News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by arnejenssen on Saturday May 15, 2021 @09:48AM (#27165196)
The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by refactor_master on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:04AM (#27165348)
You lost me at gluten though.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by phonypc on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:20AM (#27165467)
Calling a lot of these things carcinogens is a little odd. It's not synonymous with harmful, and even harm isn't obvious for all of these. Food additives and processing in general? Gluten for people who tolerate it?
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by fpoling on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:37AM (#27165598)
During the last 120 years wheat was optimized for machines making its gluten content higher that could explain higher gluten intolerance among people presently.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by gruez on Saturday May 15, 2021 @01:00PM (#27166907)
Is there any evidence supporting this hypothesis?
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by galgalesh on Saturday May 15, 2021 @03:14PM (#27168011)
For context: the molecular shape of gluten causes dough to hold better. Wheat with more gluten gives softer bread which rises better. Hence why gluten is so prevalent in domesticated wheat.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by Robotbeat on Saturday May 15, 2021 @11:52PM (#27171064)
We’ve been optimizing stuff for palatability and processing since we started domesticating wheat. I am going to need a better argument about why gluten is special.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by fpoling on Saturday May 15, 2021 @02:30PM (#27167678)
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by scoopertrooper on Sunday May 16, 2021 @03:01AM (#27171798)
The article does not support your hypothesis. Celiac disease is not 'gluten intolerance'.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by gadaprog on Saturday May 15, 2021 @12:58PM (#27166884)
Asking out of ignorance here: why is higher gluten wheat more optimal for machines?
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by Woodi on Tuesday May 18, 2021 @03:10AM (#27191980)
Main role of gluten in bread is to keep gas, usually CO_2 from yeasts, bacteria or baking powder, inside dough - so dought raises and when heated gas expands giving even more volume to (not only) bakery products.

Gluten do this by forming gluten net during dought mixing. Or even by mixing flour with water and waiting. So gluten is super good and almoust magical ingradient.

Real problem is that Western World started to abuse wheat flour after yeasts were discovered. You know, in older times "white bread" was mainly for rich peoples and poor peoples used flour with more chaff. But in last years chaff costs almoust same as flour :)

Celiac disease is only 1-2% population, and non-celiac gluten sensitivity is 5-6%. So that "harmful gluten" is a myth. But if you have some intolerance then gluten is very very toxic. And nothing wrong with skipping it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten

Rye flour contains some form of gluten but it do not form gluten net. But still can be toxic for ill peoples.

So, using wheat flour/gluten is simplest way to have bread that have nice volume. Other flours are good for pies or require to use cake mold.

As for why gluten is better for machines: when dought contain formed gluten net it make it elastic, a bit like gum. So it can be nicely formed. Dought also can be to strong with too much gluten - that require much more force for shaping.

Also with good gluten net dought can sustain longer period after forming and before baking, making it less time sensitive - bread do not get flat before there is free place in the stove/oven.

Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by fpoling on Saturday May 15, 2021 @03:42PM (#27168285)
It was not done on purpose. As an unintended consequence of selection for easy to harvest mechanically, easier to bake, better to respond to fertilizers modern wheat varieties contain more specific proteins of gluten type that cause allergic reactions.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by bcatanzaro on Saturday May 15, 2021 @01:00PM (#27166902)
Gluten is not a carcinogen
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by devmunchies on Saturday May 15, 2021 @03:31PM (#27168162)
IMO above all is abundant food (overeating). No food is 100% perfect, so if you eat way too much you are more likely to expose yourself to something toxic or inflammatory.

Our bodies aren't designed to be topped-off 3 times a day.

Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by agumonkey on Saturday May 15, 2021 @03:49PM (#27168355)
And with the ideas of 1) less food promoting better cell health (especially factory made food being altered for sales) 2) more exercise ensuring better health, I have a solid belief that past life did well for our health on many fronts. (sure they were lacking antibiotics and a lot of useful medicine)
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by analog31 on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:26PM (#27170714)
Gluten is a protein, doesn't that mean it's broken down into amino acids by digestion?
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by sokoloff on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:01AM (#27165320)
Is tobacco use higher today vs pre-industrial eras? I don’t think of it as a particularly modern introduction to humanity.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by magneticnorth on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:07AM (#27165365)
Tobacco was unknown in Europe until Europeans were introduced to it by native Americans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco

Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by sokoloff on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:09AM (#27165379)
Wow. That’s mind-blowing. I knew it was a huge economic driver in the early American colonies, but I always imagined it pre-dated [in Europe] the colonization.

Thank you for my TIL!

Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by throw0101a on Saturday May 15, 2021 @10:34AM (#27165574)
Other things that changed post-1492: potatoes, maize (corn), tomatoes, cocoa (chocolate), vanilla are probably most predominant across the Atlantic.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange

Bunch of stuff happening in the Pacific as well, e.g., chilli peppers (capsicum):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_pepper#Distribution_to_A...

Good book:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1493:_Uncovering_the_New_World...

Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by triceratops on Saturday May 15, 2021 @02:33PM (#27167699)
The entire Colombian Exchange is eye-opening. Try to imagine Italian food without tomatoes, Indian food without chili peppers, or a Britain with no chips to accompany their fried fish.
Re:Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? by adrianN on Sunday May 16, 2021 @02:22AM (#27171631)
People have been eating wheat for a long time.