http://fortune.com/2016/03/09/lung-cancer-risk-carbohydrates/
>increase by 49%
>FORTY NINE
So will there be truth commercials and a surgeon general report soon?
>>7920278
>fortune.com
>still eating bread
You deserve cancer.
testing
>>7920285
Here's the actual study.
http://m.cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/3/532.abstract
>>7920286
this
superior meat eater reporting in
who even cares about cancer when you could have diabetes instead.
Smoking increases it by 3000%
>>7920278
49% is not actually a lot, is it? The norml risk for cancer without any additional risks is very low, so increasing it by around half of it doesnt add that much risk.
If you stack these risk increasers together by working in a uranium mine while smoking and eating charred steak everyday thats where you get problems. Just from eating carbs: not so much.
"Interestingly, there was no link between the glycemic load—i.e. the quantity of carbohydrates consumed—and lung cancer, which suggests that it’s the quality, not the amount of carbohydrates, that has the biggest effect on lung cancer risk, said Wu."
>OH WOW
>LOOK AT DAT
“The results from this study suggest that, besides maintaining healthy lifestyles, such as avoiding tobacco, limiting alcohol consumption, and being physically active, reducing the consumption of foods and beverages with high glycemic index may serve as a means to lower the risk of lung cancer,” said Wu.
Low glycemic index foods include things like 100% stone-ground whole wheat bread, rolled or steel-cut oatmeal, most fruits, and non-starchy vegetables"
>OH WOW
>JUST DONT EAT SHITTY KINDS OF SHIT AND YOU'LL BE FINE
>>7920733
>Just from eating carbs: not so much.
The flaw in your rationalization, generally, is that independent variables in a probability calculation have cumulative multiplying effects.
Instead of P = (x)F it is P=(x)(F-1)
So yeah, eat carbs and tell yourself its all good, sucker. Bet against science.
>>7920614
>superior meat eater reporting in
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons reporting in
Polycyclic amines reporting in
>>7920745
I don't see how that counters anything he said. The multiplying effect is 1.5, but what it's multiplying is small if you have a normal lifestyle.
>>7920733
your risk of cancer goes up as you age, so it's probably important if you care about longevity
there are many other reasons to limit refined carbohydrate consumption and eat more whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes, too. every health authority in the world recommends this.
>>7920733
This.
Also this pic in op in misleading, half of those are whole grains that actually stabilize blood sugar and prevent that particular type of damage.
Also, this is old news, it's long been known that that swings in the glycemic index release hormones that can cause high cholesterol an increased risk of cancer, this study only catches your eye because it is talking about lung cancer, a noteworthy topic because of the smoking link, which increases the risk by as much as 3000% in some studies.
Wait till you find out what happens to your cancer risk if you routinely see light in the blue range at night.
>>7920869
I wouldn't be surprised.
All this new health info just makes me want to give up caring about my health in the end.
>>7920726
>3000%
Maybe if your source is thetruth.com
>>7920896
And what's your source, friend? Some degenerate drug addict neckbeard's blog?
>>7920870
That's an option and given how much information, good and bad, gets firehosed at us all the time, an understandable reaction but lowering carb intake isn't actually that difficult and rigging up leds to turn off blue at night is a good excuse for getting into home automation.
>>7920757
Most of maillard compounds arent even dangerous
>inb4 potato chips cause cancer
>>7920901
Even anti-smoking stuff like the ACS don't think it's a 3000 percent increase, they think people are just 25 times more likely. Where are you getting this three thousand shit from?
>>7920974
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22410257
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420380
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23999505
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257376/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22908267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4512899/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3977256/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3631855/
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/7867852/
>>7920278
Oh yeah? Well everyone who has ever died did so within two weeks of consuming hydrogen dioxide.
>>7920870
That's not something I'd disagree with considering how toxic everything seems to be nowadays.
y'all mofos need prophylactic CYP2A6 inhibitors: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/63/22/7581.short
deprenyl is one (in addition to MAO-B): http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/324/3/992.short
>>7920994
>Even anti-smoking stuff like the ACS don't think it's a 3000 percent increase, they think people are just 25 times more likely. Where are you getting this three thousand shit from?
25 times is 2400% So 3000% was actually a good first approximation, not "shit."
>>7921233
That's nothing. They all died within minutes (at most) after breathing a highly toxic gas called "di-oxygen".
Is anyone else tired of all the cancer correlation shit?
>>7922443
I'm tired of sensationalist reporting. Most of it is nothing new.
>>7920278
w-what about brown rice and muh 100% whole wheat?
also
>x causes cancer
MY FACE WHEN CORREALATION not equal to CAUSATION
>>7922443
I'm tired of the anti-scientific reddit teenagers who knee-jerkingly hand-wave away studies that they don't like as "le correlation is not le causation" because they're too stupid to otherwise explain the actual results.
