Can I have fries with that doughnut?

I just heard a radio news report about this study.   Regular consumption of fried foods, such as doughnuts, french fries, and fried chicken may lead to an increased risk of prostate cancer, and more frequent consumption seems to be linked to more aggressive cancers:

http://www.fhcrc.org/en/news/releases/2013/01/eating-deep-fried-foods-associated-with-risk-of-prostate-cancer.html

Question:  If you had heard of this study when you were 25, would you have altered your eating habit accordingly?

I bet next month there will be a study that shows fried foods are good for prostate cancer. Sorry to be cynical, just been burned by a lot of these uncontrolled studies.

"fried foods, such as doughnuts, french fries, and fried chicken..."

That's what I LIVED on when I was an undergraduate way back when! But, of course, if someone back then had told me that that kind of diet might mess me some day, would I have listened?

Nope.

I'm pretty certain I would not have listened. What's a prostate? Isn't that the thing that makes old guys pee in their pants?

Here's a true example of my thinking at age 22.
With no motorcycle driver's license I bought a Kawasaki Mach III - the 500, Two Stroke Triple - which at the time was the fastest production motorcycle bike sold in the US. I weighted 120 and the motorcycle was only 407 pounds. That yielded a ridiculously high power to weight ratio. With sticky Conti tires the bike's front end would lift up off the ground even if I was laying down over the tank. (Shortly thereafter they came out with the 750 which was only a touch faster because it was heavier.)
The 500 was so notorious for killing the rider they called it the "Widow maker". The front end would lift up and flip over. In curves there was an instability that caused inadvertent lane changes.
It was torque peaky, unstable, and fast - a combination way more hazardous to my health than a doughnut.
Yep. I would not have listened.

Jeff

(I still have the bike by the way. It is one of the very few still in existence.)

yeah, it would take a pretty unique twenty year old to listen to that stuff. Possibly one raised at gunpoint.

Forget about the 25 year olds…I would place a bet that there are 50- and 60-something year olds who won’t be changing their doughnut habits—a habit which may be leading to more aggressive PC—despite their awareness of this fact.   The S.A.D. Standard American Diet probably includes fried dough every day, although someone seriously practicing “moderation” might cut back to one every other day for a week or two before returning to the norm. What’s baffling to me is that it seems no one in the world would be more motivated to adopt an anti-cancer regimen than a cancer survivor who wants to be sure he remains a survivor.   But for some, this doesn’t seem to be the case.   I could easily point you to HW threads over the last couple years where some of our members—even some of our most prolific members—claim with pride and shout from the hilltop, “Just because I have PC [which may have later, regretfully, turned into progressing PC], I ain’t changing a d*** thing!” This, despite the being presented with (PC Quote-of-the-Day): “...how well a man adheres to diet changes, exercise, and stress reduction predicts how much protection against cancer progression he will experience.” It’s baffling to think about what people will subject themselves to (surgery, radiation, chemical/hormone treatment) to stop or slow their cancer growth while not undertaking the less radical steps that are within their direct control to slow their cancer growth and prolong life…like diet, nutrition, exercise, etc.    This is a contributor to how familial prostate cancer perpetuates…the poor diets and lifestyle trends one learns at home influences the poor lifestyle of the next generation of 25-years olds.       Post Edited (Casey59) : 1/29/2013 9:35:54 AM (GMT-7)

I spent about twenty years of my life eating Roy Rogers and Popeye's Fried Chicken and french fries about four to six times a week. I was addicted. As of summer of 2011 I was 305 pounds. After dropping the fried foods for one year I dropped to 240. Whether the fried chicken and french fries caused my aggressive metastatic prostate cancer at age 47 is not something I can say with certainty, but I wouldn't be surprised.

I honestly believed that I was going to have a heart attack before cancer. The cancer was a huge surprise.

I have noticed my 25 year old son eating healthy foods. He also avoids fried foods like donuts, fries, and fried chicken. I'm with Casey on this one. Those foods are like poison to me now. Since PCa 3 1/2 years ago, I have completely changed my diet. However, I'm not sure I would have changed anything when I was 25.

