Global trends in incidence, death, burden and risk factors of early-onset cancer
bmjoncology.bmj.com
bmjoncology.bmj.com
> "In 2019, after breast cancer, the digestive and respiratory systems of early-onset cancer were mainly responsible for the deaths."
However, it's risk conclusion is that "Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers." - but, they don't even mention industrial and secondary exposures to carcinogenic chemicals, even though this has been a well-described cause of early-onset cancer for over 100 years, and of course the respiratory and digestive tract - which is where early-onset cancers are showing up - are obvious immediate targets for carcinogenic environmental pollutants. E.g.:
"Outdoor air pollution and cancer: an overview of the current evidence and public health recommendations" (2022)
"Cumulative risk analysis of carcinogenic contaminants in United States drinking water" (2019)
Any study that chooses to completely ignore this factor in favor of blaming the rising rates of early-onset cancer on 'personal dietary choices' should be tossed in the trash, it's the kind of thing an industrial PR group would generate in an effort to stop clean air/water/food regulations from being implemented.
Personal responsibility is basically corporate accountability laundering.
I believe that given the power imbalance of individuals vs corps, and the history of corporate messaging being insanely misleading, and of course ongoing regulatory capture, that we need a systematic approach at a high priority much more than we need more recommendations for "common sense" individual approaches.
"could"
There is no particular reason they study should be tossed in the trash, that is just you being dramatic. Both things are factors, not just one or another.
Things like environmental factors need other studies that show differences in places that increase/decrease pollution and the incident rate change in cancers as that occurs.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/intense-exercise-capacity-can...
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/o...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201026114229.h...
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/metastatic-cancer-...
... and so on
Is that what the diet looks like in obese people?
Frankly it sounds like exactly what obese people should be eating: swap out highly palatable foods with beans, broccoli, and bulgur.
"Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers."
Telling people to eat fewer, not more, whole grains to prevent T2DM and cancer is peak HNism:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198
and high-fat, high-saturated fat diets actually make insulin sensitivity worse:
Every internet meme gets more and more extreme.
I have personally tried fresh vegetable juice only for 30 days and I think it's amazing. I didn't even drink any actual water for 30 days, since I was drinking 1 gallon+ of vegetable juice a day (fresh juiced at home, not pasteurized garbage).
I personally think the ideal diet would be vegetable juice plus some beef. Which is what most people would say ("hey, just eat a lot of salad and some meat sparingly"). Except it's way easier to drink 8 lbs of vegetables than it is to eat them.
Then we won't have to deal with these bro scientists anymore.
For example, the high carb SAD being defacto is a new thing. It became the default around the same time as the agricultural revolution and mass media. Before that, there were lots of of options. During the period where mass media ruled, their was only one zeitgeist (brought to you by Kellogg’s!), but now with the internet we are back to historical norms where those with means are able to find advice free of commercial incentives and regulatory capture. For example, low carb has been around for centuries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet#histor...
> Six out of the 12 food-groups showed a significant relation with risk of T2D, three of them a decrease of risk with increasing consumption (whole grains, fruits, and dairy),
I think you misread my post, or misread the study. Whole grains are some of the healthiest foods you can eat, especially when it comes to reducing your risk of T2DM, while the person I was replying to implied the opposite:
> Thirteen studies with 29,633 T2D cases were included in the high vs. low intake meta-analysis (overall intake range: 0–302 g/day). Comparing extreme categories, a strong inverse association between T2D and whole grain intake was observed (RR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.71–0.84, I2 = 86%) (Supplementary Figure S1). Each additional daily 30 g of whole grains was inversely associated with T2D risk (RR: 0.87; 95% CI 0.82–0.93, I2 = 91%, n = 12 studies) (Supplementary Figure S2). The inverse associations and heterogeneity persisted in additional analyses stratified by sex, age, follow-up length, geographic location, number of cases, dietary assessment, and outcome assessment (Supplementary Table S14). Evidence of heterogeneity between subgroups in stratified analyses was observed for geographic location, dietary assessment method, and outcome assessment. There was significant evidence for small study effects in the high versus low meta-analysis, but not in the dose–response meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the funnel plot suggests that small studies showing positive association may be missing (Supplementary Figure S25). There was evidence of a non-linear dose–response association; the risk of T2D decreased by 25% with increasing intake of whole grains up to ~50 g/day. Small benefits for increasing intake above this value were observed (Fig. 2).
1. High-fat diets, as done in your 3rd paper and as done in most "high fat" studies, are incorrectly labeled such. "High-fat diet (HFD, n = 10: 55 % fat/25 % saturated fat/27 % carbohydrate)"[0] is not what the parent meant by "reducing sugar and carbs altogether instead of promoting whole grains as they do." A more honest interpretation would be "max 40g carbs, the rest fats and proteins." This is because the main benefits of such a diet only come out when carbohydrates are severely restricted -- as has been known for a while now.
2. Linking papers, without any sort of commentary or notion as to the reason for their inclusion, is in poor taste. In most cases this is done when the poster themselves haven't thoroughly read the articles in question. I won't go so far as to say this has been done today, but I will say it is a disrespect of our time to post lengthy papers without any sort of reasoning behind why they've been posted.
3. The first two links (technically one paper)[1][2] are statistical analyses of different food groups and their association with type 2 diabetes. The same error is done here as has been mentioned in my first point: without controlling for the whole diet, and using a very low carb, high fat/protein diet, the findings are irrelevant. Risk ratios are a notable finding, not a be-all end-all. Correlation is not causation. Continue platitudes ad infinitum and ad nauseam.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5291812/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506108/ [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31198
Where's the evidence? I linked to a study, one that isn't confounded by weight-loss (unlike the studies you people like to cite) demonstrating that as the fat (especially saturated fat) content of the diet increased to an absurd degree (55%!), insulin sensitivity tanked. Why would insulin sensitivity, when measured by an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, suddenly improve if you restricted carbohydrate even further? Yeah, at some point your intake will be so low that you can "game" an HbA1c or fasting BG test, but underlying insulin sensitivity will be trash (which an OGTT would show), unless maybe you lose enough bodyfat to offset it.
Why do so many people on keto develop "physiological insulin resistance?" Why does all of the epidemiological evidence show strong inverse correlations between low-fat carbohydrate consumption (like whole grains and fruits) and T2DM, but the reverse for high-fat "carbs" like cookies or pizza?
The most reasonable interpretation of the data right now is that high-fat diets make you less insulin sensitive.
Nonetheless, I found it easy to find studies showing the exact opposite. So I think the situation is not so clear-cut as you write.
What do you mean with "losing enough bodyfat to offset it"?
No one is getting fat off of oatmeal with berries and raw oranges, they're getting fat off all the cinnamon-sugar they slather on top of the oatmeal and the glass of no-pulp orange juice with added sugar they have as a beverage.
Also fast food and sodas.
The real problem becomes very obvious if you prepare the fruit juice yourself:
The fruit needed to produce even a single glass of apple or orange juice (which is quite easy to drink/sip quickly) is a lot if you were to consume it raw (basically not doable, or at least I'm not gonna eat like 4 apples at once).
Juicing fruit makes it much easier to overconsume fruit sugar.
It's worse than simply making it easier to consume large quantities of fruit. Even if you consume only the same amount of fruit as you would be willing to eat unprocessed juicing it makes the sugars more available so that you over consume even without appearing to consume a lot.
The thing is, most of the pulp stays in the juicing machine regardless. Thats why you don't drink solid apple, just juice from it. So I eat those fruits, but oranges almost never, apples more so. Vegetables are so much healthier, a good bio carrot is my friend #1 also due to better processing of sunshine in the skin.
You can teach yourself almost anything with a smidge of discipline, but its much easier if your parents just dont fuck up your upbringing and don't make this and other junkfood into some idiotic rewards (or just don't care at all), so you just continue that trend into adulthood.
The summary says red meat and low-fruit diets (which obviously have carbs) increase the risk of cancer as much if not more.
Why would they push for a keto diet if the evidence that it's beneficial is contradictory?
The abstract didn't suggest the authors filtered out more recent methods of detection from their data (i.e. detections based only on 1990-era tests like physical exam, 2D X-Ray, etc).
Early detection is one thing, but is cancer generally hard to detect by the time it's fatal?
