Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Poor diet ratchets up cancer risk

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:06 PM EDT 06/11/07

Excess fat can cause up to a third of all cases, study says, putting lifestyle choices on par with quitting smoking ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. M Braithwaite from Canada writes: I note the implicit indictment of sugar, flour and and starchy vegetables--the main carbohydrate-dense sources. Eggs have made it back on to the desirable foods list, contrary to previous hysteria about dietary cholesterol (now believed to be largely irrelevant except in certain vulnerable individuals). Further, there is no identified link to fat consumption, contrary to earlier hysteria. These pronouncements would have greater credibility if they candidly admitted how earlier mistakes were side effects of previous methodology and why we should put greater faith in the current set of pronouncements--is there a new methodology involved?.
  2. jenny g from Ottawa, Canada writes: What I see is a reiteration of previous "non-sexy" pronouncements of moderation, exercise, an healthy diet including lots of fruits and vegetables, less (or no) processed "food". No matter how often this message is put out there with studies to back it up, people decide that they know how best to feed themselves according to what they like - fat, salt, carbohydrates and easy.

    It is going to take more than another study telling us the same thing to get people to feed their bodies for health. It's going to take a change in opinion. And we all know how easy that is.
  3. X. T. from Canada writes: M Braithwaite:
    This is simply another useless research that proves the obvious.

    However I agree with you that these days people are going overboard blaming various food: Carbonhydrate, fat, cholesterol, etc. In the meantime the definition of 'healthy food' becomes synonym to 'tasteless food' or 'leafy vegies only'. The fact is that anything taken too much becomes a hazard. The key is balanced diet.

    However in this society of McCulture, people tend to love simple answers. They want to eat what they love (such as fried everything) only, without paying the prices in their own health. So come to pass all kinds of fad diets, especially the ridiculous Artkins. I wonder when people will wake up to the fact that they have to be diligent on prevention instead of taking a daily diet of pills and fads. I wouldn't hold my breath for this.
  4. Vince Harden from Winnipeg, Canada writes: "The most comprehensive study ever undertaken on the association...." I find that the use of this statement is inconsistent.For example,govs & the antismoking lobby ignore the "most comprehensive studies" when trying to show harm from secondhand smoke (ets).These studies show that there is not a statistical risk from ets. You cannot show causation using statistical science.(USSG for one)The function of epidemiology is to discover whether there is sufficient cause to warrant doing expensive,lengthy and repeated clinical studies.You are not supposed to use "death" figures either.(mere supposition) A weak association is a fortuitous finding. Converting it into a causal link bypasses the scientific method, and has been termed "statistical malpractice". This particular study uses the correct terminology such as "may" and "perhaps".The rr (relative risk) factors are not shown in this article,but that is not unusual.The rr factors show the "strength" of the association. (When I went to find the rr factors,I came across this which does help explain epidemiology) http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/chapters/chapter_03.pdf Here's another article that should help.(explains why something is "good" one week & "bad" the next) http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-epidemiology17sep17,0,4034843.story?coll=la-home-middleright Btw,the American Meat Institute has already issued a press release on this study which is countered by the American Institute for Cancer Research. http://www.aicr.org/site/News2?abbr=pr_&page=NewsArticle&id=12920
  5. SelCan - from Canada writes: This is excellent advice, as long as we exercise caution. It is essential to note that while good eating habits are important, the real problem has to do with a much larger issue, our food supply. Most people who struggle with an overweight condition blame themselves for lack of discipline or willpower, but toxins from within our bodies and toxins from our environment both contribute to obesity. Getting rid of these toxins slowly and boosting the natural detoxification system is an essential component of long-term weight loss and a healthy metabolism. At each step up the food chain, these toxins become more concentrated, and tend to accumulate in high levels in tissues. What makes contaminants like organochlorines an especially serious problem for mammals is that they tend to have large fat stores - Organochlorines dissolve in fat and stay there until those fat reserves are needed as energy. Not only can the contaminants pass from mother to fetus via the placenta, but they are also passed on in mothers' milk. A mother transfers a huge part of her chemical load to her suckling young. Here begins a vicious circle. During food shortages, mammals call on their reserves of fat, releasing the chemicals into their systems. The important message is that there's a sub-lethal effect going on, lowering the resilience of the mammal during periods of food shortages. Therefore without detoxification and a nutritionally rich diet that nourishes and assists the body in cleansing these substances from the body, the body will lose its strength and vitality. The immune system will become suppressed, contributing to an increase in illness, disease and excess body fat.
  6. Melissa Pauline from Canada writes: We've heard this advice many times before. Many of us would like to follow it, but here's the rub: time. It takes time to exercise, plan meals, shop for food, prepare meals and clean up afterwards. How many of us really have time to keep up with best practices in diet and exercise on a daily basis? And do all the other things we need and want to do? And get 8 hours of sleep every night? Consider this schedule: In bed by 10:30pm, awake at 7am, leave for work at 8:00am, arrive by 8:30am, leave at 4:30pm, home by 5pm. Cook dinner and serve at 6pm, finish eating by 6:45pm (I don't like to bolt my food), tidy up kitchen and organize next day's lunch until, say, 7:15pm. Now it's time to go to the gym! Anyone can see that the schedule above is extremely optimistic. You couldn't keep that up every day. And if you've got kids, factor in baths, bedtime stories, play, help with homework, extra cleanup tasks, and so on. Where's the time to do laundry? See friends? Do your hobbies? Have sex with your spouse? Are we supposed to cram all that into the weekends? When do we get a real rest? This is what I wish medical researchers would discuss in the media: That our Western, information-society lifestyle is anything but healthy. And that "lifestyle change" means a lot more than simply eating more veggies. And don't get me started on the awful food choices available to most office workers. Ack!
  7. My eyes are open, Are yours? from Canada writes: Melissa, you seem to need more sleep than most. That is unfortunate. If you are cooking for an hour, you should be able to make healthy meals. Try doubling the quantity, so the next day you can just reheat it for 5 minutes, and use the other 55 minutes to work out. Go for a 1/2 hour walk at lunch. Get an exercise video, start at 7:15 pm, done by 8:15 pm. Here's what works for me. I have a child and a full-time job. I get up at 6, work out for an hour, get my son up at 7, out the door to daycare by 8, having made lunches for myself and my son, and prepped dinner. At work by 9. Leave work by 5:30. Home by 6. Hubby finishes making dinner (lucky me!), meaning, I cut and peel veggies in the morning, he cooks them in the evening. Anyway, dinner over by 7, cleanup by 7:30 Play with son or do other activities with him, his bedtime is 9:30. Then, I do housecleaning (except vacuuming = noisy), prep dinner, eg. defrost meat, prepare stew ingredients to go in crockpot next morning, put crumb coating on chicken or fish. Dinner prep is 15 minutes, max. Sometimes I prepare veggies while watching TV. Watch TV, knit, call friends etc. until 11. Shower. Bed by 11:30. Laundry - throw in a load when you get up. Throw it in the dryer when you get home. Fold it in front of TV. DOn't buy things that need ironing. Hobbies - at lunchtime, instead of TV, or weekends. Last year I studied Mandarin with a tutor in China, at 10:30 at night. I called her on Skype. Sex - well, weekends. Sometimes instead of a workout! (wink) Friends - all my friends are in the same boat. We arrange group playdates once a month - kids play, moms gossip, dads do -- whatever dads do. Talk about cars, sports ? It works. For millions of people. It can be done.
  8. G Sears from Canada, Canada writes: Did anyone notice that this story is a big headline on the front page of the print edition, but buried in the online edition?

    Strange...
  9. Henry Allen from Toronto, Canada writes: Warren Spahn, the great Major League Baseball pitcher of the '40s and '50s, was once asked by a reporter what exercise he used to keep in shape over his amazing 21-year career.

    He replied he always pushed himself away from the table while he was still hungry.
  10. Larry Hill from Canada writes: G Sears from Canada, Canada writes: Did anyone notice that this story is a big headline on the front page of the print edition, but buried in the online edition?

