this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
3 points (100.0% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

101 readers
16 users here now

Carnivore

The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet

Meat Heals.

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

Keep being AWESOME

We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type


Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
  6. No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.

Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods


Meta

Carnivore Resource List

If you need to block this community and the UI won't let you, go to settings -> blocks you can add it.

[Meta] Moderation Policy for Niche Communities

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

TLDR: People with a higher healthy eating score (plant based) had higher rates of cancer. Authors flabbergasted and are looking for confounders other then the diet (pesticides) because it can't be the diet.

Following peak tobacco incidence in the mid-1980’s there has been a large reduction in lung cancer incidence among men that has not been seen among women. Lung cancer at a young age is now more common among women than men, reversing a decades long pattern. We sought to characterize environmental exposures among young lung cancer patients to understand potential drivers of this change in the epidemiologic profile of young lung cancer patients. We analyzed 187 patients (157 females, 84%) from the Epidemiology of Young Lung Cancer (YLC) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04640259) using mutation-based grouping by shared biological mechanisms: EGFR Pathway (EGFR+ERBB2), Fusion Positive (ALK+ROS1+RET+NTRK), and Other/Mixed Mutations (including MET exon 14 skipping, TP53, KRAS, BRAF, and additional alterations). Of these, 166 patients (138 females, 83.1%) completed validated food frequency questionnaires. Dietary quality was assessed using the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) and compared to U.S. reference values from NHANES. Dietary categories with elevated contaminant residue potential were identified using published literature. Statistical comparisons employed one-sample t-tests against reference means and chi-square tests for categorical variables. The EGFR groups and ALK groups had tobacco use history in 32.8% and 13.4% of patients respectively. All groups had similarly high levels of oral contraceptive exposure among women (75-100%). Dietary analysis revealed that EGFR Pathway, Fusion Positive, and Other/Mixed Mutations patients demonstrated HEI-2015 scores (out of 100) of 64.9 ± 10.7, 65.5 ± 9.8, and 63.5 ± 9.5 respectively, compared with the US reference of 58. YLC women demonstrated higher dietary quality scores than men (65.6 ± 9.7 vs. 61.8 ± 11.3), both exceeded U.S. reference values of 60 for females and 56 for males. These YLC patients also consumed more foods from dietary categories associated with elevated contaminant exposure potential, as reflected by higher HEI-2015 component scores (out of 5) for total vegetables (4.2 vs. 3.5), fruits (3.3 vs. 2.5), and whole grains (3.9 vs. 2.6). YLC patients have a diet pattern of higher diet quality, with higher exposure to whole fruits, vegetables and whole grains. While these food groups are presumed to have good health benefits, there is an emerging, under-appreciated literature that produce based whole foods often contain high pesticide/herbicide contaminants. Further investigation of the role of pesticide contaminated fruits/vegetables/whole grains is timely to assess its role, if any, in the changing lung cancer prevalence over the last 4 decades

This has yet to be peer reviewed and published, but it is already in the news cycle, so here we are.

Abstract: https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/21436/presentation/1647

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think the typical narrative biases don't work because they restricted themselves to a young population which hasn't had the time to diverge into normal metabolic impairment. The pesticide hypothesis is weak because the non healthy eating group is also eating lots of plant based foods (70% of the standard diet is plant based) so would also be exposed to the pesticides.

My guess is this gets re-analyzed and re-written before publication where they don't choose the same cohorts to follow, and they will make it fit in with the typical pbf is best narrative. But, hey, maybe the signal was too strong to ignore? In that case, this never gets published and all anyone will ever see is this abstract.