Here in NY we already tax cigarettes to offset the healthcare costs of smoking. The tax on 20 cigarettes is something like $5 per pack. I saw an analysis somewhere (NY Times science section maybe?) that showed even that high of a price was not enough to offset the costs. It needed to be 3x the amount to fully cover it.
I'm working from 2-3 year old memory here but I'm sure someone will find the exact numbers. Roughly, 50% of lung cancer patients will be dead within one year of diagnosis. The average cost of treatment is $150,000. Add in the additional cost of care and loss of productivity and it comes to ~$500,000.
The odds of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer is 1 in 4000.
The odds of a smoker contracting lung cancer is 1 in 150. 27 x greater.
NY state did the math and added the cost at the point of consumption. (Actually they only added 1/3 of the cost due to strong lobbying. They also left the loophole for buying tax free on Indian reservations.)

What if they did the same for fried food? The math is simple. Look at the total costs per patient and then consider the increased odds. Add that cost to the price of your doughnut and fried food. I'm guessing the tax would not be as dramatic as cigarettes but it would give a good feeling for the significance.
By the way NYC already eliminated Transfats. I wonder if that will make a difference.
Jeff

I knew that if I looked hard enough there would be something good I could find about NY!   (Just kidding; I have plans to travel to NYC in April, and am really looking forward to it.) The good news is that research is showing that the excise taxes are effective in changing smokers’ behavior .   In the big, public health picture, this action is having the desired effect; to me, the revenue is secondary.   The only change I think should be implemented is that it should be $10 per pack, and it should be in every state so that the temptation of smuggling is reduced. I like the suggestion someone made here of a similar behavior modification technique to discourage or eliminate the foods known to—well, I’ll just simplify the term—be “bad” for you.   Frankly, I hate that my insurance gets jacked-up, and my taxes get jacked-up (Medicare) for people doing stupid stuff —like having unnecessary, expensive medical treatments (!), and smoking or eating stuff that will eventually make them sick and suck on the national health insurance resources.   Maybe I am the only one bothered by this kind of stuff?  

Worried,

I have never been a smoker... Well. To be fair, I smoked about half of one cigarette out in the woods with my red-necky friends when I was nine years old, an adventure which earned me a memorable whupping from my dad and an extended period of house arrest; in retrospect I marvel at my parent's restraint... But those calculations of the cost of smoking always irk me. They carefully add up one side of the ledger, ignoring the other column altogether, and then call a press conference to reveal their sum.

When you balance the costs of smoking-related health care against the cost of the maintenance and health care for a population of elderly retirees, and you bear in mind that lung cancer tends to kill the patient quickly, reliably and, yes, relatively cheaply, it is hard to escape the conclusion that a heartless, green-eye-shade analysis of the impact of smoking on government expenditures would show a net benefit, all other things being held constant. It's a monstrous conclusion, to be sure, but actuarially sound. If we paid smokers a buck a pack I'll bet we'd be money ahead in the long term.

As for diet it's not so clear. Obesity and related health issues don't kill quickly and cheaply. One could make an argument that a national "diet" might be justified on a purely economical cost/benefit basis, if it met its objetives. I have two problems with this. The first objection is that it is none of Uncle Sam's business whether or not I eat french fries. (I don't actually.) The second objection stems from the fact that I am a dietary heretic. In the past year I have convinced myself that, at least for me (and probably for lots of the fatties I see around me) the conventional wisdom on what to eat is just exactly wrong. If we went on a government-approved conventional (low fat, calorie restricted) diet I dunno what would happen with cancer statistics but I am pretty sure we would all get fatter.

clocknut, hopefully, you, me and A Yooper will spend more time tonight talking about my upcoming trip to NYC (to see my daughter's intercollegiate game, plus Eric Clapton's Crossroads Guitar Festival @ MSG, plus a Broadway show), and less about this thread... 

In my early twenty I seem to rememebr that pretty much all I worried about was women