Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Gotta die sometime and from something.
April 25, 2011 3:51 PM   Subscribe

What Is Good for the Heart May Not Be Good for the Prostate, Study Suggests. In a major study that appears to overturn a lot of previous research, the largest and most authoritative study ever to examine the association of dietary fats and prostate cancer risk has found an inverse association in the effect of Omega-3 fatty acids in heart disease and in prostate cancer. A lot of recent conventional wisdom has been upended, with the role of all fatty acids undergoing substantial revisions in our understanding.

'Analyzing data from a nationwide study involving more than 3,400 men, researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that men with the highest blood percentages of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, an inflammation-lowering omega-3 fatty acid commonly found in fatty fish, have two-and-a-half-times the risk of developing aggressive, high-grade prostate cancer compared to men with the lowest DHA levels.'

'Conversely, the study also found that men with the highest blood ratios of trans-fatty acids -- which are linked to inflammation and heart disease and abundant in processed foods that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oils -- had a 50 percent reduction in the risk of high-grade prostate cancer. In addition, neither of these fats was associated with the risk of low-grade prostate cancer risk. The researchers also found that omega-6 fatty acids, which are found in most vegetable oils and are linked to inflammation and heart disease, were not associated with prostate cancer risk. They also found that none of the fats were associated with the risk of low-grade prostate cancer.'

'"We were stunned to see these results and we spent a lot of time making sure the analyses were correct," said Brasky, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Hutchinson Center's Cancer Prevention Program. "Our findings turn what we know -- or rather what we think we know -- about diet, inflammation and the development of prostate cancer on its head and shine a light on the complexity of studying the association between nutrition and the risk of various chronic diseases."'

But the role of fatty acids in heart disease has already been questioned by recent studies even in heart disease. For example, a lot of the claimed benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in heart disease was speculated to be down to lowering the frequency of atrial fibrillation. Now it seems that is false, as the use of omega-3 does not appear to reduce recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

Worse, major studies into n–3 fatty acids and cardiovascular events have been questioned.
posted by VikingSword (120 comments total) 17 users marked this as a favorite

 
That's it, I'm eating nothing but grilled cheese from now on.
posted by The Whelk at 3:53 PM on April 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Oh, son of a whore. Whatever I eat is going to turn out to be the worst thing ever, isn't it? JUST IN: GREEN LEAFY VEGETABLES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS.
posted by cereselle at 3:56 PM on April 25, 2011 [23 favorites]


When it comes to dietary advice, the medical community keeps making grand pronouncements, and then later saying, "Never mind!"

Makes you wonder whether they're really doing science, doesn't it?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:56 PM on April 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


See your grilled cheese, The Whelk, and raise you a patty melt. With guacamole, just to make it heart-healthy.
posted by Danf at 3:57 PM on April 25, 2011


Just wanted to highlight this:

"Overall, the beneficial effects of eating fish to prevent heart disease outweigh any harm related to prostate cancer risk," Brasky said.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 3:58 PM on April 25, 2011 [18 favorites]


Michael Pollan calls this kind of food science Nutritionism. And I think he's right.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 4:00 PM on April 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


Male deaths from prostate cancer (2010): 32,050
Male deaths from heart disease (2006): 315,706
posted by benzenedream at 4:01 PM on April 25, 2011 [21 favorites]


Wait, you're telling me that the same thing can lower my risk of one kind of death and raise my risk of a different kind of death?

FUCK YOU SCIENCE THIS WILL NOT STAND.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:01 PM on April 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


(usa)
posted by benzenedream at 4:02 PM on April 25, 2011


Your diet should still be primarily concerned with the things most likely to kill you: heart disease, diabetes, and of course, automobile accidents. Think about that poor delivery man next time you order up a pizza.
posted by mek at 4:07 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


But...I like salmon. Especially in burritos. And tacos. Or simply grilled with a wasabe-teriyaki glaze. MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm, delicious Omega-3-rich salmon.

Fuck you, prostate cancer - take your grubby, tumorous mitts off of my salmon tacos and burritos!
posted by mosk at 4:09 PM on April 25, 2011


If you come between me and smoked salmon you better make damn sure I'm dead at the end or I will find you.
posted by The Whelk at 4:12 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Michael Pollan calls this kind of food science Nutritionism. And I think he's right.

What? How? The core tenet of "nutritionism", in Pollan's own words, is:
It’s a system of formulas, relying on various combinations of carbs, fats, proteins, minerals, vitamins, and other nutrients which–in the proper ratios–are supposed to be the key to good health.
But what this study found is that proper ratios do affect your health. Pollan's essentially an atheist when Zeus just came down from the mountain to tell us that Thor isn't real.

You seriously have to wonder what Pollan would have said about iodine supplementation back when everyone was getting goiters. Or what he thinks about folic acid fortification dramatically reducing the number of birth defects in developed countries. How are those not a specific and overwhelming defense of nutritionism?
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:12 PM on April 25, 2011 [13 favorites]


WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
posted by buriednexttoyou at 4:13 PM on April 25, 2011


Chocolate Pickle, the vast majority of medical advice comes not from science, but from marketing. I've raved before, but I strongly suggest Druin Burch's Taking The Medicine for a good look at how little of the practice of medicine is actually based on science and evidence.
posted by straw at 4:13 PM on April 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Damn damn damn damn damn.

Damn.

I have heart disease AND prostate cancer as the two major genetic possibilities for what will kill me. Looks like going Veggie might have helped one at the risk of aggravating the other. :(


benzenedream
Male deaths from prostate cancer (2010): 32,050
Male deaths from heart disease (2006): 315,706


...Well, I suppose given that, at least my choice of diet plays to the odds. And they can at least remove the prostate, not so easy to chop out the ol' ticker. Still... Just... "Damn!"
posted by pla at 4:14 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Whatever, science, I'm going to Wendy's
posted by danb at 4:14 PM on April 25, 2011


No one here gets out alive.
posted by rhizome at 4:17 PM on April 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


But should we increase or decrease the Di-Hydrogen Oxide intake?
posted by sammyo at 4:19 PM on April 25, 2011


Masturbation still lowers the chance of prostate cancer so just fap'n'snack guys.
posted by longbaugh at 4:20 PM on April 25, 2011 [19 favorites]


Fuck me. I'm a vegetarian (the kind that actually doesn't eat meat, fish or fowl), so I've been taking DHA for the past few years. In January I had my cancer-riddled prostate removed. Guess I can start eating massive quantities of potatoes fried in hydrogenated fat. Woo-hop!
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:21 PM on April 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


"But what this study found is that proper ratios do affect your health. Pollan's essentially an atheist when Zeus just came down from the mountain to tell us that Thor isn't real."

