4 ms·

The largest data set I’ve come across so far in nutrition studies and seems like they put a lot of effort into the data analysis to correct for other cancer pro

The largest data set I’ve come across so far in nutrition studies and seems like they put a lot of effort into the data analysis to correct for other cancer promoting factors like age, gender, physical activity, smoking behavior etc. (Overall pretty impressive study in my opinion, although I’m not an expert) Yet, for example, the group with the highest amount of ultra processed food in their diet contains 6% more smokers and 10% less physical activity. They correct for each factor individually but the combined effect of the two might lead to a higher risk than expected. To get these combined effects right you need a lot more data though and it’s probably hard to get good statistics on people which do a lot of sports don’t smoke and eat a lot of ultra processed food. Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. I would expect a statement like “if you neither smoke, do sports, and eat healthy food you have x% less chance to get cancer” to be more sound.

hutzlibu 9y ago
"Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. " I would say remains of Descartes etc. The (outdated) philosophy, that everything can be broken down to single factors and then correctly calculated ... It took science some time to realize that the world is too (infinite) complicated to be calculated. It surely helps though, to know the probable impact of single factors. But I believe we still generalizing way too much. Fat is bad, Sugar is bad, Cholesterine is bad (no wait good), Alcohol, smoking etc. ... Which, I believe is stupid, when humans are complex and moderation and balance is the key. (even smoking can be beneficial I believe, for certain people at certain times, not as a addiction, obviously) So seeing those single factors from studies help us as guidelines, but shouldn't be taken literally.
- jonmb 9y ago
  Do you have an example in mind for when smoking would be healthy for you?
  - detritus 9y ago
    When it acts as a very occasional mental salve in the face of undue stress?
    - hutzlibu 9y ago
      For example. But also when it comes more in a form of a ritual for spiritual (or psychological) progress. Many native american traditions used it that way, or as a way to bond in a group and solve complicated matters like peace and war. When consumed in small quantities, I believe the body and lungs does not sustain harm - short stress yes, but not real harm. (just training?) Don't know about any studies which support that, but that is my personal experience.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        Didn’t most studies found correlation between smoking and cancer as well as a myriad of other diseases but didn’t actually managed to corolate the number of cigarettes per day to a specific increase? So while one cigarette every six months might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you think.
        hutzlibu 9y ago
        "might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you think." Interesting, do you have any studies at hand? (but I would also never argue, that one pack a week is beneficial) What I could observe with me, that smoking daily clearly (one cigarette) effected my lungs. So the number needs to be much lower ...
        dogma1138 9y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ This is a newer study which shows same cardio vascular risk, somewhat reduced cancer risk and overall similar overall mortality risk between light smokers (1-4 cigs a day) and heavy smokers. Light smoking is something which is very hard to study since it’s often a transient behavior and people tend not to classify them selves as smokers if the smoke substantially less than one pack a day. That said I don’t really see any possitive effects of light or intermittent smoking it might not be as bad as smoking 4 packs a day but it’s definitely outweighs any possible benefits of smoking such as stress relief. Weed or wanking in the bathroom seems to be a better alternative to dealing with stress....

hutzlibu 9y ago

"Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. " I would say remains of Descartes etc. The (outdated) philosophy, that everything can be broken down to single factors and then correctly calculated ... It took science some time to realize that the world is too (infinite) complicated to be calculated. It surely helps though, to know the probable impact of single factors. But I believe we still generalizing way too much. Fat is bad, Sugar is bad, Cholesterine is bad (no wait good), Alcohol, smoking etc. ... Which, I believe is stupid, when humans are complex and moderation and balance is the key. (even smoking can be beneficial I believe, for certain people at certain times, not as a addiction, obviously) So seeing those single factors from studies help us as guidelines, but shouldn't be taken literally.

jonmb 9y ago
Do you have an example in mind for when smoking would be healthy for you?
- detritus 9y ago
  When it acts as a very occasional mental salve in the face of undue stress?
  - hutzlibu 9y ago
    For example. But also when it comes more in a form of a ritual for spiritual (or psychological) progress. Many native american traditions used it that way, or as a way to bond in a group and solve complicated matters like peace and war. When consumed in small quantities, I believe the body and lungs does not sustain harm - short stress yes, but not real harm. (just training?) Don't know about any studies which support that, but that is my personal experience.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      Didn’t most studies found correlation between smoking and cancer as well as a myriad of other diseases but didn’t actually managed to corolate the number of cigarettes per day to a specific increase? So while one cigarette every six months might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you think.
      - hutzlibu 9y ago
        "might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you think." Interesting, do you have any studies at hand? (but I would also never argue, that one pack a week is beneficial) What I could observe with me, that smoking daily clearly (one cigarette) effected my lungs. So the number needs to be much lower ...
        dogma1138 9y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ This is a newer study which shows same cardio vascular risk, somewhat reduced cancer risk and overall similar overall mortality risk between light smokers (1-4 cigs a day) and heavy smokers. Light smoking is something which is very hard to study since it’s often a transient behavior and people tend not to classify them selves as smokers if the smoke substantially less than one pack a day. That said I don’t really see any possitive effects of light or intermittent smoking it might not be as bad as smoking 4 packs a day but it’s definitely outweighs any possible benefits of smoking such as stress relief. Weed or wanking in the bathroom seems to be a better alternative to dealing with stress....