 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004OT Diet Linked to Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
"Zheng says that it's not necessary to stop eating meat. Nor it is necessary to gobble up huge quantities of vegetables. A balanced diet, he says, is all that's needed. [Author's] study showed that people who ate more of certain foods tended to have a lower risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Those foods include: Tomatoes Broccoli Squash Cauliflower Onions Mixed lettuce salad Leeks Apples Pears Citrus fruits http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/83/97796.htm > "Zheng says that it's not necessary to stop eating meat. Nor it is > necessary to gobble up huge quantities of vegetables. A balanced diet, > he says, is all that's needed. According to the study, I suppose I'm at average risk for non-Hodgkins lymphoma since starting LC. I eat more veggies than I did before, and almost certainly more veggies than the average high-carb-consuming American. I do eat more meat than before, but I also don't eat sugar, which this study doesn't address (but many other cancer studies mention as a culprit). Compare what I used to eat on a bad, pre-LC day: buttered bread, pasta with cheese and/or meat, ice cream, cheeseburger, fries, sugared soda, multiple beers ...with what I eat on an average LC day: 1-2 eggs, 2-6 cups (mostly green leafy) veggies, 2-4 oz cheese, 1-3 tbs mayo, 2-4 tbs olive oil, 12-16 oz varied meats throughout the day. There's no question that I eat a more balanced diet now than I did before. Cate I love these statistical studies. Nobody really has learned anything, but they always want to push their unsupported conclusions. Here is a REAL link about intestinal cancer that comes from eating wheat, barley, rye or pretty much anything made from them. http://www.medicinenet.com/Celiac_Disease/page6.htm > "Zheng says that it's not necessary to stop eating meat. Nor it is necessary > to gobble up huge quantities of vegetables. A balanced diet, he says, is all [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/83/97796.htm > I love these statistical studies. Nobody really has learned anything, but > they always want to push their unsupported conclusions. <snip> The increase in lymphomas is not new, but started at least 30 years ago. In the US you could probably correlate it with increasing prosperity leading to changed life styles both in diet and exercise and the conclusion that we'd be healthier if we paid much much higher taxes or whatever. Seriously tho', what most of these absurd studies have as a common thread is that the things they identify as "good" are generally attributes of people who one would expect to be better off and to take more care of themselves; for example there was a study a while back that linked the consumption of walnut oil with a lowered risk of heart disease, (the study was funded by the California walnut growers association but that's probably just a coincidence) and you'd expect people who use walnut oil to be better off, more conscious of what they eat, having access to better health care and so forth. Same is true of folks eating lots of those vegetables mentioned in the lymphoma study. But as you say, lots of people interpret study results to push their own agendas. Yes, and people who eat all those veggies also tend to be wealthier, live in neighborhoods without a lot of toxic waste and be more educated about health and have better access to medical care. But nutritional studies never factor that stuff out. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes, strategies for dealing with diabetes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > "Zheng says that it's not necessary to stop eating meat. Nor it is necessary > to gobble up huge quantities of vegetables. A balanced diet, he says, is all [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/83/97796.htm > Yes, and people who eat all those veggies also tend to be wealthier, live in > neighborhoods without a lot of toxic waste and be more educated about health > and have better access to medical care. My grandfather died from Non-Hodgekins Lymphoma. I was given to understand that the cause was likey radiation exposure as he was one of the lead engineers building the Richland nuclear power plant for WUPPS. In the course of working for Bonneville, he was also exposed to whatever is causing the cancer cluster in and around The Dalles OR. Annecdotes are *definitely* as reliable as spurrious correlations from dietary studies, but he was middle class and of the first group to be placed on Low Fat diet to control cholesterol. I remember the shift in their eating when I was a kid in the 70's. My grandparents had used to eat eggs for breakfast every morning and suddenly they were eating weird chemo-eggs (egg beaters), lots of cereal, lean meat and white bread. > But nutritional studies never factor that stuff out. Thank you for saying that. One of the biggest difficulties in determining causation is factoring out every other environmental factor that may contribute to phenomenon you are trying to study. This is why you almost never see a reputable study that states that X is *caused* by Y. What you are more likely to see is a numerical value for the correlation between X and Y - and as we have already established, correlation *does not equal* causation. The best information is usually going to come from long term longitudinal reasearch studies, nurses studies are among the best of those as nurses are relatively easy to keep track of over time. Well that was more detail than I meant to get into, brigid >> But nutritional studies never factor that stuff out. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > correlation between X and Y - and as we have already established, > correlation *does not equal* causation. Good studies are based on randomization and control, not on anecdotes or epidemiology (correlation). i > The best information is usually going to come from long term > longitudinal reasearch studies, nurses studies are among the best of > those as nurses are relatively easy to keep track of over time. > > Well that was more detail than I meant to get into, > brigid > Thank you for saying that. One of the biggest difficulties in > determining causation is factoring out every other environmental factor [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > correlation between X and Y - and as we have already established, > correlation *does not equal* causation. There was a professor who was doing experiments with a frog. He was teaching a frog to jump. The training went on for a while and finally when he said "Jump!" the frog would jump high in the air. He thought it was time to take some measurements and publish the results. He started his measurements with a twine, a ruler and a knife. He placed the frog on a wooden cutting plate and said "jump". It jumped and he measured the height it jumped. He wrote in his observation note book: "Height jumped (with 4 legs): 14 inches. Inference: None". Then he cut one of the legs of the frog and said jump. It jumped to a height of 10 inches. Inference: None. Then he cut the next leg, and measured the height jumped. Because it had only 2 legs the height jumped was only 5 inches. The he cut one more leg and the frog now had only one leg. The height jumped was just 1 inch with one leg. Again the inference was none. Then he cut the last leg of the frog and said "jump!". It didn't move at all. He wrote his inference in the note book: "When all four legs are removed, frogs go deaf."  SignatureSaffire 205/163/125 - 5'2.5" Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.