
HyperFoods: Machine intelligent mapping of cancer-beating molecules in foods - hunglee2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45349-y
======
spodek
> _Plant-based foods (i.e. derived from fruits and vegetables) are
> particularly rich in cancer-beating molecules . . . Evidence from
> experimental studies has implicated multiple mechanisms of action by which
> dietary agents contribute to the prevention or treatment of various cancers_

I prefer to say that a lack of fruits and vegetables causes cancer rather than
they prevent cancer. Logically equivalent, but it leads me to consider them
normal and packaged food abnormal.

Anyone can define normal for him or herself, but this way motivates me to eat
more of them, as does discovering through experience how much more delicious
they can be.

~~~
dogma1138
Some studies linked meat to cancer due to viruses, viral particles, prions and
other molecules present in the meat.

That said dietary studies are extremely hard to conduct in a controlled manner
and thus replicate.

A diet which is heavy on plant based foods might be cancer preventative since
you need to consume calories; additional plant material itself might contain
molecules that help you combat cancer or at least serve as a barrier to
potential carcinogenic pathogens.

As far as cancer and meat consumption goes it seems that pork and beef are the
biggest offenders it’s not clear yet if it’s simply because they contain more
pathogens which can impact humans as they are mammals or because those meats
tend to be consumed at larger amounts.

Poultry and fish don’t seem to have as much impact with the latter showing no
increase in cancer at all by most studies iirc.

~~~
paulryanrogers
Wild caught fish often contains mercury though, hence the recommended weekly
limit.

~~~
doitLP
Different fish, and different sizes of the same fish contain different mercury
levels (big fish == more mercury). Many wild caught fish are quite safe to
eat: [https://www.fda.gov/food/metals/mercury-levels-commercial-
fi...](https://www.fda.gov/food/metals/mercury-levels-commercial-fish-and-
shellfish-1990-2012)

------
molticrystal
I was wondering if there was any merit to a theory I once saw, and if it is
called something or written up somewhere as I lost track of it.

If it is total nonsense, that would be great to know as well.

To the best of my memory, it goes along the lines of the following.

Most plant matter, in particular the parts that are considered
vegetables(stems, leaves, roots), have a toxicity to prevent consumption by
animals.

Many animals are immune to most or all components that would be very toxic if
not processed by digestion, the liver, enzymes, etc.

But the act of processing the plant matter, in and of itself, minor amount of
toxic residuals or derivatives from processing, or minor amounts of
unprocessed toxins present that are not enough to be harmful in small
quantities, keep organs and the immune system challenged and exercised, like
how exercise keeps your strength up and your body challenged.

An exercised immune system and organs, while not perfect, are much better at
keeping anomalies such as cancer minimal and fighting cancer overall.

~~~
ganzuul
That sounds like homeopathy... But your account sounds a lot more plausible.

~~~
comicjk
Maybe you're thinking of hormesis? That's the term for small amounts of damage
bring helpful, as with exercise.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis)

But this is a detectable amount of damage, so it's not homeopathy.

~~~
ganzuul
No, I'm familiar with the concept but the OP was specifically talking about
plant toxins.

I don't know if the idea of extreme dilution and water memory have always been
a part of homeopathy. I don't believe those ideas have any merit. They seem
like a perversion of legitimate herbal medicine. Perhaps I should have lead
with that...

------
rsync
I think the notion that you can eat your way to health or longevity is wishful
thinking. We all _want_ to solve our health issues by eating, which is an
activity we enjoy.

In reality, the positive impact on your metabolic, bio, age, and cancer
markers of _not eating anything_ (fasting) are marked and distinct as opposed
to magical formulas of "dark colored vegetables" and "antioxidants" and
"polyphenols" whose effects are difficult to ascertain _at best_ and at worst
are probably non-existent.[1]

If there were some combination of blueberries and red wine and pomegranates
and acai juice that made us live noticeably longer, or more disease free, we
would know it. We wouldn't have overlooked it accidentally. We are hardly the
first people to think long and hard about the problems of aging. What we _do
know_ is that vigorous exercise and calorie restriction make people
immediately healthier and less afflicted by disease - cancer and otherwise.

It's quite sad, frankly, how terrible and unacceptable that simple recipe is
for so many people. People are, literally, _dying to not exercise_.

[1] For a good discussion of the inability for "antioxidants" to reach the
inner portion of the cell where the "oxidation" occurs and for a discussion as
to how bad that might be if it could happen (oxidation and free radicals are
probably essential cell signaling methods that cause ill mannered cells to
commit apoptosis, or "suicide"), I recommend the excellent book _Power, Sex,
Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life_ by Nick Lane.

~~~
qwsxyh
It is remarkable how so many tech spaces seem to be positively marketing
eating disorders nowadays. Like, seriously, some of the rhetoric here is very
similar to stuff I've seen on pro-ana spaces.

Please, it may be physically healthier to fast, but it's a very easy slippery
slope into full-on EDs. Eat, but eat less if you want the benefits.

~~~
Fritsdehacker
Instead of full on fasting there is the option of "intermittent feeding",
where you only eat part of the day, without restricting calories. This has
some very interesting health benefits [1].

It's still advisable not to overeat, obviously.

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/)

[edit] typo

------
wintercarver
On the general topic of healthy eating, anti-cancer foods and general disease
prevention through diet, I found the (sensationally titled) book How Not to
Die[0] pretty interesting and quite motivating. Would love any other
recommendations or critical reviews!

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25663961](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25663961)

~~~
jv22222
+1 On how not to die, the research is very well done.

------
sheeshkebab
They should have added some model for which foods to avoid based on any known
carcinogens..

------
anonygler
This article sums up modern medicine, and tech, rather well. Let’s boil things
down to common molecules, rather than viewing the world as holistic.

Your body needs food. Not soylent with a “cancer beating booster pack.”

Eating Kale, Spinach, or Lettuce won't have different “cancer beating” scores.
Just eat leafy fucking vegetables.

~~~
astazangasta
Exactly this; also, as a computational biologist I cringe at the stacking of
dubious models that produced this "mapping". First is the "interactome", a
terrible way to model biology, which is used to predict drug interactions, a
highly dubious proposition, which is used to identify similarly-acting
molecules in foods, again highly dubious - this isn't even GIGO, it's
GIGIGIGO. And at the end of the day, none of this crummy methodology is going
to result in any wisdom superior to "eat more kale". It's unfortunate that
this is the prism certain investigators have trapped themselves in.

------
cageface
TLDR: drink tea and eat your vegetables.

~~~
melicerte
My father was a big tea drinker, was eating a lot vegetables and fruits... but
died of cancer. The think is cancer is so complex you can’t avoid it with
TL;DR.

~~~
Retric
Reducing your cancer risk is more about delaying getting cancer until
something else killed you.

People talk about actions gaining or losing X time from someone’s life. That
should not be taken literally as it’s simply a way to interpret statistics.
Much like how playing the lottery is a net loss of around 50% of the ticket
price. That does not mean you always get 1$ back from a 2$ ticket.

~~~
vharuck
Not to mention that years of potential life lost is tricky to define, and the
method in vogue isn't very good: take all the people with a condition, filter
that group down to those who died before age X, and the years of potential
life lost is the difference between X and the ages of death. Funnily enough,
this method says the name "John" is a condition which reduces your expected
lifespan.

The method can be improved, but after a certain point it's just a bad
imitation of relative survival.

