Carbs cause cancer - Scientific proof

TaraTall

<sarcasmfont>BULLETIN! BULLETIN!

So finally, here is proof that carbs cause cancer.


canadajournal.net/health/new-research-says-carbs-cause-lung-cancer-44375-2016/


</sarcasmfont>

rileysowner

This is the problem with the media. They have no understanding of the difference between causation and correlation.

TaraTall

It's really disappointing. Weightloss is already such a huge market, let's over-inform and mis-inform people looking to better themselves.
=(

upoffthemat

Well I can say that everyone I know who has had cancer has also eaten carbs. It must be true.

jpaulie

Must be true, they quote Dr Oz

Kullerva

Everyone eats carbs. Not everyone gets cancer.

Sounds pretty suspect to me.

richln

Cancer is a crab.

juggernaut1974

richln wrote: »

Cancer is a crab.

rankinsect

Gotta love a media article that:
1. Treats correlation like causation
2. Treats Dr. Oz like his opinion is actually worth listening to
3. Doesn't cite any sources or authors

Alatariel75

I saw this article splashed all over the news website I visit today. It made me sigh heartily.

viren19890

LoL recently I was asking in other thread why is there so much mis-information and people actively trying to mislead and general consensus was to make money or people genuinely not knowing right from wrong. Everyone runs to internet for information and internet has these articles.

aub6689

I am confused where the journal article is for the media story. This is a huge red flag because if the study hasn't been published it may be due to questionable methods. Also the media is awful at misrepresenting study findings. In grad school we used to pull a media story with the actual journal article and compare the two. It was laughable how bad they usually were.

Commander_Keen

When the article has something to do with Dr Oz, then it must be true.

Pinkylee77

One retrospective study does not make it a fact. It just makes the news. Over 80% of all the cancer patients treated at the center I work at smoke. Over a billion Asians eat white rice and how many people in Italy eat white pasta. They are not dropping dead from cancer by the thousands.

French_Peasant

Citation, for anyone who is interested. From U Texas Med Center. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract

ndj1979

when I saw dr. oz I decided it was time to stop reading..

I am sure some will pick up on this as way to demonize carbs…what a joke...

ndj1979

jmbmilholland wrote: »

Citation, for anyone who is interested. From U Texas Med Center. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract

I would be curious what the diet, exercise, and lifestyle of these people were like…my guess would be there were other factors….

trying to link high carb intake with lung cancer is ridiculous...

TheCrawlingChaos

rileysowner wrote: »

This is the problem with the media. They have no understanding of the difference between causation and correlation.

wait, so you're saying that Nicholas Cage appearances in movies are NOT the cause of pool drownings?!
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

I... I need some time to reflect on all of this.

lemurcat12

TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »

rileysowner wrote: »

This is the problem with the media. They have no understanding of the difference between causation and correlation.

wait, so you're saying that Nicholas Cage appearances in movies are NOT the cause of pool drownings?!
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

I... I need some time to reflect on all of this.

No, Nicholas Cage is always to blame.

Probably for obesity and T2D and cancer, too.

auddii

aub6689 wrote: »

I am confused where the journal article is for the media story. This is a huge red flag because if the study hasn't been published it may be due to questionable methods. Also the media is awful at misrepresenting study findings. In grad school we used to pull a media story with the actual journal article and compare the two. It was laughable how bad they usually were.

I see someone posted the link below. After reading the article I still don't understand their explanation of the results. GI was correlated, but GL was not. They said that GI raised blood glucose levels, which spoiled insulin, which lead to the increased risk of cancer (apparently I need to read the article again because I still don't get that link). Except because the foods weren't consumed individually but as meals, GL would give a better indication of what would actually happen to blood glucose. And it showed no association no matter how they broke down the data (and there were a fair number of comparisons).

snowflake954

Oh no!!!!! I live in Italy! Gonna die!!!!!!

RoxieDawn

Yep this is has been all over the news. All stems around starch. I kept saying well carbs are made up of sugar, starch or cellulose. They kept harping on starch starch starch.

The new media stuff I have seen on TV only mentions bread, bagels, pretzels, and plain old white starch. No in the article or new media mentioned baked goods, donuts, etc. My I have had face plam everytime I see or hear this now.

ndj1979

auddii wrote: »

aub6689 wrote: »

I am confused where the journal article is for the media story. This is a huge red flag because if the study hasn't been published it may be due to questionable methods. Also the media is awful at misrepresenting study findings. In grad school we used to pull a media story with the actual journal article and compare the two. It was laughable how bad they usually were.

