Shadowing Practice: Everyday Foods that Feed CANCER Cells - Learn English Speaking with Video

Kies een oefenmodus

Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.

182 zinnen

Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.

Cancer is far more common than people realize.

About 40% of us will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in our lifetime.

And on one hand, a lot of the risk is just genetics and bad luck.

But on the other hand, studies show that up to 40% of cancers in women and 57% of cancers in men may be preventable.

Now what does that mean?

Well, you can't change your genetics, but you can influence how your genes behave.

And one of the strongest levers you can pull to lower your risk of cancer is the foods

that you eat or don't eat every day.

Because cancer is not just a genetic disease.

It's also a metabolic disease and an inflammatory disease.

And in many ways, it's environmental.

So the conditions inside your body matter.

Your hormones and your level of inflammation and what kind of fuels your cells are exposed to.

And this is the part that often gets missed.

Even foods that seem normal or even healthy can push your body towards the exact conditions that cancer cells thrive in.

So in this video, I want to walk you through specific foods that shape this internal environment.

And I want to break down the science behind how they support or slow down cancer growth.

And I'll give you a simple framework to help you shift things in the right direction.

One that makes it much more difficult for cancer cells to take hold and grow in the first place.

And along the way, we'll take a closer look at red meat and how you should approach it.

Because it's one of the most debated foods in the space, and the data there is far more nuanced than headlines make it seem.

And if you're new to this channel, I'm Dr. Leonid Kim.

I'm a double board certified physician, and on this channel, I go over the most up-to-date and evidence-based information on topics of weight loss, metabolic health, longevity.

Let's get into it.

So let's start with one of the most underestimated drivers of cancer risk, and that is sugar-sweetened beverages.

And this one is tricky.

Everyone knows about sodas, but then there's energy drinks, and there's juices, and sweetened coffee, and boba teas.

These drinks deliver massive amounts of sugar into the bloodstream almost instantly.

And we have large population studies that show that every additional 8-ounce drink of 100% fruit juice per day, so just one small glass,

is associated with a 17% increase in breast cancer risk, and a 10% increase in colorectal cancer risk,

and a whopping 30% increased risk in the cancers of the biliary tract.

So that refers to cancers of the gallbladder and the bile ducts, the small tubes that connect the liver to the intestines.

And sugary drinks have also been linked to cancer of the liver and the pancreas, oral cavity and prostate.

Now these studies show associations, so not proof of causation.

But if you look at what's happening biologically, this lines up pretty well.

And it starts with something called the Warburg effect.

So most healthy cells generate energy very efficiently.

They use oxygen to slowly extract large amounts of energy from nutrients.

But cancer cells often behave very differently.

Many of them switch to a faster metabolic pathway where they just burn through glucose extremely rapidly even when there's oxygen available.

And this process is called aerobic glycolysis.

So think of it like an engine stuck at a full throttle.

cancer cells are constantly demanding fuel so they can divide and grow and their preferred fuel is glucose.

And there's another layer to this.

When we consume large amounts of sugar our body releases hormones like insulin and IGF-1.

So these hormones regulate blood sugar but they act as growth signals.

They tell cells to grow and divide and store energy and many cancer cells have far more insulin receptors than normal cells.

In fact, some breast cancer cells actually have six to ten times more insulin receptors than normal healthy cells,

which means they respond much more strongly to insulin signaling.

So when insulin levels remain chronically elevated, so we would call this hyperinsulinemia, the body is essentially bathing cells in growth signals.

And if abnormal cells are present, well, those signals can accelerate their growth.

This is why liquid sugar is especially concerning.

It delivers large glucose loads without fiber, without satiety, and without slowing down absorption.

So it's one of the fastest ways to push the body into that cancer-promoting metabolic environment.

And there's also another issue that we have to worry about when it comes to sweet beverages, especially fruit juices, and that is inorganic arsenic exposure.

So arsenic is classified as a group 1 carcinogen.

It can damage DNA and it can disrupt gene regulation.

And arsenic has been linked to lung cancer and bladder cancer and some skin cancers.

And the American Cancer Society specifically lists fruit juice,

and especially apple juice, among foods to avoid consuming excessively due to possible arsenic contamination.

And other foods that we have to worry about when it comes to arsenic would be rice or rice products.

So just from the arsenic contamination standpoint, white rice is usually lower in arsenic than brown rice.

And there are simple ways to reduce exposure even further.

One trick is to soak rice in water overnight and rinse it thoroughly before cooking.

So if rice, especially white rice, is a regular part of your diet, those simple steps can meaningfully reduce that arsenic exposure.

But sugary beverages are really just one part of a much larger pattern.

And that pattern is the rise of ultra-processed foods.

So these foods are heavily industrialized.

They're made mostly from refined ingredients rather than whole foods.

So this would be things like packaged snacks, fast food, processed desserts, most breakfast cereals and many frozen meals.

So these foods are engineered to be extremely palatable, which means they're designed to taste so good that it's hard to stop eating them.

And they're also convenient and inexpensive.

But they tend to drive the exact metabolic conditions that cancer cells thrive in.

Large population studies show that for every 10% increase in ultra-processed food intake, your overall cancer risk goes up by 13%.

And just looking at colorectal cancer, which is the fastest growing cancer in young people today, their risk goes up by 30%.

Now again, this is association, not proof of causation, but the biology behind it makes sense.

Because here's the problem.

First, ultra-processed foods tend to drive rapid blood sugar spikes, which reinforces that insulin signaling environment that we talked about earlier.

And second, these foods promote chronic low-grade inflammation, and that can weaken your immune system,

which is the first-line defense that we have against abnormal cancer cells.

And third, these foods can disrupt the gut microbiome.

So many ultra-processed foods contain additives like emulsifiers that improve texture and they improve shelf life,

but these compounds can damage the intestinal barrier and promote inflammation and worsening your gut health.

And then we're running into the whole food displacement paradigm.

The more ultra-processed foods that we eat, the less room there are for protective whole foods.

So we end up getting less fiber and fewer phytochemicals and fewer vitamins and minerals,

all of which are important for immune cells to function properly and to protect us against cancer.

So the problem is not just one ingredient, it's the overall dietary environment.

Now another food category that we have to discuss is heavily salted or pickled foods.

So certain preserved foods, especially those high in salt, have been linked to increased risk of stomach high salt concentrations can damage the lining of the stomach

and they can promote chronic inflammation and over time

that repeated irritation makes the stomach more vulnerable to cancer promoting compounds

and we have studies that show

that people with high salt intake have about a 68% higher risk of gastric cancer compared to people with lower intake.

And then some of these preserved foods also contain compounds called nitrosamines, which are known to damage DNA.

So this is one reason stomach cancer has historically been much more common in regions where salty

or preserved foods are dietary staples, like in some parts of of East Asia.

Now this next category is very controversial and it gets a lot of attention and that is processed meat and red meat.

And we have to approach this carefully because the science is not as black and white as some headlines make it seem.

100

Many studies show a very strong association between higher intake of processed meats.

101

So this would be things like bacon or sausage or hot dogs or deli meats and increased risk of colorectal cancer.

102

In fact, the International Agency for research on cancer classifies processed meat as a group one carcinogen.

103

And the American Cancer Society guidelines report that each additional serving, or about two ounces of processed meat per day,

104

increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer by about 23%.

105

And processed meats have also been linked to higher risk of other cancers, including breast cancer and lung, esophagus, and prostate cancers.

106

Now before we go deeper into this, there's an important distinction that we have to make because processed meat

107

and red meat are often lumped together

108

but the data is very different for each one and we should not approach them the same way.

109

A recent review published last year pointed out that processed meats consistently show more harmful effects compared to unprocessed red meats.

110

So that already tells us something important.

111

It suggests that processing and preparation may matter just as much as the food itself.

112

Now when it comes to To process meats, the mechanisms are fairly clear.

113

These foods often contain nitrites and nitrates, which are used for curing and preservation, and they add flavor.

114

When these compounds enter the acidic environment of the stomach, they can form nitrosamines like NDMA, and these are known carcinogens that can damage DNA.

115

And DNA damage is one of the first steps in cancer development.

116

Now with unprocessed red meat, the picture is more nuanced.

117

There's still observational data that shows associations with certain cancers, especially colorectal cancer, but the link is weaker.

118

That's why it's classified as a group 2A carcinogen, meaning there's limited direct human evidence but strong biological plausibility.

119

And this is where it gets controversial.

120

A 2019 review published in the Analyst of Internal Medicine concluded

121

that reducing meat intake had only small effects with low certainty evidence and suggested that people continue their current intake.

122

But the following year, the American Cancer Society actually responded to the paper.

123

They pointed out that that review focused heavily on randomized control trials and placed less weight on observational studies.

124

And this is where the debate really comes from because nutritional research is not straightforward.

125

So real quick, broadly there are two main types of studies.

126

There's randomized control trials and then there's observational studies.

127

With randomized control trials, you control what people eat and isolate just one variable.

128

And that gives you stronger cause and effect data.

129

But for cancer, this is very hard to do because cancer takes years, maybe even decades to develop.

130

So you would need to control people's diets for 10, 20, even 30 years with perfect adherence.

131

And realistically, that's just not possible.

132

So this is where observational studies come in.

133

They follow large groups of people over long periods of time, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people for decades, and then they look at patterns.

134

For example, people who eat more red meat have higher rates of colorectal cancer.

135

So the strength here is the scale and time, but the limitation is you can't control everything.

136

So people who eat more red meat may also eat fewer vegetables or have different lifestyles.

137

And researchers do try to adjust for this and account for these confounders, but they can't remove it completely.

138

And another big weakness is a lot of nutritional research relies on food diaries, where people recall what they ate the previous day or last week,

139

and those can get pretty inaccurate.

140

So you're always balancing the two.

141

Randomized control trials on one hand give you stronger cause

142

and effect but in shorter timelines and less realistic data that you may not be able to generalize to large populations.

143

On the flip side, observational studies give you long-term real-world data but more uncertainty and more bias.

144

So this is why you see debates like this

145

because depending on how you weigh the evidence you can come to very different conclusions.

146

And with something as nuanced as cancer, we have to look at both types of studies and make the best prediction based on the totality of the available evidence.

147

Is there a link between unprocessed red meat and cancer?

148

Absolutely.

149

But the way I see it, it's not just about the meat itself.

150

It's also about what's missing from the diet.

151

Because if you eat more of one thing, you often eat less of something else.

152

And in many cases, that something else is fiber.

153

And fiber is one of the strongest protective factors against colon cancer that we see across many studies.

154

Because fiber provides so many protective things at once.

155

It regulates blood sugar, and it feeds the beneficial gut bacteria.

156

And those bacteria produce compounds like butyrate, which then reduce inflammation and support colon health.

157

And there was an interesting study that highlights this.

158

So this was published in the British Journal of Nutrition, where researchers had participants eat about 300 grams of red meat per day.

159

And this increased a marker linked to DNA damage in the colon by 21%.

160

But when they added 40 grams of resistant starch, which is a type of fiber,

161

to the red meat, that increase in DNA damage markers completely disappeared.

162

It just went back to baseline.

163

And in the study, they used a resistant starch powder, but you can get it from whole foods like potatoes and legumes and green bananas.

164

So what this suggests is the effect of red meat may depend heavily on your overall diet.

165

If red meat is displacing fiber-rich foods, well that creates one type of environment.

166

An environment that may increase your risk of colorectal cancer or other cancers.

167

But if red meat is combined with enough fiber or resistant starch, well that environment can look very different.

168

So my main takeaway is to have a nuanced approach and avoid extremes either way.

169

If you're eating red meat every day, probably not a good idea.

170

But red meat one or two times a week, I don't think there's enough evidence to say that will increase your risk of cancer, especially if you pair it with fiber-rich foods.

171

Now, there is one more layer that often gets overlooked, and that is how the meat is cooked.

172

When meat is grilled or fried or barbecued at very high temperatures, it can form very harmful compounds.

173

So, compounds like heterocyclic amines or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

174

And both of these compounds have been shown to damage DNA, which can then lead to cancer.

175

So again, it's not just about what you eat, it's also how you prepare it.

176

So you can reduce this by pre-cooking your meat before grilling to limit that time over high heat.

177

And then you can use marinades with herbs and garlic and onions or vinegar, which has been shown to help limit the formation of these compounds.

178

And it helps to avoid sugary marinades because those burn very quickly and increase the risk of charring.

179

And another thing that can help is choosing leaner cuts of meat.

180

Less fat means less dripping, and less smoke and fewer of those harmful compounds getting back onto the meat.

181

Alright, I hope this was helpful.

182

Stay healthy, and I'll see you in the next one.

App downloaden

Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken

AI UitspraakScoor elke zin

IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid

WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op

WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt

Scan QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

Aanbevolen Video

97 zinnen

Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les

Deze spreekles op niveau B2 is gebaseerd op de video “Everyday Foods that Feed CANCER Cells”. Deze woorden komen het vaakst terug: cancer, meat, cells, risk, processed. Deze video bevat 182 zinnen en 2666 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 15:32. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 172 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. Slechts 80% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden, dus de woordenschat is pittig.

Belangrijke woorden in deze video

De 15 moeilijkste woorden uit de video, met uitspraak en betekenis:

Woord	Uitspraak	Betekenis
compound zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈkɑmpaʊnd/	verbinding
arsenic zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈɑɹsənɪk/	arseen, arsenicum
colorectal bijvoeglijk naamwoord		colorectaal
insulin zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈɪnsəlɪn/	insuline
metabolic bijvoeglijk naamwoord	/mɛtəˈbɒlɪk/	metabool
inflammation zelfstandig naamwoord	/ɪnfləˈmeɪ̯ʃən/	ontsteking
nuance zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈnjuː.ɑːns/	nuance
carcinogen zelfstandig naamwoord	/kɑɹˈsɪnəd͡ʒən/	carcinogeen, kankerverwekkende stof
starch zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈstɑɹt͡ʃ/	zetmeel
unprocessed bijvoeglijk naamwoord		onbewerkt
colon zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈkoʊ.lən/	dubbele punt, dubbelpunt
beverage zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈbɛv(ə)ɹɪd͡ʒ/	drankje, drank
glucose zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈɡluː.kəʊz/	glucose, druivensuiker
hormone zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈhoɹmoʊn/	hormoon
harmful bijvoeglijk naamwoord	/ˈhɑɹmfl̩/	schadelijk

Phrasal verbs die je zult horen

Woord	Betekenis
point out werkwoord	aanwijzen, aanduiden
slow down werkwoord	afremmen
break down werkwoord	stukgaan, kapot gaan
end up werkwoord	belanden, terechtkomen

Grammatica in deze video

De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:

Structuur	In de video
Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet	will be diagnosed · are exposed · is associated
Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding	palatable, which means · cancer, which is · nitrosamines, which are
Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt	have also been linked · has been linked · have been linked

Uitspraak om op te letten

De spreker gebruikt 17 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals can't, they're, you're. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.

De “th”-klanken: thrive /θɹajv/, pathway /ˈpæθˌweɪ/, thoroughly /ˈθʌɹ.ə.li/
De klanken “sh” en “zh”: observational /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃənəl/, inflammation /ɪnfləˈmeɪ̯ʃən/, causation /kɔˈzeɪ.ʃən/, nutritional /njuːˈtɹɪʃ.ə.nəl/, contamination /kənˌtæm.əˈneɪ.ʃən/
Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: observational /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃənəl/, metabolic /mɛtəˈbɒlɪk/, inflammation /ɪnfləˈmeɪ̯ʃən/, carcinogen /kɑɹˈsɪnəd͡ʒən/, nutritional /njuːˈtɹɪʃ.ə.nəl/

Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:

Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: compound /ˈkɑmpaʊnd/, beverage /ˈbɛv(ə)ɹɪd͡ʒ/, glucose /ˈɡluː.kəʊz/, protective /pɹəˈtɛk.tɪv/, preserve /pɹəˈzɝv/
/æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: bacterium /bækˈtɪəɹ.ɪəm/, classify /ˈklæs.əˌfaɪ/, contamination /kənˌtæm.əˈneɪ.ʃən/, abnormal /ˌæbˈnɔɹ.ml̩/, gram /ˈɡɹæm/
/g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: glucose /ˈɡluː.kəʊz/, ingredient /ɪnˈɡɹiːdi.ənt/, gram /ˈɡɹæm/, diagnose /ˈdaɪ.əɡˌnoʊs/, guideline /ˈɡaɪdˌlaɪn/

Zo oefen je met deze video

Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als compound, arsenic, colorectal.

Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?

Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.

Shadowing-techniek: lees de volledige stap-voor-stap-gids →

Shadowing Practice: Everyday Foods that Feed CANCER Cells - Learn English Speaking with Video

Kies een oefenmodus

App downloaden

How to Speed Run Getting Cancer - Goblins Guide

I Studied Nutrition for 30 Years. Here’s What Actually Matters.

18 tháng 10, 2026

Freedom from fatness: Why GLP-1s go after Black bodies | Code Switch

HOW DOES FASTING AFFECT CANCER?

What Happens When You Eat Too Much Sugar? According To A Sugar Expert

Your Top Coronavirus Questions Answered - CNN Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield

Why your anti aging routine is not working ?

What to do when willpower doesn't work

Cyberchondria: The good and bad of symptom searches

What are the Signs and Symptoms of Prostate Cancer? | Cancer Research UK

"Coffee" is just Dessert Now