Show me a source

>show me a source
>science is always right hurrr

Attached: image.jpg (1000x851, 202K)

Just because the media (and you) don't understand how science works doesn't mean it's wrong.

Not an argument

People are different so theyre gonna react different to certain foods.

Alright, I'll bite. Why'd you post this?

This is the fitness board. Hasn't been health and fitness in years.

Not OP but diet is a big part of fitness and some people avoid certain sources of protein due to (perceived) risks of cancer.

I dont see why something cant both protect and cause cancer. There are many ways this can happen. The error in thinking is believing that "cancer", "protects", "causes" are indivisible monoliths. For example, lets keep cancer the same. For some kind of cancer, lets say a skin cancer - lets say theres a drug that thickens the skin. Maybe it prevents that cancer by stopping UV light from getting to the deep skin cells, but may cause damage to the skin's DNA in promoting the skin growth somehow. So it causes and protects against the same kind of cancer. It is likely that different circumstances of testing or of the subjects life would tend to favor one effect over the other.

Makes sense, but now I'm really confused about what foods I should eat and which ones I avoid. Even if we only look at the OP and ignore everything else, there's nothing that really keeps you safe.

>Just avoid processed food brah
Milk
>Just go keto brah
Beef
>Just go vegeterian brah
Eggs
>Just go vegan brah
Tomatoes

It's like no matter how hard you try, you will get cancer due to something you eat, due to something that's entirely your fault. Even coffee, the 'acceptable addiction' can cause cancer.

I just go with the assumption that everything causes cancer under the right circumstances, and those circumstances may be heavily chaotic or even randomly changing. You might be able to put in a lot of study to decrease the odds, but theres a lot that is unknown by anybody. The ease of info on the internet makes it seem like everything has an answer, and maybe it does, but that doesn't mean that anybody knows what it is.

Fasting helps with cancer, same as dozen other simple habits

Anyone that has done research knows that you just need to pass the 0.05 threshold for your paper to be published "findings" have to be done multiple times by different research groups to be even taken seriously. Most studies just tweak the data a bit to publiah their paper and pass the p

I guess that's a good way to approach it. There are simply too many unknown (or incomprehensible) factors (as of yet) and we're best off just sticking to common sense in what foods to eat (generally healthy stuff) and what to consume in moderation or avoid (junk food). For example, I know binge drinking fucks up your liver but that doesn't mean not drinking means I'll never get cancer, because maybe some kind of fish I like eating causes liver cancer under certain circumstances. Though that in turn doesn't mean I should avoid fish.

It's not a satisfying modus operandi, but one I can live with.

PSA: 'Cancer' is a slew of different diseases. Skin cancer =\= gut cancer =\= prostate cancer

Cancer is just the body fucking up and or occasionally testing out new mutations to see if shit will work before it sends the changes to the rest of the body.

By the by.
We all get cancer. Small ones that the body kills off or eats up.
There are two types of cancer. Those we die from and those we die with. Also the ones that occasionally pop up and the body deals with by killing it off and reabsorbing it.

Why isn't that an argument

diet and eating is literally Jow Forums and fitness related you mongoloid newfag retard, lurk more

Are you too stupid to understand meta analysis?

>no conclusion can be drawn from these studies
there you have it faggot

Haha. Thats some sci fi stuff there. Very creative. Maybe someday that can actually be true.

I mean some of those studies must have been poorly done, have you read any of them?

dont need science to tell me what i can see, look at a vegan and see an unhealthy person, simple.

each study used different quantities, types and probably had different variables it's why no one in science takes something seriously unless it has a large sample size, good protocols or can be replicated and yield the same results, the fact that people don't understand this is shocking

ITT a bunch of meathead argue about cancer without understanding pathology or statistics

>(((Vox)))

most food´s in regular amounts dont change risk factors greatly, wow

also u see different scales on left and right side

Science is a tool for approximation, science isn't absolute