Food That May Increase Lung Cancer Risks
Replies
-
Self-reported recall of food over an extended time frame is not accurate and must not be used for any attempt at rigorous science.0
-
MommyMeggo wrote: »Ok so...... living=cancer.
Pass me the butter for my white bread please!
Thanks for the laugh, even though I do not eat white bread, that was funny. Butter any day over that artificial crap that called : I can't believe it's not butter - who eats that.
No thanks. Butter causes breast cancer.0 -
https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »The study seems rather iffy since it relies on subject recall for food and then calculating GI and GL from that:We used a modified version of the NCI Health Habits and History Questionnaire (29). The questionnaire includes a semiquantitative food frequency list made up of food and beverage items and an open-ended section regarding dietary behaviors such as dining in restaurants and food preparation methods. Portion size was also queried. Total energy intake, total carbohydrate intake, total fiber intake, and grams per day of consumption for each food item were estimated using the USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (30). Total meat intake was calculated by adding total grams per day of each meat item in the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). All nutrient and food variables of interest were energy adjusted for total caloric intake using the residual method (31).
In addition, glycemic load was not associated with cancer in any model; it makes no sense that GI would affect cancer but GL would not. Unless it's just a correlation and not a cause. Oh wait...
My other favorite conclusion:This is only the second study to suggest an independent association between GI and lung cancer risk and the first study to suggest that GI may influence lung cancer risk more profoundly in specific subgroups, including never smokers, individuals with low levels of education (<12 years), and those diagnosed with certain histologic subtypes of lung cancer, specifically SCC.
Your glycemic index knows how much schooling you've had. It's one of the reasons why a lot of correlation studies don't make sense when you step back and look at them. And I'm very disappointed that the discussion never even addressed by GI was correlated and GL was not. It goes into a lot of detail on how spikes in insulin can lead to all sorts of issues, but GL has been shown to be more relevant to spikes in insulin than GI.
Much disappoint.
@auddii i think we all can agree one's glycemic index does not know how much schooling one has.
The below from the MD Anderson link covers points that could make you less disappointed in the study.
"Among those with fewer than 12 years of education, subjects in the highest GI group were 77 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than those in the lowest GI group. This contrasts with an elevated risk of only 33 percent in subjects with more than 12 years of education.
The authors note that educational level is a proxy for socioeconomic status, which has been linked with diet quality and smoking behaviors. Thus, the associations between GI and education may reflect the joint impact of poor diet and smoking on lung cancer risk.
The authors note several limitations to the study, including being limited to non-Hispanic whites. Further, this was a retrospective study, subject to errors in recall of past dietary intake, and the study did not account for diabetes, hypertension or heart disease in their subjects."
?? "may reflect"? "may"? They did a study looking for factors that increase lung cancer risk, and they didn't do a statistical analysis of the results to weed out the effects of smoking? (no pun intended)0 -
Approx half the participants had been diagnosed with lung cancer and the rest were "healthy". And I can't take credit for thinking of this, as it is taken from/inspired by the following article, but people who are struggling with a fatal disease often desperately need a reason or something to blame, and this could theoretically affect their recall.
http://acsh.org/news/2016/03/08/new-study-blames-carbs-for-lung-cancer/
I have a tough time thinking too much about a participant recall-based study that suggests correlation.
But I would think that considering the SAD diet, if high-glycemic carbs had any kind of link to lung cancer, lung cancer among even non-smokers would be at epidemic proportions, wouldn't it? I mean, wouldn't it be right up there with diabetes?
