Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43502144
10 comments
As soon as I read the title, I knew this would be the case. Have the media started doing more of this clickbait misrepresentation or are we just now more aware of it. It's so frustrating that it's getting harder to trust media or take them seriously. When the history channel did it, it was obnoxious. Pyramids built by "aliens". The media doing it is pathetic and dangerous.
Wish we could go back to the good old boring objective factual news rather than journalists trying to clickbait or push an agenda.
Wish we could go back to the good old boring objective factual news rather than journalists trying to clickbait or push an agenda.
>What a rollercoaster.
Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes. As a middle schooler I could intuitively see that overeating sugar would lead to diabetic issues that are just now being "proven" by science.
Is it possible that the UK health system has figured out something that is obvious through their experiences with so many people? If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?
But until there are actual concerted scientific studies, not intimidated by social/political bullying, to consider behavior as a risk factor for disease, what can be done?
We can only rely on common sense, simplistic views, spreadsheets of private data we aren't legally allowed to share, etc... People in health care are stuck between a rock and a hard-place. (scientific studies vs what is obvious in front of them)
Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes. As a middle schooler I could intuitively see that overeating sugar would lead to diabetic issues that are just now being "proven" by science.
Is it possible that the UK health system has figured out something that is obvious through their experiences with so many people? If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?
But until there are actual concerted scientific studies, not intimidated by social/political bullying, to consider behavior as a risk factor for disease, what can be done?
We can only rely on common sense, simplistic views, spreadsheets of private data we aren't legally allowed to share, etc... People in health care are stuck between a rock and a hard-place. (scientific studies vs what is obvious in front of them)
>Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes.
Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes
Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes
You might be interested to learn that one of the fathers of modern statistics believed this too
https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...
https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...
lol, wow, I have a slight issue with transposing information... it caught me this time. Watch out you may catch lung cigarettes...
> Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes
At risk of taking this typo-launched tangent far too seriously, smoking absolutely caused cigarettes, and without retrocausality; cigarettes weren't the first vehicle for smoking, and were developed as a result of the popularity of the practice.
At risk of taking this typo-launched tangent far too seriously, smoking absolutely caused cigarettes, and without retrocausality; cigarettes weren't the first vehicle for smoking, and were developed as a result of the popularity of the practice.
While it can often seem that way, that lack of scientific studies is 'holding us back'... consider the alternative. Leaded gasoline. Thalidomide. Eugenics. Slipshod scientific rigor and a willingness to cut corners because things "seemed right" has a horrendous body count.
>... cut corners because things "seemed right" has a horrendous body count.
I don't disagree, but I would emphasize your phrase "cut corners". I think there's an diametrically opposite approach to health between "guessing for a cure" and "guessing for a cause".
People who used leeches to suck their blood out were "guessing it helped", where people who sought out clean air and clean water for say tuberculosis for example, weren't "guessing a cure", they knew clean air and water were good for you, even if it didn't cure the disease, it should at least help.
I think this same logic applies in the issue of obesity/[cancer|any health issue]. Maybe it's not a cure, but it can't hurt until we know more.
I don't disagree, but I would emphasize your phrase "cut corners". I think there's an diametrically opposite approach to health between "guessing for a cure" and "guessing for a cause".
People who used leeches to suck their blood out were "guessing it helped", where people who sought out clean air and clean water for say tuberculosis for example, weren't "guessing a cure", they knew clean air and water were good for you, even if it didn't cure the disease, it should at least help.
I think this same logic applies in the issue of obesity/[cancer|any health issue]. Maybe it's not a cure, but it can't hurt until we know more.
”If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?”
I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy” that’s substantially different from “free of disease”. That makes that statement trivially true. That’s part of the reason these experts are so careful in the conclusions they draw.
And smoking doesn’t _cause_ cigarettes, it destroys them ;-)
I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy” that’s substantially different from “free of disease”. That makes that statement trivially true. That’s part of the reason these experts are so careful in the conclusions they draw.
And smoking doesn’t _cause_ cigarettes, it destroys them ;-)
>I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy”...
I think it's a universal absolute that every individual has a healthy and non-healthy state. Regardless of our ability to classify that state accurately with labels or tests.
I know I had stupid transposed bit of wording... har.
I think it's a universal absolute that every individual has a healthy and non-healthy state. Regardless of our ability to classify that state accurately with labels or tests.
I know I had stupid transposed bit of wording... har.
The charity shouldn't be allowed to make this claim in its press release (here) or blanket advertising campaign (ongoing). It's a bad faith claim which doesn't really benefit anyone.
Even if it is the case that weight is correlated with cancer, it's not evident that weight causes cancer. The scientist dances around this statement because he can't say it.
Even if it is the case that weight is correlated with cancer, it's not evident that weight causes cancer. The scientist dances around this statement because he can't say it.
> Across the UK, smoking remained by far the leading cause of preventable cancer, although it dropped from 19.4% in 2011 to 15.1%. Second was being overweight or obese . . .
Since obesity doesn't just randomly happen but has causes, shouldn't they say "caused by" the causes of obesity -- i.e. sugar, inactivity, etc?
Since obesity doesn't just randomly happen but has causes, shouldn't they say "caused by" the causes of obesity -- i.e. sugar, inactivity, etc?
It’s not that simple. As the article correctly states:
> But he said the idea that obesity itself or eating too little fibre "causes" cancer was "somewhat simplistic" and still needed to be explored further.
Diet is certainly contributing to cancer risk but there’s no simple, direct line from sugar to cancer, or from inactivity to cancer.
For example, one aspect of cancer risk is that it’s simply a game of numbers: obese people have bigger cells (and, at least in the case of children, more cells!). More cells trivially translates into a higher cancer risk because every single cell individually has the potential of becoming a tumour precursor. But even a constant number of bigger cells increases cancer risk by a similar logic: more cellular mass increases the risk of a cell becoming cancerous because there are more molecules that can become abnormal, disrupt cellular processes and ultimately lead to DNA damage.
These are the facts. Whether this noticeably contributes to the increased cancer risk in obese people is an open question. Nevertheless, in this scenario it’s actually the obesity itself, and not the diet/inactivity that acts as a causal factor for cancer.
Ultimately this is probably a tiny contributor. Another comment correctly singles out that obesity causes (chronic) inflammation, which is almost certainly a much bigger single contributor to cancer risk.
> But he said the idea that obesity itself or eating too little fibre "causes" cancer was "somewhat simplistic" and still needed to be explored further.
Diet is certainly contributing to cancer risk but there’s no simple, direct line from sugar to cancer, or from inactivity to cancer.
For example, one aspect of cancer risk is that it’s simply a game of numbers: obese people have bigger cells (and, at least in the case of children, more cells!). More cells trivially translates into a higher cancer risk because every single cell individually has the potential of becoming a tumour precursor. But even a constant number of bigger cells increases cancer risk by a similar logic: more cellular mass increases the risk of a cell becoming cancerous because there are more molecules that can become abnormal, disrupt cellular processes and ultimately lead to DNA damage.
These are the facts. Whether this noticeably contributes to the increased cancer risk in obese people is an open question. Nevertheless, in this scenario it’s actually the obesity itself, and not the diet/inactivity that acts as a causal factor for cancer.
Ultimately this is probably a tiny contributor. Another comment correctly singles out that obesity causes (chronic) inflammation, which is almost certainly a much bigger single contributor to cancer risk.
By that overly simplistic statistical reasoning, whales should be riddled with tumors.
This is actually an interesting open question, known as Peto's paradox [1]. The "hypertumors" hypothesis is especially fun - a tumor has to get really big to affect something the size of a whale, and a tumor that big needs a fair amount of internal structure to support it, and tumor cells have a demonstrated tendency to misbehave already, so the tumors get cancer of their own and die before they can get big enough to affect the host.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox
Hm. I had hoped that the caveats I explicitly mentioned would make this the opposite of “overly simplistic”. But, yes: all other things being equal, whales would have a lot more tumours than other, smaller organisms. Now, it should be maddeningly obvious that all other things are not equal.
In the end we’re not comparing whales to other species here, we’re comparing between humans.
In the end we’re not comparing whales to other species here, we’re comparing between humans.
