My father was a big tea drinker, was eating a lot vegetables and fruits... but died of cancer. The think is cancer is so complex you can’t avoid it with TL;DR.
Reducing your cancer risk is more about delaying getting cancer until something else killed you.
People talk about actions gaining or losing X time from someone’s life. That should not be taken literally as it’s simply a way to interpret statistics. Much like how playing the lottery is a net loss of around 50% of the ticket price. That does not mean you always get 1$ back from a 2$ ticket.
Not to mention that years of potential life lost is tricky to define, and the method in vogue isn't very good: take all the people with a condition, filter that group down to those who died before age X, and the years of potential life lost is the difference between X and the ages of death. Funnily enough, this method says the name "John" is a condition which reduces your expected lifespan.
The method can be improved, but after a certain point it's just a bad imitation of relative survival.
But that isn't quite it actually.
They identified different clusters of foods having higher amounts of certain classes of chemicals that have anti-cancer properties. TLDR eat your vegetables and drink your tea is perhaps justified so long as the vegetables you choose encompass enough from all these groups.
I chose the highest concentrated and most common items among the six classes listed:
1.
Carrot
Cabbage
Oranges
2.
GreenTea
Grapes
Apple
Peanut
3.
Cucumber
Garlic
Tomato
4.
Bean
Lentil
Radish
Peas
5.
Olive
Soy Bean
Potato
6.
Avacado
Peach
Onion
Rice
If I were to make a dried superfood, I'd want to combine all these together.
> Plant-based foods (i.e. derived from fruits and vegetables) are particularly rich in cancer-beating molecules . . . Evidence from experimental studies has implicated multiple mechanisms of action by which dietary agents contribute to the prevention or treatment of various cancers
I prefer to say that a lack of fruits and vegetables causes cancer rather than they prevent cancer. Logically equivalent, but it leads me to consider them normal and packaged food abnormal.
Anyone can define normal for him or herself, but this way motivates me to eat more of them, as does discovering through experience how much more delicious they can be.
Some studies linked meat to cancer due to viruses, viral particles, prions and other molecules present in the meat.
That said dietary studies are extremely hard to conduct in a controlled manner and thus replicate.
A diet which is heavy on plant based foods might be cancer preventative since you need to consume calories; additional plant material itself might contain molecules that help you combat cancer or at least serve as a barrier to potential carcinogenic pathogens.
As far as cancer and meat consumption goes it seems that pork and beef are the biggest offenders it’s not clear yet if it’s simply because they contain more pathogens which can impact humans as they are mammals or because those meats tend to be consumed at larger amounts.
Poultry and fish don’t seem to have as much impact with the latter showing no increase in cancer at all by most studies iirc.
Which link various pathogens native to the species consumed to cancer in humans as apparently the compounds that arise from cooking or processing meat which also appear in poultry and fish do not increase cancer risk by as much (or at all) as mammalian meat especially beef and pork despite having the same or even higher concentration of these compounds.
I was wondering if there was any merit to a theory I once saw, and if it is called something or written up somewhere as I lost track of it.
If it is total nonsense, that would be great to know as well.
To the best of my memory, it goes along the lines of the following.
Most plant matter, in particular the parts that are considered vegetables(stems, leaves, roots), have a toxicity to prevent consumption by animals.
Many animals are immune to most or all components that would be very toxic if not processed by digestion, the liver, enzymes, etc.
But the act of processing the plant matter, in and of itself, minor amount of toxic residuals or derivatives from processing, or minor amounts of unprocessed toxins present that are not enough to be harmful in small quantities, keep organs and the immune system challenged and exercised, like how exercise keeps your strength up and your body challenged.
An exercised immune system and organs, while not perfect, are much better at keeping anomalies such as cancer minimal and fighting cancer overall.
No, I'm familiar with the concept but the OP was specifically talking about plant toxins.
I don't know if the idea of extreme dilution and water memory have always been a part of homeopathy. I don't believe those ideas have any merit. They seem like a perversion of legitimate herbal medicine. Perhaps I should have lead with that...
Photosynthesis generates a huge amount of free radicals and oxygenated byproducts. Plants are loaded with antioxidants to protect themselves from all this.
As a species we’ve evolved to piggyback off this process instead of doing the hard work of generating these protective compounds ourselves.
On the general topic of healthy eating, anti-cancer foods and general disease prevention through diet, I found the (sensationally titled) book How Not to Die[0] pretty interesting and quite motivating. Would love any other recommendations or critical reviews!
Actually, that's complete wrong and ignorant naturalistic fallacy.
There's anti-nutrients:
- raw spinach contains oxalate which can cause kidney stones and interferes with calcium absorption
- raw kidney beans contain chemicals which clump red blood cells together
- omega-6's and -9's aren't as good for you compared to -3's and -7's
- soybeans contain estrogen-like molecules
- hopefully not 5-HT2B or hERG ant/agonists
- whatever compounds we don't yet know about
There's anti-nutrients depends on your genes and gender:
- men shouldn't eat large quantities of chia seeds because of the increased risks of certain cancers
- certain vitamins decrease risks for certain diseases while increasing risks for others.
There are molecules which aren't found in nature that are generally superior:
- metformin - the only (so far) phase IV clinical trial as a "life extension" molecule that actually seems to work
Ideally, in the future, each person can have relatively neutral substrate plant ingredients genetically-modified to tailor an intentional diet to their age, gender, activity, genetics, epigenetics and microbiome.
Exactly this; also, as a computational biologist I cringe at the stacking of dubious models that produced this "mapping". First is the "interactome", a terrible way to model biology, which is used to predict drug interactions, a highly dubious proposition, which is used to identify similarly-acting molecules in foods, again highly dubious - this isn't even GIGO, it's GIGIGIGO. And at the end of the day, none of this crummy methodology is going to result in any wisdom superior to "eat more kale". It's unfortunate that this is the prism certain investigators have trapped themselves in.
It's also important to select against anti-nutrients. And to select not just what's in "raw" ingredients, but scientifically-precise, repeatable steps to processing them with much higher precision, i.e., cooking/baking/boiling at such a temperature profile for so many milliseconds, grinding with a certain type of machine for exactly..., etc.
I think the notion that you can eat your way to health or longevity is wishful thinking. We all want to solve our health issues by eating, which is an activity we enjoy.
In reality, the positive impact on your metabolic, bio, age, and cancer markers of not eating anything (fasting) are marked and distinct as opposed to magical formulas of "dark colored vegetables" and "antioxidants" and "polyphenols" whose effects are difficult to ascertain at best and at worst are probably non-existent.[1]
If there were some combination of blueberries and red wine and pomegranates and acai juice that made us live noticeably longer, or more disease free, we would know it. We wouldn't have overlooked it accidentally. We are hardly the first people to think long and hard about the problems of aging. What we do know is that vigorous exercise and calorie restriction make people immediately healthier and less afflicted by disease - cancer and otherwise.
It's quite sad, frankly, how terrible and unacceptable that simple recipe is for so many people. People are, literally, dying to not exercise.
[1] For a good discussion of the inability for "antioxidants" to reach the inner portion of the cell where the "oxidation" occurs and for a discussion as to how bad that might be if it could happen (oxidation and free radicals are probably essential cell signaling methods that cause ill mannered cells to commit apoptosis, or "suicide"), I recommend the excellent book _Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life_ by Nick Lane.
There are actually strong links between diet and health. Eating a lot of vegetables lowers the risk of quite some diseases including cancer and heart diseases. The western diet seems to be particularly unhealthy in that regard.
It's not about eating more, but about eating different things.
"There are actually strong links between diet and health."
Agreed. The strongest link being, restriction of over-eating. We've known about this link since before the time of Moses.
"Eating a lot of vegetables lowers the risk of quite some diseases including cancer and heart diseases."
Probably because one can only eat so much and the vegetables crowd out the meat and dairy in the diet. Probably not because of special, magic flavonoid chemicals.
That's an interesting idea. I thinks it's definitely part of the benefit vegetables give.
Vegetables also contain a lot of vitamins and minerals that we require and a lot of fibers that are beneficial to gut bacteria. These are also linked to good health, so I don't think you you leave out vegetables, even if you wouldn't replace them with meat and dairy.
It is remarkable how so many tech spaces seem to be positively marketing eating disorders nowadays. Like, seriously, some of the rhetoric here is very similar to stuff I've seen on pro-ana spaces.
Please, it may be physically healthier to fast, but it's a very easy slippery slope into full-on EDs. Eat, but eat less if you want the benefits.
Instead of full on fasting there is the option of "intermittent feeding", where you only eat part of the day, without restricting calories. This has some very interesting health benefits [1].
37 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 51.7 ms ] threadPeople talk about actions gaining or losing X time from someone’s life. That should not be taken literally as it’s simply a way to interpret statistics. Much like how playing the lottery is a net loss of around 50% of the ticket price. That does not mean you always get 1$ back from a 2$ ticket.
The method can be improved, but after a certain point it's just a bad imitation of relative survival.
You can massively reduce your risk of diseases like diabetes or heart disease with a healthy diet.
Diet can also reduce cancer risk but the effect is much smaller so even with an ideal diet genetics and environmental factors can be more important.
I chose the highest concentrated and most common items among the six classes listed:
1. Carrot Cabbage Oranges
2. GreenTea Grapes Apple Peanut
3. Cucumber Garlic Tomato
4. Bean Lentil Radish Peas
5. Olive Soy Bean Potato
6. Avacado Peach Onion Rice
If I were to make a dried superfood, I'd want to combine all these together.
I prefer to say that a lack of fruits and vegetables causes cancer rather than they prevent cancer. Logically equivalent, but it leads me to consider them normal and packaged food abnormal.
Anyone can define normal for him or herself, but this way motivates me to eat more of them, as does discovering through experience how much more delicious they can be.
