Re: Official bored at work / just shooting the shit / no rails to derail thread
The first article says flatly that beta carotene, an antioxidant, increases the risk of smoking-related cancers. It doesn't say "risk of developing" but what else could be talking about when it goes on to say "also cancer mortality?" The second article shows that vitamin C increases the growth rate of cancer. When was the last time you had a cancer screening? Because if you've developed cancer since then, your tumors have been growing more rapidly and you'll be that much worse off when the disease is detected.
If you won't be satisfied with less than a direct link between C and cancer, here's another article: Vitamin C cancer fear | Mail Online "Test-tube experiments at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia suggested that vitamin C can actually trigger a biological process which damages the DNA - or genetic code - in cells. This could create a potential risk of cancer and other diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis." The article goes on to say that while the study does not explicitly prove that C causes cancer, "far more caution should be taken over dietary supplements" and "diet experts strongly advised people to stay close to the recommended daily allowance of vitamin C." That's just common sense. Just because something is good in small doses doesn't mean more is always going to be better. Ffs, drinking too much water can kill you. If you're taking 4 grams of C, that's the equivalent of eating one hundred oranges a day.
This is why I'm cautious about the prescription of Omega-3 in large doses for such a wide range of complaints. My doctor says that getting too much Omega-3 would be "like eating too much fish" and that he personally takes 4 grams a day, but the FDA recommends that total dietary intake of n−3 fatty acids from fish not exceed 3 grams per day, of which no more than 2 grams per day are from nutritional supplements. That seems like a wholly prudent precaution for a substance for which the long term ingestion of high doses hasn't been examined for potential risks.
The first article says flatly that beta carotene, an antioxidant, increases the risk of smoking-related cancers. It doesn't say "risk of developing" but what else could be talking about when it goes on to say "also cancer mortality?" The second article shows that vitamin C increases the growth rate of cancer. When was the last time you had a cancer screening? Because if you've developed cancer since then, your tumors have been growing more rapidly and you'll be that much worse off when the disease is detected.
If you won't be satisfied with less than a direct link between C and cancer, here's another article: Vitamin C cancer fear | Mail Online "Test-tube experiments at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia suggested that vitamin C can actually trigger a biological process which damages the DNA - or genetic code - in cells. This could create a potential risk of cancer and other diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis." The article goes on to say that while the study does not explicitly prove that C causes cancer, "far more caution should be taken over dietary supplements" and "diet experts strongly advised people to stay close to the recommended daily allowance of vitamin C." That's just common sense. Just because something is good in small doses doesn't mean more is always going to be better. Ffs, drinking too much water can kill you. If you're taking 4 grams of C, that's the equivalent of eating one hundred oranges a day.
This is why I'm cautious about the prescription of Omega-3 in large doses for such a wide range of complaints. My doctor says that getting too much Omega-3 would be "like eating too much fish" and that he personally takes 4 grams a day, but the FDA recommends that total dietary intake of n−3 fatty acids from fish not exceed 3 grams per day, of which no more than 2 grams per day are from nutritional supplements. That seems like a wholly prudent precaution for a substance for which the long term ingestion of high doses hasn't been examined for potential risks.
Comment