The parent is wrong in that they fail to distinguish between terminal/differentiated cells and tissue stem cells. Also they imply there is a one-to-one correspondence between the relevant cell divisions and number of total cells at any one time. This is not the case.
Eg, you can have one skin stem cell divide once to replace a single terminal cell (one of the daughters remains as a stem cell). Or that one daughter cell can divide itself once to replace two terminal cells per stem cell divisions. Or those two cells can each divide to get 4 terminal cells per stem cell division, etc.
The relevant number is divisions since the fertilized egg for each stem cell lineage.
Eg, you can have one skin stem cell divide once to replace a single terminal cell (one of the daughters remains as a stem cell). Or that one daughter cell can divide itself once to replace two terminal cells per stem cell divisions. Or those two cells can each divide to get 4 terminal cells per stem cell division, etc.
The relevant number is divisions since the fertilized egg for each stem cell lineage.
> they fail to distinguish between terminal/differentiated cells and tissue stem cells
I don’t distinguish them because what I’ve said is true both for differentiated and stem cells. I’m not saying that there are no relevant differences between these cells, obviously.
> they imply there is a one-to-one correspondence between the relevant cell divisions and number of total cells at any one time
Uh, where did I imply that? That would obviously be false but, again, it’s not relevant to the argument I’m making.
> The relevant number is divisions since the fertilized egg for each stem cell lineage.
The relevant number for what? I was talking about the total number/size of cells at a given time, not the number of cell divisions, which is an entirely different (but also relevant) facet of tumourigenesis.
I don’t distinguish them because what I’ve said is true both for differentiated and stem cells. I’m not saying that there are no relevant differences between these cells, obviously.
> they imply there is a one-to-one correspondence between the relevant cell divisions and number of total cells at any one time
Uh, where did I imply that? That would obviously be false but, again, it’s not relevant to the argument I’m making.
> The relevant number is divisions since the fertilized egg for each stem cell lineage.
The relevant number for what? I was talking about the total number/size of cells at a given time, not the number of cell divisions, which is an entirely different (but also relevant) facet of tumourigenesis.
At the time, she was nearly 20 stone.
20 stone = 127 kg = 280 lbs
20 stone = 127 kg = 280 lbs
and third was exposure to the Sun
That capitalised "Sun" will no doubt unintentionally amuse UK readers of the news...
That capitalised "Sun" will no doubt unintentionally amuse UK readers of the news...
Looks like some eagle-eyed editor fixed it already.
EDIT: the edit is not showing up yet on NewsDiffs [1], but maybe later.
[1] http://www.newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
EDIT: the edit is not showing up yet on NewsDiffs [1], but maybe later.
[1] http://www.newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...
Why? Sun is a proper noun. The newspaper would be "The Sun" (capital T).
It can be, but that's not usually how it's used.
You're playing in the sun, not "the Sun".
Earth's yellow sun, not Earth's yellow "Sun".
It's both common and proper, depending on context.
You're playing in the sun, not "the Sun".
Earth's yellow sun, not Earth's yellow "Sun".
It's both common and proper, depending on context.
FWIW "playing in the Sun" kinda sounds like you're somehow managing to exist inside the sun's mass and playing there, whereas "playing in the sun" clearly refers to merely being exposed to sunshine and "playing in The Sun" sounds like you're trying to say that The Sun published an article about your play.
Yes, but I would have written it as a proper noun as it was written there. They could have instead said "exposure to sun". But if you add the definite article, it's a proper noun.
> But if you add the definite article, it's a proper noun.
Not in my example.
Do you regularly go take walks in the Sun?
Not in my example.
Do you regularly go take walks in the Sun?
Well, quite, but in the BBC article it could have been either IMO.
That's because it should be 'sunlight' or 'sunshine', not abbreviated to 'sun'.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/everythi...
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/playing-in-under-the...
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-Sun-is-a-name-of-a-star-and...
Just did some random googling, and a lot of people seem to disagree with you.
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/playing-in-under-the...
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-Sun-is-a-name-of-a-star-and...
Just did some random googling, and a lot of people seem to disagree with you.