    They think we are only interested in eating doughnuts at our work stations. ......
  11. Melissa Pauline from Canada writes: Actually the schedule I outlined is not my own, I used it to illustrate my point. But looking at your schedule - I see you get 6.5 hours of sleep every night (way less than what is recommended) and you are are the go every minute of the day. I'm not knocking if it works for you, but yikes! that lifestyle is not for everyone. What if you don't have a husband to help with cooking, child care and housework? What if you live in a downtown 1-bedroom apt, so there is no room to do exercise videos (I have my doubts about the form of exercise anyway), and have no washer or dryer right there in the apartment? A small kitchen with no room for crockpots and microwaves? How many kinds of hobbies can you do at lunchtime in a downtown office setting? Not gardening, that's for sure. My point is (and I'm surprised anyone would challenge this) our lifestyles are too hurried and something has got to give. We're getting less exercise and eating convenience foods because those are about the only parts of life left to squeeze.
  12. Dick Nails from Cornucopia, BC, Canada writes: G Sears from Canada, Canada writes: Did anyone notice that this story is a big headline on the front page of the print edition, but buried in the online edition?

    Strange...

    >> This happens all the time. What gets a ton of responses here often is nothing more than a sidebar in the hardcopy version.

    As for the article: big surprise. Here is the secret to life: eat healthy and moderately, excercise regularly and vigorously and get enough rest. And try to be nice to people. All of this stuff about 'I am sooo busy', deal with it. Our parents were more so and their's more so again. Life is only so hard or difficult as you make it.
  13. Mike - from Waterloo, Canada writes: I agree with Melissa Pauline, for most people - aside from the robots like "My eyes are open, Are yours?" - fitting in exercise etc alongside kids, spouse, and any kind of life is a major challenge.
  14. G Sears from Canada, Canada writes: Dick Nails:
    If this story was on the home page of the online edition, it would have generated probably 200 comments by now, instead of just 14.

    And another observation: even though this is story is based on US research, it is nowhere to be found on the NY Times website. Again, strange...
  15. B J from Canada writes: Melissa Pauline from Canada writes: My point is (and I'm surprised anyone would challenge this) our lifestyles are too hurried and something has got to give.

    As usual for most people in our society... blame society for our problems. if your lifestle is too hurried than you (not society) needs to look at what the priorities are in your life... if it's important you'll find that you have time.... if it's not you'll likely make an excuse about lifestyle being too hurried....
  16. Melissa Pauline from Canada writes: I think I outlined a pretty full day, and I left out lots of things: shopping for food and other essentials, housework, yardwork, looking after aging relatives, caring for pets, haircuts, medical appointments, financial management and planning, spiritual/religious activities. You might not spend hours each week on these activities but they need to be done sometime, and they add up. Add to this list any serious involvement in hobbies, your kids's interests, community/charity work, friendships. If you're single but would like a relationship, you need to put some time and effort into that too. Even a vacation takes planning and organization. I don't think it's much of a life if your days are spent going from one task to another until you finally collapse into bed for 6 hours, and then doing it all over again. Oh, and BJ - ALL of the things in my list are important, and yet there are still only 24 hours in each day.
  17. Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto, Canada writes: X. T. - actually, I tried Atkins and lost ~25 lbs in about six months. Biometric analysis before and after showed that ~22lbs of that was fat and 3 lbs was non-fat (either water or muscle - but since my overall strength also increased, I am guessing water).

    All the new fad diets out there (south beach, zone etc) are variations of the atkins - which is to say based on blood sugar levels.
  18. gordon mcpherson from Ottawa, Canada writes: Its simply Mother Nature's way so-to-speak as per usual...survival of the fittest...the weak are consumed unfortunately.
  19. Dr Coles from Los Angeles, United States writes: Being fat is a very complicated issue. You can be fat on the outside or fat on the inside and appear to be skinny and healthy. A persons diet should be a well balanced diet of ALL whole foods. No trans-fats or artificial high-fructose corn syrup in the diet; most of these diseases strongly correlate the consumption of just these two food additives. I would like to see a study done by persons who have NO financial, or religiosity attached. In other words a study done by a completely neutral group. Humans are omnivores. Moderation is the healthiest way of life. http://www.InteliOrg.com/
  20. BC Refugee in AB from Canada writes: So you're saying the bag of chips, Diet Coke and handfull of left-over mini-chocolate bars from the kids last night was not a good breakfast????

    Actually Emperor....I lost over 100 lbs on Atkins, kept it off for 2-3 years, never felt better, doctor says all my tests were better...only problem was my wife is a veggie so I switched to a "normal" low fat diet and all the cravings came back, and I've recently switched to a desk job, close to the company cafeteria so I'm starting to gain some of it back.
  21. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: ah, so red wine is bad again this week? Is there a mailing list somewhere we can sign up to in order to keep up with these things?

    And we're supposed to tell Italians that prosciutto, made since Roman times, is going to kill us? They're still laughing at us in the north of Italy from when we tried to get tell them that margarine, full of trans-fats, was better for them than butter.

    Newsflash to these food health whackos: we is all going to die. Ain't nothin' you eat or don't eat going to make you immortal.

    Truly the sign of an overly prosperous society, when we have the luxury of having officials tell us what not to eat.
  22. Jay Wortman MD from Vancouver, Canada writes: Murray Braithwaite is right again. If you look carefully at the recommendations it appears to be getting harder for these consensus groups to continue to ignore the cause of the epidemics of obesity and related diseases - the sugar and starches so prevalent in the modern diet. Given the size of this group, that is a major step forward. I know Sir Michael Marmot, who led this process, personally believes that it is the preponderance of these kinds of foods that is at the root of the problem. I expect he had his work cut out for him in steering this large group to even this somewhat muted recommendation on these foods.

    Given that obesity doesn't occur in the absence of sugars and starches and since obesity is clearly associated with cancer, it is entirely possible that, rather than obesity causing cancer, it is the foods that are causing both.

    For those of you who believe in the concept of a "balanced diet' and "everything in moderation", to justify eating these kinds of foods, read Gary Taubes' new book, "Good calories, Bad calories" and then we'll talk.
  23. My eyes are open, Are yours? from Canada writes: Hi there, My hobby is posting on this forum! (well, one of them). I also write music, study languages, and paint. I have a treadmill, free weights and an exercise ball. They fit into an 8 x 8 area of the basement. I agree this is a luxury, but if you live alone, you don't have to be home for anyone, so you can exercise anywhere. Take a walk at lunch. Take your free weights to the laundromat. Or your stamp collection, or your coursework, or your needlework or whatever. Do isometrics in the lineup at the grocery store. Or shop online. We do our own housework. He shops for food. I do yard work - that counts as exercise, right? A crock pot doesn't have to be in the kitchen. All you need is a plug. I put mine outside in the summer to avoid heating up the house. I sleep in on the weekends (to 8 am). When you have kids, you miraculously need less sleep. Don't know why. Maybe I'm going to die 10 years earlier. We'll see. I go to church on Sundays. It takes an hour. I volunteer, it's with my son's extra curricular activities, so that's two birds with one stone! We're going on a ski vacation this winter. I'm going Latin dancing tomorrow night. I'm not saying these things to 'toot my horn', but to show that it's possible. My house isn't perfect, I have a long list of 'to dos' and my lawn died of neglect over the summer (this was intentional - I can't justify spending the money to water it as much as it needs). I'm probably out of fashion and my grey hairs need a touchup. I don't spend the time for a full makeup and blow-dry every morning. My ageing relatives are still self sufficient for the time being (for which I am truly grateful). I don't think I'm a robot, maybe I should check for batteries?
  24. harry carnie from Northern, B.C, Canada writes: Well..people are entitled TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS THEY WISH..if that involves smoking, or eating crap foods ..that is their choice..they are also entitled TO DIE as they wish...

    The few of us who are interested in prolonging our lives ,and the quality of it. (for our pets as well) Just have to be cautions of what we consume...OUR choice.
  25. Justah Guy from toronto, Canada writes: Dr Wortman, are you suggesting that there has been a systemic failure of the medical establishment to highlight the danger of a high sugar diet? What possible motivation would there be to do that?

