• vivalapivo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Like I said, it may be a scientifically interesting study, but the broader audience can’t take anything from it but anxiety.

    a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.

    That would be significant, but probably not today. The lifetime risk of dying as a pedestrian in a car accident is around 1 in 100, so mitigating other risks is not an option for now

    • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.

      So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.

      The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.

      Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.

      WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.

      The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.

      Common risk factors

      • unhealthy diet
      • physical inactivity
      • tobacco use
      • harmful use of alcohol
      • air pollution added more recently

      Major chronic noncommunicable diseases

      • cancer
      • cardiovascular diseases
      • diabetes
      • chronic respiratory diseases
      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Parent comment discussed “anxiety”, a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.

        • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.

          What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.

          It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.

          If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.

          Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        funny thing is diabetes can cause all the rest of the illness, or as a comorbidity. if your type 2 your at risk for all of those other diseases. people who have type 2 already are taking avrostatin(anti cholesterol meds), maybe blood pressure meds if its high enough, medications to reduce triglycerides. of course insulin, or insulin stimulating medication, because type 2 is insulin resistance. diabetic neuropathy, renal disease. thats type 2 is also a very profitable disease, ton of medications for different associated illnesses.

        type 1 is an expensive disease, but different causes.

      • vivalapivo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        No questions regarding the populational risks as the small percentages would shine with the big numbers.

        WHO’s recommendations remain the same for decades indeed: lower processed and red meat, eat chicken and fiber.

        What’s your point exactly?

        • StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.

          Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.

          Full stop.

          No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.