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

1…468910

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,501 Member
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    If I give you a citation, you'll just say that it's not credible, even if it's published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm not playing that game anymore, because that can go on all day. Just do your own research, and form your own opinions. I've given some thoughts that should help to formulate a few Google searches for anyone who's interested.
    Giving a citation will help other see the source and READ the WHOLE study. Many people who try to prove statements, take a small paragraph from a study and use it as proof of conclusion, when most of the time, the study won't even state that.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,670 Member
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    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 white 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.

    Citation needed.
    Stupid headline aside, lisawinning4losing's comment does pertain to the study. The study that the article summarized didn't say that higher consumption of carbs was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. It said that higher consumption of high glycemic index foods like potatoes, white flour and sugar was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. So there are carbs that are not implicated in this study, like fiber, and lower glycemic index carb rich foods. You can eat carb rich foods in low glycemic index forms, like whole wheat grains instead of whole wheat flour.

    I linked to the actual study in an earlier post.
  • lisawinning4losing
    lisawinning4losing Posts: 726 Member
    edited March 2016
    I'm not here to argue or be put down with sarcastic comments, or have a battle of links. I'm just giving some information to people who want to do their own research and decide for themselves. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and to eat or not eat whatever they want. I was just giving some information that some people might not be familiar with. When it comes to something as important as our health, nobody should be censored. All points of view should be heard, and each individual can decide for his or her self.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    I personally don't use sugar for exfoliating, but it could be used as an exfoliant only because it's a grainy substance like sand. That has nothing to do with the affect it has on your body when you ingest it. Surely you understand the difference.

    Also, you don't use masks for exfoliating. You're talking about a scrub, not a mask.

    Oh yes, I see your point. No I din't know that! I figured if its bad inside its bad outside too. Would it cAuse skin cancer do youu think?

    I don't do facial thing myself, I just read about it.

  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    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 white 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.

    Citation needed.
    Stupid headline aside, lisawinning4losing's comment does pertain to the study. The study that the article summarized didn't say that higher consumption of carbs was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. It said that higher consumption of high glycemic index foods like potatoes, white flour and sugar was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. So there are carbs that are not implicated in this study, like fiber, and lower glycemic index carb rich foods. You can eat carb rich foods in low glycemic index forms, like whole wheat grains instead of whole wheat flour.

    I linked to the actual study in an earlier post.

    It technically said higher recall of dietary intake of those high glycemic foods was found in patients surveyed.
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    I'm not here to argue or be put down with sarcastic comments, or have a battle of links. I'm just giving some information to people who want to do their own research and decide for themselves. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and to eat or not eat whatever they want. I was just giving some information that some people might not be familiar with. When it comes to something as important as our health, nobody should be censored. All points of view should be heard, and each individual can decide for themselves.

    You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

    If you want to make a factual claim (ie refined carbs cause cancer because unnatural) the burden of proof is on you to back it up.
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Funny how I became deathly ill with inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's) when I was on high protein, low carb and I'm in remission but eat moderate/high carb. ( I don't think what I eat, other than my trigger food, has much to do with my disease but rather the health of my immune system. I am currently immunosuppressed but shouldn't my ESR be through the roof eating refined carbs as I am on a low fiber, very little vegetable and fruit mostly white carb and white meat diet)
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    I'm not here to argue or be put down with sarcastic comments, or have a battle of links. I'm just giving some information to people who want to do their own research and decide for themselves. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and to eat or not eat whatever they want. I was just giving some information that some people might not be familiar with. When it comes to something as important as our health, nobody should be censored. All points of view should be heard, and each individual can decide for his or her self.

    You've given no information. You said something you refuse to back up. It's worthless.
  • lisawinning4losing
    lisawinning4losing Posts: 726 Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    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 white 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.

    Citation needed.
    Stupid headline aside, lisawinning4losing's comment does pertain to the study. The study that the article summarized didn't say that higher consumption of carbs was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. It said that higher consumption of high glycemic index foods like potatoes, white flour and sugar was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. So there are carbs that are not implicated in this study, like fiber, and lower glycemic index carb rich foods. You can eat carb rich foods in low glycemic index forms, like whole wheat grains instead of whole wheat flour.

    I linked to the actual study in an earlier post.

    Thank you.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited March 2016
    lithezebra wrote: »
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    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 white 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.

    Citation needed.
    Stupid headline aside, lisawinning4losing's comment does pertain to the study. The study that the article summarized didn't say that higher consumption of carbs was associated with higher rates of lung cancer. It said that higher consumption of high glycemic index foods like potatoes, white flour and sugar was associated with higher rates of lung cancer.

    That it's not about all carbs has been pointed out from early in the thread (as well as the one that preceded it).

    The idea that it's a reason to give up potatoes while ignoring the various risks about other foods, well, shrug. Like Gale, some seem to have other axes to grind here.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    My personal experience is that if I get to eating sugary foods, I get to a place of too many calories in.

    Thats not science though and here on mfp it can be setting up arguments to make personal opinions seem like facts.

    There are few scientific facts out there. They are mostly studies and research and experimental things.
    Rarely facts. Later they disprove what was concluded in the past. happens all the time.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    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.
    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.

  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    ForecasterJason wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    There's tons of bad advice out there. That doesn't have to do with what actual science shows. By preventing UV exposure, unnatural sunscreen reduces skin cancer risk.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    I'm not here to argue or be put down with sarcastic comments, or have a battle of links. I'm just giving some information to people who want to do their own research and decide for themselves. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and to eat or not eat whatever they want. I was just giving some information that some people might not be familiar with. When it comes to something as important as our health, nobody should be censored. All points of view should be heard, and each individual can decide for his or her self.

    But you said it was "proven". I have never seen anything that said it was proven that refined sugar (whatever that means) causes cancer. I think it would be incredibly controversial and huge news if a product that is so predominant in the American food supply was proven to cause cancer, but I've never seen anything to suggest that.

    I googled "Refined sugar causes cancer" and the first two links were from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the MD Anderson Cancer Center, both saying this has been reported but is not true. Then I found a bunch of links saying sugar "feeds" cancer, not causes it. I guess maybe this peer-reviewed study showing processed sugar causes cancer must be further down in the results search, but I have to get back to work. That's weird though, since so many scientists have dedicated their lives to curing cancer, you'd think this link would be more popular?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Man, for being proven to be carcinogenic it sure is missing from the IARC classification list of carcinogens.
    http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_classif.php

    Or cancer.org's list.

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens

    Weird.
  • lisawinning4losing
    lisawinning4losing Posts: 726 Member
    Actually, there is some evidence that chemical sunscreens do cause cancer, and that they're killing plant life in the ocean, which is why I use mineral sunscreens.

    Sugar has been a HUGE controversy for decades now. Where have you been?

    The study mentioned IN THE ORIGINAL POST was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and it's only one of many studies that come to similar conclusions. When looked at as a whole, all these different studies come together to paint a picture.

    Also, it should be mentioned that technically it has not been "proven" that smoking "causes" lung cancer. There is only evidence of a very high correlation between smoking and lung cancer, just as there is evidence of a very high correlation between sugar and refined carb consumption and various different diseases.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    Yes, I don't use sun skreen. just wear light cotton clothes and a hat.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    edited March 2016
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    Actually, there is some evidence that chemical sunscreens do cause cancer, and that they're killing plant life in the ocean, which is why I use mineral sunscreens.

    Sugar has been a HUGE controversy for decades now. Where have you been?

    The study mentioned IN THE ORIGINAL POST was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and it's only one of many studies that come to similar conclusions. When looked at as a whole, all these different studies come together to paint a picture.

    Also, it should be mentioned that technically it has not been "proven" that smoking "causes" lung cancer. There is only evidence of a very high correlation between smoking and lung cancer, just as there is evidence of a very high correlation between sugar and refined carb consumption and various different diseases.
    Probably studying the actual chemistry to know what tests differentiate refined fructose and natural fructose.
    Or wailing on my pecs at the gym.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    Actually, there is some evidence that chemical sunscreens do cause cancer, and that they're killing plant life in the ocean, which is why I use mineral sunscreens.

    Sugar has been a HUGE controversy for decades now. Where have you been?

    The study mentioned IN THE ORIGINAL POST was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and it's only one of many studies that come to similar conclusions. When looked at as a whole, all these different studies come together to paint a picture.

    Also, it should be mentioned that technically it has not been "proven" that smoking "causes" lung cancer. There is only evidence of a very high correlation between smoking and lung cancer, just as there is evidence of a very high correlation between sugar and refined carb consumption and various different diseases.

    Thats just wht I was writing about. So everyone thinks its a proven fact. No, there aren't very many scientific facts.
    Does anyone know how gravity works? Yet? What is gravity?

  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    cloudi2 wrote: »
    lisawinning4losing wrote: »
    Actually, there is some evidence that chemical sunscreens do cause cancer, and that they're killing plant life in the ocean, which is why I use mineral sunscreens.

    Sugar has been a HUGE controversy for decades now. Where have you been?

    The study mentioned IN THE ORIGINAL POST was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and it's only one of many studies that come to similar conclusions. When looked at as a whole, all these different studies come together to paint a picture.

    Also, it should be mentioned that technically it has not been "proven" that smoking "causes" lung cancer. There is only evidence of a very high correlation between smoking and lung cancer, just as there is evidence of a very high correlation between sugar and refined carb consumption and various different diseases.

    Thats just wht I was writing about. So everyone thinks its a proven fact. No, there aren't very many scientific facts.
    Does anyone know how gravity works? Yet? What is gravity?

    In relativity, it is an artificat of matter curving space.
    In the standard model, it is the result of the Higgs-boson.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories