Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday May 17 2015, @02:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the !soul-food dept.

The Center for American Progress reports:

African Americans, a group plagued by significantly high rates of obesity, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and other physical ailments. A recent study suggests the answer may lie in the diets of their counterparts across the Atlantic Ocean in the rural parts of the Motherland.

In a study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh, 20 African Americans and 20 South Africans switched diets for two weeks. In this time, the Africans consumed traditional American food--meat and cheese high in fat content--while African Americans took on a traditional African diet--high in fiber and low in fat, with plenty of vegetables, beans, and cornmeal, with little meat.

After the exchange, researchers performed colonoscopies on both groups and found that those in the African diet group increased the production of butyrate, a fatty acid proven to protect against colon cancer. Members of the American diet group, on the other hand, developed changes in their gut that scientists say precede the development of cancerous cells.

[...]"we used biomarkers and looked at the proliferation rate that has been tied to cancer," Dr. Stephen J. O'Keefe, the lead researcher, told ThinkProgress. "We were astounded by the gravity and the magnitude of the changes [which] happened within two weeks."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2015, @06:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2015, @06:20PM (#184125)

    I think you don't get the way "science" is often done nowadays.

    If you did a well-designed, complete, thorough and conclusive study, you'd get not much more funding, take a lot more time, get slightly fewer complaints/challenges to your conclusions, and end up having to think hard of something new to study before you run out of $$$$$$. Or you might not even have enough money to do it in the first place.

    Whereas what many do is a partial incomplete study that's "click/media bait", then you get funds to do a follow up study, and so on and so forth eventually you might finally get a very conclusive result (but perhaps if you do you're "doing things wrong" ;) ).

    OK so maybe I'm being too cynical. But doesn't that have some truth in it? :p

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1