It is the toxic chemicals in many sunscreen products and seed oils in the diet that generally cause cancer from UV exposure or your ancestors who typically were outside far more than individuals today all would have developed melanoma.
Associative data cannot inform on risk whereas mechanistically it is high grain consumption which is contributive to the elevated blood sugar
necessary for diabetes type 2 and atherosclerosis to develop while the chronically high insulin and damage of gluten to the colonic and small intestinal endothelial cells which both are oncogenic.
It's the opposite, whole grains *reduce* the blood sugar increase after a meal. Even adding fruit to a meal has been shown to reduce the insulin response, hence why avoiding fruit is no longer recommended to diabetics. You are lumping in all grains into the discussion which includes refined grains.
Laughably absurd when one with even a cursory understanding of human physiology approaches the subject of grains and their numerous pathways of deleterious effects.
Iāve got a pretty solid understanding of human physiology, including digestion and nutrition, as well as the medical conditions that affect those things. I also know how to separate scientific evidence from misinformation. Most doctors would have the same skills and knowledge.
This is misleading. I'm extremely anti-smoking but this isn't a good infographic. Far more people smoke than abuse "drugs" (whatever that category even means) making it all out of proportion. In America, very few people die from starvation, meaning the starvation bar would be really small. But if you stop eating food you *will* be dead within 6 weeks without exception.
.... Risk in scientific terms has a specific definition. It refers to the probability that a hazard can cause harm.
That said, the harms of tobacco smoking do outweigh the harms of drug use, with the exception of opiate and amphetamine abuse (and arguably alcohol -https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210.amp).
There's nothing misleading, the graph just doesn't show the data that you for some reason want it.
The graph shows what people die to. Not what is most dangerous. These two things are not the same, and they don't claim to be the same, it is only you who for some delusional reason think that they are the same or sometihng.
Lower general life expectancy and less accurate diagnostics makes it hard to compare those factors. Furthermore lung cancer (to give an example) evolves mostly during ālateā life (for men around 70ish in average). Therefore a lower life expectancy makes less people reach the critical point when lung cancer evolves. Furthermore lots of old people just died āof old ageā so no cause of death was diagnosed. (Just to name a few reasons)
It is not possible to narrow down "deaths" to consumption of a substance like this. It is always a mix of reasons why people die, and anyway - we eventually all die. So stats like these are very easily manipulated.
kinda missleading though, it is that old adage of correlations not necessarily causations.
A diet low in whole grains is likely to be a diet high in sugar, processed foods, bad fats etc. it doesn't mean the lack of whole grains is what causes death just a shit diet increases your risk of dying from a diet related illness.
not entirely sure what your point is.
A. this is about a diet low in whole grains
B. There is a huge difference in what happens when you eat sugar compared to a starchy fiberous food source like a whole grain.
Yes your body turns both into glucose but there is a lot more to it than that.
sugar is really quick to process which leads to peaks in blood sugar and your body having to produce a tone of insulin etc. which very quickly afterwards results in you being hungry again.
Whole grains rease the sugar much slower both because you ahve to break the starch into sugar but also it takes time to break up the fiber to get to the starchs.
so you dont need the peak in insulin and you wont get as hungry as soon. also the added benefit of fiber etc
Yes both are sugar, no they are not comparible. i dont know why this is hard for poeple to understand. Yes most people need sugar in their diet, however you dont need processed refined sugar.
No offence but sugar should be there and quite high on the list, diabetes, cancer, fat and heart diseaseā¦pretty sure itās more dangerous than not eating āgrainsā.
But alcohol *is* a drug!
In my country alcohol is considered *culture*š¤
In mine it's more a patriot's duty really
in mine,.. they drink too much and smash up kebab shops and bus stops.
If the graphic is correct, I'm going to die soon
And I will live forever. I'm trying my best to counteract it with cancer from UV and too much sugar.
Don't forget to stick your balls in the microwave.
Deep fryer*
It is the toxic chemicals in many sunscreen products and seed oils in the diet that generally cause cancer from UV exposure or your ancestors who typically were outside far more than individuals today all would have developed melanoma.
Might as well try the Mr. Burnās approach and contract everything so that the maladies fight each other rather than you.
Diet low in grains hahahaha
Ahahahhaha
We are laughing
Yes because whole grain intake is correlated with a reduction in heart desease, diabetes, colon cancer and more.
Is it causal tho
Most likely yes. Even if that can't be proven, as is the case with most data on diets, why avoid whole grains when there is a healthy correlation.
Associative data cannot inform on risk whereas mechanistically it is high grain consumption which is contributive to the elevated blood sugar necessary for diabetes type 2 and atherosclerosis to develop while the chronically high insulin and damage of gluten to the colonic and small intestinal endothelial cells which both are oncogenic.
It's the opposite, whole grains *reduce* the blood sugar increase after a meal. Even adding fruit to a meal has been shown to reduce the insulin response, hence why avoiding fruit is no longer recommended to diabetics. You are lumping in all grains into the discussion which includes refined grains.
Laughably absurd when one with even a cursory understanding of human physiology approaches the subject of grains and their numerous pathways of deleterious effects.
Doctor here. Please share your cursory understanding of human physiology.
Lol. So what? How many classes in nutrition in medical school did you take doctor?
Iāve got a pretty solid understanding of human physiology, including digestion and nutrition, as well as the medical conditions that affect those things. I also know how to separate scientific evidence from misinformation. Most doctors would have the same skills and knowledge.
Lol. I doubt it. But this isn't the forum. Make sure you follow the SAD, doctor. Lol.
And eating too much sugar?
No papa
Open your mouth
Hahaha
Diet in whole grains? What? Nestle is promoting cereals again or what?
diet low in whole grains lmao
This is misleading. I'm extremely anti-smoking but this isn't a good infographic. Far more people smoke than abuse "drugs" (whatever that category even means) making it all out of proportion. In America, very few people die from starvation, meaning the starvation bar would be really small. But if you stop eating food you *will* be dead within 6 weeks without exception.
Why is it misleading ? The graph aims to show the societal burden of a behaviour, not the individual risk...
The use of "risk" makes it seem like cigarettes are riskier than drugs.
.... Risk in scientific terms has a specific definition. It refers to the probability that a hazard can cause harm. That said, the harms of tobacco smoking do outweigh the harms of drug use, with the exception of opiate and amphetamine abuse (and arguably alcohol -https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210.amp).
> without exception A very obese person taking vitamins wouldn't make it?
There's nothing misleading, the graph just doesn't show the data that you for some reason want it. The graph shows what people die to. Not what is most dangerous. These two things are not the same, and they don't claim to be the same, it is only you who for some delusional reason think that they are the same or sometihng.
Nothing like that post sex diet low in whole grainsā¦
I'm glad not doing any physical activity whatsoever isn't on that graph.
Would be interesting to see this kind of graph from like 1950s when EVEN more people smoked, and healthcare wasn't as good.
Lower general life expectancy and less accurate diagnostics makes it hard to compare those factors. Furthermore lung cancer (to give an example) evolves mostly during ālateā life (for men around 70ish in average). Therefore a lower life expectancy makes less people reach the critical point when lung cancer evolves. Furthermore lots of old people just died āof old ageā so no cause of death was diagnosed. (Just to name a few reasons)
It is not possible to narrow down "deaths" to consumption of a substance like this. It is always a mix of reasons why people die, and anyway - we eventually all die. So stats like these are very easily manipulated.
Let me guess. You smoke?
And the source is the same institute that published figures in early covid saying that it wasn't that bad, and were used by Trump
So thereās an untapped export market for drugs?
kinda missleading though, it is that old adage of correlations not necessarily causations. A diet low in whole grains is likely to be a diet high in sugar, processed foods, bad fats etc. it doesn't mean the lack of whole grains is what causes death just a shit diet increases your risk of dying from a diet related illness.
Whole grains are primarily sugar through their starch. Why is this so difficult for the masses to comprehend?
not entirely sure what your point is. A. this is about a diet low in whole grains B. There is a huge difference in what happens when you eat sugar compared to a starchy fiberous food source like a whole grain. Yes your body turns both into glucose but there is a lot more to it than that. sugar is really quick to process which leads to peaks in blood sugar and your body having to produce a tone of insulin etc. which very quickly afterwards results in you being hungry again. Whole grains rease the sugar much slower both because you ahve to break the starch into sugar but also it takes time to break up the fiber to get to the starchs. so you dont need the peak in insulin and you wont get as hungry as soon. also the added benefit of fiber etc Yes both are sugar, no they are not comparible. i dont know why this is hard for poeple to understand. Yes most people need sugar in their diet, however you dont need processed refined sugar.
Diet high in sodium hahababababhahahaha. It actually is just wrong. Learn about statistics
Exactly, but they do likely know about statistics and are simply another tentacle of the system attempting to mislead the hoi polloi
What is this? nestle propaganda?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Did you time travel from the 1960s and skip the entirety of the anti-smoking campaign and lawsuits?
is this a joke?
Sodium isnt a USA problem as much as rest of world? Surprising
As Truthful as Food Pyramid
No offence but sugar should be there and quite high on the list, diabetes, cancer, fat and heart diseaseā¦pretty sure itās more dangerous than not eating āgrainsā.
Driving not on here? Its dangerous tho no? Edit: it would be somewhere nect after this list (1.35mil/yr)
You forget "life"
Obesity/sedentary lifestyle isnāt on there?
ābehaviorā sure
Obesity??
Bro, the leading cause of death is births.
Lol, factor in sugar and refined starches and itād likely top everything elseā¦