4 ms·

I have heard this argument a lot, and I've also heard there is data to refute it. I haven't looked up the references, but this is covered in several nutrition

I have heard this argument a lot, and I've also heard there is data to refute it. I haven't looked up the references, but this is covered in several nutrition books I have read, including: The Diet Delusion by Gary Taubes, In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan, and The Perfect Health Diet by Paul Jaminet. The observation is always the same: Cancer is one of the "western diseases" that starts appearing in native populations when they are exposed to colonists. And it's not just because of longer lives: people start getting cancer at higher rates at earlier ages. Taubes blames the problem on insulin-like growth hormone that is secreted in response to high-carbohydrate foods, and creates an environment perfect for rapid cell growth. Pollan doesn't speculate on the cause, other than to say that there is something wrong with the western diet. Jaminet speculates that we will find more types of cancer are cause by infectious agents, since cell immortality and rapid reproduction is a perfect strategy for a virus and since we have found several so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_causes_of_cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_causes_of_cancer

scott_s 12y ago
I will second endersshadow's recommendation, and suggest that you read "The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer". The author talks about this subject, and the evidence he presents is that cancer has always been with us.
- evanmoran 12y ago
  For those interested. This book won a Pulitzer in 2011 (http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction). That's pretty strong evidence that it's well researched and worth checking out.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Florin_Andrei 12y ago
That's pseudo-science. Galen in 2nd century AD observed cancer, and used the term "oncos" to describe it. Celsus in 1st century AD did the same, and used the term "cancer" for the first time. Hippocrates in 4th century BC described several different types of cancer and called them, generically, "carcinos" ("crab" in Greek). Egyptian texts from at least 1600 BC, with some going back to 3000 BC, describe different cases of cancer, noting with regret: "there is no treatment". Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago and more, suffered from various types of cancer such as hemangioma, desmoplastic fibroma, and osteoblastoma. Cancer is, has been, and always will be the evil shadow of all multicellular life. Please, don't take your medical and scientific information from a "liberal foodie intellectual" with a B.A. in English (not that there's anything wrong with any of these attributes in particular, they're just not qualifications to talk competently about cancer). http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-what-is-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer... http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerd... http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer1.htm http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer... http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors_in_dinosaurs http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/
- gone35 12y ago
  Well; the fact that cancer was known in antiquity and that it is found in the fossil record in itself doesn't say anything about its adjusted prevalence[1] which, as it happens, was indeed much lower than it is in modern societies today. From your fourth link[2]: "An interesting phenomenon has arisen during the course of multi-year studies related to the rarity of cancer in antiquity. This is of interest especially when considering that hundreds of Egyptian mummies and more than 10,000 dinosaur bones were evaluated. In contrast, the rate of cancer incidence has dramatically increased since the Industrial Revolution. The rarity of cancer in antiquity has been attributed to the lack of pollution and changes in diet and lifestyle, and most recent findings suggest that cancer may be a manmade disease (Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733). Thus, while a lack of adequate techniques for disease diagnosis and detection may partially explain the overall lack of cancer found during the millennia, the current cancer trends are now primarily associated with carcinogens in our modern industrialized society (Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733)." I am not a fan of pseudo-scientific, moral-panicky speculations about the evils of "modern life" from the likes of Pollan et al. myself; but in this particular case, as your article explains, there is considerable evidence that cancer (standardized) prevalence was indeed much lower in pre-modern societies. Also, for some types such as colorectal cancers, some dietary habits (prevalent, as it happens, in modern societies) are very well-known and well-established risk factors, accounting for up to a 70% increase in relative risk in some studies [3]. As I said: I symphatize with your view, but be mindful of confirmation bias. [1] Eg. controlling for age and other risk factors in the study population. [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796096/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796096/
  - Florin_Andrei 12y ago
    I agree that we have more cancers today. I was just strongly disagreeing that it's an entirely new phenomenon, or mostly determined by food choices.
SoftwareMaven 12y ago
When you lay an argument out like this, it's easy to knock over, however, that doesn't mean that there isn't some truth in it. It's abundantly clear that the Western lifestyle is carcinogenic, especially for certain types of cancer, like colorectal, prostate and breast cancers. The actual causes are less well understood. One hypothesis is that we live longer, but given studies that have tracked aboriginal people who moved into cities and compared them against their native kin have shown an increase in the Western cancers, that hypothesis is weak at best. Beyond the unhealthy SAD ("standard American diet"), we also have pollutants, stressors, and who knows what else that can influence cancer. So you're left with a slew of variables and a lot of sick people. Fifty years ago, cancer was seen as a metabolic disorder, and maybe some are. One of the largest pieces of evidence for this is cancer's inability to metabolize anything but glucose for energy. Cancers that are metabolic diseases would certainly be affected negatively by a growth-hormone-rich environment coupled with consistent access to as much blood sugar as the cancer wants. Trying to oversimplify with "it's the bread" causes a near visceral reaction in many people, which is unfortunate, because, while it may not be the bread, the bread may be acting as Miracle Grow for the cancer. For me, I'm choosing a diet that, hopefully, won't be an energy smorgasbord for tumors.

