The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So there actually have been some epidemiologic studies, and I'm getting off topic a bit, but some epidemiologic studies suggesting that people who eat certain amounts of cruciferous vegetables have reduced risks of various cancers. Breast cancer and lung cancer are high on the list of cancers that have been studied. Excuse me. And it turns out that if you eat raw cruciferous vegetables, you're a bit better protected, again, based on the epidemiology.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Now, the epidemiologic studies still say that eating more broccoli or more cruciferous vegetables is good for you from the perspective of a bunch of different cancers, etc., etc.
The epidemiology is so strong showing, I mean, I can just, study after study after study showing cruciferous intake raw broccoli it's showing...and preventing bladder recurrence, as well. People that are eating these foods, it's not a clinical trial, but it's just associative data.
month may lower the risk of lung cancer by 55% like we just discussed a while ago.
because we started off by talking about some of the epidemiological evidence showing that increased consumption of cruciferous vegetables was associated with reductions in all cause mortality. It was also associated with reductions in cancer specific mortality including cancer of the prostate, bladder, lung, and breast.
Smokers that eat a lot of cruciferous vegetables have a decreased risk of lung cancer.