Goodwin J S, Brodwick M
University of Texas Medical Branch Center on Aging, Galveston, USA.
Clin Geriatr Med. 1995 Nov;11(4):577-89.
As we consider the epidemiologic evidence on diet-cancer associations, we should keep in mind the geographical differences in cancer incidence that stimulated us to look for a diet-cancer link in the first place. For many cancers, the variation in geographic incidence is in the range of an order of magnitude (see Table 2). Thus, if variation in dietary components are primarily responsible for these huge geographic variations in cancer incidence, then the effect of dietary components will not be subtle. Based on the magnitude of geographic variation, one might be primed to look for large differences in cancer incidence associated with different dietary intakes--relative risks of two or greater. This is not to say that a true relative risk of 1.2 or 0.8 for cancer associated with some dietary habit is not potentially important, but it will not get us very far along the way of explaining the geographic variation. The recommendation of the National Research Council is the consumption of five servings of fruit and vegetables daily. This level of consumption would place one in the "high consumption" group in most of the epidemiological studies showing a strong association between fruit and vegetable intake and cancer. Unfortunately, only 10% of the U.S. population actually consumes the recommended amount. Conversely, 20% to 35% of the U.S. population consume levels of fruits and vegetables that put them in the "low consumption" groups. Although causality cannot be established, the evidence is overwhelming that some constituent(s) of fruits and vegetables is (are) protective; low intake carries a greater than two-fold risk of cancer. The risk of cancer associated with low fruit or vegetable consumption may only be exceeded by that of smoking. In the typical diet in the United States, the main source of antioxidant nutrients vitamin C, carotenoids, and vitamin E comes from fruit and vegetable consumption. Without a complete understanding of the mechanism for the effect of fruits and vegetables or antioxidants, the epidemiologic evidence strongly supports the clinical benefits that can be achieved by promotion of consumption (Table 5).
在我们考量饮食与癌症关联的流行病学证据时,应牢记癌症发病率的地理差异,正是这种差异首先促使我们去探寻饮食与癌症之间的联系。对于许多癌症而言,地理发病率的差异可达一个数量级(见表2)。因此,如果饮食成分的差异是导致癌症发病率出现如此巨大地理差异的主要原因,那么饮食成分的影响就不会微不足道。基于地理差异的幅度,人们可能会倾向于寻找与不同饮食摄入量相关的癌症发病率的巨大差异——相对风险达到两倍或更高。这并不是说与某些饮食习惯相关的癌症的真实相对风险为1.2或0.8就没有潜在的重要性,但这对于解释地理差异并无太大帮助。美国国家研究委员会建议每日食用五份水果和蔬菜。在大多数显示水果和蔬菜摄入量与癌症之间存在强关联的流行病学研究中,这种消费水平会使一个人处于“高消费”组。不幸的是,美国只有10%的人口实际达到了推荐摄入量。相反,20%至35%的美国人口所摄入的水果和蔬菜量使他们处于“低消费”组。尽管无法确定因果关系,但有压倒性的证据表明水果和蔬菜中的某些成分具有保护作用;摄入量低会使患癌风险增加两倍以上。与低水果或蔬菜摄入量相关的癌症风险可能仅次于吸烟。在美国的典型饮食中,抗氧化营养素维生素C、类胡萝卜素和维生素E的主要来源是水果和蔬菜的消费。在尚未完全了解水果、蔬菜或抗氧化剂作用机制的情况下,流行病学证据有力地支持了通过促进消费所能获得的临床益处(表5)。