetes. I have known people who lost more body parts to diabetes than to cancer. Going blind or having your extremities amputated is no fun.
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.
