4 ms·
>The prominence of gastrointestinal cancers and the coincidence with dietary changes in many countries point to the rising rates of obesity and diets rich in pr
by cute_boi 3y ago
>The prominence of gastrointestinal cancers and the coincidence with dietary changes in many countries point to the rising rates of obesity and diets rich in processed foods as likely culprits in contributing to rising case rates
Dousing our crops with toxic pesticides for decades, mass-producing the same genetically modified seeds over and over, and sucking every last nutrient out of the soil through overfarming. Nope, nothing to see there! An economy based on maximizing profits at all costs while disregarding environmental impacts will create problems like this.
- _mlbt 3y agoYou're not wrong, but obesity should not be glossed over so quickly, as it is linked to several varieties of cancer, as well as numerous other serious health conditions.
- t-3 3y agoObesity should be scrutinized more closely though. The causes of the "obesity epidemic" that has occurred across the world aren't proven and could very well be linked to agricultural chemicals, processing, packaging, or something else entirely. Too many people reflexively write off obesity as something caused by poor diet and lacking exercise, but that hasn't been proven at all.
- abracadaniel 3y agoI often wonder if something is acting as an appetite booster. Any time I let myself indulge in junk food, I find I’m way hungrier over the next week or so. It could also be something more psychologically complex though, like being raised in abundance by parents who weren’t. Food abundance has got to track pretty close to the amount of processing, refined sugars, pesticide use, etc.
- winrid 3y agoSugar isn't fulfilling, and usually it makes you want more. If you want a snack that fills you up, try something with fat (meat, peanut butter, etc).
- mvkel 3y agoSugar is inserted into most junk foods, even if savory. The purpose is not to sweeten or adjust the flavor of whatever you're eating. It's to drive the addictive "must have more" response that your body naturally creates, selling more product. It should be illegal.
- rizzom5000 3y ago> but that hasn't been proven at all. Do you know of anything that provides a strong rebuttal to the research found in documents like this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228640/
- ecoquant 3y ago[flagged]
- ecoquant 3y agoI imagine everyone in this thread is basically correct. The only real thing we have done to combat cancer is stop smoking so much while at the same time increasing every other factor imaginable to promote cancer.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NoPicklez 3y ago"likely culprits in contributing to rising case rates" So what they've said is that dietary changes to diets rich in processed foods are contributors, that doesn't mean it is the only thing and not what you suggest but one contributor.
- instagib 3y agoagreed and the rest of the quote: “But many think that the answers are still buried in studies that have tracked the lives and health of children born half a century ago. “If it had been a single smoking gun, our studies would have at least pointed to one factor,” says Sonia Kupfer, a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois. “But it doesn’t seem to be that — it seems to be a combination of many different factors.” They refer to a study of 20k expecting mothers and their children then data from all. There’s also the (MVP) million veterans program that has a lot of data including dna to be analyzed. There is medical records, location information, etc. Many things to correlate if they choose to put them all together.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]