Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Carbs cause cancer - Scientific proof
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
IMO that's not a good example. There a ton of articles on the Internet from people who don't think suncreen (at least as most people know it) should be used.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I think it's erroneous to put "carbs" all in one category, but it's been long proven that refined carbs like sugar and flour do in fact cause cancer, which shouldn't be too surprising considering that they aren't a natural part of the human diet. This isn't news, because it's nothing new. The book Sugar Blues opened my eyes years ago, and research continues to confirm it more and more.
As a side note, they also cause wrinkles by breaking down your collagen.
Also, almost every disease/aging process is related to inflammation throughout the body, and inflammation is hugely increased by refined carbs. It's just bad for your entire body.
Sunscreen isn't natural.
0 -
Better suited for another thread, but there are other factors (especially dietary) that influence how much damage is done by UV exposure.FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
IMO that's not a good example. There a ton of articles on the Internet from people who don't think suncreen (at least as most people know it) should be used.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I think it's erroneous to put "carbs" all in one category, but it's been long proven that refined carbs like sugar and flour do in fact cause cancer, which shouldn't be too surprising considering that they aren't a natural part of the human diet. This isn't news, because it's nothing new. The book Sugar Blues opened my eyes years ago, and research continues to confirm it more and more.
As a side note, they also cause wrinkles by breaking down your collagen.
Also, almost every disease/aging process is related to inflammation throughout the body, and inflammation is hugely increased by refined carbs. It's just bad for your entire body.
Sunscreen isn't natural.
0 -
Yes, I don't use sun skreen. just wear light cotton clothes and a hat.
I forget to wear sunscreen all the time (just recently when running a marathon in New Orleans, because it was 2/28, how could one get sunburnt). Because I am really fair skinned and used to a more northern climate, I get burnt badly and peel. Pretty sure this is a much worse risk factor than wearing sunscreen, which I should be better about.
The CDC seems to agree that sunburn is a problem, and does not say it can be mitigated through diet:Protection from ultraviolet (UV) radiation is important all year round, not just during the summer or at the beach. UV rays from the sun can reach you on cloudy and hazy days, as well as bright and sunny days. UV rays also reflect off of surfaces like water, cement, sand, and snow. Indoor tanning (using a tanning bed, booth, or sunlamp to get tan) exposes users to UV radiation.
The hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Daylight Saving Time (9 a.m. to 3 p.m. standard time) are the most hazardous for UV exposure outdoors in the continental United States. UV rays from sunlight are the greatest during the late spring and early summer in North America.
CDC recommends easy options for protection from UV radiation—
Stay in the shade, especially during midday hours.
Wear clothing that covers your arms and legs.
Wear a hat with a wide brim to shade your face, head, ears, and neck.
Wear sunglasses that wrap around and block both UVA and UVB rays.
Use sunscreen with sun protection factor (SPF) 15 or higher, and both UVA and UVB protection.
Avoid indoor tanning.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »I think it's erroneous to put "carbs" all in one category, but it's been long proven that refined carbs like sugar and flour do in fact cause cancer, which shouldn't be too surprising considering that they aren't a natural part of the human diet. This isn't news, because it's nothing new. The book Sugar Blues opened my eyes years ago, and research continues to confirm it more and more.
As a side note, they also cause wrinkles by breaking down your collagen.
Also, almost every disease/aging process is related to inflammation throughout the body, and inflammation is hugely increased by refined carbs. It's just bad for your entire body.
Please tell my doctor that I have cancer. She'll be amazed that you can diagnose me over the internet.0 -
100% of the people born before 1900 are dead. Therefore, being born before 1900 causes death. What a bunch of BS; none of you are getting out of this alive, and carcinogens are all around you in your environment, so enjoy your bread, bagels, whatever.
I find this statement in the Univ. of Texas abstract curious: "We observed a more pronounced association between GI and lung cancer risk among ... those with less than 12 years of education." Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this is a red flag which suggests that there's something flawed in their statistical methodology since it's well known that prevalence of smoking is correlated with education:
http://oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics.php
Let me give an alternative scenario: Low income people tend to have less education. They tend to smoke more than better educated high income people, and to eat more refined carbohydrates than high income people (see link below). That might explain the correlation between GI/GL and lung cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1107.full
Keep in mind the way science works: a single publication does not prove anything. Other researchers may not be able to reproduce the results, or may point out a flaw in the methodology invalidating the study. Because the media don't understand this, they tend to jump on the bandwagon whenever a bit of research is published in a journal.
The other red flag, of course, is Dr. Oz's name appearing after the first few sentences but I won't get into that.
0 -
@lisawinning4losing You do realize you're posting in the Nutrition Debate section, yes? If so, you are absolutely here for the back and forth; please stop implying that people here are being rude for expecting you to back up your statements with credible sources as that is what this subforum is for.
If no, then now you know and you can choose how to proceed.
On topic: Gale has basically posted that thing that I find so interesting that I see decently prevalent among the LCHF posting population here: I will flat out ignore the science that tells me what I don't want to here and cling to one study that is not well done but proves my point.0 -
@lisawinning4losing You do realize you're posting in the Nutrition Debate section, yes? If so, you are absolutely here for the back and forth; please stop implying that people here are being rude for expecting you to back up your statements with credible sources as that is what this subforum is for.
If no, then now you know and you can choose how to proceed.
On topic: Gale has basically posted that thing that I find so interesting that I see decently prevalent among the LCHF posting population here: I will flat out ignore the science that tells me what I don't want to here and cling to one study that is not well done but proves my point.
Wait, isn't it customary in debates to proclaim your opinion as fact and then to tell anyone who doesn't agree that they should go look it up? No?0 -
100% of the people born before 1900 are dead. Therefore, being born before 1900 causes death. What a bunch of BS; none of you are getting out of this alive, and carcinogens are all around you in your environment, so enjoy your bread, bagels, whatever.
I find this statement in the Univ. of Texas abstract curious: "We observed a more pronounced association between GI and lung cancer risk among ... those with less than 12 years of education." Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this is a red flag which suggests that there's something flawed in their statistical methodology since it's well known that prevalence of smoking is correlated with education:
http://oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics.php
Let me give an alternative scenario: Low income people tend to have less education. They tend to smoke more than better educated high income people, and to eat more refined carbohydrates than high income people (see link below). That might explain the correlation between GI/GL and lung cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1107.full
Keep in mind the way science works: a single publication does not prove anything. Other researchers may not be able to reproduce the results, or may point out a flaw in the methodology invalidating the study. Because the media don't understand this, they tend to jump on the bandwagon whenever a bit of research is published in a journal.
The other red flag, of course, is Dr. Oz's name appearing after the first few sentences but I won't get into that.
Just so right on target!!!!!!!
I work with undeserved and in the field of cancer. Diet, life style and a whole lot of things contribute to cancer including smoking, drinking eating processed meats on and on. But Potatoes really pfffff0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
IMO that's not a good example. There a ton of articles on the Internet from people who don't think suncreen (at least as most people know it) should be used.lisawinning4losing wrote: »I think it's erroneous to put "carbs" all in one category, but it's been long proven that refined carbs like sugar and flour do in fact cause cancer, which shouldn't be too surprising considering that they aren't a natural part of the human diet. This isn't news, because it's nothing new. The book Sugar Blues opened my eyes years ago, and research continues to confirm it more and more.
As a side note, they also cause wrinkles by breaking down your collagen.
Also, almost every disease/aging process is related to inflammation throughout the body, and inflammation is hugely increased by refined carbs. It's just bad for your entire body.
Sunscreen isn't natural.
Ugh having had a few sunburns in my life like that, as a fair skinned redhead who enjoyed Spring Break in college... That picture pains me to even look at! I too will take my chances with the sunscreen....
0 -
Pinkylee77 wrote: »100% of the people born before 1900 are dead. Therefore, being born before 1900 causes death. What a bunch of BS; none of you are getting out of this alive, and carcinogens are all around you in your environment, so enjoy your bread, bagels, whatever.
I find this statement in the Univ. of Texas abstract curious: "We observed a more pronounced association between GI and lung cancer risk among ... those with less than 12 years of education." Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this is a red flag which suggests that there's something flawed in their statistical methodology since it's well known that prevalence of smoking is correlated with education:
http://oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics.php
Let me give an alternative scenario: Low income people tend to have less education. They tend to smoke more than better educated high income people, and to eat more refined carbohydrates than high income people (see link below). That might explain the correlation between GI/GL and lung cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1107.full
Keep in mind the way science works: a single publication does not prove anything. Other researchers may not be able to reproduce the results, or may point out a flaw in the methodology invalidating the study. Because the media don't understand this, they tend to jump on the bandwagon whenever a bit of research is published in a journal.
The other red flag, of course, is Dr. Oz's name appearing after the first few sentences but I won't get into that.
Just so right on target!!!!!!!
I work with undeserved and in the field of cancer. Diet, life style and a whole lot of things contribute to cancer including smoking, drinking eating processed meats on and on. But Potatoes really pfffff
Actually, I have to agree that it's probably less about the potatoes and more about the bread, pasta, cookies, etc. In the same way that processed meats have been linked to cancer, so have processed carbs, in more than one study. The key word is processed.
And no, chopped broccoli does not count as "processed".
0 -
In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.0
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Proof of confirmation bias.
0 -
Being ALIVE is the greatest cause of cancer. The dead are free of getting cancer.
and I don't see a way of being completely free of carbs.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
My guess is that overall, early treatment and detection are the main causes (assuming that cancer rates are indeed decreasing). But it doesn't mean that diet isn't playing a negative role.Why is it that due to research, cancer rates are falling, where as sugar intake is increasing?
So you believe an unproved study but deny statistics?
Nobody suggests that diet doesnt play a negative role but to suggest that sugar causes cancer is just emblematic of the scaremongering in the food industry which 'experts' use to gain attention and money.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Pinkylee77 wrote: »100% of the people born before 1900 are dead. Therefore, being born before 1900 causes death. What a bunch of BS; none of you are getting out of this alive, and carcinogens are all around you in your environment, so enjoy your bread, bagels, whatever.
I find this statement in the Univ. of Texas abstract curious: "We observed a more pronounced association between GI and lung cancer risk among ... those with less than 12 years of education." Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this is a red flag which suggests that there's something flawed in their statistical methodology since it's well known that prevalence of smoking is correlated with education:
http://oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics.php
Let me give an alternative scenario: Low income people tend to have less education. They tend to smoke more than better educated high income people, and to eat more refined carbohydrates than high income people (see link below). That might explain the correlation between GI/GL and lung cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1107.full
Keep in mind the way science works: a single publication does not prove anything. Other researchers may not be able to reproduce the results, or may point out a flaw in the methodology invalidating the study. Because the media don't understand this, they tend to jump on the bandwagon whenever a bit of research is published in a journal.
The other red flag, of course, is Dr. Oz's name appearing after the first few sentences but I won't get into that.
Just so right on target!!!!!!!
I work with undeserved and in the field of cancer. Diet, life style and a whole lot of things contribute to cancer including smoking, drinking eating processed meats on and on. But Potatoes really pfffff
Actually, I have to agree that it's probably less about the potatoes and more about the bread, pasta, cookies, etc. In the same way that processed meats have been linked to cancer, so have processed carbs, in more than one study. The key word is processed.
And no, chopped broccoli does not count as "processed".
Actually the study did mention white potatoes.0 -
Being ALIVE is the greatest cause of cancer. The dead are free of getting cancer.
and I don't see a way of being completely free of carbs.
There's no way to have zero carbs in the body (your body will gluconeogenesis needed ones), but zero intake is the goal of some of the keto crowd, and some seem to live purely on meat and micronutrient supplements.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Again, do you know what refined sugar is? How it gets made?0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Asbestos is a natural thing. So is uranium.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »Pinkylee77 wrote: »100% of the people born before 1900 are dead. Therefore, being born before 1900 causes death. What a bunch of BS; none of you are getting out of this alive, and carcinogens are all around you in your environment, so enjoy your bread, bagels, whatever.
I find this statement in the Univ. of Texas abstract curious: "We observed a more pronounced association between GI and lung cancer risk among ... those with less than 12 years of education." Unless I'm missing something, I'd say this is a red flag which suggests that there's something flawed in their statistical methodology since it's well known that prevalence of smoking is correlated with education:
http://oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics.php
Let me give an alternative scenario: Low income people tend to have less education. They tend to smoke more than better educated high income people, and to eat more refined carbohydrates than high income people (see link below). That might explain the correlation between GI/GL and lung cancer.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1107.full
Keep in mind the way science works: a single publication does not prove anything. Other researchers may not be able to reproduce the results, or may point out a flaw in the methodology invalidating the study. Because the media don't understand this, they tend to jump on the bandwagon whenever a bit of research is published in a journal.
The other red flag, of course, is Dr. Oz's name appearing after the first few sentences but I won't get into that.
Just so right on target!!!!!!!
I work with undeserved and in the field of cancer. Diet, life style and a whole lot of things contribute to cancer including smoking, drinking eating processed meats on and on. But Potatoes really pfffff
Actually, I have to agree that it's probably less about the potatoes and more about the bread, pasta, cookies, etc. In the same way that processed meats have been linked to cancer, so have processed carbs, in more than one study. The key word is processed.
And no, chopped broccoli does not count as "processed".
You mean the results from the study that were misunderstood and overblown by the media and people who don't understand or don't wish to understand.
The processed meat study showed that if you eat more than 2 pieces of bacon EVERY DAY it raises your colorectal cancer risk from 5% to 6%.
This information got turned into omg bacon causes cancer you shouldn't eat it at all.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Asbestos is a natural thing. So is uranium.
But are they natural foods?0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
This kind of statement is part of why everyone challenges the studies you bring - you're drawing conclusions the studies themselves don't make. The study actually looked at glycemic index, which is not a measure of how natural a food is. It merely measures how much blood glucose levels rise from eating the food at an equivalent carbohydrate amount. What does this mean in practice?
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods
It means a processed premium ice cream is less associated with lung cancer than all natural watermelon. It means that white spaghetti is less associated than a banana. It means a Snickers bar, a supreme style pizza, are less associate than green peas or a sweet potato or white potato. It means Peanut M&M's are less associated than any fruit listed in that link other than prunes and grapefruit.
It seems like you're trying to mold the study's results to your existing beliefs, instead of letting study results and their limitations actually mold your beliefs.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.0 -
No, I'm not discrediting that. I don't think of it so much as "sugar causes cancer", but more so "excess sugar can increase the risk of cancer/ increase the chance of recurrence".ForecasterJason wrote: »
My guess is that overall, early treatment and detection are the main causes (assuming that cancer rates are indeed decreasing). But it doesn't mean that diet isn't playing a negative role.Why is it that due to research, cancer rates are falling, where as sugar intake is increasing?
So you believe an unproved study but deny statistics?
Nobody suggests that diet doesnt play a negative role but to suggest that sugar causes cancer is just emblematic of the scaremongering in the food industry which 'experts' use to gain attention and money.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »In other words, the breaking news is that processed junk is bad for you while natural foods are better for you. Go figure.
Do you really consider the item in the pic to be "food"?
Some things that are food for us are poison to othe species and vice versa. Nature has no obligation in making things palatable to us.
Which is a totally different subject. Someone said "natural foods" are better and someone responded with a poisonous mushroom. I'm just not sure what the point was.
Because the mushroom is natural food, but certainly not safer for most people than any processed food, barring allergies to particular processed foods.
No, it's not natural food. It's not food at all. You are just being silly. Saying natural food is best is not even close to being the same as saying eating anything natural is best.
Using such ridiculousness what wouldn't be food? Because if natural food = everything natural, then wouldn't synthetic food = everything synthetic?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions