Are we fucked?

[Steve Hill]

You tell me.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/119457/

[Mark Rippetoe]

I sincerely hope they are wrong. Shit is just so damn complicated.

[hatmanii]

Give me the easily detectable/curable cancer over the sudden risk of death anytime.

-Hat

[rtamesis]

From Denise Minger's critique of the study at http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fish-...ostate-cancer/

"First things first: Can we really conclude that the men with high DHA levels were eating more fish (or fish oil) than the rest of the gang?

The answer is a resounding “nope” – and this is why the current fish-condemning media coverage is a load of hooey. Although consuming more DHA can definitely boost your serum levels, the reverse isn’t always true: elevated DHA doesn’t automatically mean you’re a sushi fiend or loyal fish-oil guzzler. Guess what else can increase omega-3 fats in your blood? You’ll get a hoot from this one: low-fat diets."

[Greg C]

I have become convinced for no really scientific reason, that if you are male, and live long enough, you probably have a better than 50% chance of getting prostate cancer just because. The good news is, that it's treatable, and you can now be out of the hospital next day (my Dad was up and walking same day and home the next). Although the checks aren't my idea of a great time, I'm not ready for the sand nap yet either, and that particular cancer is not one I plan to die from either.

Freaking out about it (not saying you are Steve) or the chances seems pointless as it's largely beyond our control just due to the complication that Rip points out. How do you avoid something that we don't really know what causes it? Just try to take care of yourself is my guess and roll with the punches as they come.

[Carnivroar]

Find out who financed this study.

Also we need to look at the Eskimos to see if they have high rates of prostate cancer.

[Roland Conde]

Goddamnit. I have nothing significant to add aside from my frustration and hope for further elucidation on the matter.

[mstrofbass]

I suppose one would have to look at the absolute amounts instead of just the relative increases. If you have a 1% chance of a heart attack, and it gets decreased to a .5% with high DHA, but you increase your risk of prostate cancer from .05% to .15%, I'll take the risk.

It may be discussed in there, I just didn't care to read. So sue me.

Also we need to look at the Eskimos to see if they have high rates of prostate cancer.

I'm not going to cite a source, but the Inuits had almost no incidences of any cancer at all until fairly recently. They also had short lifespans, which may account for that. Like Rip said, shit is so damned complicated.

[Gunnhild Bruno]

As Denise Minger points out, it seems that high DHA levels are only a problem if you’re American. This usually means that sugar is a culprit.

Don’t tumors require glucose to grow, and isn’t there a definite link between fructose and rate of tumor cell multiplication?

I would guess that the next step would be to see whether it’s the high levels of fructose in the American diet that allows whatever is causing high DHA levels to promote cancer, if that is indeed what is happening.

Inuit traditionally didn’t even have much glucose in the diet, let alone sugar.

[rtamesis]

As Denise Minger points out, it seems that high DHA levels are only a problem if you’re American.

I think she was being sarcastic when she said that, essentially making fun of what can be concluded from observational studies. As she points out,
"This is a classic case of correlation clashing with biological plausibility – and it highlights why observational studies, with their slew of undocumented variables and contradictory findings, can’t tell us anything definitive about food and disease."