PDA

View Full Version : Fruit and Veg do not guard against cancer!



Couldbebigga
08-26-2007, 03:30 PM
Wow, anyone seen this? Thoughts?


http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22306308-5006007,00.html

Eating healthy fruit, vegetables won't stop cancer

August 26, 2007 12:00am

FRUIT and vegetables provide no protection against cancer, according to latest Australian research that has shocked nutritionists.

In a discovery that turns conventional advice on its head, experts have admitted there is "zero evidence'' that eating fruit and vegetables can help people avoid a disease that kills nearly 40,000 Australians every year.


Research presented for the first time at last week's CSIRO Prospects for Cancer Prevention Symposium shows that what people eat is far less important in cancer prevention than previously believed.


Instead, the three prime risk factors driving up Australian cancer rates have been identified as obesity, drinking too much alcohol and smoking.


Staying within a healthy body weight range was found to be more important than following particular nutritional guidelines.


This means a slim person who doesn't eat enough fruit and vegetables would probably have a lower risk of developing cancer than someone who is overweight but eats the recommended daily amount of fruit and vegetables.


The findings emerged from the Cancer Council's Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study, an ongoing research project involving 42,000 Australians who have been monitored since 1990.


Revealed exclusively to The Sunday Telegraph, they challenge widespread belief in the power of juices and vegetable-based ``anti-cancer'' diets to avoid or fight various types of the disease.


Dr Peter Clifton, director of the CSIRO's Nutrition Clinic, told The Sunday Telegraph there was ``zero evidence'' that eating fruit and vegetables could protect against cancer.


Heart disease is Australia's biggest killer, so fruit and vegetables are still regarded as important in maintaining health.


Professor Dallas English, of the Cancer Council of Victoria, told the symposium that despite decades of research, there was no convincing evidence on how Australians could modify their diet to reduce the risk of cancer.


``The most important thing about diet is limiting energy (kilojoule) intake so people don't become overweight or obese, because this has emerged as a risk factor for a number of cancers, including breast, prostate, bowel and endometrial (uterus),'' he said.


The link between eating red meat and bowel cancer was ``weak'' and the Cancer Council supported guidelines advising people to eat red meat three or four times a week, Professor English said.


His advice comes after Health Minister Tony Abbott last week backed a report, funded by Meat & Livestock Australia, on the dietary role of red meat.


Surprisingly, fibre was deemed to have no significant benefit in avoiding bowel cancer _ although calcium was associated with a 20 per cent reduced risk.


Likewise, a high intake of fat, considered a prime culprit since the 1970s, was found to have only a ``modest'' link to breast cancer.


Smoking caused one in five cancer deaths, while regularly drinking too much alcohol boosted the risk of several cancers including breast and bowel, Professor English said.


He and Dr Clifton acknowledged that eating fruit and vegetables might help people avoid obesity, as they were lower in kilojoules than other foods.


``The risk of every type of cancer is increased by obesity,'' Dr Clifton added.


Both experts predict a surge in cancer as a result of Australia's obesity epidemic, but say exercise can play a vital role in cutting cancer rates, potentially halving the risk of some cancers.


Sydney mother Tauri Smart, 29, said the findings ``take the pressure off'' meal preparation.


She and her husband try to eat healthily and want to set a good example for their daughters Poppy, 3, and Sadie, six weeks.


``I've always tried to push fruit and vegetables, and have a vegetarian meal at least once a week,'' Ms Smart said. ``Being able to have meat makes it easier.''


Nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton cast doubt on the findings and suggested the study could be flawed.

XBlasphemyX
08-26-2007, 03:34 PM
A single study doesn't prove ****. Keep eating your fruits and veggies, you'll be glad you did.

IraHays
08-26-2007, 03:38 PM
A single study doesn't prove ****.

An study involving 42,000 people doesn't mean ****?

Couldbebigga
08-26-2007, 03:39 PM
A single study doesn't prove ****. Keep eating your fruits and veggies, you'll be glad you did.

That's the thing though, this isn't based on a single study. I was surprised too but the CSIRO are an incredibly good research insitute and are very respected in Australia.

This finding was also backed by the anti-cancer council in Australia. It's pretty significant I think.

XBlasphemyX
08-26-2007, 03:39 PM
An study involving 42,000 people doesn't mean ****?

Correct!

IraHays
08-26-2007, 03:41 PM
Correct!

LOL. ok.

BTW, do you still believe saturated fat causes heart disease?

XBlasphemyX
08-26-2007, 03:44 PM
LOL. ok.

BTW, do you still believe saturated fat causes heart disease?

Who me?

AKR
08-26-2007, 03:56 PM
alright, that's it. since previous scientists have been proven wrong, i'm giving up on all science and all healthy eating. no more of this alcohol/smoke/drug free lifestyle. i'm going to become a binging, over-eating, crack snorting, chain smoking nihilist. science is obvious worthless.

(note: this isn't directed at Couldbebigga)

LunicaAshes
08-26-2007, 04:07 PM
There are countless studies linking particular vitamins to cancer prevention. Most of them are found mainly in fruits and vegetables (and pills, often derived from those sources.) Lycopene from tomatoes and watermelon is a major one that comes to mind. A high veggie diet also keeps estrogen levels down for women, which decreases breast cancer risk.

Just because a fat smoker/drinker who eats fruits and veggies gets cancer and a skinny non-smoker/drinker who doesn't eat fruits and veggies does not get cancer doesn't mean they don't offer a benefit. For one thing, in order to eat healthy (ie: stay skinny as the study suggested) and still get plenty of nutrtition, they are important.

In order for this study to be meaningful, they'd have to have two groups of people where the only difference was veggies/fruit intake, then study the cancer risk/outcome. They are adding in too many other factors to be able to study fruit/veggie effect alone.

IraHays
08-26-2007, 04:11 PM
The link between eating red meat and bowel cancer was ``weak'' and the Cancer Council supported guidelines advising people to eat red meat three or four times a week, Professor English said.

I'm sure Peta loves this one. Of course there has never been a link between red meat and colon cancer, so I don't why this is surprising.




Surprisingly, fibre was deemed to have no significant benefit in avoiding bowel cancer _

I'm also glad they added this. This fibre BS has been going on for to long.

clovely
08-26-2007, 05:22 PM
I work for the American Cancer Society and I'm on the intranet site 24/7 (it's the tab open next to this window) and it's a constant flow of research results announced that consistently point to cancer rates being hugely affected by lifestyle choices. I wasn't able to find anything responding specifically to this study, though. I haven't read enough of this study to know how it was done or exactly what it might mean. But I know all of these things do have to be taken with a grain of salt. Even if eating fruits & vegetables only affects cancer rates because the more healthy a person's diet is, presumably, the less crap they're eating in general. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what a poor diet does to a person. And if the nutritional equivalent of a rocket scientist tries to claim otherwise, I'd say you need to look at who's paying that scientist.

thirsty4chicken
08-26-2007, 05:31 PM
A single study doesn't prove ****. Keep eating your fruits and veggies, you'll be glad you did.


An study involving 42,000 people doesn't mean ****?

Until other studies are published with the same result, this study means pretty much nothing.

Also, there is plenty of evidence out there that suggests anti-oxidants found in fruit have numerous health benefits, including cancer prevention.

Why are anti-oxidants good? Your body's cells like to stay in a reduced state. When there are oxidants running around, your cells and/or DNA may get damaged. The more anti-oxidants you have, the less likely you are do get oxidative damage.

Also, a the fiber in fruit would help prevent colon cancer. The list goes on.

BTW, I'm a cancer researcher and a medical student.

IraHays
08-26-2007, 06:02 PM
Until other studies are published with the same result, this study means pretty much nothing.

Also, there is plenty of evidence out there that suggests anti-oxidants found in fruit have numerous health benefits, including cancer prevention.

Why are anti-oxidants good? Your body's cells like to stay in a reduced state. When there are oxidants running around, your cells and/or DNA may get damaged. The more anti-oxidants you have, the less likely you are do get oxidative damage.

Also, a the fiber in fruit would help prevent colon cancer. The list goes on.

BTW, I'm a cancer researcher and a medical student.


First, I'll say a few things, it seems some strawmen are forming:

1. I was shocked by the article and would like to see the study.
2. Of course eating fruits/veggies is good for you. The study did not say it wasn't, it said it found no benefit in fighting cancer, not that is not beneficial to you in other ways.


As a researcher, how can you possibly say this study means nothing? Questions that instantly came to my mind would be what kind of fruits and veggies were they eating? Are the vitamins in crops decreasing over time? Is excercise much more important for preventing cancer then nutrition? For you to simply dismiss this study without seeing it seems a bit odd for a researcher. If this study can be shown to be flawed I'll be right there with you.

On to fiber, sure you can fine epidemiological studies to support that fiber helps prevent colon cancer, but no controlled studies have shown that eating wheat will help reduce the risk. Fiber is way over hyped, to the good of the grain industry. But I would like to see the study on apples and colon cancer, if you can give a link or the study.

Not a shot at you, but the fact that the medical industry still attacks cholesterol by perscribing statin drugs to prevent heart disease with no evidence cholesterol causes heart disease makes me skeptical of our medical industry in general.

whattheschmidt
08-26-2007, 06:17 PM
I stopped reading right here:


In a discovery that turns conventional advice on its head, experts have admitted there is "zero evidence'' that eating fruit and vegetables can help people avoid a disease that kills nearly 40,000 Australians every year.

"zero evidence" - how does this equal it does not help against cancer necessarily?

striker543
08-26-2007, 06:27 PM
Not a shot at you, but the fact that the medical industry still attacks cholesterol by perscribing statin drugs to prevent heart disease with no evidence cholesterol causes heart disease makes me skeptical of our medical industry in general.

wait you don't think cholesterol causes heart disease?

IraHays
08-26-2007, 06:31 PM
wait you don't think cholesterol causes heart disease?

There is no good evidence cholesterol is directly responsible for heart disease. People who haven't had a heart attack get no benefit from taking cholesterol lowering medication. While people recovering from a heart attack get very little.

clovely
08-26-2007, 06:44 PM
There is no good evidence cholesterol is directly responsible for heart disease. People who haven't had a heart attack get no benefit from taking cholesterol lowering medication. While people recovering from a heart attack get very little.

Just because they haven't had a heart attack doesn't mean the damage hasn't been done and once they've had the heart attack, maybe it's too late. Maybe I'm not understanding that sentence but just because lowering cholesterol with medication doesn't seem to do much good doesn't mean that cholesterol's not a major problem and at least a contributor. Whether it's directly responsible or not there's definitely a correlation.

This just proves you can get a study to say just about whatever you want it to say and it illustrates how irresponsible studies like this can be. People take one anecdotal study as license to keep their bad habits.

Couldbebigga
08-26-2007, 06:59 PM
I'm not surprised by everyone's responses. Big finding's like this that go against what has been ingrained are always hard to grasp. I'm going to be very interested in the responses to this research.

I think it might come down to what they said in the article about the veges and fruit not being of good quality anymore. We should all start our own vege patches I think.

Vadim Beliaev
08-26-2007, 07:04 PM
Well no ****ing ****, if your average person keeps smoking a pack a day, eating 3 meals at McDonalds daily and lives in a polluted area, a couple bananas arent gonna undo the damage. Do we really need studies to confirm the obvious?

Couldbebigga
08-26-2007, 07:06 PM
Do we really need studies to confirm the obvious?

Yes.

The whole need for science is because the obvious quite often isn't correct.

IraHays
08-26-2007, 07:36 PM
Whether it's directly responsible or not there's definitely a correlation.


The correlation is people that have heart disease generally have high cholesterol. But cholesterol is not the cause but a response by the body. Your body uses cholesterol to repair arteries. Kind of like when you get an infection, your body will have more white blood cells (or something.) Giving you medication to lower the white blood cells is not going to do anything for the infection itself.

People with normal cholesterol ranges have heart attacks all the time. That right there should tell us something.

IraHays
08-26-2007, 07:38 PM
Well no ****ing ****, if your average person keeps smoking a pack a day, eating 3 meals at McDonalds daily and lives in a polluted area, a couple bananas arent gonna undo the damage. Do we really need studies to confirm the obvious?

It monitored 42,000 Australians. I'm sure some didn't smoke or ate like crap.

LunicaAshes
08-26-2007, 07:48 PM
It monitored 42,000 Australians. I'm sure some didn't smoke or ate like crap.

