I agree that the whole mass marketing with health related products is so unethical.

For me if these so called diet guru's went off and worked with various Cancer organisations and were then issued some form of acreditation then I would have far less of an issue, if any, than I do currently.

I've very quickly scanned this as I'm at work and going to the gym in a minute.

I must say that eating more fresh fruit and veggies is obviously a godd idea, I'm less than convinced that red meat with give you bowel cancer and as I'v ebeen through the hoops on that some years back I have a pretty good idea about this.

Has Rez been rude, in my opinion he can be a grumpy arse and we've had some huge bust ups, but I don't think so in this case. I think that Scott is too sensitive to him.

I actually find a forceful counter argument, even if it's played all the time and by only one individual to be more worthwhile than a group consencious and one gets complacent if all you have an agreement.

I'll have a proper look through this later as I've said but I'm happy that there is a disagreement as that's a healthy thing and I am concerned by the commercialism of some firms that pick up on studies just to sell product.

Beta carotene increases risk of lung cancer? No mention of smoking doing anything of the sort?
Smoking > carrots?

I've now read through all of this and I think that Scott has been rude to Rez, I also think that Ollie acted like a kid in a school playground by jumping in the way he did.

Quite frankly the energise for life people leave me cold, but some of what they say is obviously correct as it's common sense that what you eat would have a direct effect upon cancer. Whether being "alkaline" helps is open to debate.

Perhaps in future when presenting information it would be better from respected sources with no axe to grind like the cancer charity as people can't help but be suspicious of reports from commercial organisations. For example, would we just believe what a pharma company said if Scott had linked a report from such a firm?

Just delete the thread. It's been ruined by me obviously.

Man the internet is such a great place. I love it.

Spit wrote:Scott, I'm sure you've seen that classic 'arguing on the internet' gif... I'm not butting in on this argument as it's absolutely none of my business, but what I would say is that I hope no-one will be discouraged from posting links in the future by this sort of bickering.

Whether you agree with the content of the link in question or not, it was posted for discussion on a discussion board; I agree with the spirit of Si's comment that healthy cynicism and opinions are a good thing, and I'd also hope that we're all insightful enough to distinguish between the validity of an article and the products/services it may also promote.

agree and good post.

if we all got along places like these would be boring and full of yes men and follow my lead. bollox to that.

health4ni wrote:Just delete the thread. It's been ruined by me obviously.

Man the internet is such a great place. I love it.

Stop being such a big poof or I'll come over to Ireland and give you a man hug!

The great thing about you Scott is your passion and you want everyone to share in all the benefits that you believe you get from your life style and everyone can see how much it means to you.

Some of us though have lost very close friends and family very recently to cancer and sometimes these articles and links to sites saying effectively if you did this you'd still be alive hit a very raw nerve as part of grief is blaming the person who died for not fighting hard enough to stay with you and there's so many people who offer false hope so firms like energise really make me angry in the way they do things and that for me losses all the positves of what they are saying.

simon m wrote:I actually find a forceful counter argument, even if it's played all the time and by only one individual to be more worthwhile than a group consencious and one gets complacent if all you have an agreement.

Agree 100%.

simon m wrote:I've now read through all of this and I think that Scott has been rude to Rez, I also think that Ollie acted like a kid in a school playground by jumping in the way he did.

Maybe I did a little in retrospect. The problem with written text is you lose the ability to convey intonation, which leaves what you write open to interpretation in terms of how it's delivered. I just don't see the point of unconstructive criticism. Anyway, I apologise for that - it was a bit immature

The reality s that people do die of cancer. A significant piece of research suggests that 80,000 deaths from cancer a year are preventable via diet, so in my opinion people should sit the fuck up and pay attention, instead of bad-mouthing the research just because it's used in a commercial context. If you read the EfL article, its just a simple commentary on the WCRF article - nothing more or less. The author doesn't claim anything over and above what's contained in the original text, so this whole debate/argument is a total non-issue for me. By all means pick holes in the research, but no conclusions have been made beyond the original findings?

Whilst I endeavour to live a healthy lifestyle I cannot help but think that what is for you will not go by you. Genetics must play a key role in what diseases you succumb to. I agree that studies have shown potential links between certain lifestyle choices and cancer but at the end of the day its an increased statistical risk and nothing else.

How can someone who smokes 60 a day not suffer any kind of lung disease, but non smokers get lung cancer? Same with alcohol where some daily drinkers get no liver/pancreas problems, but a tee totaller gets pancreatic cancer.

Girls who start shagging young have a higher risk of cervical cancer, but a girl who stays a virgin until 25 might succumb whilst the slapper with 30 notches on her bedpost by 16 is fine.

As one of my old wise friends once said, 'too much of one thing will do you in, but a little of everything will do you good.'

cleaver wrote:Whilst I endeavour to live a healthy lifestyle I cannot help but think that what is for you will not go by you. Genetics must play a key role in what diseases you succumb to. I agree that studies have shown potential links between certain lifestyle choices and cancer but at the end of the day its an increased statistical risk and nothing else.

How can someone who smokes 60 a day not suffer any kind of lung disease, but non smokers get lung cancer? Same with alcohol where some daily drinkers get no liver/pancreas problems, but a tee totaller gets pancreatic cancer.

Girls who start shagging young have a higher risk of cervical cancer, but a girl who stays a virgin until 25 might succumb whilst the slapper with 30 notches on her bedpost by 16 is fine.

As one of my old wise friends once said, 'too much of one thing will do you in, but a little of everything will do you good.'

But this is a means to find cures beleiev it or not. As there genetic makeup clearly fight any abnormal cell growth and kill them - which shows that they have something others dont

ollie wrote:

simon m wrote:I actually find a forceful counter argument, even if it's played all the time and by only one individual to be more worthwhile than a group consencious and one gets complacent if all you have an agreement.

Agree 100%.

simon m wrote:I've now read through all of this and I think that Scott has been rude to Rez, I also think that Ollie acted like a kid in a school playground by jumping in the way he did.

Maybe I did a little in retrospect. The problem with written text is you lose the ability to convey intonation, which leaves what you write open to interpretation in terms of how it's delivered. I just don't see the point of unconstructive criticism. Anyway, I apologise for that - it was a bit immature

The reality s that people do die of cancer. A significant piece of research suggests that 80,000 deaths from cancer a year are preventable via diet, so in my opinion people should sit the fuck up and pay attention, instead of bad-mouthing the research just because it's used in a commercial context. If you read the EfL article, its just a simple commentary on the WCRF article - nothing more or less. The author doesn't claim anything over and above what's contained in the original text, so this whole debate/argument is a total non-issue for me. By all means pick holes in the research, but no conclusions have been made beyond the original findings?

Ollie,

I do not think anyone in this thread has bad mouthed the research. Either you have misread something or I have.

A new day and a new perspective.

Lots of good stuff has been written since I said "delete it". Glad you didn't delete it.

Just in the same way in real life (rather than this here cyberwebz portal) there are people we do not get on with. Maybe, just maybe, I would get on fine with Rez in the flesh, but on here I find it very difficult. And I seemingly have a similar effect on Rez as he has on me (whether Rez admits that or not, that is the way it appears to me).

Maybe I jumped the gun. I don't know. I actually don't want to read page one again.

Variety is the spice of life, and page one was certainly of the cayenne variety.

Epigenetics are where it's at. Genetics are not the be all and end all. Sure they're important, but they are totally overshadowed by environmental factors. There are obviously some cases where illness cannot be avoided, but i believe these are relatively rare.

Also wrt the validity of studies. Did you know that even when a study is conducted perfectly, taking into account every possible cause of error, by the nature of statistical analysis there will always be an inherent error rate of at least 5%. This means in every 10,000 journal articles, 500 are complete bullshit and that's when studies are conducted perfectly with zero bias.

health4ni wrote:A new day and a new perspective.

Lots of good stuff has been written since I said "delete it". Glad you didn't delete it.

Just in the same way in real life (rather than this here cyberwebz portal) there are people we do not get on with. Maybe, just maybe, I would get on fine with Rez in the flesh, but on here I find it very difficult. And I seemingly have a similar effect on Rez as he has on me (whether Rez admits that or not, that is the way it appears to me).

Maybe I jumped the gun. I don't know. I actually don't want to read page one again.

Variety is the spice of life, and page one was certainly of the cayenne variety.

May be we would, may be we would not. I think the same could be said by many of us on here. Most of us have not met in person. As for admitting? Hey Scott nothing to admit - at times (note at times) you do wind me up.

Your passionate about what you belief & that is a great thing to be. Well unless your name was Hitler . But passion has to be used in a balanced way. It does not always mean your right in your view or perspective on the world.

I was just dissappointed that you decided in this thread that I was having a 'dig' at Scott, when I quite obviously was not. At that alkaline site - yes! At that article concerning cancer - no! Hell I was not even having a go at alkalinity. I was having a go at the bloody website and its blatant use of a medical article for the purpose of consumerism and benefiting the website owners pocket. That is what annoyed me. But then to be accused of something else - then that annoyed me even more . I can do 'annoyed' really well by the way.

Anyway I think enough said on this so let the show go on.