    Its my understanding that advocacy groups like the Canadian Diabetes Association have been calling for the reduction of sugary and starchy foods for years (especially in schools) and that Health Canada has similarly been promoting healthy living and diet for quite some time as well.
  26. Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto, Canada writes: BC Refugee - my parents are veggie, too, so I would have that problem when I visited them. I ended keeping protein powder there and having a protein shake with all-natural peanut butter as a dessert for every meal (which tends to lean heavily on the greens and cheeses). I do the same at work for the 4pm sugar craving (minus the peanut butter - too messy).
  27. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Why not remove the fat with outpatient gastric band surgery (not bypass which is expensive, risky and has long-term health effects) which is cheap, safe and gets good results for many, even over the long term? Also, wouldn't it save the health care system from many future costs?
  28. IT Anderson from Halifax, Canada writes: Our system is designed for Drug pushing doctors that are in bed with Pharmaceutical companies. They get paid by pushing drugs, flu vaccines writing scripts and a small amount for seeing patients! Drug companies started this problem along with Canada not paying doctors to keep us healthy. Drug companies should be kicking in money into the healthcare system as it appears to be corrupt to start with! I personally believe that if we had the proper supplements, pesticide free foods grown in countries that have strict regulations – we might not have such a sick society as we have today! It’s very interesting that the drug companies and doctors can push these drugs on us as human when we know they are toxic and they are supposed to be good for us as sick humans. When the farmers buy the pesticides from the chemical/drug companies and spray them on the fields, Health Canada says that’s fine to eat the said foods, i.e. potato’s, carrots, blueberries, almost any crop grown in Canada. Now when the pesticides leech into the water and KILL the fish (PEI summer 2007) – it’s an environmental disaster-CHEMICAL spill. What the heck is the difference? Now rolling back to the medical system and doctor’s and the pathetic costs and state of the health care industry – HOW COME THE LEFT AND RIGHT HANDS DON’T GET ON THIS AND MAKE THE DRUG COMPANIES PAY BACK INTO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO BALANCE OUT THE LEGALIZED DRUG DEALING INDUSTRY. DOCTORS SHOULD BE PAID TO KEEP US HEALTHY – not to keep us sick! The problem lies at the cellular level. If we are getting all the right things from our food, supplemented with the right multivitamins, glyconutrients and appropriate amount of the correct 8 sugars the body needs, the cells would keep us healthy internally, fighting off the cancers and diseases that plags our health care industry today. What the medical system is doing today is “PUTTING A BANDAID ON A PIMPLE” They are not solving the root of the problem – the cause of the pimple!
  29. Nickstar One from Canada writes: Stop Already, with the "health scare worker" garbage studies!
    It is becoming monotonous, scare-mongering nonsense at its most abysmal and does absolutely nothing for any credibility that these insipid clods might have left.
    Garbage in-garbage out, right up from the Docs(who should know much better), right on down to the lowest, money-grubbing, with or without Masters, grant junkie.
  30. Jay Wortman MD from Vancouver, Canada writes: Justah Guy, I don't think the failure to recognize the importance of sugar and refined starch as contributors to chronic disease is the result of a conscious decision by anyone. It the result of a "group-think" phenomenon where we uncritically embraced the idea that fats are bad. If fats are the problem then we have to get most of our calories from carbs. You can't demonize both foods. This generally shut down research efforts to explore other possibilities until very recently. The first modern study to look at the benefits of restricting carbs was done in 1998 and published in 2002. Since then there have been about 60 published studies, all showing that restricting carbs is beneficial. I know the researchers who did the first study and they had a very difficult time getting funding and ethical approval and then, when they had good results, they had a lot of trouble getting them published.
    If you are interested in this topic I highly recommend "Good calories, Bad calories" which reviews the history of nutritional science and explains how well-intentioned people got us into the current mess.
  31. BC Refugee in AB from Canada writes: Dr Jay...thanks for the book reference...already ordered from Chapters.ca and on the way....looks like an interesting read.

    Thanks
  32. Bobby the K from Bogarttown, Canada writes: People in the alternative health field have been saying this for decades - and I am not exaggerating.
    And there have been willing medical researchers doing studies to prove it. That is, it has not been anecdotal evidence or leftist hysteria.