But in order for the study and numbers to be really valid and telling, each one of the people studied would need to fit in one of two categories between which the only difference is fuit/vegetable consumption, or else we do not have a scientifically controled study.

SYRIANKID
08-26-2007, 08:08 PM
Let's assume they don't guard against cancer - they guard against enough diseases to make eating them well worth your while.

thirsty4chicken
08-26-2007, 08:38 PM
First, I'll say a few things, it seems some strawmen are forming:

1. I was shocked by the article and would like to see the study.
2. Of course eating fruits/veggies is good for you. The study did not say it wasn't, it said it found no benefit in fighting cancer, not that is not beneficial to you in other ways.


As a researcher, how can you possibly say this study means nothing? Questions that instantly came to my mind would be what kind of fruits and veggies were they eating? Are the vitamins in crops decreasing over time? Is excercise much more important for preventing cancer then nutrition? For you to simply dismiss this study without seeing it seems a bit odd for a researcher. If this study can be shown to be flawed I'll be right there with you.

On to fiber, sure you can fine epidemiological studies to support that fiber helps prevent colon cancer, but no controlled studies have shown that eating wheat will help reduce the risk. Fiber is way over hyped, to the good of the grain industry. But I would like to see the study on apples and colon cancer, if you can give a link or the study.

Not a shot at you, but the fact that the medical industry still attacks cholesterol by perscribing statin drugs to prevent heart disease with no evidence cholesterol causes heart disease makes me skeptical of our medical industry in general.

Until it's verified by other studies, it cannot be taken as scientific "truth." It is a very interesting study, but given that it contradicts hundreds or even thousands of previous studies of equal merit, I'm not willing to give it so much credit.

By the way, here is now cholesterol causes heart disease.

1. LDL cholesterol particles have a B100 apoprotein as part of their protein coat. When in the blood for a prolonged period of time, the apoprotein becomes oxidized and changes conformation.

2. The B100 apoprotein's changed configuration makes it so it cannot bind to LDL cholesterol recepors on cells' surfaces, thereby keeping the LDL in the blood.

3. Eventually, a macrophage will come along and phagocytose (eat) the LDL cholesterol particle with the misfolded B100 apoprotein.

4. Repeat 1-3 for a while, and the macrophage gets full of LDL cholesterol. It becomes an immobile "sponge cell". Think of it as morbidly obese.

5. Here's the kicker: These sponge cells then settle down onto the walls of arteries and stick there. These sponge cells are what form atheroschlerotic plaques. The problem here is that the exact mechanism of adherence of the sponge cells is thus far unknown.

So, yes, high cholesterol (more specifically LDL cholesterol) has absolutely been shown to cause heart disease.

Note: HDL, "good cholesterol", is good because is may reduce oxidized B100 apoprotiens.

Edit: There are also many other reasons for getting heart attacks other than high cholesterol.

devire1
08-26-2007, 09:35 PM
There are countless studies linking particular vitamins to cancer prevention. Most of them are found mainly in fruits and vegetables (and pills, often derived from those sources.) Lycopene from tomatoes and watermelon is a major one that comes to mind. A high veggie diet also keeps estrogen levels down for women, which decreases breast cancer risk.

Just because a fat smoker/drinker who eats fruits and veggies gets cancer and a skinny non-smoker/drinker who doesn't eat fruits and veggies does not get cancer doesn't mean they don't offer a benefit. For one thing, in order to eat healthy (ie: stay skinny as the study suggested) and still get plenty of nutrtition, they are important.

In order for this study to be meaningful, they'd have to have two groups of people where the only difference was veggies/fruit intake, then study the cancer risk/outcome. They are adding in too many other factors to be able to study fruit/veggie effect alone.

thank you! i was dreading posting something like u just did, but i felt like i just had to let it out.

devire1
08-26-2007, 09:37 PM
Let's assume they don't guard against cancer - they guard against enough diseases to make eating them well worth your while.

plus they taste pretty damn good in my opinion.

and let's look at it this way. even if they don't PREVENT cancer, eating fruits and veggies instead of fast food and other **** can only lead to good things. it's not like putting some lettuce on ur big mac is going to have any cancer preventing effects, which is all this study really proves.