11 ms·
The primary thrust of the article seems to be that because (1) the American Association for Cancer Research conference had a very small number of sessions on di
by joshpadnick 12y ago
The primary thrust of the article seems to be that because (1) the American Association for Cancer Research conference had a very small number of sessions on diet and cancer, and (2) a single follow-up study in 2007 concluded there was little link between diet and cancer that it must be true.
This is only one view and hardly comprehensive. If you read http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vegetables_cancer.aspx http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/vegetables_cancer.aspx by Joel Fuhrman, MD, you'll get a perspective on why the devil is in the details with many of these studies and why broad sweeping headlines like this one are often inaccurate.
Based on everything I've read on this subject -- The China Study, Eat to Live, and a few others -- I side with the Fuhrman article over the one published in the Star Tribune, a statewide newspaper for Minnesota.
- joshpadnick 12y agoSo, interesting follow-up as I researched this further. First, this article was just published last week in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/science/an-apple-a-day-and-other-myths.html?ref=science&_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/science/an-apple-a-day-and...). The Star Tribune was merely syndicating it. Second, it looks like the Joel Fuhrman, MD wrote a direct response to this article: http://eathealthyandthrive.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/the-nutrition-and-cancer-myth/ http://eathealthyandthrive.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/the-nutr... It's on a random Wordpress blog here, but this was sent out to his eNewsletter earlier this week (though not posted on his website).
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]