That was my first reaction, too, Oxfaf, but I don't think you're fully engaging Pollan's argument,-- or at least the argument in the linked post.

That post is talking about microwavable dinners.
Nutritionists in recent decades have focused on individual nutrients in their attempts to identify beneficial ingredients. But Gussow pointed out the folly of fixating on, say, beta carotene’s potential to fight cancer when there are some 50 other carotenoids commonly found in fruits and vegetables. Since many of these carotenoids occur together, Gussow added, “It’s impossible to say when you’re looking at someone’s diet, which one–or several–of them might be helping protect against cancer.”

What we do know is that plant-based foods contain a wide range of micro and macro nutrients that foster good health. This is why Gussow and her fellow nutrition professor Marion Nestle–and Michael Pollan, who acknowledges his debt to both these women–are forever telling us to eat whole foods, especially fruits and vegetables. Packaged, processed “food-like substances” containing long lists of gobbledy-gook ingredients will never form the basis of a healthy diet, regardless of whether they’ve been “enhanced” with fiber, or omega 3 fatty acids, or antioxidants. ...

I’ve personally had some success in suggesting that we use the term “indigenous” nutrients in our specifications which would mean they had to be there to start with and “nutrition” couldn’t be achieved by just dumping appropriate quantities of the most popular nutrients into any old mix of corn, soy and sugar. But we need to go further than that. We definitely need to push for food, food that comes fresh into homes and institutions and is cooked so that it tastes like actual food. Simple, good tasting food that eaters sometimes have a chance to handle raw…
posted by ibmcginty at 4:22 PM on April 25, 2011 [9 favorites]


Well, I'm allergic to fish, so if this isn't exactly good news for me, it at least gives me a mild sense of schadenfreude to compensate for not being able to eat delicious salmon.
posted by infinitywaltz at 4:27 PM on April 25, 2011


I buy the part of the argument that says that we can't just take nutrient-molecules, mush them together into a carrot-like shape, and have that be as good as the real thing. I don't buy Pollan's pithy slogans as the end-all of food science, which is why I think any claim of "nutritionism" is way out-of-place in this particular discussion. We have to eat real foods and we have to understand whether individual nutrients (iodine, folic acid, omega-3/6, etc) are present in the right ratios in that real-food-based diet. Saying that this study falls under "nutritionism" is bunk because it says we shouldn't try to understand how the nutrients in food relate to actual health outcomes.

What I see Pollan saying is "Don't think that just because you get beta carotene and the right mix of carbs/protein/fat, you're getting a good diet". We can't twist this around like P-B-Z-M did and say that studying nutrient amounts and ratios isn't a good thing to do. It's a very subtle distinction that is hard to convey, especially now that modern food is fortified with the things that "real food" diets lacked in the past. Just look at the two camps of vegetarians on AskMe that seem to come out - Camp 1 says if you eat some lentils and lots of veggies, you don't have to worry about deficiencies and all will be well. Camp 2 says no vegetarian would be so dumb as to not take a B12 supplement. They certainly can't both be right.
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:39 PM on April 25, 2011


So, my choice is a broken heart or a pain in the...
posted by eriko at 4:42 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Prostate cancer, while a horrible disease, is such a slowly progressing form of cancer most of the time that if you're over 55 or 60 they don't even recommend having it treated because you'll likely die of old age before the cancer gets you.

I'd bet that eating for heart health would be the more prudent way to go overall, unless you have specific genetic predisposition toward prostate cancer.
posted by hippybear at 4:42 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


What if you eat the Omega-3 instead of just rubbing it on your prostate? Is that still bad too?
posted by klangklangston at 4:42 PM on April 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


You seriously have to wonder what Pollan would have said about iodine supplementation back when everyone was getting goiters. Or what he thinks about folic acid fortification dramatically reducing the number of birth defects in developed countries. How are those not a specific and overwhelming defense of nutritionism?

That seems like a good question, OxFCAC, but I think you're actually bolstering Pollan's claims, in a sense. If people ate the sort of diet he advocates, they wouldn't have those specific nutrient deficiencies in the first place.
posted by clockzero at 4:43 PM on April 25, 2011


0xFCAF: No need to line up so many straw men so quickly. The post actually reinforces Pollan's argument; it's saying that DHA administered in a vacuum are possibly worse than nothing, and therefore DHA-enriched processed foods are a bad idea. Which is pretty much exactly what Pollan would say.

Pollan isn't making the claims you are assigning to him. He is not "the end-all of food science," he is just explaining why nutritional science today is the train wreck that it so obviously is.
posted by mek at 4:43 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I prefer the cigarettes and whiskey diet. Sure, it'll kill me, but before it does I'll spend a good bit of my remaining time feeling immortal.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:46 PM on April 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


It's extremely possible to eat a diet full of real foods that is deficient in iodine or folic acid. In fact, that was the sort of the default state for many inland populations for a very long period in human history, and still is in undeveloped nations (which aren't eating huge amounts of processed food, by any stretch of the imagination).

What's the consistent set of rules here that tells us that supplementing with iodine is good (which, again, is very commonly deficient in many regions where people are eating natural, local, real foods), but supplementing with DHA is bad?
posted by 0xFCAF at 4:52 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


hippybear: Prostate cancer, while a horrible disease, is such a slowly progressing form of cancer most of the time that if you're over 55 or 60 they don't even recommend having it treated because you'll likely die of old age before the cancer gets you.


That's true for the most part, but this research is suggesting that DHA is associated with (and I quote) "aggressive, high-grade prostate cancer," which is the kind that you die from, rather than dying with.
posted by greatgefilte at 4:53 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


(which, again, is very commonly deficient in many regions where people are eating natural, local, real foods)

You're confusing an agrarian diet with an indigenous diet.
posted by mek at 4:55 PM on April 25, 2011


Ah god, stop worrying so damned much. Much of my dad's generation died of bullet and shrapnel poisoning in their early twenties. Jesus god, when did we become such a bunch of tiresome, precious worrywarts? . We're all going to die. Wank, drink, smoke, and eat bacon sandwiches. Enjoy life, for fuck's sake. What's the point of living a few years longer if you don't live?
posted by Decani at 4:58 PM on April 25, 2011 [6 favorites]


Masturbation still lowers the chance of prostate cancer so just fap'n'snack guys.

Saucy!
posted by five fresh fish at 4:59 PM on April 25, 2011


As I always like to say: Everything in moderation. ESPECIALLY moderation.
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:03 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Christ, what an asshole!
posted by joe lisboa at 5:04 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


What I see is that in the early 20th century we started adding iodine to particular parts of the diet, and from a public health perspective it was a huge win. We did the same for folic acid and it was another huge win. We tried it with DHA and it seems to have been maybe a bad idea in light of this study.

That's just the progression of public health and science. We try various stuff, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but on the net we do pretty well and we're much better off for it. It's an abuse of hindsight to say "Ha! Nutritionism! Told you so!" when things don't work out (DHA) and say "Well, everyone should have been eating this particular diet anyway" when things work out massively in the benefit of the public health.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:04 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


Too much iodine will cause goiter, too much folic acid increases rates of cancer. They're not entirely made of win. Same with DHA, apparently. Probably everything.
posted by stavrogin at 5:09 PM on April 25, 2011


The reaffirms my belief that the best thing to do is as follows:

Eat whatever the hell you want so long as you exercise and don't gain a ton of weight.
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on April 25, 2011


What I see is that in the early 20th century we started adding iodine to particular parts of the diet, and from a public health perspective it was a huge win.

Yeah but your start point here is the 19th century, which doesn't exactly make for a great dataset. The urban age was undeniably a net lose in terms of average public health, and the Industrial Revolution doubly so. From the Black Plague through two World Wars, it was a pretty shitty time to be alive. What you should be looking at is what people ate a thousand, three thousand, ten thousand years ago, and how well they lived then. Not how nutritionism compensated for a largely nutrient-void diet in industrial societies.
posted by mek at 5:15 PM on April 25, 2011


JUST IN: GREEN LEAFY VEGETABLES LINKED TO BRAIN TUMORS.

Close, Kidney Stones.
posted by Mick at 5:16 PM on April 25, 2011


With all this talk about Michael Pollan, I'm surprised no one's actually linked his piece on nutritionism. It's worth a read, not the least because it specifically talks about omega-3.
posted by parudox at 5:17 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I'm really worried that when they finally find the food you can eat that makes you never die, it's going to be something gross, like eggplant or Pizza Hut.
posted by Nedroid at 5:19 PM on April 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


From the Black Plague through two World Wars, it was a pretty shitty time to be alive. What you should be looking at is what people ate a thousand, three thousand, ten thousand years ago, and how well they lived then.

Mostly not very well. The ones that didn't die as infants, anyway. I'm a little aghast when people appear to believe it was better to be alive in, say, 600 AD than in 1850 AD. I believe it to be a religious position rather than a rational one.
posted by Justinian at 5:20 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


We'll agree to disagree, then. Having studied the consequences of contact for indigenous cultures of North and South America, I will absolutely and categorically disagree with the statement that it was better to be alive in 1850AD than 600AD.
posted by mek at 5:23 PM on April 25, 2011


I'm a little aghast when people appear to believe it was better to be alive in, say, 600 AD than in 1850 AD.

posted by Justinian


Antieponhysterical?
posted by The Whelk at 5:23 PM on April 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


Of course if you are a member of the white aristocracy then yes, 1850AD was a pretty sweet deal. Factory worker, not so much.
posted by mek at 5:24 PM on April 25, 2011


What you should be looking at is what people ate a thousand, three thousand, ten thousand years ago, and how well they lived then.

Considering that they lived before any modern medicine whatsoever, I don't know that this data would tell us much.

A lot of our confusion about what best to eat is a direct result of the fact that we've eliminated so many other ways of dying. Heart disease or slow-moving cancers were not a factor, regardless of what you ate, if childbirth took you off at 22 or smallpox at 10 or invaders burning your village and you with it after you were lucky enough to live to 40.

Or even just a small infection, untreated, killing you off via gangrene. No amount of healthy fish and olive oil and local veggies is going to help with that.

Diet is a new and highly complex science; it's not surprising we barely understand it yet. We've never really needed to before. And we should also stop casting back to a mythical Golden Age of nutrition or ideal ancestral diet. No such time existed. Human beings started out as scavengers, most likely, but we've discovered since that there are better things to eat than decaying antelopes, and good for us for doing so.
posted by emjaybee at 5:26 PM on April 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


Too much iodine will cause goiter

I thought goiter was a symptom of iodine deficiency?
posted by sevenyearlurk at 5:30 PM on April 25, 2011


We'll agree to disagree, then. Having studied the consequences of contact for indigenous cultures of North and South America, I will absolutely and categorically disagree with the statement that it was better to be alive in 1850AD than 600AD.

Well, that's fine. I, too, enjoy talking about the evils of modern technology on the internet.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I thought goiter was a symptom of iodine deficiency?

It's too much or too little. link. Too much or too little iodine may cause cancer, too.
posted by stavrogin at 5:35 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, back to square one?

Fatty acid interactions are best in the right doses, rather than all out of whack. Which was also the presumption by telling people to get extra Omega-3's in their diet in the first place.