That said dietary studies are extremely hard to conduct in a controlled manner and thus replicate.
A diet which is heavy on plant based foods might be cancer preventative since you need to consume calories; additional plant material itself might contain molecules that help you combat cancer or at least serve as a barrier to potential carcinogenic pathogens.
As far as cancer and meat consumption goes it seems that pork and beef are the biggest offenders it’s not clear yet if it’s simply because they contain more pathogens which can impact humans as they are mammals or because those meats tend to be consumed at larger amounts.
Poultry and fish don’t seem to have as much impact with the latter showing no increase in cancer at all by most studies iirc.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...
Fish cooked at high temperatures is also not good.
Which link various pathogens native to the species consumed to cancer in humans as apparently the compounds that arise from cooking or processing meat which also appear in poultry and fish do not increase cancer risk by as much (or at all) as mammalian meat especially beef and pork despite having the same or even higher concentration of these compounds.
If it is total nonsense, that would be great to know as well.
To the best of my memory, it goes along the lines of the following.
Most plant matter, in particular the parts that are considered vegetables(stems, leaves, roots), have a toxicity to prevent consumption by animals.
Many animals are immune to most or all components that would be very toxic if not processed by digestion, the liver, enzymes, etc.
But the act of processing the plant matter, in and of itself, minor amount of toxic residuals or derivatives from processing, or minor amounts of unprocessed toxins present that are not enough to be harmful in small quantities, keep organs and the immune system challenged and exercised, like how exercise keeps your strength up and your body challenged.
An exercised immune system and organs, while not perfect, are much better at keeping anomalies such as cancer minimal and fighting cancer overall.
But this is a detectable amount of damage, so it's not homeopathy.
I don't know if the idea of extreme dilution and water memory have always been a part of homeopathy. I don't believe those ideas have any merit. They seem like a perversion of legitimate herbal medicine. Perhaps I should have lead with that...
As a species we’ve evolved to piggyback off this process instead of doing the hard work of generating these protective compounds ourselves.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25663961
Brilliant book.
Your body needs food. Not soylent with a “cancer beating booster pack.”
Eating Kale, Spinach, or Lettuce won't have different “cancer beating” scores. Just eat leafy fucking vegetables.
There's anti-nutrients:
- raw spinach contains oxalate which can cause kidney stones and interferes with calcium absorption
- raw kidney beans contain chemicals which clump red blood cells together
- omega-6's and -9's aren't as good for you compared to -3's and -7's
- soybeans contain estrogen-like molecules
- hopefully not 5-HT2B or hERG ant/agonists
- whatever compounds we don't yet know about
There's anti-nutrients depends on your genes and gender:
- men shouldn't eat large quantities of chia seeds because of the increased risks of certain cancers
- certain vitamins decrease risks for certain diseases while increasing risks for others.
There are molecules which aren't found in nature that are generally superior:
- metformin - the only (so far) phase IV clinical trial as a "life extension" molecule that actually seems to work
Ideally, in the future, each person can have relatively neutral substrate plant ingredients genetically-modified to tailor an intentional diet to their age, gender, activity, genetics, epigenetics and microbiome.
In reality, the positive impact on your metabolic, bio, age, and cancer markers of not eating anything (fasting) are marked and distinct as opposed to magical formulas of "dark colored vegetables" and "antioxidants" and "polyphenols" whose effects are difficult to ascertain at best and at worst are probably non-existent.[1]
If there were some combination of blueberries and red wine and pomegranates and acai juice that made us live noticeably longer, or more disease free, we would know it. We wouldn't have overlooked it accidentally. We are hardly the first people to think long and hard about the problems of aging. What we do know is that vigorous exercise and calorie restriction make people immediately healthier and less afflicted by disease - cancer and otherwise.
It's quite sad, frankly, how terrible and unacceptable that simple recipe is for so many people. People are, literally, dying to not exercise.
[1] For a good discussion of the inability for "antioxidants" to reach the inner portion of the cell where the "oxidation" occurs and for a discussion as to how bad that might be if it could happen (oxidation and free radicals are probably essential cell signaling methods that cause ill mannered cells to commit apoptosis, or "suicide"), I recommend the excellent book _Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life_ by Nick Lane.
It's not about eating more, but about eating different things.
Agreed. The strongest link being, restriction of over-eating. We've known about this link since before the time of Moses.
"Eating a lot of vegetables lowers the risk of quite some diseases including cancer and heart diseases."
Probably because one can only eat so much and the vegetables crowd out the meat and dairy in the diet. Probably not because of special, magic flavonoid chemicals.
Vegetables also contain a lot of vitamins and minerals that we require and a lot of fibers that are beneficial to gut bacteria. These are also linked to good health, so I don't think you you leave out vegetables, even if you wouldn't replace them with meat and dairy.
Please, it may be physically healthier to fast, but it's a very easy slippery slope into full-on EDs. Eat, but eat less if you want the benefits.
Physical healthiness is the metric I am optimizing for.
It's still advisable not to overeat, obviously.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/
[edit] typo