Dietary GI, GL, II, or fiber was not associated with risk of total or subgroups of prostate cancer. We observed a positive association between dietary intake of whole grains and total prostate cancer (HR highest versus lowest quintile 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24), which was attenuated after restriction to PSA-screened participants (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91-1.17).
What do they conclude?
These results suggest that long-term exposure to a diet with a high insulin response does not affect prostate cancer incidence.
Er.....but what about the whole grains!? Doesn't your study suggest that they are associated with increased incidence of cancer?
2 comments:
It suggests that you can't read. The effect was barely significant, only observed between the top 20% and the lowest 20%, and disappeared after stratification.
The study appeared in a crap journal because the findings are uninteresting and the evidence sparse. Maybe there is a connection, but this study didn't show it.
Please learn to run screaming from epidemiological research unless it's substantiated by validation. I say this as a statistician who works with clinicians and epidemiologists. Clinicians believe nothing, epidemiologists believe everything. I usually side with the clinicians.
That was part of the intent of posting this. The newspapers and other media pick up on anything - however tenuous - that supports the conventional wisdom of wholegrain =health. I was just trying to make a point that similarly tenuous research which could be taken to give a contradictory position does not tend to get spotted. i obviously wasn't clear in that.
This blog in the past has often warned of the dangers of epidemiology and that correlation doesn't equal causation etc.
Saying all that, I remain unconvinced that grains are healthy.
Post a Comment