I'm still gettin' a Shamrock shake tomorrow!0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey
And carbs = lung cancer is a universally agreed on fact? I was being sarcastic. If you dig deep enough you'll find that almost everything "causes cancer", including broccoli. Until a link is well established like in the case of smoking, I tend not to give any of these studies more attention that a passing "hmm".0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey
And carbs = lung cancer is a universally agreed on fact? I was being sarcastic. If you dig deep enough you'll find that almost everything "causes cancer", including broccoli. Until a link is well established like in the case of smoking, I tend not to give any of these studies more attention that a passing "hmm". Until you or your child get cancer. Then you give it more than a "hmmm"
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey
And carbs = lung cancer is a universally agreed on fact? I was being sarcastic. If you dig deep enough you'll find that almost everything "causes cancer", including broccoli. Until a link is well established like in the case of smoking, I tend not to give any of these studies more attention that a passing "hmm". Until you or your child get cancer. Then you give it more than a "hmmm"
My point is, if you chase correlation cancer studies you may end up quitting food all together (and air, while we are at it). Even when I do get cancer (I have a strong gene for it) I will not waste whatever is left of my energy on contradicting preliminaries and badly designed studies and will focus on what is well known to be beneficial.0 -
I wouldn't put any stock in this research -- even low carb friendly researcher Zoe Harcombe didn't take this article/research seriously.0
-
Until you or your child get cancer. Then you give it more than a "hmmm"amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey
And carbs = lung cancer is a universally agreed on fact? I was being sarcastic. If you dig deep enough you'll find that almost everything "causes cancer", including broccoli. Until a link is well established like in the case of smoking, I tend not to give any of these studies more attention that a passing "hmm".
Do you want to to entirely stop everything that could give you cancer? You would need to shoot yourself. Going out on a sunny day for extended periods of time is a known cancer risk. Lots of foods have them. And that's not even going into the very spurious "there was this one study that never got replicated" links that amusedmonkey was talking about.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »The study seems rather iffy since it relies on subject recall for food and then calculating GI and GL from that:We used a modified version of the NCI Health Habits and History Questionnaire (29). The questionnaire includes a semiquantitative food frequency list made up of food and beverage items and an open-ended section regarding dietary behaviors such as dining in restaurants and food preparation methods. Portion size was also queried. Total energy intake, total carbohydrate intake, total fiber intake, and grams per day of consumption for each food item were estimated using the USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (30). Total meat intake was calculated by adding total grams per day of each meat item in the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). All nutrient and food variables of interest were energy adjusted for total caloric intake using the residual method (31).
In addition, glycemic load was not associated with cancer in any model; it makes no sense that GI would affect cancer but GL would not. Unless it's just a correlation and not a cause. Oh wait...
My other favorite conclusion:This is only the second study to suggest an independent association between GI and lung cancer risk and the first study to suggest that GI may influence lung cancer risk more profoundly in specific subgroups, including never smokers, individuals with low levels of education (<12 years), and those diagnosed with certain histologic subtypes of lung cancer, specifically SCC.
Your glycemic index knows how much schooling you've had. It's one of the reasons why a lot of correlation studies don't make sense when you step back and look at them. And I'm very disappointed that the discussion never even addressed by GI was correlated and GL was not. It goes into a lot of detail on how spikes in insulin can lead to all sorts of issues, but GL has been shown to be more relevant to spikes in insulin than GI.
Much disappoint.
@auddii i think we all can agree one's glycemic index does not know how much schooling one has.
The below from the MD Anderson link covers points that could make you less disappointed in the study.
"Among those with fewer than 12 years of education, subjects in the highest GI group were 77 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than those in the lowest GI group. This contrasts with an elevated risk of only 33 percent in subjects with more than 12 years of education.
The authors note that educational level is a proxy for socioeconomic status, which has been linked with diet quality and smoking behaviors. Thus, the associations between GI and education may reflect the joint impact of poor diet and smoking on lung cancer risk.
The authors note several limitations to the study, including being limited to non-Hispanic whites. Further, this was a retrospective study, subject to errors in recall of past dietary intake, and the study did not account for diabetes, hypertension or heart disease in their subjects."
?? "may reflect"? "may"? They did a study looking for factors that increase lung cancer risk, and they didn't do a statistical analysis of the results to weed out the effects of smoking? (no pun intended)
They did correct for smoking. Smoking was far and away the highest risk factor.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My father loves to eat potato chips and drink beer, and he was just diagnosed with lung cancer, so clearly it's causative (not the 40-odd years of smoking!).
