3 ms·

You'll love this study. They select 50 common ingredient from cookbooks, and looked studies about them. 40 of them caused cancer, but often times conflicting st

You'll love this study. They select 50 common ingredient from cookbooks, and looked studies about them. 40 of them caused cancer, but often times conflicting studies were also found. They conclude: Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses. Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review; Jonathan D Schoenfeld 1, John P A Ioannidis. 10.3945/ajcn.112.047142

csours 3y ago
Yes, because getting older is associated with cancer. If you don't eat, you don't get older (paradoxically calorie restriction is associated with longevity).
- arcticbull 3y ago
  I’m not sure it’s really paradoxical. Consuming and metabolizing food creates oxidative stress, and caloric restriction slows down your metabolism. As much as 21.4% over just two weeks [1], sometimes permanently [2]. Which is also why dieting fails the vast majority of people people, as they experience it as a plateau [3]. Eating less reduces your need for food ('adaptive thermogenesis'), and hence total oxidative stress load. This almost certainly reduces your risk of cancer and also more than likely slows aging. [4] [1] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.12.2.230 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.1... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764193/ [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927356/
  - csours 3y ago
    Thanks for the links and explanation! I was kind of joking - people generally have to eat to live.
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      I appreciated the joke, haha.

csours 3y ago

Yes, because getting older is associated with cancer. If you don't eat, you don't get older (paradoxically calorie restriction is associated with longevity).

arcticbull 3y ago
I’m not sure it’s really paradoxical. Consuming and metabolizing food creates oxidative stress, and caloric restriction slows down your metabolism. As much as 21.4% over just two weeks [1], sometimes permanently [2]. Which is also why dieting fails the vast majority of people people, as they experience it as a plateau [3]. Eating less reduces your need for food ('adaptive thermogenesis'), and hence total oxidative stress load. This almost certainly reduces your risk of cancer and also more than likely slows aging. [4] [1] https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.12.2.230 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1958.1... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27136388/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764193/ [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927356/
- csours 3y ago
  Thanks for the links and explanation! I was kind of joking - people generally have to eat to live.
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    I appreciated the joke, haha.