I suppose this study was followed up by a study comparing groups of people who have large amounts of fish already in their diet?

a nationwide randomized clinical trial that tested the efficacy of the drug finasteride to prevent prostate cancer...
Among the study participants, very few took fish oil supplements -- the most common non-food source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are known to prevent heart disease and other inflammatory conditions. The majority got omega 3s from eating fish.


Yeah, I don't know.
posted by P.o.B. at 5:35 PM on April 25, 2011


emjaybee, Justinian, etc - I'm just going to call you out on what is an egregiously Eurocentric conception of history and step away from the thread before I derail it completely. I would hope us past the point where fellow mefites would engage in total denial of the existence of non-Western medicine, technology, etcetera, but I guess not.

Also, the Internet was created by a man, Licklider, who believed in the inevitability of a man-made nuclear apocalypse and wanted to create a communications network that would function afterwards. So, yes, I am thrilled to talk about the evils of modern technology on a medium which was invented to deal with the evils of modern technology. Memail me!
posted by mek at 5:36 PM on April 25, 2011


Michael Pollan calls this kind of food science Nutritionism. And I think he's right.
...
Michael Pollan calls this kind of food science Nutritionism. And I think he's right.
Micheal Pollan is annoying. He seems to think that you should just go on common sense to decide what is and isn't healthy and eat "food" which he means, I guess, natural food or whatever. But our entire conception of what's "Common sense" in terms of what people should eat is based on science.

It used to be people would think of a shitload of meat, heavy fats, bacon and so on were part of a 'natural' diet. Today we know that's obviously unhealthy. Even cigarettes seem like common sense bad for you, but that's really only because of the research that's been out there. People used to think they were healthy and doctors even promoted them on TV.

There are plenty of "real food" diets that would get you killed from clogged arteries at 60 if you followed them. Plus there is the incredibly arrogant and condescending thing about how anyone who doesn't eat what he says you should eat isn't eating "real food"

---

That said I am skeptical of these kind of 'breakthrough studies' about food. It seems like some random new thing crops up every few months and food scientists go out to the media and call it a 'breakthrough' and then write a book about how you should eat based on their new finding and then hawk it on Oprah and Dr. Phil. I do think a lot of it is B.S. But in general, balancing the right basic nutrients you should be fine. I don't think it matters whether those nutrients come from organic kale or junk food.
0xFCAF: No need to line up so many straw men so quickly. The post actually reinforces Pollan's argument; it's saying that DHA administered in a vacuum are possibly worse than nothing, and therefore DHA-enriched processed foods are a bad idea. Which is pretty much exactly what Pollan would say.
No, the argument is that DHA is bad for your prostate, and it doesn't matter if it's from a 'natural' source or if it's in a supplement form. That's the problem with Pollans' argument: that there is somehow a difference between how the various compounds are packaged.
From the Black Plague through two World Wars, it was a pretty shitty time to be alive. What you should be looking at is what people ate a thousand, three thousand, ten thousand years ago, and how well they lived then. Not how nutritionism compensated for a largely nutrient-void diet in industrial societies.
The problem with that is that it's absurd. Thousands of years ago the number one cause of human death was homicide. After getting eaten by bears, falling out of trees, freezing and dehydrating and starving to death, the vast majority would probably have been killed by pathogens. They wouldn't have even made it to the cancer/heart disease level yet.

Plus, it's not like they kept detailed mortality statistics. We have no way of knowing how well they lived compared to people today, after excluding accidents and infectious disease (and I would be that there was an enormous amount of regional viability as well)

Honestly the whole "we just have to eat like hunter and gatherers" or whatever argument just seems based more on romanticism then any kind of rational basis.


---

The 1850 vs. 600 ad thing depends on your social status. Being a plantation slave in Georgia probably wouldn't be much better then being a serf in feudal Europe, and probably worse. On the other hand, being a member of the aristocracy or the upper middle class would be fun compared to being a member of the elite in 600 AD.

But what's interesting is that modern health-care is really a 20th century thing. You go back even to like the 1920s and people were selling radioactive substances as curatives.
posted by delmoi at 5:36 PM on April 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


Also, the Internet was created by a man, Licklider, who believed in the inevitability of a man-made nuclear apocalypse and wanted to create a communications network that would function afterwards.
What? 'The internet' was not created by a single person. According to this guys Wikipedia page he laid out some principles that were later used by ARPANet but he didn't actually 'create' the internet. There were a lot of people who had those kind of ideas back then. His wikipedia page is rather hierographical as it is.
posted by delmoi at 5:40 PM on April 25, 2011


This study will be contradicted by a new study, so whatever action you take now, do the exact opposite to stay ahead of things.
posted by stbalbach at 5:42 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, basically, fish in the pants: bad idea?
posted by Sys Rq at 5:45 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


total denial of the existence of non-Western medicine, technology, etcetera, but I guess not.

There is no such thing as Western and non-Western medicine or technology; there is just medicine and technology. I'm not even sure what non-Western technology means. Like computers that only function in one hemisphere?

Anyway, I'm going to call you out too... on being awesome.
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The 1850 vs. 600 ad thing depends on your social status.

And sex. Women were still having a pretty hard time in 1850. But compared to a thousand years ago? Yeah. And that's a touch over 50% of the population we are talking about.
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on April 25, 2011


So, basically, fish in the pants: bad idea?

Dead = Yes.

Alive = No, it's a ton-o-fun!
posted by P.o.B. at 5:48 PM on April 25, 2011


What? 'The internet' was not created by a single person. According to this guys Wikipedia page he laid out some principles that were later used by ARPANet but he didn't actually 'create' the internet.

Sorry - designed. Specifically, he invented packet networking, and a designed a lot of the basics of the personal computer. Obviously Al Gore created it, amirite? Anyway that's the worst possible part of my post to critique.
posted by mek at 5:52 PM on April 25, 2011


The 1850 vs. 600 ad thing depends on your social status.

And where you lived, and whether you were "civilized." Most of the claims of improbable health among primitive people occur in aboriginal populations, which practice hunting and gathering instead of agriculture. They tend to eat very varied diets, and can practice what is sometimes called "diet wiseness" among researchers who note that animals given a wide range of potential foods will naturally select a balanced diet.

The Europeans who discovered Polynesia absolutely marveled at the bearing, stamina, and overall good health of these savages who had no medicine. Of course we went and introduced STD's and enslaved them fixing that problem.
posted by localroger at 5:54 PM on April 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I prefer the cigarettes and whiskey diet. Sure, it'll kill me, but before it does I'll spend a good bit of my remaining time feeling immortal.
posted by BitterOldPunk


Seems to be working for Keith Richards...
posted by 445supermag at 5:55 PM on April 25, 2011


Seems to be working for Keith Richards...

I must be leaving out the heroin!
posted by localroger at 5:56 PM on April 25, 2011


What Is Good for the Heart May Not Be Good for the Prostate

Hopefully not vice versa, because I already have to wear glasses.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:58 PM on April 25, 2011


nedroid: I'm really worried that when they finally find the food you can eat that makes you never die, it's going to be something gross, like eggplant or Pizza Hut.

It's Big Macs all the way down.
posted by localroger at 6:02 PM on April 25, 2011


I prefer the cigarettes and whiskey diet. Sure, it'll kill me, but before it does I'll spend a good bit of my remaining time feeling immortal.

Seems to be working for Keith Richards...

I must be leaving out the heroin!


The Keef Solution to Immortality has been considered

posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 6:04 PM on April 25, 2011


researchers who note that animals given a wide range of potential foods will naturally select a balanced diet.

"Naturally" is a problematic word. And it depends on the animal. Horses will eat themselves to death on oats if you let them, but perhaps domestication made them stupider. I guess I could maybe go along if you are talking about wild animals, but couldn't you just as easily make the case that evolving in a certain environment is likely to lead to being adapted to eat the most nutritious foods available in that environment, rather than to some sort of "instinct" that animals have but we have mysteriously lost? They aren't choosing, they are just mostly unable to eat anything but what keeps them alive most effectively.

Or maybe what I'm trying to get at is that animals in the wild that eat too unwisely die, and those that eat better diets live and reproduce; take them out of that environment and give them unlimited choice with no consequences that prevent them from reproducing , and I would guess that at least some will lose their ability to "choose" a "balanced" diet.
posted by emjaybee at 6:05 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I m reminded how many years ago when I ran a good many miles daily my doctor told me that this was great for my heart. And that I would probably die of cancer instead of heart attack.
posted by Postroad at 6:27 PM on April 25, 2011


Most of the claims of improbable health among primitive people occur in aboriginal populations, which practice hunting and gathering instead of agriculture.

Which has the side effect of limiting population to levels far below that required for modern technology, including medicine and such. I might go so far as to grant that a hunter-gatherer diet would be healthier than what a lot of people have been eating for a while now... for the small fraction of the population which can be supported by such a lifestyle. And are willing to live with pre-18th century technology.

who believed in the inevitability of a man-made nuclear apocalypse and wanted to create a communications network that would function afterwards.

Because, as we all know, the internet would function perfectly in the absence of microprocessor fabs and, hey, electricity.
posted by Justinian at 6:33 PM on April 25, 2011


Well Justinian, at least you're much better at snappy one-liners than one of the fathers of computer science. We can't all make significant intellectual contributions, but that must count for something, right? I bet you dress better than Turing, too.
posted by mek at 7:01 PM on April 25, 2011


Boys, boys, you're both pretty.
posted by klangklangston at 7:14 PM on April 25, 2011 [7 favorites]


Masturbation still lowers the chance of prostate cancer so just fap'n'snack guys.

Troy McClure is going to outlive us all.
posted by condour75 at 7:17 PM on April 25, 2011


I propose that nutritional scientists trying to determine what is a healthy diet and nuclear scientists trying to harness energy from atomic fusion swap their fields of study for a couple of years. Odds are long against success, but it's impossible that less progress could be made in either field.
posted by digsrus at 7:18 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Troy McClure is going to outlive us all.

I'm giving him a run for his money.
posted by maxwelton at 7:19 PM on April 25, 2011


Epidemiological study, isn't it? No intervention. (Repurposing of data from a large interventional drug trial, so it can be misleading.)

If you feel like invoking Pollan, here's how I'd do it:

"If you want to avoid cardiovascular disease, be like people who eat lots of fish. If you want to avoid prostate cancer, don't be like people who eat lots of fish."

It's not a surprising study because one thing led to both good and bad outcomes; that's pretty much par for the course in medicine, which is why I think all the time North Americans spend talking about good food and bad food is a little silly. It's a surprising study because something with anti-inflammatory effects led to increased rates of a disease that's linked to inflammation.

Full article's behind a paywall, so I can't read everything about it.
posted by nathan v at 7:29 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


A lot of recent conventional wisdom has been upended...

I see what you did there.
posted by LordSludge at 7:31 PM on April 25, 2011


And it depends on the animal. Horses will eat themselves to death on oats if you let them

As humans will eat themselves to death on cheap carbohydrates if you let them. But neither humans nor horses have that option without the fundamentally unnatural technology of farming. It is true that the carrying capacity for humans per acre is very low in hunter gatherer style, but that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about health. And farming humans' health just sucks compared to hunter-gatherers, or even the milk-drinking Mongols who were able to conquer China from their horses.
posted by localroger at 7:53 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The 1850 vs. 600 ad thing depends on your social status.

Quality of Life... verses quantity?
posted by ovvl at 7:55 PM on April 25, 2011


Masturbation still lowers the chance of prostate cancer so just fap'n'snack guys.

Good news everybody! I just discovered fish oil is dual-use!
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:11 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


This makes perfect sense to me. If you eat heart-healthy foods you'll live long enough to get prostate cancer.
posted by rocket88 at 8:13 PM on April 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


Boys, boys, you're both pretty.

Take it back, take it back!
posted by Justinian at 8:31 PM on April 25, 2011


The idea that something as vital and omnipresent as DHA causes or exacerbates cancer is fishy. It's what our brains are made of...