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease that is 100% fatal..."0 -
if this study had any value then most all people in Italy would have lung cancer. My grandparents ate lots of pasta white bread and wine at dinner my grandmother lived into her 90's my grandfather in his 80's. As many of there friends did. They did also not smoke they gardened and enjoyed family. Maybe that is the key.
I think retrospective studies are junk0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey
And carbs = lung cancer is a universally agreed on fact? I was being sarcastic. If you dig deep enough you'll find that almost everything "causes cancer", including broccoli. Until a link is well established like in the case of smoking, I tend not to give any of these studies more attention that a passing "hmm".
Well, broccoli is largely a carb. What do you expect? ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Well, broccoli is largely a carb. What do you expect? ;-)
In decreasing order g/100g broccoli :-
Water
Protein
Fibre
Carbohydrate
Fat
More protein than carbohydrate ;-)
0 -
USDA has 7 g carbs, 3 g protein. Even if you subtract fiber (which we don't, here in the USA), it's got 2.8 protein, over 4 g carbs.
(Of course, there are plenty who would argue that protein causes cancer too.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »USDA has 7 g carbs, 3 g protein. Even if you subtract fiber (which we don't, here in the USA), it's got 2.8 protein, over 4 g carbs.
(Of course, there are plenty who would argue that protein causes cancer too.)
In order to be healthy I started injecting coconut oil directly into my veins.0 -
4.4g protein vs 1.8g carbohydrate here. Of the 1.8 1.5 are sugars.0
-
The sad fact is that the media will publish stories based on these papers in a biased light for sales and clicks. Quite often I see these types of stories, but they never represent the scientific community, just the one set of researchers who might only be sketching out a preliminary report or be at odds with everyone else. Which story are you going to read/is going to capture you attention, the one about what you shouldn't eat to avoid cancer, or the one that talks about how we don't really know what measures we can take to prevent cancer? In more extreme circumstances you will find the media looking for a story where there isn't one as highlighted here
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/oct/15/badscience.mrsa
I'd take it all with a pinch of salt (but watch my blood pressure).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »USDA has 7 g carbs, 3 g protein. Even if you subtract fiber (which we don't, here in the USA), it's got 2.8 protein, over 4 g carbs.
(Of course, there are plenty who would argue that protein causes cancer too.)
Broccoli has an Italian origin, let's use the Italian database
http://nut.entecra.it/646/tabelle_di_composizione_degli_alimenti.html?idalimento=005180&quant=100
this variety is more balanced:
http://nut.entecra.it/646/tabelle_di_composizione_degli_alimenti.html?idalimento=005110&quant=100
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Until you or your child get cancer. Then you give it more than a "hmmm"amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »https://google.com/search?q=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS611US612&oq=Butter+causes+breast+cancer&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
The data shows mixed medical views on your position @amusedmonkey
And carbs = lung cancer is a universally agreed on fact? I was being sarcastic. If you dig deep enough you'll find that almost everything "causes cancer", including broccoli. Until a link is well established like in the case of smoking, I tend not to give any of these studies more attention that a passing "hmm".
Do you want to to entirely stop everything that could give you cancer? You would need to shoot yourself. Going out on a sunny day for extended periods of time is a known cancer risk. Lots of foods have them. And that's not even going into the very spurious "there was this one study that never got replicated" links that amusedmonkey was talking about.
Sorry, lead bullets, lead is definitely cancer causing.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »USDA has 7 g carbs, 3 g protein. Even if you subtract fiber (which we don't, here in the USA), it's got 2.8 protein, over 4 g carbs.
(Of course, there are plenty who would argue that protein causes cancer too.)
In order to be healthy I started injecting coconut oil directly into my veins.
Very wise.0 -
Canada's basically the same as the US.
http://webprod3.hc-sc.gc.ca/cnf-fce/report-rapport.do?lang=eng
They know what's good for them!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions