• Very hot drinks linked to 90% higher risk of oesophageal cancer, says study
    51 replies, posted
Good thing I'm a milkyboi
It's a good thing I drink a lot of NOS, where I won't have this problem.
most british people dont drink black tea so
They laughed at me at work for having half of my coffees be milk so I'm able to drink it and enjoy the taste, well who's laughing now!?
I wonder if that one facepuncher will emerge who, when he was a kid, forced himself to drink really hot tea and got so badly burned his throat passage fused together..
Is this really a surprise? Just because you can't feel the scalding hot liquid in your mouth doesn't mean it isnt sitting there in your throat or stomach literally cooking your cells.
So what's "too hot" in this case? They mention 60ºC but I don't measure drinks before I drink them, so what's that? >Satan's asshole >"Kinda burning my mouth just a little bit but eh it's fine" >Perfectly drinkable, no pain involved Cause I don't actively drink or eat anything that's literally hurting my mouth (except Takoyaki which always seems to be at an acceptable temperature until it bursts in your mouth and boils it but ain't nobody spitting out takoyaki)
Listen here you little shit
thank god (and the queen, and organized labor I suppose) that britain still has nationalized healthcare then.
so if you drink tea/coffee that is hot your going to get a hole in your throat?
I'm literally going to take this with a grain of salt like most medical studies, as they often not only can't control for extant circumstances but will actively hide them as well.
excuse me WHAT. I had to sit and think about this a bit, but I don't think that's not even possible. Even if it degloved why would it fuse together? Did he put his throat in a panini maker?
drinking hot drinks gives you cancer drinking cold drinks gives you cancer solution: stop drinking fluids and don't do it ever again you'll get mega cancer
Good because I hate very hot stuff.
oh look it's this story again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3chJN9DCGg
What extant circumstances do you think they should've been able to account for, but left hidden instead? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.32220 Prospective studies aren't perfect, and they can't control for everything. Obviously the "90% increase" is the most significant result they gathered , but esophageal cancer is a pretty rare from of cancer, which means that very large study populations are required to attain statistical power. Accordingly, the p-values aren't exactly impressive. It also means this is probably not something you should worry too much about, because even doubling a small risk doesn't make it large. The conclusions of the study are similarly benign, though: In this prospective study, three independent measures of hot tea consumption, notably objectively measured temperature at baseline, were each associated with higher risk of ESCC, providing strong evidence for an association between hot beverage drinking and ESCC. High prevalence and high quantities of tea drinking at high temperatures could make the Golestan population considerably vulnerable to ESCC associated with drinking hot tea. As there is no known health benefit from drinking very hot beverages, it will be reasonable to advise people in Golestan and elsewhere to wait for their hot beverages to cool down before drinking. Further research is needed on mechanisms of this association, as well as associations between amount of tea consumed or drinking tea at more moderate temperatures and ESCC risk.
My aunt died with oesophageal cancer because this very cause.
Just because it's rare doesn't mean you can control for extant circumstances. There is an inherent bias in cases of rare diseases. You're essentially fishing for a cause; whats next? Food too hot? Soup too hot?
Disease is rare -> You need a big population to gain statistical power -> You can't control for every possible thing because there needs to be money for more than one study per year. Here's what they controlled for: HR1s are adjusted for age at baseline, sex, urban–rural residence, ethnicity, education level, wealth score, fresh fruit and vegetable consumption (on a logarithmic scale), cigarette smoking, nass chewing, opium use, and alcohol consumption.  I'm asking what more they could feasible control for in a population of 50000. Perhaps there are some obvious things that you would suggest? And yeah, perhaps people who drink hot tea is just a proxy for eating hot soup. That would still suggest that drinking hot liquids are probably carcinogenic to some degree, but of course that isn't impossible. I'm not saying prospective studies are a gold standard (because they're not), but just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're completely worthless. Reducing this to "fishing for a cause" is a bit harsh - they're not measuring 50 different things and then picking out 3 that showed statistical significance at random. I suppose you could argue that some p-hacking could be going on, but it seems reasonable to measure both the temperature as well as how much people consumed, and it seems both possible and reasonable that they planned on doing this since the conception of the study (and hopefully that's the case).
and they call me crazy for not boiling the water fully. i always pick it up when it's 60% boiled
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.