Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Stood in the Fire HeroZero's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Conifer, Colorado
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by TylerN View Post
    A 70% increase of an already low number isn't much to worry about at all though.

    Basically anything you eat or drink would kill you in the right amounts. Still people get worked up on all the "news" articles that are posted almost every single day.
    One week X food is potentially lethal, the next week it's a miraculous cure for everything.
    If you knew anything you would realize that an increase from 8% to 15% chance isn't really all that small, that it is huge when you are looking at a pool of Billions of people. But the 70% was only for the fast acting, nigh uncurable prostate cancer variety. it said it was more like a 44% increase, for general prostate cancer. that is the difference of 1 in 12 people vs 1 in 8 people which roughly translates to A SHITLOAD OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE!

  2. #22
    Pandaren Monk
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,763
    It's the Daily Mail. Not sure much else needs to be said.

    Like with most things, you can find a study that says X is good and X is bad. Most vitamins and supplements fall into this category.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by HeroZero View Post
    If you knew anything you would realize that an increase from 8% to 15% chance isn't really all that small, that it is huge when you are looking at a pool of Billions of people. But the 70% was only for the fast acting, nigh uncurable prostate cancer variety. it said it was more like a 44% increase, for general prostate cancer. that is the difference of 1 in 12 people vs 1 in 8 people which roughly translates to A SHITLOAD OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE!
    Its 1 study. and for that matter maybe if you have prostate cancer your absorption is decreased dramatically so maybe you can't process omega as well. 1 study means jack all to me. it just says people with prostate cancer had high levels of a certain vitamin.

  4. #24
    Legendary! Frolk's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norway, Lørenskog
    Posts
    6,546
    A recent study showed that ANYTHING u eat or drink will have had a study that showed it increased the chances of getting 1 or more illnesses if u ate to little/much of it.
    PROUD TRUMP SUPPORTER, #2024Trump #MAGA
    PROUD TRUMP CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER #SaveEuropeWithTrump
    PROUD SUPPORTER OF THE WALL
    BLUE LIVES MATTER
    NO TO ALL GUNCONTROL OR BACKGROUND CHECKS IN EUROPE
    /s

  5. #25
    Deleted
    Waters side effects on overdose include death, so I think this is a non-issue.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Cattaclysmic View Post
    Its probably not true either. IIRC the developing countries will have a lower rate of prostate cancer.
    Is that controlled for age group? Because if a country has a lower life expectancy it's naturally going to have lower cancer rates.

    There are simply too many factors for a minor one like this to be visible at a macro level. Assuming the study is even correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  7. #27
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Is that controlled for age group? Because if a country has a lower life expectancy it's naturally going to have lower cancer rates.

    There are simply too many factors for a minor one like this to be visible at a macro level. Assuming the study is even correct.
    Yup the variables are a bit too much. But I merely intended to post this because OH MY GOD COMMANDER KEEN WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!?

  8. #28
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    Study was commissioned by Glaxo-Klein and the "announcement" of the result provides no actual data, the research has not been peer reviewed, and the results make no attempt to differentiate control the groups to determine actual causality as opposed to just identifying a correlation.

    In short, move along. This research is trash.

  9. #29
    Scarab Lord Arkenaw's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,747
    Sounds like nonsense to me, don't eat fish anyways.


  10. #30
    Deleted
    Didn't you know everything gives you cancer, duuuh !

  11. #31
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Veyne View Post
    Just throwing this out there, don't get too worked up over the 70% increased chance. Bear in mind that it's a 70% increase, not an increase TO 70%.

    SUPER quick (thus, I cannot vouch for accuracy) Google search says 8% of men between the ages of 50 and 70 will develop prostate cancer. An increase by 70% raises this to 13%.

    So the chance is still pretty low.

    But if you want to do everything you can to have as few risk factors for developing cancer as possible, I suppose this is valuable information.

    I'm currently taking it, along with a plethora of other supplements - and yes, I know, the overall benefits are fairly inconsequential to the results for their price - to help boost my weight loss efforts. I don't plan on continuing to take a vast majority of these products once I reach an ideal weight. But hey, I've dropped 35 pounds in the past 2 months purely from diet and supplementation.
    Actually fishoil´s best property is lubricating joints and tendons when you do heavy lifting. Fishoil + a good multivitamin


    OT - I´ll stick with my 6000mg a day.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by makominami View Post
    I saw this today take it read it and believe if you want to or not, but it is interesting study to say the least on the subject of prostate cancer.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...cancer-70.html
    There's not much validity to the study. This should be required viewing by every individual -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0

  13. #33
    Brewmaster The Riddler's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...
    Posts
    1,451
    http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/wp-...-INTERVIEW.mp3

    More information on how the study in the OP is highly questionable at best, and grossly incompetent/misleading at worst.

  14. #34
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Attacking the fatty acids? That would require passing through the Omega-3 relay.
    They say it's a sushi mission.
    A sushi mission . . . a sushi mission would do nicely. . .

    I'll be over in the corner now, don't mind me
    Putin khuliyo

  15. #35
    tbh this gives cancer this doesnt blablabla.. screw that, just eat as much non-transformed meat you can, as little salt as possible, as many fruits/vegetables as possible, and vary as much as you can, best way to minimize the problems from food and maximise the benefits of everything... problem fixed!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •