Connection between food and cancer: Slim to none

Dick Whitman · Apr 23, 2014

LongTimeListener said:

That's true. Heart disease tends to be more instant death.

But I also think the pinkwashing/Livestrong/etc. has marketed cancer to the top.
Click to expand...

Katie Couric, too.

doctorquant · Apr 23, 2014

93Devil said:

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

This is of much more interest to health insurance companies.
Click to expand...

I think it would be of interest only insofar as health insurance companies (or life insurers or pension actuaries, etc.) would very much like to know about information that's probably not worth acquiring. Even given those numbers, the cost to acquire the knowledge about who is (and is not) a heavy consumer of beef likely would swamp the value of that knowledge. Stigler wrote of this eternal tradeoff very well:

There is no “imperfection” in a market possessing incomplete knowledge if it would not be remunerative to acquire (produce) complete knowledge: information costs are the costs of transportation from ignorance to omniscience, and seldom can a trader afford to take the entire trip.
Click to expand...

The Big Ragu · Apr 23, 2014

doctorquant said:

93Devil said:

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

This is of much more interest to health insurance companies.
Click to expand...

I think it would be of interest only insofar as health insurance companies (or life insurers or pension actuaries, etc.) would very much like to know about information that's probably not worth acquiring. Even given those numbers, the cost to acquire the knowledge about who is (and is not) a heavy consumer of beef likely would swamp the value of that knowledge. Stigler wrote of this eternal tradeoff very well:

There is no “imperfection” in a market possessing incomplete knowledge if it would not be remunerative to acquire (produce) complete knowledge: information costs are the costs of transportation from ignorance to omniscience, and seldom can a trader afford to take the entire trip.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Also. ... the information is of somewhat limited value to an insurance company's business model. From an actuarial standpoint, aggregate data could help them price their products, which is valuable. But there are a host of things stopping them from price discriminating based on the info, which limits its value.

3_Octave_Fart · Apr 23, 2014

LOL.

93Devil · Apr 23, 2014

doctorquant said:

93Devil said:

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

This is of much more interest to health insurance companies.
Click to expand...

I think it would be of interest only insofar as health insurance companies (or life insurers or pension actuaries, etc.) would very much like to know about information that's probably not worth acquiring. Even given those numbers, the cost to acquire the knowledge about who is (and is not) a heavy consumer of beef likely would swamp the value of that knowledge. Stigler wrote of this eternal tradeoff very well:

There is no “imperfection” in a market possessing incomplete knowledge if it would not be remunerative to acquire (produce) complete knowledge: information costs are the costs of transportation from ignorance to omniscience, and seldom can a trader afford to take the entire trip.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If I am insuring 100,000 men and I can get 429 of them to not have cancer, that sure as shit is going to affect the cost of insuring these men. Especially if they get cancer in their 50s and have not been paying premiums that long.

If the cost to my company is an extra $25,000 per patient, that's $10.7 million I don't want to have to pay out on benefits or $107 per person.

Alma · Apr 23, 2014

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

What percentage of men in that subset are simply obese, and the heavy beef eating is a byproduct of obesity, instead of a standalone cause?

doctorquant · Apr 23, 2014

Alma said:

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

What percentage of men in that subset are simply obese, and the heavy beef eating is a byproduct of obesity, instead of a standalone cause?
Click to expand...

First of all, heavy beef eating can't be a byproduct of obesity ... unless you have some theory to suggest that obesity increases one's tendency to crave/consume red meat. Temporality is key.

Second, the study in question controlled for all sorts of other factors -- age, sex, height, weight, fiber intake, etc.

TigerVols · Apr 23, 2014

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

But the fact is, there are not just two groups; there are dozens of groups of beef eaters. For example, there are beef eaters who smoke. Beef eaters who smoke and never exercise. Beef eaters who smoke, never exercise, and never touch a green vegetable. Beef eaters who smoke, never exercise, and never touch a green vegetable and eat hundreds of grams of carbs a day, etc. etc.

doctorquant · Apr 23, 2014

TigerVols said:

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

But the fact is, there are not just two groups; there are dozens of groups of beef eaters. For example, there are beef eaters who smoke. Beef eaters who smoke and never exercise. Beef eaters who smoke, never exercise, and never touch a green vegetable. Beef eaters who smoke, never exercise, and never touch a green vegetable and eat hundreds of grams of carbs a day, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

From the published article:

To control for body size and obesity, we adjusted for weight and height. Further adjustment included smoking (never, former, and current smoker), alcohol intake (grams per day), dietary fiber (grams per day), and occupational physical activity (no activity, sedentary, standing, manual, and heavy manual).
Click to expand...

Here endeth today's research methods seminar.

TigerVols · Apr 23, 2014

Well if I spent all my time reading research articles, instead of just occassionally commenting on sports blogs about them, I could put doctor in front of my handle.

93Devil · Apr 23, 2014

Walter Lippmann said:

93Devil said:

doctorquant said:

93Devil said:

doctorquant said:

I recently made a presentation to an academic (business) audience about the difference between "statistical significance" and "practical significance," an idea to which this article alludes.

If hamburgers are carcinogenic, the effect appears to be mild. One study suggests that a 50-year-old man eating a hefty amount of red meat — about a third of a pound a day — raises his chance of getting colorectal cancer to 1.71 percent during the next decade, from 1.28 percent. Spread over a population of millions, that would have an impact. From the point of view of an individual, it barely seems to matter.
Click to expand...

To put this in context ... let's say we have two groups of over-50 men. One group is the heavy beef-eaters, the other is the not-heavy beef-eaters. Taking this risk differential as a given, we'd have to have about 233 in each group before we'd expect to see a difference of 1 in the number of men getting colorectal cancer.
Click to expand...

This is of much more interest to health insurance companies.
Click to expand...

I think it would be of interest only insofar as health insurance companies (or life insurers or pension actuaries, etc.) would very much like to know about information that's probably not worth acquiring. Even given those numbers, the cost to acquire the knowledge about who is (and is not) a heavy consumer of beef likely would swamp the value of that knowledge. Stigler wrote of this eternal tradeoff very well:

There is no “imperfection” in a market possessing incomplete knowledge if it would not be remunerative to acquire (produce) complete knowledge: information costs are the costs of transportation from ignorance to omniscience, and seldom can a trader afford to take the entire trip.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If I am insuring 100,000 men and I can get 429 of them to not have cancer, that sure as shit is going to affect the cost of insuring these men. Especially if they get cancer in their 50s and have not been paying premiums that long.

If the cost to my company is an extra $25,000 per patient, that's $10.7 million I don't want to have to pay out on benefits or $107 per person.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing it's cost-effective for insurance companies to monitor eating habits?
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

Also, why do you think they charge more if you smoke?

LongTimeListener · Apr 24, 2014

Walter Lippmann said:

And if you know it's cost-effective, why aren't you an actuary or an insurance investigator?
Click to expand...

They cap the number of degrees you can have and still be an insurance investigator.

Log in or Sign up

Connection between food and cancer: Slim to none

Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

Alma Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Connection between food and cancer: Slim to none

Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

Alma Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

doctorquant Well-Known Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches