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

2456710

Replies

  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,490 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: 29,147 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: 38,112 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: 1,638 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: 1,638 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: 123 Member
    If this was true then almost the whole world would have been suffering with cancer .
  • OneHundredToLose
    OneHundredToLose Posts: 8,534 Member
    neQ6eBm.jpg
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 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?

    Doesn't a good amount pass through the mucus membranes of your mouth while chewing already?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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

    I'm jealous. ;-) I need to be better about freezing or canning things, maybe.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    khpsrt wrote: »
    If this was true then almost the whole world would have been suffering with cancer .

    Well, if you were to live long enough, cancer is pretty much guaranteed. Not for any reason to do with carbs, though.
  • hoyalawya2003
    hoyalawya2003 Posts: 631 Member
    neQ6eBm.jpg

    This was horrifyingly funny. Kudos.
  • Yi5hedr3
    Yi5hedr3 Posts: 2,696 Member
    Yes, cancer feeds on sugar. Cut your carbs folks.
  • lithezebra
    lithezebra Posts: 3,671 Member
    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.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,161 Member
    TaraTall wrote: »
    <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 wrote: »
    <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.
  • OneHundredToLose
    OneHundredToLose Posts: 8,534 Member
    A shocking new study finds that being alive increases your chances of getting cancer by nearly 1,000,000,000%.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,161 Member
    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."

This discussion has been closed.