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
-
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.
0 -
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….0 -
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%).0 -
Thanks!jmbmilholland wrote: »Citation, for anyone who is interested. From U Texas Med Center. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract
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.
0 -
Tagging to read the study.0
-
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?0 -
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. @lemurcat120 -
Works for me!0
-
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.
0 -
If this was true then almost the whole world would have been suffering with cancer .0
-
0 -
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?
Doesn't a good amount pass through the mucus membranes of your mouth while chewing already?0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »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.
I'm jealous. ;-) I need to be better about freezing or canning things, maybe.0 -
OneHundredToLose wrote: »
This was horrifyingly funny. Kudos.0 -
Yes, cancer feeds on sugar. Cut your carbs folks.0
-
Not being sarcastic, here is the study: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.short
It seems worthwhile, to me, to moderate my intake of foods that have a high glycemic index.0 -
<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><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>
@TaraTall would you post the link that offers proof that carbs cause cancer. The above article title is, "Depressing Study Says Carbs Increase ‘lung Cancer’ Risk" which is not proof of causation.
It is well understood cancer needs glucose to spread so naturally any food source that gets converted to glucose may increase the risk of cancer development but I have never seen any research that states eating bread or any other source of carbs "causes" cancer. Editors are less than honest sometimes. The caption under the phone that reads: "A New Research Says Carbs Could Cause Lung Cancer" is a false statement in my view only to get us to read the article.0 -
A shocking new study finds that being alive increases your chances of getting cancer by nearly 1,000,000,000%.0
-
lithezebra wrote: »Not being sarcastic, here is the study: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.short
It seems worthwhile, to me, to moderate my intake of foods that have a high glycemic index.
@lithezebra thanks for that abstract of recently research on the subject of carbs and cancer. In part it reads:
"Results: We observed a significant association between GI [5th vs. 1st quintile (Q) OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.21–1.83; Ptrend <0.001] and lung cancer risk and GIac (5th vs. 1st Q OR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.20–1.81; Ptrend = 0.001) and lung cancer risk. We observed a more pronounced association between GI and lung cancer risk among never smokers (5th vs. 1st Q OR = 2.25; 95% CI, 1.42–3.57), squamous cell carcinomas (SCC; 5th vs. 1st Q OR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.30–2.83), and those with less than 12 years of education (5th vs. 1st Q OR = 1.75; 95% CI, 1.19–2.58, Pinteraction = 0.02).
Conclusion: This study suggests that dietary GI and other lung cancer risk factors may jointly and independently influence lung cancer etiology."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 897 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions