3 ms·

This is simply not true. A calorie is a calorie might be true, and its hard to know which is healthier for any single fresh vs storage example but plenty of che

This is simply not true. A calorie is a calorie might be true, and its hard to know which is healthier for any single fresh vs storage example but plenty of chemical processes are going on. It could certainly be the case that a small number of storage examples where particular changes occur cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer.

margalabargala 4mo ago
Respectfully, that's a crock of nonsense. "It's not at absolute zero, therefore there's some chemical process going on, therefore we don't know if it's causing significant portions of cancer"? The number of things you can say that about is frankly infinite. You have zero reason to believe that any of the "chemical processes" that happen to an apple (or any food) in long term storage have anything to do with cancer. This is a great example of correlation not equaling causation. You might as well say that writing years starting with a "2" could cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer because of the different motions of our hand affecting our lymphatic system etc etc. Irresponsible fearmongering with no foundation whatsoever.
- wemwemwem 4mo ago
  Science is building hypothesis and testing them. It is not saying it seems unlikely so I don't care. You can look up the changes to green beans depending if they are fresh, shipped a huge distance without bring frozen or frozen. Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity, but you just don't care?
  - cindyllm 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - margalabargala 4mo ago
    > Science is building hypothesis and testing them. Bad science is building hypothesis and promulgating it publicly alongside zero evidence whatsoever. The discussion is about stored apples specifically causing increased cancer rates, paired with an arbitrary woo categorization of "living" vs "dead" food. OP wondered why this did not occupy a larger portion of public discourse. Again, this hypothesis exists alongside humans writing more years whose first digit is "2", as evidence-supported cancer progenitors. > Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity Yes, if you walk back the "living vs dead" woo concept and expand the scope to more varieties of foods than just apples and more processing methods than passively storing otherwise intact fruit, then you exit the zero evidence crackpot zone. Lots of crackpot woo theories are similarly half a step away from real evidence-supported theories. Another example would be biodynamic agriculture, which looks a lot like organic and integrated farming practices right up until you get to the part about burying ground quartz stuffed into the horn of a cow so you can harvest cosmic forces in the soil.
    - wemwemwem 4mo ago
      Passively storing (whole) fruit changes fruit, I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories but you shouldn't just dismiss things as not happening to try to take them away from fad theories that have a story that propels them above a lack of evidence. This makes it all the more popular to hold theories as faith and argue that everyone does.
      - margalabargala 4mo ago
        > I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories Don't be sorry! Instead of apologizing, all I ask is that you notice, read, and internalize the part where the objection is to "and therefore that's why cancer rates are increasing".
tptacek 4mo ago
Stored apples are not causing cancer.
- wemwemwem 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - UncleMeat 4mo ago
    You can write this same exact comment when saying that 5G might cause autism or the covid vaccine might cause cancer.
    - wemwemwem 4mo ago
      Not really, no. Cancer and autism and their trends predate 5g and covid.
      - UncleMeat 4mo ago
        This trend is also not aligned on the timeline with a global food system where food travels long distances before it is eaten.
        wemwemwem 4mo ago
        In terms of the crackpot theory I'd suspect more people ate longer stored food in 1980 than today. In terms of changes that could explain a rise in a very infrequent thing I'd suspect a lot more people eat a measurable amount of transcontinental "fresh" which probably has a lot more nutritional loss than frozen for example.
        UncleMeat 4mo ago
        An awful lot of "I'd suspect." I'll let the professional researchers work to tease it out.
    - 4mo ago

margalabargala 4mo ago

Respectfully, that's a crock of nonsense. "It's not at absolute zero, therefore there's some chemical process going on, therefore we don't know if it's causing significant portions of cancer"? The number of things you can say that about is frankly infinite. You have zero reason to believe that any of the "chemical processes" that happen to an apple (or any food) in long term storage have anything to do with cancer. This is a great example of correlation not equaling causation. You might as well say that writing years starting with a "2" could cause particular risks that account for a significant portion of cancer because of the different motions of our hand affecting our lymphatic system etc etc. Irresponsible fearmongering with no foundation whatsoever.

wemwemwem 4mo ago
Science is building hypothesis and testing them. It is not saying it seems unlikely so I don't care. You can look up the changes to green beans depending if they are fresh, shipped a huge distance without bring frozen or frozen. Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity, but you just don't care?
- cindyllm 4mo ago
  [dead]
- margalabargala 4mo ago
  > Science is building hypothesis and testing them. Bad science is building hypothesis and promulgating it publicly alongside zero evidence whatsoever. The discussion is about stored apples specifically causing increased cancer rates, paired with an arbitrary woo categorization of "living" vs "dead" food. OP wondered why this did not occupy a larger portion of public discourse. Again, this hypothesis exists alongside humans writing more years whose first digit is "2", as evidence-supported cancer progenitors. > Some nutrients change, these changes could affect satiety which could affect obesity Yes, if you walk back the "living vs dead" woo concept and expand the scope to more varieties of foods than just apples and more processing methods than passively storing otherwise intact fruit, then you exit the zero evidence crackpot zone. Lots of crackpot woo theories are similarly half a step away from real evidence-supported theories. Another example would be biodynamic agriculture, which looks a lot like organic and integrated farming practices right up until you get to the part about burying ground quartz stuffed into the horn of a cow so you can harvest cosmic forces in the soil.
  - wemwemwem 4mo ago
    Passively storing (whole) fruit changes fruit, I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories but you shouldn't just dismiss things as not happening to try to take them away from fad theories that have a story that propels them above a lack of evidence. This makes it all the more popular to hold theories as faith and argue that everyone does.
    - margalabargala 4mo ago
      > I'm sorry if that aligns with crackpot theories Don't be sorry! Instead of apologizing, all I ask is that you notice, read, and internalize the part where the objection is to "and therefore that's why cancer rates are increasing".

tptacek 4mo ago

Stored apples are not causing cancer.

wemwemwem 4mo ago
[flagged]
- UncleMeat 4mo ago
  You can write this same exact comment when saying that 5G might cause autism or the covid vaccine might cause cancer.
  - wemwemwem 4mo ago
    Not really, no. Cancer and autism and their trends predate 5g and covid.
    - UncleMeat 4mo ago
      This trend is also not aligned on the timeline with a global food system where food travels long distances before it is eaten.
      - wemwemwem 4mo ago
        In terms of the crackpot theory I'd suspect more people ate longer stored food in 1980 than today. In terms of changes that could explain a rise in a very infrequent thing I'd suspect a lot more people eat a measurable amount of transcontinental "fresh" which probably has a lot more nutritional loss than frozen for example.
        UncleMeat 4mo ago
        An awful lot of "I'd suspect." I'll let the professional researchers work to tease it out.
  - 4mo ago