    So why don't we listen to less-than-mainstream ideas now and perhaps save a lot of grief and redundancy in the future?
  33. Emperor Joshua Norton from Toronto, Canada writes: Emma Hawthorne - it would treat the symptom but not solve the problem. Reducing caloric intake (by supressing appetite) would cause a loss of weight, but if the patient still ate a high refined carb diet, the loss would come from muscle mass. Bodyfat percentage would actually increase - which is why starvation diets are inherently flawed. As the article states, it is bodyfat - particularily around the middle - that leads to cancer and heart disease.
  34. F A from Vancouver, Canada writes: Re: Randall Oulton @ 3:01 ("Newsflash to these food health whackos: we is all going to die. Ain't nothin' you eat or don't eat going to make you immortal.")

    So anyone who is concerned about healthy eating is a "whacko"? I think not.

    This study sets the bar pretty high, but its basic message is in keeping with what we all know. If you want to be healthy, you need to minimize saturated fats, sugar, red meat and processed foods, and eat more veggies and fibre. What's controversial about that? Yes, Romans ate prosciutto and drank red wine. But their diet was mostly grains, vegetables, nuts and beans.

    Up until 200 years ago, most people ate meat sparingly, and sugar was a costly luxury. Now we gorge on the stuff. Our overly processed diet is packed with salt, additives and sugar. No wonder people are getting fat.

    The more this is written about, the better. Nothing "whacko" about it. Millions of otherwise sensible people have lousy eating habits that make them sick. Why shouldn't they be encouraged to eat better?
  35. N.L. Hunt from St. John's, Canada writes: The worst news here was that we now have to avoid moldy cereals. Now what am I going to do with the rest of the basement full of corn flakes I have left over from Y2K ?
  36. Vince Harden from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Here's a critical take on this study.(appears to be well done)
    http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/jfs-exclusive-whats-evidence-cancers.html
  37. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: Let's face it, cancer rates will not go down in the long run because people refuse to change their lifestyles. Telling people they must eat a maximum of 500 grams of meat a week is unaceptable to most.

    People would rather be right that be healthy and that's a fact.
  38. Hart Oldenburg from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Well folks, let's step back and's take a not too sober look at the current crop of health-in-food prognosticators. The great pretenders, wandering along the garden path, gettin fatter every step. They assemble by the multi thousands world wide to study and collect undeserved moneys while obesity rampages on.
    As a lobby group they advocate fake food science, hiding behing greens and grains with predictable results. Not a wild statement, check Stats Canada numbers.
  39. Crazy Busy? from Canada writes: I'm with you Melissa Pauline...kind of makes me feel like we're in the story "The Emperor has no clothes". Doesn't anyone else think this "Crazy, Busy, Nuts...Conveyor Belt of Life"...is....well...just crazy? Check out www.victorialabalme.com Her video clip about being crazy busy might ring true with you "My eyes are open", but that doesn't mean everyone else should subscribe to it. Good on ya if you do. I'd rather live an extra 10 years.
  40. usually write from Canada writes: The misguided urbanites should drop their obsession with "organic" food, anti-GMOs and the latest nonsense...that "chemicals" are endangering children's health (although if by chemicals you mean lead on cheapo toys from China, I might agree)...but people should focus instead on nutrition, exercise, completely eliminate smoking and alcohol consumption while pregnant (FAS could be stamped out, if we had the will to do it). Urban pollution is unhealthy, the evidence is fairly clear, with heart risk and other outcomes-this is, and should be, part of the focus of the current federal government's environmental initiatives. Lets not waste effort on myths, lets focus on real risks, real solutions.
    BTW, as an alternative to a starvation diet I suggest Lithium carbonate-increase lifespan (of worms, so far) by more than 50%, and if you have a tendency to manic-depression, cures that too...disregard the metallic after-taste, you'll get used to it...
  41. D Carter, PhD from Canada writes: Thank you for the link, Vince. This blog raises a number of valid issues concerning the general practice of medical data pooling used in the Report, not the least of which is its use of population data in some instances. But, the blogger's critique of meta-analysis is weak. The report presents dozens of individual meta-analyses, not one "giant" one, as she contends. Each individual meta-analysis was painstakingly undertaken with care and precision. The Report’s authors did not haphazardly pool disparate data. Very specific inclusion / exclusion criteria were established - a priori - and are presented transparently. The goal of synthesis is not to jam a bunch of studies together, "hoping to create a significant effect" - there was no "hidden agenda" here. While it is true that data pooling has its general critics, it has a great many more proponents. Lest people think that systematic reviews and meta-analyses are voodoo science, most practice guidelines in use by specialist health care providers were developed within this well-established framework. Cancer Care Ontario utilizes this approach and it is a world leader in guidelines (other countries routinely use them). Yes, of course, differences exist between studies and heterogeneity always remains a concern but this is well documented, and practitioners are free to take up the recommendation or not. The basic premise of synthesis is to review everything published (keeping in mind that there has to be an inclusion cut-off date, so recent studies are sometimes published too late to be included) on a specific medical question and to combine it all into one big picture. Critics of synthesis would rather base practice on single studies (but which one to choose?). (And yes, I do have a PhD, but not an MD)
  42. Jay Wortman MD from Vancouver, Canada writes: D. Carter, I think a PhD, rather than an MD, may better equip one to understand the strengths and deficiencies of this type of analysis. The one point which I would disagree with you on, though, is that unlike the kinds of meta-analyses that lead to clinical practice guidelines, which generally pool data from randomized clinical trials, this report pooled data from epidemiological and case-control studies (very few RCTs were included because they are very expensive and time-consuming when it comes to nutrition and health so there are few of these studies out there). We know that the inherently weaker observational studies cannot be used to determine causality. The authors recognize this but establish criteria for using them to determine causality anyway. This is one reason that this report may be seriously flawed and will not be the last word on the issue.
  43. D Carter, PhD from Canada writes: I completely agree, Dr. Wortman - the fact that population data were used in the Report is troubling. In an ideal world, we would have a full collection of rigorous RCTs envisioned by Archie Cochrane, for both clinical as well as non-clinical health practices. We differ perhaps in that I commend the panel for at least attempting to draw guarded causal linkages (and thus recommendations) in light of the prescriptive nature of the entire exercise, and moreover for developing a methodology to do so. But I do fully understand that uncertainty remains - as it does in many clinical guidelines (although, to a much lesser extent) and where the stakes are higher to actually take action. Yes, this is not the last word. Cheers.
  44. M M from Vancouver, Canada writes: My boyfriend only eats meat. He seldom eats vegs and never eats fruits. He drinks and loves soft drinks. I sent this link to him and he told me that he had better go to die if I force him to follow this advice. We are in our late 30s and he seems to be healthy. I hope he has a long life without compromising too much on diet.

    As for excises, I am a single Mom with a full time job. Except cooking for my 12 yds daughter and me, doing house work daily, having sex every second day at least, working 8 hours a day on weekdays and commuting 2 hours daily, I try to go to gym at lunch break for three times a week for half an hour each time. I also climb the stairs in our office tower once a day from Level 1 to Level 20. I guess I am doing ok. But I do feel tired everyday...My boyfriend was complaining me that my stomach is not as flat as Britney Spears' before she had babies, though my weight is close to be perfect. What can I say? Life is hard!
  45. Jerry S from hamilton, Canada writes: M M from Vancouver, Canada writes: I also climb the stairs in our office tower once a day from Level 1 to Level 20.

    impressive MM. i read once that walking up and down just two flights of stairs twice a day results in a 10lb weight loss in a year. have no idea how they figured that out, but hey, maybe thats the point of all this. take all the well intentioned and mostly common sense advice and try to apply some of it to your own daily life, and chances are you'll live healthier happier and longer.

    now, if I can only get rid of all this leftover halloween candy ...
  46. Deb Martens from Okanagan, Canada writes: The link between our quality of food, our weight and what is available in the grocery stores and fast food joint makes me wince, after this report. If cancer is so closely related to food choices, and directly impacts health, and thus medical care, does it now become a government issue too? The promotion of Burger King's bacon burger becomes pro-cancer; the fructose laced "juices" are poisons and every high fat food is fraught with danger. It is obvious that as a nation we do not make "good choices" with producers giving us manufactured food products which endanger our health, and those producers working hard to garner enormous profits from them. Surely "the buck" should stop in some regard with our government, making these products totally inavailable and/or fitting this "NEW ORDER". With all of the money the individual consumer could save, we could help the poor to eat better and keep them thinner and improve the quality of our health care as a result. Real change will be difficult unless there is motivation in the marketplace. The quest for a private profit will always supersede the public's health concerns, otherwise.
  47. Bess T from Victoria, Canada writes: Scary research findings - I knew sugar and starch were not good in excess but the link to cancer is a wake-up call. I'm not overweight but according to these new guidelines I should lose a few pounds. Seeing this article has given me the kick I needed to focus a bit more on what I'm putting in my body and how much I should exercise vs how much I actually exercise. Good research and good article.
  48. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: MM, it sound like your boyfriend is a complete jerk. Ask him if his stomach is as flat as Federlines. But he sound like he's good in the sack so that should be a reason to stay with him, have kids, etc....

    Yes, he will die early if he continues eating the way he does. My prediction is prostate or pancreas cancer. Most people don't feel the ill effects of their bad eating habbits until they reach 40's or 50's that's why they don't do anything about it.

    Most people nowadays live until about 50 something then they start having chronic illness which affect them until they die early.

    You boyfriend sounds like he's a macho guy so getting him to cut out meat is unlikley. Killed by bravado, amazing
  49. Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Its too bad we didn't know all this when the earth we planted with veggies was still filled with nutrients and not coverned in development, the oceans, rivers and lakes were teaming with chemical-free fish and stress was a word in the dictionary, not the thing we blamed for neglecting our family, friends and fun time.

    Until we go back to what we had 40 years ago, I say "WTF" because eating and breathing chemicals and stressing over eating and breathing chemicals is going to kill me anyway.
  50. Political Junkie from Canada writes:

    I concur with an earlier poster who recommended this:

    http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/jfs-exclusive-whats-evidence-cancers.html

    Read it and form your own conclusions. The article is highly critical of this study, largely because it ignores many significant studies with contrary findings and confuses correlation with causation.

    The Globe apparently pays Mittelstaedt to come up with these scare stories!

    Alan Caruba at the National Anxiety Center had it right when he made us laugh at all of this. As he wrote this week in USA Daily:

    Eating Food Will Kill You

    It is now a proven fact that eating food—any kind of food—will kill you. No one who has eaten food in the past is alive today and everyone currently eating food will die. Therefore, those noble people who seek to save us from eating every kind of food that the earth provides should be hailed and saluted for their efforts to keep us alive.

    I say this as the son of a woman who taught the art of haute cuisine for over three decades and authored several cookbooks. That poor woman died at age 98 and I am convinced it was all that fabulous food that killed her. Ridiculous? YES!
  51. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Okaay drinkers, alcohol will kill you even if the drunk driver doesn't. Wanna smoke a joint?
  52. Political Junkie from Canada writes: This study has proven to be a disappointment to the organic carrot munching activists. Chemicals and pesticides don't even rate a mention as a cancer cause.

    However, you can count on the Globe to publish studies very soon that "prove" that many cancers have been "linked" to man-made chemicals which should be banned immediately.
  53. Waning Gibbous from Canada writes: To Poltical Junkie: "I say this as the son of a woman who taught the art of haute cuisine for over three decades and authored several cookbooks. That poor woman died at age 98 and I am convinced it was all that fabulous food that killed her. Ridiculous? YES! " It certainly carried off Julia Childe at a very tender age, too. This is not to mention the wine of which she was very fond.
  54. Jen Woods from Canada writes: Political Junkie from Canada writes: Chemicals and pesticides don't even rate a mention as a cancer cause.

    PJ, the study is about food and drink. It is NOT about chemicals and pesticide, unless of course, you EAT pesticides ... which might actually explain a lot around here ...
  55. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Jen Woods, the article addresses dietary dos and don'ts.

    It recommends increasing our intake of fruit and vegetables but does not express any concern about pesticide residues on these foods as a cancer cause; a favourite target of environmental activists and the "organic food" crowd.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top