Some alternative theories and considerations:

-Pollutants in fish? PCBs? Mercury? Bisphenol A in canned tuna?
-DHA promotes heightened hormone sensitivity?
-Fish oil decreases libido (anecdotally) -- which decreases ejaculation frequency?
-Do men get a lot of prostate cancer in Iceland? Japan?
posted by blargerz at 8:38 PM on April 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


When it comes to dietary advice, the medical community keeps making grand pronouncements, and then later saying, "Never mind!"

Oh, give me a fucking break.

Makes you wonder whether they're really doing science, doesn't it?

A bunch of studies (you know, scientific studies) saying 'eat omega-3 - it's great for your heart!' and another study (you know, a scientific study) saying 'that's totally true, but it might not be so good for your prostate' 'makes you wonder whether they're really doing the science'? Where did all the science we're talking about come from if nobody's doing the science? It must be MAGIC.

Oh, but I see what you're saying. Scientists say that something that's good for you in one way might be bad in another, so it can't be good science, because it's all or nothing, right? That's why I don't shower - one study says you need to water for your health but another said accidentally inhaling DHMO could kill you. If scientists can't make up their minds about something as simple as water, why should we listen to anything they say?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:55 PM on April 25, 2011 [4 favorites]


And it depends on the animal. Horses will eat themselves to death on oats if you let them

As humans will eat themselves to death on cheap carbohydrates if you let them. But neither humans nor horses have that option without the fundamentally unnatural technology of farming. It is true that the carrying capacity for humans per acre is very low in hunter gatherer style, but that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about health. And farming humans' health just sucks compared to hunter-gatherers, or even the milk-drinking Mongols who were able to conquer China from their horses.


Do you have data on...any of this? What was Mongol longevity? What was that of gatherer-hunters, or of agriculture-using humans prior to recorded history? Because I would love to see it.

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth, and it's not "yay, our current diet rocks!" ok? Being a prehistoric gatherer-hunter was in all likelihood a hard life. You may be lean and heart disease free, but you also die from all the injuries and illnesses for which you lack treatment, and also from the years when there was scarcity. You had no way to save up during good years to carry you through lean years.

From that POV, agriculture was a great advance; now instead of having 90% of your mental focus be on How to Find Food Today, and also, Hope We Make it Across the Mountains, you stay in one place and have a much more stable food supply. Your physical risk, from your POV, goes down.

You still didn't have medicine, so you still died fairly early, but you probably did live longer, and easier, with the ability to have more surviving children.

I do actually think that a high carb/low activity life isn't any better for us than an oats diet is for horses, but that's just an accident of our development, not a moral issue. And I refuse to blame our ancestors for not having our hindsight; in their place, I would most likely make their choice, and think myself pretty damn smart to do so.

And again, "natural" and "unnatural" are meaningless terms. If tool making is natural, and gathering is natural, why isn't agriculture? If human beings think of it, then it's natural, because natural has no meaning, except maybe "made with more primitive technologies/materials."

If what we're doing isn't working, we change it; just like our ancestors did. But first let's dump all the fantasies about what their life was like and focus on what our situation is now.
posted by emjaybee at 9:09 PM on April 25, 2011


The idea that something as vital and omnipresent as DHA causes or exacerbates cancer is fishy.

Obviously! But I'm still stuck on malignant melanoma. The idea that something as vital and omnipresent as sunlight causes or exacerbates cancer doesn't strike me as too bright.
posted by nathan v at 9:45 PM on April 25, 2011


George Burns smoked several cigars every day, and was known to eat entire steaks drenched in garlic butter for dinner a few times a week. He lived to be 100.

Almost enough reason to take up smoking cigars.
posted by tzikeh at 9:56 PM on April 25, 2011


Argh.
Hm, this was a low-risk prostate cancer group, not an aggressive prostate cancer group Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention.
(Ornish et al. 2008)
posted by hank at 9:56 PM on April 25, 2011


Wasn't there just a post a bit ago about some science iconoclast who was basically gutting our reliance on confidence intervals, especially regarding medicine?

I feel like a lot of this came up, but I can't find it.
posted by klangklangston at 10:45 PM on April 25, 2011


I don't know that any medical comparisons with significantly earlier eras make any sense at all. For the reasons mentioned above, but also because infant mortality was incredibly worse, even just a century ago. If 20, 30, 40% or more of the population is dying before 12 months of age, then it seriously skews any kind of extrapolations about adult health from the segment of the population that survived to be old enough to develop heart disease or cancer.

Just to note that even as recently as 1950 in the US, the infant mortality rate was 15.2% (i.e., 152 infants died in their first year per 1000 live births), not even considering the number that died in miscarriage (perinatal) or children that died by the age of five (child mortality). Compare that to approximately 4.5% today. Making comparisons of adult health between these two eras - even as proximate as they are - seems highly problematic.

So, I'd much rather be born into a society/era that had a significantly greater likelihood that I will contract heart disease or cancer by the time I'm fifty, should I live that long, but also had a commensurately lower likelihood that I'd die in childbirth or infancy.
posted by darkstar at 11:31 PM on April 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


The good news is as long as you eat what (your opinion) of the medical consensus is of what's good for you, you're probably getting some statistically significant placebo benefits
posted by crayz at 12:45 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


What Is Good for the Heart May Not Be Good for the Prostate, Study Suggests. See also: Cycling.
posted by MuffinMan at 12:53 AM on April 26, 2011


Two random thoughts:

Stress is a killer. What happens to people always worrying whether they're doing everything right?

If you manage to live your nutritional life *perfectly*, with no trace of any bad habits, and if you're able to avert all diseases, then one day you can brag that you died of "natural causes".
posted by Twang at 1:23 AM on April 26, 2011


and I just bought fish for dinner...
posted by ThenCameNow at 1:35 AM on April 26, 2011


Michael Pollan: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Alex Balk: "Drink alcohol. Quite a bit. Mostly bourbon."

(via Kottke.)
posted by chavenet at 4:03 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


fap'n'snack

Among anglers, this is known as "catch and release."
posted by condour75 at 4:51 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Good news everybody! I just discovered fish oil is dual-use!

Do you like fish-sticks?
posted by longbaugh at 5:04 AM on April 26, 2011


emjaybee, there have been several studies of modern aboriginals showing that even though they are confined to the least productive habitats now due to the spread of civilization, they typically spend less time "looking for food" (including making hunting implements and all other mandatory survival work) than modern civilized people spend working at jobs. I'm not going to look it up for you because, check it, unlike a typical hunter gatherer at 7:45 AM I'm at work. Use the Google.
posted by localroger at 5:45 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


emjaybee pt. 2: And again, "natural" and "unnatural" are meaningless terms. If tool making is natural, and gathering is natural, why isn't agriculture?

Because humans evolved to occupy a particular niche. That niche involves walking around a lot and eating a diet rich in protein. It's not a meaningless thing to say it is "unnatural" for a horse to eat itself to death on oats because horses did not evolve to live in a world full of oats, and that's reflected in their behavior when you put them in that unnatural situation. Similarly, humans did not evolve to live in a world where we spend most of our itme sitting down with an infinite supply of cheap carbohydrates, and it is shaking out that that's an unnatural situation for us as well for the same reason.
posted by localroger at 5:51 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


NEWS REPORT: ASPARAGUS CAUSES CANCER
LACK OF ASPARAGUS ALSO CAUSES CANCER
posted by shakespeherian at 7:30 AM on April 26, 2011


ALWAYS HAVE THE CORRECT AROUNT OF ASPARAGUS
posted by The Whelk at 7:36 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]


I wonder if they considered that people who eat a lot of fish may have higher levels of mercury. I'm pretty sure fish can be high in a number of compounds such as PCBs which have already been linked to cancer.

This study on fish eaters in New Zealand seemed to find a correlation between fish with PCB and mercury and cancer risk.
posted by xarnop at 8:04 AM on April 26, 2011


Just to say, I find it surprising they didn't test the men for endocrine disrupters that tend to be high in fish. Would have been helpful in assesing what's going on here.
posted by xarnop at 8:13 AM on April 26, 2011


When it comes to dietary advice, the medical community the media keeps making grand pronouncements, and then later saying, "Never mind!"

Makes you wonder whether they're really doing science
selling adspace, doesn't it?

FTetcetc
posted by FatherDagon at 8:15 AM on April 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Similarly, humans did not evolve to live in a world where we spend most of our itme sitting down with an infinite supply of cheap carbohydrates, and it is shaking out that that's an unnatural situation for us as well for the same reason.

Humans are all about the unnatural lifestyles these days. Processed foods like omelettes instead of raw insects, tailored clothing instead of loincloths, working at an office instead of throwing spears at small sinhala, posting on Metafilter instead of sitting companionably around a fire. Totally unnatural.

Which is why I recommend that everyone who admires the hunter-gatherer lifestyle leave right now to go join one of the remaining tribes. Losing a material lifestyle will be a small price to pay for having all that free time.

Also, when you go, can I have your stuff?
posted by happyroach at 8:40 AM on April 26, 2011


happyroach, nobody has expressed a desire to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, especially me. What we keep saying is that there are aspects to our modern lifestyle which are very unhealthy because we're not adapted to it, and we are not as much healthier than our ancestors as a lot of people would like to think because of this.

Incidentally, omelettes are not an inherently processed food. Hunter-gatherers would regularly eat all the ingredients of an omelette and could easily make them with primitive technology.

Pancakes, on the other hand, require farming, which is probably why they are poisonous to borderline diabetics such as myself and omelettes aren't.

Aboriginal people who wear loincloths do so because they live in hot climates where that makes a lot more sense when you also don't have air conditioning; in other climates they prove perfectly capable of fabricating more elaborate clothing. And in case you didn't notice lots of people still find physical activity compelling enough that they do it for sport even though we don't need to do it to eat any more. And everybody says that if more of us did that we'd be healthier.

I am really tired of people assuming that because I point out evidence that ancient life wasn't in fact "nasty, brutish, and short," that I want to live that sort of life. What I want is to live a life with modern conveniences but that isn't slowly killing me. Denying the slowly killing me part is not however a positive way to do that.
posted by localroger at 9:30 AM on April 26, 2011 [3 favorites]


Localroger, toward your plight I tried to look up some of research on cancer rates throughout history which of course turns up a lot of controversy and probably not a lot of insight, but I thought this article was interesting if you haven't read it;
http://www.jonbarron.org/alternative-cancer/historic-growth-rates-of-cancer

In the comments you can find some great information such as this:
"Accordingly, "cancer" is a Significant Biological SPECIAL program of Nature and is caused by isolating, unexpected conflict shocks to our Psyche, which then initiates a program appropriate to the perceived crisis. Prostate 'cancer' is caused by a perceived sexual inadequacy (more often than not in older males!), the purpose of which is to produce more fluid!"

Well, pshh you can't argue with Logic, can you? Take that gravity huggers!
posted by xarnop at 10:02 AM on April 26, 2011


Research on fairly well established molecular pathways indicates that DHA reduces inflammation. It works by thermodynamics; you increase the omega-3:omega-6 ratio, you push things along certain "anti-inflammation" pathways. And TFA is associated with increased inflammatory biomarkers.

Because of those well-established links, this study seems to use DHA and TFA as biomarkers of inflammation. When the authors say that there is an association between DHA and increased "high-grade prostate cancer risk", and between TFA and decreased risk, they are essentially saying that they did not find an association between inflammation and the risk of that type of cancer.

I'm not an oncologist, but I know that there are many mechanisms for oncogenesis. Some of the "cancer" pathways overlap with the inflammation pathways, but that doesn't mean inflammation is the root of every cancer. As the authors of the study say, "these findings illustrate the complexity of research on nutrition and chronic disease risk, in which the effects of nutrients may differ across multiple diseases."

Correlation/causation, etc and so forth.
If you're desperate for the full text, I can help you out.
posted by zennie at 10:51 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Just shows to go ya....
No matter how much we know, we're still going to die from something. Eat , drink and be merry.....!!
posted by txmon at 11:09 AM on April 26, 2011


Stress is a killer. What happens to people always worrying whether they're doing everything right?

