| ▲ | kvgr 3 hours ago |
| There is going to be some big AHA moment tied so couple food practices. Like washing chicken in chlorine or something. I wonder how are the stats in other developed countries. The title says US. |
|
| ▲ | imglorp 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| My money is on massive overexposure to high fructose corn syrup in the Western diet. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170474/ |
| |
| ▲ | normie3000 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > high fructose corn syrup in the Western diet US diet? Is corn syrup common elsewhere? | |
| ▲ | freshpots 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sugar is 50:50 fructose:sugar and "high"-fructose sugar is 55:45. The slight difference in fructose:sugar between the two is not significant in terms of health outcomes, unless you mean sugar in general. | | |
| ▲ | luhn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I can't make sense of your comment, but whatever you're trying to get at is wrong: Table sugar is sucrose. Corn syrup is mostly glucose and contains no fructose. HFCS is commonly produced at 42% and 55% fructose formulations. I don't think HFCS is meaningfully more or less harmful than any other sugar, but chemically there's a significant difference. | | |
| ▲ | wpm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of 1 glucose and 1 fructose molecule, so the GP comment is correct, sugar is 50:50 glucose and fructose. |
| |
| ▲ | imglorp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's partly the pervasiveness of that product because it's in fking everything in the US at least. Why is it in BREAD? https://www.thedailymeal.com/1306301/unhealthiest-store-boug... It's also the crazy amounts: we're accustomed to high levels of sweetness. Like 40g sugar in a can of soda. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Anonasty 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Western means the US in your context. Western europe does not have that or whatever we consider not "easter diet". | | | |
| ▲ | damnesian 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | lack of fiber is a biggie too. Foods too highly processed. too many oils. | | |
| ▲ | jabroni_salad 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I usually stay out of health convos because it's just not my wheelhouse, but I think most people would benefit from extra fiber. It has an obvious direct benefit to your life the very next time you use the bathroom. I don't know if it is the answer to the rise of colon cancer; this is well studied and seems really easy to work with? We would surely know already. But I do know it's worth doing irrespective of that. | |
| ▲ | staticassertion 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is my personal bet. It's just low fiber diets. | | |
| ▲ | boringg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It can't just be low fiber diets - there has to be some other exposures involved. | | |
| ▲ | volkl48 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I mean, there's a well-documented link between colon cancer and inadequate fiber intake. And it's also well-documented that the average Western diet is highly deficient in fiber and that this is a thing which has gotten much worse in the last 75 years. There also seems to be at least some light evidence that there may be generational effects - that the starting point of your gut is already bad if your mother's was. | |
| ▲ | staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why? | | |
| ▲ | Jerrrrrrrry 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apt username from a person suggesting that non edible fiber is the nutrient causing illness and thats the presupposition we should argue against. Why would more fiber help? | | |
| ▲ | h4kr1 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The mechanism behind why more fiber helps is pretty straightforward: Insoluble fiber speeds up gut motility. Faster gut motility means less time for toxins to sit and absorb in your gut. Also, fermentable fibers serve as substrate for gut microbes, producing short-chain fatty acids (butyrate is one - a primary fuel source for colonocytes - the cells that line your colon). It also lowers colonic pH, inhibiting pathogenic bacteria. Lastly, (although there are tons more benefits I'm not listing), soluble fiber is incredible for people trying to lose weight, as highly fibrous foods increase satiety, keeping you fuller for longer. | |
| ▲ | staticassertion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Uh, what? I have not made a presuppositional argument (I made no argument at all...). I made a statement about my epistemic state - ie: that I would "bet" on low fiber being the major contributor to colon cancer rates. Someone then asserted that it can't be that, and I asked "why?". > Why would more fiber help? Because there is an incredible amount of research into high fiber diets being good for your gut, including reduced colon cancer rates. This is the consensus of various organizations such as WHO - high fiber diets have lower risks of colon cancer. | | |
| ▲ | boringg an hour ago | parent [-] | | My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets. There are a lot of other risk factors involved. Will high fiber help - absolutely. Is it the be all end all - no I doubt it. Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already. | | |
| ▲ | staticassertion an hour ago | parent [-] | | > My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets. Well, you said "can't" and I asked "why", which feels very reasonable to me. Your argument seems to be that it wouldn't account properly for the data - specifically, you're saying we would have seen colon cancer rates rise earlier. > Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already. I don't really buy this for a lot of reasons. Probably the two most important are (a) ability to screen historically and (b) the timing isn't particularly "off" for the fiber argument. We did see it already, we've been seeing increases in color cancer risks for decades. Now, I'm not married to it "just" being fiber whatsoever, but if I were to "bet" on the major contributing factor, naively, that's where my money would go. I think it's very reasonable to not place your bet there. | | |
| ▲ | boringg an hour ago | parent [-] | | Should be a betting service for this kind of thing instead of sports betting. Maybe all the men betting sports might read and change their habits based on the betting outcomes (and improve their health). I would also bet top reason is fiber but it isn't the only reason - multiple factors at play. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | taeric 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The trend has been down, even for this cancer. Such that I agree there were probably some big AHA moments. But I assert they almost certainly happened 50 years ago. My expectation is that it is less that there has been a growing trend of this cancer getting worse, and far more that we have gotten better at many other cancers. That is, overall, this is good news on progress. Not a scare headline. |
| |
| ▲ | doubled112 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I grew up in a fairly industrial area with lots of trades people around me. From my anecdata, I'd suspect you're right. We know more about some cancers and the causes and they are easier to prevent. The choices, personal or otherwise, I have seen can't be good for your body, and some you're simply not allowed to make anymore. Ironically, sitting on this laptop typing this might be as bad, but win some/lose some. But some obvious examples? Ever dip a shirt in benzene because it cools you down? Apparently it feels like Vicks, but doesn't leave that sticky feeling behind. A good portion drank 6+ beers a day. I know they must have eaten, but some I never saw consume food. At all. Some smoked a pack or two of cigarettes a day. Asbestos was in everything. There was no ventilation/filtration for welders, painters, woodworkers, etc. If you could open the shop door it was a good day. | |
| ▲ | vharuck 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The trend has been upwards for invasive colorectal cancer among US residents under 50: https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/applicat... | | |
| ▲ | taeric 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It has ticked up 1-2 per 100k over the past few decades for that group. Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise. By all means, we should study this more. But the way folks are talking about this is a touch nuts. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | leetrout 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I had no clue this was a thing. Thanks for sharing your thought... I think it's a combination of our pesticide usage and general food processing but like a sibling said these are educated guesses. |
|
| ▲ | zvqcMMV6Zcr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My bet is on low-fiber diet and people spending half hour playing with phone instead of getting up from toilet. |
| |
| ▲ | askonomm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why would me sitting down cause colon cancer? | | |
| ▲ | nativeit 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because anything that allows another person to look down on you and feel superior must therefore be true and moral. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > An estimated 95% of American adults and children fail to meet daily fiber recommendations, with intake often falling below 10 grams per 1,000 calories consumed It's tempting to focus on some magic bad ingredient/practice to explain our bad health (like seed oils), but we don't exercise, we eat directly against dietary guidelines, and we eat foods that we know are bad for us. Now add on to that the social media grifters and industry advocates who tell you that eating poorly is good for you. I don't blame individuals just trying to live their life though. This is how we've let our whole food environment set up shop. |
| |
| ▲ | NotGMan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Focusing on fiber while leaving out glyphosate, sugar etc... is myopic. | | |
| ▲ | hombre_fatal 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think I need to enumerate every way our diets are bad in an HN comment, do I? You didn't even want to do it and you're the one gunning for it. But processed meat consumption would be another good example of where we happily eat against dietary guidelines despite its link with colorectal cancer. |
|
|