This seems like we're just getting better at detecting cancer earlier (especially breast cancer), and preventing it from killing you younger - not that cancer is a way bigger problem.
In fact - if you look at deaths - it also looks like it's down for most things, too - breast cancer being a major outlier.
But everyone else seems to be interpreting this the other way - so I'm hoping someone can explain why the DALY figures don't mean what I think they mean.
Treatment has been pretty decent for at least 10 years.
I'm surprised that deaths per 100k are up. I'm not sure if they adjusted this to account for the fact that the global population is older now than in 1990.
But DALYs should cover that (which is still a strange outlier for breast cancer, but nothing major).
> Dietary risk factors (diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc), alcohol consumption and tobacco use are the main risk factors underlying early-onset cancers.
Usually with zero actual supporting data
Milk has lots of protein, minerals, and fat. Whether that's good or bad depends on how much of those you're getting from other sources.
Diet high in red meat: Nope. Only if your diet is also high in carbs (the American diet). Eating a grass fed steak with some broccoli and walnuts on the side. Ok. Eating a steak with baked potato and chocolate brownie for dessert, na.
High in sodium: Nope. Only if your diet is also high in carbs
Low in milk: Lol
Alcohol consumption: Yes
Tobacco use: Yes
Cope. Of course adding broccoli and walnuts will make it healthier. Now substitute meat for beans and it will be even healthier.
Apple juice, sure, but whole apples? You're gonna need to back that claim up with some pretty strong evidence.
edit: Parent post originally stated something about the "enshittification of the US".
Companies like 3M, Bayer, Dow, Shell and BP are polluting the whole world directly. Companies like H&M and Primark are doing it indirectly by using the cheapest supplier for mass market crap they sell. I recently heard that most bamboo fiber (which westerners buy because they think it's environmentally friendly) is produced in China, because the chemicals needed are extremely toxic and hard to properly process. In China they are just released into nature and as long as the Chinese company says they don't do that, the western companies can say they buy 'good fibers' and turn a blind eye to the pollution. This way we spread our love all around the world.
A lot of crappy food choices were spearheaded, exported, and promoted to death, by the US, anyway.
It seems it's the chemical we're putting in ourselves. No government blame needed.
That and the myriad of agricultural subsidies and especially corn subsides. Most Americans are above 50% corn… the same way my cat is made of water and cat food. Whether though consuming it directly or through meat and dairy fed on corn.
The end result has been the SAD as we know it: food that’s cheap and profitable but unhealthy.
we do an about face on lots of “dietary risk factors” every 5-10 years
I do agree that it makes no sense to blame the mortality on smoking. The change in smoking is clearly not what is leading it.
Where does it say that alcohol and tobacco consumption have increased in the time period? In fact for at least one group, as expected, it's decreased as a ranking factor.
So - while it's absolutely true that individuals must take responsibility for their choices, it seems reasonable to associate the increase with trends that have increased - highly processed foods etc. Not alcohol and tobacco.
The criticism of government inaction and lobbying therefore seems a good default position to take.
This has been facilitated by food industry compliant with legislators, so there's a lot of government blame needed.
low carb, low inflammatory, high protein ratio combined with heady/meaty lettuces and non root veggies.
the american food pyramid is a farse and drastically needs to be updated.
Norfolk Southern still exists and still makes money off of critical infrastructure.
Deny justice long enough, and people will get their own in the worst way possible one day.
Travel based medicine, science based medicine, AI based medicine, all seem like a welcome change from the US's Authority Based Medicine.
The study said "(diet high in red meat, low in fruits, high in sodium and low in milk, etc)"
which basically means "everywhere in the first world" since red meat is often too expensive in 3rd-world settings. And globalization means that every first world country is using the same products.
You know, novel technologically produced chemicals (or natural chemicals in unnatural quantities) that may have negative impact on your body that we either are unaware of or have underestimated.
I would say it's actually a lot easier than eating meat, because meat doesn't keep for long unless it's frozen, and is very expensive if you want anything high quality and ethically sourced.
Low sodium is still hard though.
While no drugs are the best, with weed being a replacement for alcohol you can imagine that 1% of deaths from car accidents is going to go down, not to mention liver failure/cancer/etc...
I think millennials will continue to be drinkers, but there is a chance zoomers will make the switch.