You ask, you shall receive (an answer). Here ya go: Worry more, live longer!

"Stress may not be the one-way ticket to an early grave that most of us assume. In fact, it could do wonders for the immune system and even keep cancers at bay."

and more: Keys to Long Life? Not What You Might Expect.

"Cheer up. Stop worrying. Don’t work so hard. Good advice for a long life? As it turns out, no. In a groundbreaking study of personality as a predictor of longevity, University of California, Riverside researchers found just the opposite."

The bottom line in new research is that those who "don't worry be happy" die earlier compared to the "worried wells", precisely because the worriers are more likely to pay attention to their health and engage in healthy habits.
posted by VikingSword at 11:43 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


Which is why I recommend that everyone who admires the hunter-gatherer lifestyle leave right now to go join one of the remaining tribes.

Unfortunately most of the species and the associated forests which sustained hunter-gatherer cultures have long since been eradicated by the dominant culture, and plenty more natural systems are on the verge of total collapse. And the survivors of the indigenous genocide have largely forgotten what knowledge they once had, as it was systematically destroyed by residential schools which forcibly removed them from their society. Even their languages are dying out.

So, no, you can't go home again. But you can eat less refined flour and more whole foods. (Mostly plants.)
posted by mek at 12:35 PM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


xarnop -- yeah cancer rates through history are a real magnet for nutrition nuts. But there is good data on things like height and body mass and dentition which are preserved in fossils, and I've seen several sources claim that populations for whom we have plentiful fossil records as they transitioned from hunting to agriculture ca. 10,000-6,000 BC became shorter, fatter, more susceptible to numerous diseases, and their teeth rotted a lot more. In fact, another fun factoid reported by nearly every European to discover a new aboriginal people is the surprisingly good state of their teeth.

mek -- not only that, but we couldn't support 7 billion people on the diet I am now eating even if we switched to industrially advanced production methods.

(residential schools ... mostly plants) IIRC the Canadian Inuit who were forced out of their lifestyle previously lived long lives in good health almost entirely on meat, a fact which was not believed when Vilhjalmur Stefansson returned from exploring and reported it. So Stansson had himself observed for a year to prove he stayed on the diet, and ended up healthier at the end of the experiment than he was when he started it.
posted by localroger at 12:59 PM on April 26, 2011


Wow, VikingSword, did you finish that last article? In two paragraphs, it manages to address stress, worrying about stress and nutrition, the FPP and the ensuing discussion! Score.

It's never too late to choose a healthier path, Friedman and Martin said. The first step is to throw away the lists and stop worrying about worrying.

"Some of the minutiae of what people think will help us lead long, healthy lives, such as worrying about the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in the foods we eat, actually are red herrings, distracting us from the major pathways," Friedman said. "When we recognize the long-term healthy and unhealthy patterns in ourselves, we can begin to maximize the healthy patterns."
posted by nTeleKy at 1:33 PM on April 26, 2011


Sure, but what does "distraction" mean? And distraction from what? And what are the consequences of that "distraction"? There's the study. And then there's the commentary - and when the commentary is not directly based on the study, I tend to ignore it, no matter who it is who makes the commentary. Data or nothing. So let us say that omega-3 to omega-6 ratios are not going to translate into a longer life - that doesn't say that worrying about health is not going to do so. Now, if worrying about diet minutia is going to distract us from overall healthy habits, such as for example regular exercise, I agree, that would be a detriment. But does the data bear that out? In this study? I don't see it. I don't see where in the study one can draw that particular conclusion from. In fact, I see quite the opposite. It seems, if you worry about health, you may not get everything right (like, f.ex. perhaps about omega-3 vs omega-6 ratios being important at all), but your overall attitude of being concerned about your health, and paying attention to it, will summa summarum be a net positive - odds are that a person who worries about, pays attention to their health, will be more likely to be better informed and engage in healthier behavior with corresponding health/life span benefits. In other words: it's data or nothing... show me the data, Mr. Researcher, for each of your conclusions.
posted by VikingSword at 2:11 PM on April 26, 2011


And to look at interpretation of the ^ here's this exact conclusion, quite in the other direction:

Worried about old age? Good.

"--Cheerful, charming, worry-free people have more friends but not longer lives. Turns out being shy and introverted are good things if you want to stick around for a long time. Outgoing people are more likely to drink, smoke and party harder, shortening their longevity - while their introverted friends tend to find more stable jobs and relationships and just generally act more responsibly.

--And if you're a worrywart? You'll probably live longer than your friends who take life as it comes. Worriers take fewer risks, but the Pollyannas of the world ignore real threats and fail to always follow medical advice (it's all such a "downer")."


So there you go - conclusions, by anybody, are not really worth much, unless borne out by the data.
posted by VikingSword at 2:14 PM on April 26, 2011


But then why do the alcoholics live longer than the teatotalers? Jeeeeeze. Why can't this all just be transparent? I'm going to exercise. Or get drunk. Same health benefits? Maybe? LOL
posted by xarnop at 2:28 PM on April 26, 2011


(actually I don't really drink, but I can wish and pretend. It's almost as fun although I'm not sure it will provide the health benefits of longevity alcoholism would provide...)
posted by xarnop at 2:30 PM on April 26, 2011


Alcoholics live longer because alcohol is a drug one of whose side effects is that it reduces your blood sugar, and there is an epidemic of diabetes afoot. I don't know why the learned professionals who are aghast at the result have not figured out, except for sheer pigheaded refusal to understand that the ebil booze could possibly be good for anything, but you can take an anecdotal point from me since I've found (especially since a very poor prescription choice by a doctor a couple of years back) if I stop drinking entirely my pre-diabetes stops being pre-.
posted by localroger at 3:37 PM on April 26, 2011


Recently on NPR: How Western Diets Are Making The World Sick
posted by mek at 4:35 AM on April 27, 2011


« Older The concept of time as a way to measure the durati...  |  Dads. The Original Hipsters.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments