by rockdoc123 » Sat 14 Dec 2019, 17:08:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')reat to know as I love eggs

as I remember there is a published study that links increased consumption of egg yolks (more than 2.5 per week) to a 1.5 times greater risk of fatal prostate cancer.
That being said I'm sure there are studies that say different. The things I have learned by delving into the published research a bit with regards to medical studies on diet (for my own benefit) is:
1. most studies I've read either have a woefully small compliment of double-blind subjects to be very meaningful or on the other hand, rely on "self-reporting" which has its own problems. As an example who actually admits to how much alcohol they might drink each week?
2. It is very difficult if not impossible to isolate out any particular food ingested from other lifestyle issues (eg. smoking, exercise, drinking, sleep patterns, etc) and at the same time isolate that foods "forcings" versus its interactions with other foods
3. Given the issues with very high-level food impacts studies that delve down to the impact of actual vitamins present in foods becomes even more suspect. As an example, vitamin E in supplemental form is seen as a high risk for certain cancer reoccurrence whereas similar doses through natural sources such as nuts don't have the same results. Is the reason for this or is it just a factor of the issues with testing?
4. No matter where you turn there is always something bad for you in some way. What might be a healthy food to pursue for your arthritis might also be completely bad news for your liver. For years we were told that coffee was bad for you but a number of research papers in the past few years have pointed out two anti-carcinogens present in unfiltered coffee beans (mostly dark espresso beans) and said research recommends 4 - 6 cups of unfiltered java a day as a defensive position. Alcohol has been suggested by some as a carcinogen yet many heavy drinkers never get any cancer and some studies have actually shown there is a negative correlation between alcohol consumption and some forms of cancer (of course there are other risks from alcohol but which are real and which aren't'?). Whose right...whose wrong? I certainly don't know.
5. Statistics reporting can be an issue. As an example, a paper might arrive at the conclusion that a particular food increases your risk of a particular cancer 1.5 times. But standing back a few paces you see that particular cancer only is a problem for 8% of the population. What that means is by consuming that food your risk factor went from 8% to 12%. Is it worth changing your patterns to address that increased risk? Is it even meaningful when you look at the significance range? Looking at some of these studies what they report as consuming X might increase your risk by Y amount really has a wide range of error that overlaps with the null case, meaning the claim of additional risk is statistically unwarranted.
All of that aside it is really clear that trying to understand how the human body reacts to anything is difficult. It isn't like a science experiment in the lab where you can control the experimental universe such that you know exactly what variables are in play. And organic chains and their interactions can be very complex. Most doctors I have ever talked to about the subject admit that they know very little about what is going on but take the most conservative approach possible understanding that when they prescribe drugs or behavioral changes that is an experiment that they need to monitor.
On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore the effects of diet on disease. A friend of mine who is somewhat famous for delving into this as a "layman" is Ashton Embry. Ash has a Ph.D. in Geology and has been a research scientist for the Canadian government for neigh on 35 years. His son was stricken with MS and the doctors could not control it with drugs. Ash, being the inquisitive scientist that he is, spent an enormous amount of time researching everything available on the subject and came to the conclusion that his son's body was reacting to food intolerances. He put him under a very strict diet and in short order, the symptoms disappeared. Now years later Ash's son is disease-free and has become a fairly renown filmmaker. Of course, this is one person and arguably that approach won't work for everyone but it does point to the fact that there is some linkage. But what do you do with that information when there is conflicting information out there?