I see someone posted the link below. After reading the article I still don't understand their explanation of the results. GI was correlated, but GL was not. They said that GI raised blood glucose levels, which spoiled insulin, which lead to the increased risk of cancer (apparently I need to read the article again because I still don't get that link). Except because the foods weren't consumed individually but as meals, GL would give a better indication of what would actually happen to blood glucose. And it showed no association no matter how they broke down the data (and there were a fair number of comparisons).

because carbs are bad so they must be the culprit….

lemurcat12

auddii wrote: »

aub6689 wrote: »

I am confused where the journal article is for the media story. This is a huge red flag because if the study hasn't been published it may be due to questionable methods. Also the media is awful at misrepresenting study findings. In grad school we used to pull a media story with the actual journal article and compare the two. It was laughable how bad they usually were.

I see someone posted the link below. After reading the article I still don't understand their explanation of the results. GI was correlated, but GL was not. They said that GI raised blood glucose levels, which spoiled insulin, which lead to the increased risk of cancer (apparently I need to read the article again because I still don't get that link). Except because the foods weren't consumed individually but as meals, GL would give a better indication of what would actually happen to blood glucose. And it showed no association no matter how they broke down the data (and there were a fair number of comparisons).

I can't find the other thread where we talked about this, but I posted something similar. Basically, it makes me reasonably certain that it's correlation but not casual, since GI doesn't really tell you anything about what happens in your body, GL would. I suspect it's that overall diets that tend to be high GI also tend to be not that healthful in other ways (there are other studies that support this), even though some high GI/lower GL foods are among the ones the study says are helpful, not harmful (fruit).

Here's a good link to a discussion of the results: https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/2016/03/dietary-glycemic-ind.html

It also includes this: "Accumulating evidence suggests that dietary factors may modulate lung cancer risk, explained Xifeng Wu, M.D., Ph.D, professor, Epidemiology and senior author of the study. Diets high in fruits and vegetables may decrease risk, while increased consumption of red meat, saturated fats and dairy products have been shown to increase lung cancer risk."

Even though the latter foods aren't high GI, high GI diets (like the stereotypical SAD) often contain those factors as well, and few fruits and veg, because people who ignore health advice ignore health advice.

I also wonder what a study of the relatively small population of non-smokers who get lung cancer shows -- significant-sounding increases in a very low risk rate can be a tiny increase (i.e., if the risk is .01% and doubles it ends up only .02%).

aub6689

jmbmilholland wrote: »

Citation, for anyone who is interested. From U Texas Med Center. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract

Thanks!

There is a growing body of evidence that tumor growth is promoted by high sugar levels which cause high circulating insulin. This is the 'promotion' of the growth, not the initiation or original mutation of a cell that leads to cancer. Something a lot of people don't understand is that cancer can thrive or grow based on the hormonal environment, but that doesn't mean that is how it started.

However, the media does an awful job of explaining the correlation found in the study.

I say correlation because a case control study cannot prove causation as the disease is already present and they are retrospectively assessing the exposure. Unless the exposure was something innate like biological sex or genetics, it isn't finding cause.

Also case control studies are very prone to misclassification bias. By this I mean that often someone with a disease is likely to differentially recall their exposure than someone without it. This has been shown time and time again. This is a major limitation because the 'truth' is hard to find.

Food frequency questionnaires are maybe the only way they could go about collecting what they wanted but they are prone to recall bias and may also not be representative of a person's normal diet or their diet at the time of cancer proliferation.

Moreover, doing that many analyses is prone to a bias called multiple testing,,,, ie. you are likely to find something just because you kept digging and at an error rate of .05-that means you find something erroneous 5% of the time.

I think it is interesting and the research is growing to say that hormones (like insulin) have affects on cancer growth, but everyone is different in how many carbs cause an excess of circulating insulin. There are multiple things at play within the body that lead to cancer.

psuLemon

Tagging to read the study.

senecarr

Dr. Oz says, “A high glycemic index means that the sugar in whatever food you’re eating rushes into your bloodstream because it’s not cobbled together with fiber that would naturally hold it together in your gut.”

Carbohydrates require shoe repair with fiber now?

French_Peasant

senecarr wrote: »

Dr. Oz says, “A high glycemic index means that the sugar in whatever food you’re eating rushes into your bloodstream because it’s not cobbled together with fiber that would naturally hold it together in your gut.”

Carbohydrates require shoe repair with fiber now?

I think they require a cobbler. Mmmm, cobbler. Peach, preferably. Or strawberry-rhubarb. @lemurcat12

lemurcat12

Works for me!

French_Peasant

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Works for me!

I noted you are a strawberry-rhubarb afficianado on the clean eating thread, with righteous ire directed at anyone who suggests said pie is not clean eating. A pox on their house. My freezer is still crammed full of the peaches, rhubarb, and strawberries I grew last summer. I spent the weekend making way too much jam, now I might have to make cobbler.

KayTeeOne

If this was true then almost the whole world would have been suffering with cancer .