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
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.0 -
Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.
That's an odd leap to take. And again it sounds like you are saying everything is food.
But, perhaps you are right. Should these things we consume be considered food if they kill us? I imagine that is the point of the research.0 -
Well to a certain degree I believe human stupidity is definitely a major contributor.
Exhibit A. Time Lapse Map of Every (known) Nuclear Explosion Since 1945
Try guessing how many there are by the end of the video.
https://youtu.be/uNE47ikLDTY
Not many people are aware of how many nukes we have actually released into the atmosphere, most are shocked by the tally at the end of the video.0 -
If It Fits Your Mouth-hole #YOLONeed2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
So no foods cause cancer because causing cancer is a forming of poisoning people, and thus any food that causes cancer must not be food. Threads done folks!
What?? You've lost me again. WTH are you on about now?
If that mushroom can't be food because it is poisonous, foods that cause cancer can't be food either. It is just slow acting poison.
That's an odd leap to take. And again it sounds like you are saying everything is food.
But, perhaps you are right. Should these things we consume be considered food if they kill us? I imagine that is the point of the research.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Do you think that some dumb human (or simply ignorant human) may have eaten that mushroom thinking it's good, natural food?
I know it's so, as when I was a kid in Alaska we were educated about that mushroom because it looks like an edible one and was a common mistake for foragers.
Some dumb humans drink chlorine bleach and play deadly games with crossbows. That doesn't make bleach food or crossbows toys.
For the mushroom, it doesn't even have to be dumb humans. Even wilderness survival and mushroom experts die from time to time eating wild mushrooms they were sure they had classified properly.0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions