American Paradox

You Are Boston

Both modern and old school, you never forget your roots. Well educated and a little snobby, you demand the best. And quite frankly, you think you are the best. Famous people from the Boston area: Conan O'Brien, Ben Affleck, New Kids on the Block

In one of Will Saletan's "Human Nature" columns today, Does beer cause cancer? By William Saletan
he illustrates the problem with some studies on nutrition and cancer risk:

Beer may increase your risk of lung cancer—but wine may lower it. In one study, "after smoking was discounted, drinking up to six beers per week increased the risk of lung cancer by 20 percent, and by 50 percent for seven or more beers consumed in the same period." In another study, "beer appeared harmful to men who did not eat fruit and vegetables regularly while men who drank wine saw their lung cancer risk drop by 40 percent, and women by 70 percent." Interpretations: 1) Beer causes cancer; wine prevents cancer. 2) Beer drinkers eat fried food, which causes cancer; wine drinkers eat vegetables, which prevent cancer. 3) Wine drinkers, being richer and better educated than beer drinkers, take better care of their bodies in lots of ways. (For Human Nature's previous updates on the putative benefits of alcohol, click here and here.)

The real problem with correlations in studies like these are all the dark variables hidden in the mix. Wine drinkers are undoubtedly richer, better educated, and live in cleaner, safer environments where they are less likely to encounter other factors that lead to lung cancer, like jobs with chemical fumes in the area. For the average beer drinker, the opposite is true. And then there is the impact of a fiber and nutrient rich diet in fruits and vegetables, which has a plethora of studies backing it as the best cancer prevention. What if a lot of the results in seemingly conflicted studies like these could be explained merely by plotting the intake of antioxidants (primarily found in fruits and vegetables though also in red wine) of the study participants?

Of course, the questions I raise are nothing new to scientists. I just find it interesting that there are fewer "holistic" longitudinal studies on people, say by putting normal healthy individuals on a particular diet/exercise/life plan, that is stringent and allows us to see how well these "holistic" living plans work. An example might be a plan that has a strict vegan diet, daily exercise on a plan designed by a physical fitness expert, constant medical check-ups for preventive healthcare, and insistence on things like eight hours of sleep, normal work schedules, et cetera. My point is that if enough participants in such a 5-year or 10-year study were around, you could draw some interesting conclusions about how people should live to maximize their life expectancy and resistance to disease.
The point should not be lost on people who don't care about their own life expectancy either, because even people who do not want to live past forty would benefit from such a study by learning how to live with as much disease-resistance as possible. Some people might not want to grow old and might want to burn out young, but everyone hates living with sickness and fatigue, unable to enjoy what time they have on the planet.

First Bladders Grown in Lab Transplanted: "Researchers said yesterday that they have grown complete urinary bladders in a laboratory and transplanted them into patients, improving their health and achieving a Holy Grail of medicine: the first cultivation of working replacements for failing solid organs in people."

I'm not sure more needs to be said about this except, "Hell yeah." I'm very excited to see where med tech goes in the next twenty years before various organs of mine start to fail. Selfishly excited, in fact. I'd also like to hear an update on something neat happening with nanotech but I'm worried that will be for the next generation, and not mine...