7 ms·
Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review
- jdietrich 7y agoSee also Kill or Cure, a comprehensive index of every Daily Mail article claiming that something causes or prevents cancer. https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y agoThis is the best I've ever seen.
- jakear 7y agoLooks like it does subject/verb plurality agreement based on the presence of an 's' at the end of the subject. Thus: "Asbestos prevent cancer". Heh. Software.
- userbinator 7y agoI looked at the site again to see that it actually says "asbestos cause cancer", because I was really curious how it could ever prevent cancer... No mention of Cheetos or Doritos though.
- derefr 7y ago“Asbestos” is a plural, though (in Greek and in Latin—where the word originates—by declension.) The fact that English bungled the receive doesn’t mean that the algorithm is wrong. I would expect a sufficiently-intelligent pluralizing algorithm (something like GPT trained on individual grapheme sequences) would pluralize asbestos too (in absence of direct evidence of its pluralization; and maybe even then.)
- gnulinux 7y agoHuh, I think you meant to say "Asbestos cause cancer". It'd be really interesting if some news articles claimed asbestos prevents cancer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- HNestUnCulte 7y agoWorth noting is that they never say meat _prevents_ cancer: https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/m https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/m just as they never say vegetables _cause_ cancer: https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/v https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/a-z/v (amusingly though some individual plant foods have been listed to cause cancer). Epidemiology is the amusing intersection of science and ideology.
- 781 7y agoThere are scientists who argue that what the mitochondria does is fundamentally cancerigenic on a long enough timeline, so in a sense, yes, everything we eat is associated with cancer. https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017155 https://www.nature.com/articles/cr2017155
- hurrdurr2 7y agoWow this is pretty fascinating.
- toufka 7y agoMetabolism is a process with chemical and energetic exhaust that can damage machinery critical to cellular processes. And at some point it becomes evolutionarily favorable to just accept that damage and expend effort starting over again (offspring) as opposed to attempting complete repair of all the damaged systems. In that way, all metabolic processes will logically lead to cancer (damage to dna). The world is on fire.
- jacquesc 7y agoSeems that nature favors the 'big rewrite'
- bencollier49 7y agoWow, that was quite a read. What does seem to stand out is the danger of negative results not being published. 99 studies look at an ingredient, find nothing, don't publish. Through pure chance, the hundredth study finds a correlation, and everyone is immediately convinced that yet another ingredient is unhealthy.
- eternauta3k 7y agoThe study will fail to replicate.
- ErikVandeWater 7y agoYes, but how long does that take, and what is the cost of people acting on misinformation in the meantime?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoDoesn't matter; before anyone even thinks of replicating it, it's already all over the fitness & lifestyle magazines and news columns regular people read.
- FrankyHollywood 7y agoNot necessarily, it's just a new random pick :)
- YjSe2GMQ 7y agoThis is the big way for p-value science to fail, even if every actor is honest. It's obvious once you understand what a p-value is (it literally takes 5 seconds to understand) but nearly nobody does. Even people I've worked with at a FAANG, which you'd expect have an above average understanding of mathematics. https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ P values don't work at all if there's a lot of people working in a field!
- ilikeatari 7y agoFor some it might take more than 5 seconds though https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-even-scientists-can-easily-explain-p-values/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-even-scientists-can...
- pdimitar 7y agoAt this point I almost expect an article titled "All oxygen-breathing organisms are a fatally flawed design and are doomed to never live healthy no matter what". :(
- stcredzero 7y agohttps://lowres.cartooncollections.com/doctors-medical-paranoia-hypochondria-hypochondriacs-medical-CC41339_low.jpg https://lowres.cartooncollections.com/doctors-medical-parano... The SENS people say, if you live long enough, you will eventually have cancer.
- justinator 7y agoI was under the impression that everyone has cancer all the time at about the same rate the body can fight it before it becomes an actual, detectable problem.
- whenchamenia 7y agoYup. So shoukd we should worry about our ability to fight it, rather than what 'causes' it, outside agressive carcenogens?
- EGreg 7y agoIs there a SENS newsletter like hacker news?
- quotemstr 7y agoWell, that's basically true, isn't it? Oxygen is extremely reactive and was poisonous to early life: https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/the-great-oxygenation-event-the-earths-first-mass-extinction.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/the-great-oxygenation-e...
- copperx 7y agoIt still is. If you live at sea level, your chances of getting lung cancer are much higher that of you live at higher elevations.
- nradov 7y agoIf you live long enough you will eventually die of cancer. It's inevitable.
- k__ 7y agoDo the oldest people predominantly die of cancer?
- jacquesm 7y agohttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4043499/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4043499/ Has pneumonia and 'frailty' as the predominant causes.
- stcredzero 7y agoI think infections are the primary cause of death for the oldest people. If lifespans were several times longer, most of us would be dying from an immune deficiency caused by cytomegalovirus. We just don't live long enough.
- weberc2 7y agoThe parent’s comment is tautologically true: if nothing kills you first, cancer will eventually kill you.
- gnulinux 7y agoThat is, given that humans eventually die.
- ska 7y agoNo, but they mostly die with cancer(s), iirc.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoI’m sure I read that once you reach a certain age the risk starts to fall off.
- open-source-ux 7y agoCancer Research UK (a medical charity) has a good summary of some common food controversies - foods that are claimed to either cause or curtail cancer. The entry on 'super foods' states: > "...the term ‘superfood’ is really just a marketing tool, with little scientific basis. It’s certainly true that a healthy, balanced and varied diet can help to reduce the risk of cancer but it is unlikely that any single food will make a major difference on its own." https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc... Also worth a read: Bacon, salami and sausages: how does processed meat cause cancer and how much matters? (April 2019) https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/04/26/bacon-salami-and-sausages-how-does-processed-meat-cause-cancer-and-how-much-matters/ https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/04/26/bacon-sa...
- newnewpdro 7y agoIt's probabilistic, the best you can do is minimize your chances but everything causes harm to some degree until you're dead.
- agumonkey 7y agoA subtle way to suggest fasting ?
- contravariant 7y agoIf you stop eating for a few weeks it probably does lower your chances of getting cancer significantly.
- agumonkey 7y agothat's what I meant, since it seems all types of food are linked to cancer, fasting is the best of them
- copperx 7y agoI remember reading a few studies where malnourished individuals and with certain nutritional deficiencies had lower cancer incidence. There could be some truth to it. Time to dig into PubMed.
- mamon 7y agoNot only that, enough time without food can free you of all the worries that are common to mere mortals :)
- aszantu 7y agoYou can basically dump all mouse studies, since the standard kibble was something high sugary/starchy. Add fat -> cancer; add more sugar -> cancer...; add more protein -> cancer Epidemiological stuff is flawed as well. Unless the people are kept in a closed ward and every meal is kept under close observation, it's probably not "clean" data. There is hope though... annecdotal evidence seems to point towards unprocessed food as a good tool to fight cancer. Even better when it's low carb. http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/ http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/ source for the mouse model studies http://meatheals.com/category/cancer/ http://meatheals.com/category/cancer/ anecdotal evidence, you'll prolly find some vegans as well if you go looking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tteYZfMat4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tteYZfMat4 some interesting talk about the efficiency of treatment in some cancers. Might help to make a better informed decision if it ever hits you.
- brians 7y agoThis is similar to a problem with exercise studies: they under-dose in intensity and volume, and are then surprised that nothing much helps.
- sridca 7y agoI'm surprised to see your comment in good health. Everytime I link to Georgia Ede or meatheals I get downvoted to oblivion lol, just as this comment too will (as if there is a vegan bot on HN targeting my comments?).
- boringusername 7y agoThis is the inevitable result of clueless reporting on bad epidemiological studies. Look at any study behind one of these headlines and there will be a raft of confounding factors that were never controlled for. The data is close to meaningless at a certain point.
- purplezooey 7y agoI heard coffee is still good
- anthonybullard 7y agoTell that to the state of California
- copperx 7y agoNot if you believe acrylamide is carcinogenic.
- m3kw9 7y agoEverything we do on a daily bases has a chance to increase or decrease the chances of each part of our body of getting it. Even if you do nothing
- INTPenis 7y agoI think we as humans are just associated with cancer. Regardless of what we eat. My soul mate exercised, ate well and natural but still got breast cancer. Because it was in her family. Cancer hits so many people that it seems like it's just a natural way of population control to me. Or perhaps a side effect from being multi-celled creatures in a universe with background radiation.
- tejtm 7y agoYou could generalize that to "... we as mammals ..." without much loss of precision. * allowing naked mole rats & elephants as outliers
- vmurthy 7y agoSorry to hear about your partner :-( The first part of the last paragraph makes sense. Multi-cellular -> more cells dividing -> more chances of mutations -> more chances of cancer. The second half of your last para implies that cosmic radiation / something similar causes cancer. I’m genuinely curious : is there some link between cosmic microwave radiation and cancer ? Any sources ?
- smueller1234 7y agoThere's no known link between cosmic microwave background and cancer. Would do for one hell of a difficult thing to study, too. There's perfectly ample evidence for cosmic rays (ie. high energy radiation from astronomical sources) increasing risk of cancer as does any ionizing radiation. Maybe GP conflated the two?
- rrwright 7y agoFrom the abstract: “Statistically significant results were more likely than nonsignificant findings to be published in the study abstract than in only the full text (P < 0.0001).“
- sridca 7y agoRelated - meat & cancer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519 (Ctrl+F "cancer" in that thread for amusement)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hsudheh 7y agoNope. Just eating dead animals is. Stop doing that.