[deleted]
Not a native here, but the way I understand is that it's Sun the celestial object vs. sun as short for sunlight. No? You can't really be "exposed" to the former.
pknopf(1)
What is the mechanism to correlate an incidence of cancer with being over weight versus another risk factor?
As mentioned by another commenter, chronic low-level inflammation is one risk factor. This can lead to DNA damage that leads to cancer.
Gallstones are a characteristic of chronic gallbladder inflammation, and a history of gallstones is a strong risk factor for gallbladder cancer.
Obese people have increased levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), high levels of IGF-1 may promote the development of multiple cancers.
Correlations between several cancers and obesity range between 5-50% (eg: ~10% in women can be directly attributed to obesity, ~50% of gallbladder cancer in women can be directly attributed to obesity).
Correlations between cancer risk and healthy weight levels are strong, where (for example) those that maintain healthy weight levels are more likely to be more mindful of what they eat.
Gallstones are a characteristic of chronic gallbladder inflammation, and a history of gallstones is a strong risk factor for gallbladder cancer.
Obese people have increased levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), high levels of IGF-1 may promote the development of multiple cancers.
Correlations between several cancers and obesity range between 5-50% (eg: ~10% in women can be directly attributed to obesity, ~50% of gallbladder cancer in women can be directly attributed to obesity).
Correlations between cancer risk and healthy weight levels are strong, where (for example) those that maintain healthy weight levels are more likely to be more mindful of what they eat.
As a person frequently prone to various forms of inflammation, is there something I can do to minimize this risk?
The simplest answer is, as much as you can, stick to a whole-foods, plant based diet. So:
Whole grain bread and pasta instead of white bread and pasta. Brown rice instead of white rice. Vegetables, vegetables, vegetables, and fruit. Beans, chickpeas, split peas, and lentils. Things to avoid: Meat, fish, dairy, eggs, OIL (of any sort), junk food (of course).
Whole foods mean foods where nothing bad has been added, and nothing good has been taken away.
This diet is scientifically proven to reduce inflammation, and in fact, make you live longer. The closer you can get to it, the better off you'll be. The only thing to be wary of is that if you cut out animal protein entirely, you'll need a vitamin B12 supplement, unless you get your water from natural streams and eat vegetables without washing off the dirt :) (B12 comes from bacteria -- that's where grazing animals get it from).
If you're interested in the science, here's a long (but good) talk by Dr. Michael Greger (creator of nutritionfacts.org) at google: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ
Note that he's different from most of the diet advocates out there in that he seems to try quite hard to remain focused on the science, his website is entirely free, he's not selling supplements, and all the proceeds of his books go to charity. I'm a big fan :)
Whole grain bread and pasta instead of white bread and pasta. Brown rice instead of white rice. Vegetables, vegetables, vegetables, and fruit. Beans, chickpeas, split peas, and lentils. Things to avoid: Meat, fish, dairy, eggs, OIL (of any sort), junk food (of course).
Whole foods mean foods where nothing bad has been added, and nothing good has been taken away.
This diet is scientifically proven to reduce inflammation, and in fact, make you live longer. The closer you can get to it, the better off you'll be. The only thing to be wary of is that if you cut out animal protein entirely, you'll need a vitamin B12 supplement, unless you get your water from natural streams and eat vegetables without washing off the dirt :) (B12 comes from bacteria -- that's where grazing animals get it from).
If you're interested in the science, here's a long (but good) talk by Dr. Michael Greger (creator of nutritionfacts.org) at google: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ
Note that he's different from most of the diet advocates out there in that he seems to try quite hard to remain focused on the science, his website is entirely free, he's not selling supplements, and all the proceeds of his books go to charity. I'm a big fan :)
"As a person frequently prone to various forms of inflammation, is there something I can do to minimize this risk?"
I think you should consider fasting - or, at the very least, reducing the size of your "feeding window".
This is quite simple, actually - don't have any calories of any kind after dinner, and then wait until noon to have any calories of any kind.
Just like that, you've increased by 50% the time your body spends in fasting state.
If you think of what your metabolic markers look like when you wake up in the morning (blood pressure, free cholesterol, insulin levels, blood sugar ...) imagine what you're doing for yourself when you extend the length of that state by 50% a few days per week.
