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

TaraTall
TaraTall Posts: 339 Member
edited January 2022 in Debate Club
<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>
«134567

Replies

  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,327 Member
    This is the problem with the media. They have no understanding of the difference between causation and correlation.
  • TaraTall
    TaraTall Posts: 339 Member
    It's really disappointing. Weightloss is already such a huge market, let's over-inform and mis-inform people looking to better themselves.
    =(
  • upoffthemat
    upoffthemat Posts: 679 Member
    Well I can say that everyone I know who has had cancer has also eaten carbs. It must be true.
  • jpaulie
    jpaulie Posts: 917 Member
    Must be true, they quote Dr Oz
  • Kullerva
    Kullerva Posts: 1,114 Member
    edited March 2016
    Everyone eats carbs. Not everyone gets cancer.

    Sounds pretty suspect to me.
  • richln
    richln Posts: 809 Member
    Cancer is a crab.

    xq7upvqpobbb.jpg
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    richln wrote: »
    Cancer is a crab.

    xq7upvqpobbb.jpg

    jf0e4.jpg
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    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
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,224 Member
    I saw this article splashed all over the news website I visit today. It made me sigh heartily.
  • viren19890
    viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
    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
    aub6689 Posts: 351 Member
    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
    Commander_Keen Posts: 1,179 Member
    When the article has something to do with Dr Oz, then it must be true.
  • Pinkylee77
    Pinkylee77 Posts: 432 Member
    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
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Citation, for anyone who is interested. From U Texas Med Center. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    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
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    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
    TheCrawlingChaos Posts: 462 Member
    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
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    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
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    Oh no!!!!! I live in Italy! Gonna die!!!!!!
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    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
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    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
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited March 2016
    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
    aub6689 Posts: 351 Member
    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
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    Tagging to read the study.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    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
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    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
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Works for me!
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    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. :o
  • KayTeeOne
    KayTeeOne Posts: 122 Member
    If this was true then almost the whole world would have been suffering with cancer .
This discussion has been closed.