scott_s 12y ago

I will second endersshadow's recommendation, and suggest that you read "The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer". The author talks about this subject, and the evidence he presents is that cancer has always been with us.

evanmoran 12y ago
For those interested. This book won a Pulitzer in 2011 (http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2011-General-Nonfiction). That's pretty strong evidence that it's well researched and worth checking out.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

That's pseudo-science. Galen in 2nd century AD observed cancer, and used the term "oncos" to describe it. Celsus in 1st century AD did the same, and used the term "cancer" for the first time. Hippocrates in 4th century BC described several different types of cancer and called them, generically, "carcinos" ("crab" in Greek). Egyptian texts from at least 1600 BC, with some going back to 3000 BC, describe different cases of cancer, noting with regret: "there is no treatment". Dinosaurs, 65 million years ago and more, suffered from various types of cancer such as hemangioma, desmoplastic fibroma, and osteoblastoma. Cancer is, has been, and always will be the evil shadow of all multicellular life. Please, don't take your medical and scientific information from a "liberal foodie intellectual" with a B.A. in English (not that there's anything wrong with any of these attributes in particular, they're just not qualifications to talk competently about cancer). http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-what-is-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer... http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110716111312/http://www.cancerd... http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer1.htm http://www.bordet.be/en/presentation/history/cancer_e/cancer... http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors_in_dinosaurs http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/

gone35 12y ago
Well; the fact that cancer was known in antiquity and that it is found in the fossil record in itself doesn't say anything about its adjusted prevalence[1] which, as it happens, was indeed much lower than it is in modern societies today. From your fourth link[2]: "An interesting phenomenon has arisen during the course of multi-year studies related to the rarity of cancer in antiquity. This is of interest especially when considering that hundreds of Egyptian mummies and more than 10,000 dinosaur bones were evaluated. In contrast, the rate of cancer incidence has dramatically increased since the Industrial Revolution. The rarity of cancer in antiquity has been attributed to the lack of pollution and changes in diet and lifestyle, and most recent findings suggest that cancer may be a manmade disease (Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733). Thus, while a lack of adequate techniques for disease diagnosis and detection may partially explain the overall lack of cancer found during the millennia, the current cancer trends are now primarily associated with carcinogens in our modern industrialized society (Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733)." I am not a fan of pseudo-scientific, moral-panicky speculations about the evils of "modern life" from the likes of Pollan et al. myself; but in this particular case, as your article explains, there is considerable evidence that cancer (standardized) prevalence was indeed much lower in pre-modern societies. Also, for some types such as colorectal cancers, some dietary habits (prevalent, as it happens, in modern societies) are very well-known and well-established risk factors, accounting for up to a 70% increase in relative risk in some studies [3]. As I said: I symphatize with your view, but be mindful of confirmation bias. [1] Eg. controlling for age and other risk factors in the study population. [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/ [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796096/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796096/
- Florin_Andrei 12y ago
  I agree that we have more cancers today. I was just strongly disagreeing that it's an entirely new phenomenon, or mostly determined by food choices.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago

When you lay an argument out like this, it's easy to knock over, however, that doesn't mean that there isn't some truth in it. It's abundantly clear that the Western lifestyle is carcinogenic, especially for certain types of cancer, like colorectal, prostate and breast cancers. The actual causes are less well understood. One hypothesis is that we live longer, but given studies that have tracked aboriginal people who moved into cities and compared them against their native kin have shown an increase in the Western cancers, that hypothesis is weak at best. Beyond the unhealthy SAD ("standard American diet"), we also have pollutants, stressors, and who knows what else that can influence cancer. So you're left with a slew of variables and a lot of sick people. Fifty years ago, cancer was seen as a metabolic disorder, and maybe some are. One of the largest pieces of evidence for this is cancer's inability to metabolize anything but glucose for energy. Cancers that are metabolic diseases would certainly be affected negatively by a growth-hormone-rich environment coupled with consistent access to as much blood sugar as the cancer wants. Trying to oversimplify with "it's the bread" causes a near visceral reaction in many people, which is unfortunate, because, while it may not be the bread, the bread may be acting as Miracle Grow for the cancer. For me, I'm choosing a diet that, hopefully, won't be an energy smorgasbord for tumors.