"Study finds cancer link for muscle-building supplements"

Tar.Aldarion

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2015/04/muscles

"We further conducted exploratory stratified analyses examining associations with TGCC for the major types of MBS use reported by the study population and found that the use of MBS containing ingredients of both creatine and proteins increased the risk of TGCC significantly (OR =2.55, 95% CI: 1.05–6.15)."

What do you guys make of it? I think it is very broad, not heavily controlled study but that the results are definitely interesting and there should be more study done in that area.

Here is the full text for your perusal
https://infotomb.com/kelk9.pdf

puntosporting

Being alive leads to cancer!

Transform

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2015/04/muscles

"We further conducted exploratory stratified analyses examining associations with TGCC for the major types of MBS use reported by the study population and found that the use of MBS containing ingredients of both creatine and proteins increased the risk of TGCC significantly (OR =2.55, 95% CI: 1.05–6.15)."

What do you guys make of it? I think it is very broad, not heavily controlled study but that the results are definitely interesting and there should be more study done in that area.

Here is the full text for your perusal
https://infotomb.com/kelk9.pdf

so vague and people still use andro??

tony007

puntosporting wrote: »

Being alive leads to cancer!

Do you use that ''logic'' when talking about the strong link between smoking and lung cancer?

Transform

tony007 wrote: »

Do you use that ''logic'' when talking about the strong link between smoking and lung cancer?

they say;

"the researchers found that the men who used supplements had a 1.65 odds ratio (a 65-percent greater risk) of having developed testicular cancer compared to the men who did not use supplements".

So what is the ratio for men who don't use supplements but smoke, drink or have a family history to Testicular Cancer?

supplements are bad mmmkay

Tar.Aldarion

It's not really vague, what does that mean? In what way? Certainly there is a lot more work to do but the study itself seems sound for what it is, a case on correlation. The study shows that supplements that include both protein and creatine in them had a significantly increased risk of testicular cancer for the people involved. Now the methods and other aspects to the study can be called into question, that is what I want opinion on, it may be incorrect in the end, it may not, but I don't see what is vague yet. Nobody is saying that supplements are bad, but there is no doubt that they are complex and a new area of study for long term use.

They also did account for other possible factors such as smoking, drinking, exercise habits, family history of testicular cancer, and prior injury to their testes or groin. After tallying their data and accounting for all those possible confounders, as well as age, race, and other demographics.

Transform

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

It's not really vague, what does that mean? In what way? Certainly there is a lot more work to do but the study itself seems sound for what it is, a case on correlation. The study shows that supplements that include both protein and creatine in them had a significantly increased risk of testicular cancer for the people involved. Now the methods and other aspects to the study can be called into question, that is what I want opinion on, it may be incorrect in the end, it may not, but I don't see what is vague yet. Nobody is saying that supplements are bad, but there is no doubt that they are complex and a new area of study for long term use.

They also did account for other possible factors such as smoking, drinking, exercise habits, family history of testicular cancer, and prior injury to their testes or groin. After tallying their data and accounting for all those possible confounders, as well as age, race, and other demographics.

you're 100% right and vague was an incorrect word choice.

More interesting but incomplete.

lumping creatine in with andro was a big error IMO

deadlybuzzman

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I think it is very broad, not heavily controlled study but that the results are definitely interesting and there should be more study done in that area.

Without watertight controls there's are soooooo many variables in any study that It reduces the result to being filed under Cool Story Bro.
In the past people thought polio was caused by ice cream. Polio contraction rates used to increase in line with ice cream sales.
Also coffee was linked with increased rates of cancer until the penny dropped and someone figured maybe coffee drinkers tend to smoke too. Once it was controlled for the link vanished.
Maybe there's something there maybe theres not but there's too much ****erery in science to take any vague study seriously.

cc87

The flaws of the study aside, at best(or worst) it shows supplement use changes the risk of cancer from 5.9 men in 100,000 to 9.4 men out of 100,000 have a chance of getting cancer.

Considering, in the US where the study was carried, 1 out of every 2 men will get cancer in their lifetime (see here), I doubt supplements are the biggest issues at play here.

papu

I'd be wary of the artificial sweeteners and colourings used in supplements alright.

The study mentions these hidden ingredients and

An international study found that 15% of commercially available non-hormonal supplements contained undeclared anabolic androgenic steroids,
including prohormones of nandrolone, which have been associated with development of testicular cancer in rats

which is fair enough.

I'm sticking to the creatine mono and unflavoured whey.

Mellor

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Certainly there is a lot more work to do but the study itself seems sound for what it is, a case on correlation.

Not really tbh. They took a sample of guys with testicular cancer and a slightly larger sample of guys without and asked them lifestyle questions.
They've no control over the answers and they've no way to allow for anything the guys are not telling them.
For example, I imagine some of the guys wouldn't disclose anabolic steroid use. Some AAS impact the tests, and it's goes withut saying that they is a huge co-relation between AAS ans MBS.

The study shows that supplements that include both protein and creatine in them had a significantly increased risk of testicular cancer for the people involved. Now the methods and other aspects to the study can be called into question, that is what I want opinion on, it may be incorrect in the end, it may not, but I don't see what is vague yet.

That's what they said in the blurb, but if you read the main test, they mention something else.

Data collection. All subjects included in the study completed an in-person and standardised, structured questionnaire implemented by trained study interviewers. A total of 356 cases and 513 controls were included in the present study with a participation rate of 57.4% for the cases and 47.8% for the controls. The interview included questions about a wide variety of characteristics suspected to be associated with the risk of TGCC, including MBS. MBS use was defined as use for at least once a week for X4 consecutive weeks. The interview included an assessment of 30 different types of MBS powders or pills. The major ingredients, including creatine, protein, and androstenedione or its booster, were abstracted according to the product ingredients.

Androstenedione has a known testicular cancer link, according to the pubchem link provided in the original.
as such it seems incredibly stupid to lump androstenedione, creatine and protein together as "MBS". If they've collated all that data, I'd be interested to see the occurance rate when you itemize out each type of MBS. By guess would be that it would be a lot less damning.

They also did account for other possible factors such as smoking, drinking, exercise habits, family history of testicular cancer, and prior injury to their testes or groin.

Did you look at the data for those factors?
The 'cases" group had a 33% higher rate of injury to the testes, 153% higher increase in familt history of testicular cancer and a 438% higher rate of Undescended testes or cryptorchidism.
Seems all very relevant, it might be interesting to see the data with those cases removed rather than just being "allowed for". (I've not sure how they allowed for, it doesn't appear to say)

Finally, they fail to highlight that in men who started taking MBS later the 25, the rate of testicular cancer is reduced. (Total OR 88%)

Zillah

Doing a study on "muscle building supplements" without making any effort to distinguish between the vastly different substances within that group is largely pointless.

It's like if someone did a study on "recreational drugs" and made no effort to distinguish between weed and meth, and came out at the end saying that "recreational drugs" caused people's lives to fall apart.

Also this wasn't a study where they monitored people over a decade or two (and it definitely wasn't an interventional study where the scientists actually control what supplements people would use over the years), this is 100% derived from retrospective questionnaires. People cannot self-report reliably, that's been shown, especially if there are factors they might be ashamed of. How many cancer victims might later feel the need to play down anything they could have done to cause their disease when questioned? How many non-cancer-having people would more happily disclose risk factors, like the occasional smoke or drinking binge?

This isn't really a scientific study so much as a fairly sloppy survey.

Very few things can be said to CAUSE cancer. Chief among those would be tobacco and asbestos. Lots of things can vary your risk. There is no action without a reaction in the body. You take these supplements to gain muscle. If they work they alter your metabolism in a certain way to gain this muscle. This may make you fitter, but as this study shows may also increase your risk of testicular cancer. It may also reduce the risk of other things.

Its important to put risk into context. If the risk of something happening is one in ten million... and something makes you ten times more likely to get it, then your risk is still only one in a million. It makes great newspaper headlines and is played on my the scaremongers, but in reality, a risk of one in a million is nothing.

crestglan

Everything causes cancer these days including fresh air instead of wasting money on studies showing what causes or what may cause cancer put it into curing cancer

Alf Veedersane

crestglan wrote: »

instead of wasting money on studies showing what causes or what may cause cancer put it into curing cancer

You have to know the cause to inform how you might cure it.

crestglan

Every one knows what causes Cancer cells change and mutate and multiply anything can cause this bad diet smoking maybe even farting who knows

ozt9vdujny3srf

crestglan wrote: »

Every one knows what causes Cancer cells change and mutate and multiply anything can cause this bad diet smoking maybe even farting who knows

By your logic, we should never have bothered doing research to prove the link between smoking and cancer.

Zillah

crestglan wrote: »

Every one knows what causes Cancer cells change and mutate and multiply anything can cause this bad diet smoking maybe even farting who knows

If only we had such a luminary to advise the medical community a century ago, we could have saved ourselves all this time and expense.

puntosporting

You can only do so much in life to be healthy sometimes its not enough and cancer strikes !
Its a horrible disease but at the same time you have to live and with all these studies people are in fear of having a glass of water!
We know for a fact that sunbeds and smoking are realy bad but id nearly say you can go online now and type any food ingredient or substance and find a link relating it to cancer!!!

papu

puntosporting wrote: »

You can only do so much in life to be healthy sometimes its not enough and cancer strikes !
Its a horrible disease but at the same time you have to live and with all these studies people are in fear of having a glass of water!
We know for a fact that sunbeds and smoking are realy bad but id nearly say you can go online now and type any food ingredient or substance and find a link relating it to cancer!!!

You'll also find some which prevent cancer.
If we don't do research we'll never know.

puntosporting

papu wrote: »

You'll also find some which prevent cancer.
If we don't do research we'll never know.

I agree but so many have little or no evidence to back them up!
To many variable in life be it pollution, stress, diet etc no two people are alike so how do these studies stand up!
Not so long ago maybe last year a similar study came out telling us not to take omega 3's?

Alf Veedersane

crestglan wrote: »

Every one knows what causes Cancer cells change and mutate and multiply anything can cause this bad diet smoking maybe even farting who knows

They do studies to find out WHY they change and mutate.

Alf Veedersane

puntosporting wrote: »

I agree but so many have little or no evidence to back them up!
To many variable in life be it pollution, stress, diet etc no two people are alike so how do these studies stand up!
Not so long ago maybe last year a similar study came out telling us not to take omega 3's?

A study.

More studies, more parameters, more variables. More evidence.

Research.

vigos

Examine.com have done a piece on it and gives a good overview without having to read in depth.

http://examine.com/blog/do-muscle-building-supplements-cause-testicular-cancer-a-deeper-look-at-the-latest-study-on-mbs-usage-and-testicular-cancer

puntosporting

puntosporting wrote: »

I agree but so many have little or no evidence to back them up!
To many variable in life be it pollution, stress, diet etc no two people are alike so how do these studies stand up!
Not so long ago maybe last year a similar study came out telling us not to take omega 3's?

Most cancer is due to age and (bad) luck. Environmental factors apart from tobacco and asbestos just alter the luck odds slightly. People are deluding themselves with supplements and the like.

papu

Deleted User wrote: »

Most cancer is due to age and (bad) luck. Environmental factors apart from tobacco and asbestos just alter the luck odds slightly. People are deluding themselves with supplements and the like.

I really wouldn't call it slightly, and I wouldn't put it down to luck , there are specific mechanisms which cause cancer, Physical, chemical and biological factors. These are labelled as carcinogens. I dunno about you but I'd like to limit my exposure to carcinogens as much as possible.

crestglan

Its true research is the first step but we have confirmed almost everything causes cancer smoking environment Hormones changing in body This is common knowledge for years now fact is we cant stop most of these changes so now start looking for the cure instead of cause that's all I'm saying

Alf Veedersane

crestglan wrote: »

Its true research is the first step but we have confirmed almost everything causes cancer smoking environment Hormones changing in body This is common knowledge for years now fact is we cant stop most of these changes so now start looking for the cure instead of cause that's all I'm saying

Different stimuli will generate cancerous cells differently.

That's part of the reason why treatments are different.

Research is carried out to inform why certain stimuli cause cancer so it can be tackled and a treatment/cure is developed from that.

LuckyLloyd

Alf you're right of course, but there are undoubtedly a lot of 'cancer cause' studies undertaken for slightly dubious motives and sensationalist media reporting like 'eating bacon increases cancer risk by 100%' for a study which finds 'risk of specific cancer increases from 1 / 100000 to 2 / 100000' for those who consume bacon' type nonsense out there.

That stuff isn't helping to cure cancer.

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Alf you're right of course, but there are undoubtedly a lot of 'cancer cause' studies undertaken for slightly dubious motives and sensationalist media reporting like 'eating bacon increases cancer risk by 100%' for a study which finds 'risk of specific cancer increases from 1 / 100000 to 2 / 100000' for those who consume bacon' type nonsense out there.

That stuff isn't helping to cure cancer.

Undoubtedly. That's not research though. They're one off studies of a dubious nature and the money spent on those would never otherwise have found its way into the coffers of those trying to cure cancer.