Food Politics

[...] Here is an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEat mostly foods of plant origin. Limit intake of red meat and avoid processed meat. Limit alcoholic drinks. Limit consumption of salt. Avoid mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes). Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone. … [...]

[...] years of research, the committee doing the report has ten recommendations. …Original post by Marion delivered by Medtrials and [...]

[...] Marion wrote an interesting post today on Diet, nutrition, and cancer prevention: the latest wordHere’s a quick excerptEat mostly foods of plant origin. Limit intake of red meat and avoid processed meat. Limit alcoholic drinks. Limit consumption of salt. Avoid mouldy cereals (grains) or pulses (legumes). Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone. … [...]

All wonderful stuff. But it tends to perpetuate the feeling that “If you get cancer, it’s your fault you slugabed meat-eating candy-hound, you.” I’m not sure that’s useful.

Also missing from the report so far is some sense of scale or perspective on these findings. Obesity is related to an increase in esophageal cancer? What is the MAGNITUDE of that effect? Are we talking about doubling the risk from 0.02% to 0.04%? Or what?

This blind and blanket talk of gives rise to gross misperceptions. “Broccoli fights cancer.”

[...] can read the full story here No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]

“Limit intake of red meat.”

Do I eat red meat to keep my carb intake down and my intake of beneficial? saturated fat up, which I’ve read (via advocates of low-carb diets) will decrease my risk for cancer?

Or do I limit red meat which, by some mechanism?, will reduce my risk for cancer?

Okay, I actually looked at the data in the report.

Mostly epidemiology. Correlations only. Which has its own problems. Although they somehow found a way to “Find causality in correlations.”

Virtually ALL the ‘correlations’ are RR, relative risk, and TINY.

Oddly, many of the actual recommendations aren’t even supported by their own results.

Sandy Szwarc does an excellent review here:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/jfs-exclusive-whats-evidence-cancers.html

If it’s true, Anton, as you and Sandy Szwarc say, that none of these recommendations are valid … what does influence the initiation and progression of cancer? I mean, if not body weight, diet, physical activity … then what? What should researchers be studying instead? (Not being contrary, just really wondering.)

My guess is, diet doesn’t have a whole lot to do with cancer. Maybe a bit around the margins. If it diet were that pivotal — on the order of asbestos exposure or smoking — the effect would get more and more pronounced the more you study it. And it clearly doesn’t. You need 1,200 studies to see even small effects.

I’m guessing that any food or component studied thus far isn’t a big factor in cancer.

No idea what it is, but I doubt that its food.

[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe American Institute for Cancer Research has just come out with an update report on its 1997 report on diet and cancer risk and prevention. After five years of research, the committee doing the report has ten recommendations. … [...]

I took a look at the link to Sandy Szwarc’s blog. I’m not a scientist, so I couldn’t review her analysis, but I did Google her, and found out that she’s associated with a couple of “astroturf” (ie, not grassroots) groups like Tech Central Station and the National Council Against Health Fraud.