It's quite easy and I think you may find that markers of inflammation (like eczema, asthma, etc.) decrease in ways they never did with changes in diet.
Remember: no matter how "whole" or "healthy" or "nutritious" your diet is, you're still stoking all the fires of metabolism when you eat it - and that radiates out through your entire body.
I think you should consider fasting - or, at the very least, reducing the size of your "feeding window".
This is quite simple, actually - don't have any calories of any kind after dinner, and then wait until noon to have any calories of any kind.
Just like that, you've increased by 50% the time your body spends in fasting state.
If you think of what your metabolic markers look like when you wake up in the morning (blood pressure, free cholesterol, insulin levels, blood sugar ...) imagine what you're doing for yourself when you extend the length of that state by 50% a few days per week.
It's quite easy and I think you may find that markers of inflammation (like eczema, asthma, etc.) decrease in ways they never did with changes in diet.
Remember: no matter how "whole" or "healthy" or "nutritious" your diet is, you're still stoking all the fires of metabolism when you eat it - and that radiates out through your entire body.
Brilliant. I'm on the right track then. On a typical day, I finish dinner by 8pm. My next meal is lunch the following day (around 12 noon). Although I do have tea with milk in the morning (it's a national thing -- our people cannot function without the morning tea).
The tea is good - the milk is not.
I drink coffee (black) or tea while in a fasting state but any calories of any kind (the milk) will start all of the processes of metabolism.
I drink coffee (black) or tea while in a fasting state but any calories of any kind (the milk) will start all of the processes of metabolism.
Definitely, it usually boils down to reducing the intake of inflammation-causing food:
* soda, snack bars, candy, baked sweets
* mayonnaise, most salad dressings, barbecue sauces, most crackers, most breads, most potato chips
* fried foods (fries, fried chicken, fish sticks, chicken tendies, onion rings)
* refined white flour foods (pizza, white bread, most pasta, pretzels, flour tortillas, breakfast cereals, bagels)
* most milks and milk-based products (soft cheeses, butter)
* grain-fed meats, processed meats (bacon, hot dogs, bologna, sausage, jerky)
* chronic intake of alcoholic beverages
* doughnuts, cookies, muffins, frosting
While this list might seem excessive and it is by no means exhaustive or applicable or every person suffering from chronic inflammation, I'm sure you can speak from personal experience that several items on these lists have caused you some manner of discomfort.
There are so many substitutions available in every large grocery store and substituting fractions of every meal can go a long way. It's tough to get into the habit of regularly purchasing (for example) a variety of fruits and vegetables but it is definitely worth it.
For many of the items in the lists above, there are plenty of low-inflammatory options (eg: switching to whole grain breads instead of refined white flour breads, having dark leafy greens instead of Caesar salad, adding almonds, swapping in skim milk and yogurt from regular full-fat milk, any of the berries).
EDIT: removed coffee
* soda, snack bars, candy, baked sweets
* mayonnaise, most salad dressings, barbecue sauces, most crackers, most breads, most potato chips
* fried foods (fries, fried chicken, fish sticks, chicken tendies, onion rings)
* refined white flour foods (pizza, white bread, most pasta, pretzels, flour tortillas, breakfast cereals, bagels)
* most milks and milk-based products (soft cheeses, butter)
* grain-fed meats, processed meats (bacon, hot dogs, bologna, sausage, jerky)
* chronic intake of alcoholic beverages
* doughnuts, cookies, muffins, frosting
While this list might seem excessive and it is by no means exhaustive or applicable or every person suffering from chronic inflammation, I'm sure you can speak from personal experience that several items on these lists have caused you some manner of discomfort.
There are so many substitutions available in every large grocery store and substituting fractions of every meal can go a long way. It's tough to get into the habit of regularly purchasing (for example) a variety of fruits and vegetables but it is definitely worth it.
For many of the items in the lists above, there are plenty of low-inflammatory options (eg: switching to whole grain breads instead of refined white flour breads, having dark leafy greens instead of Caesar salad, adding almonds, swapping in skim milk and yogurt from regular full-fat milk, any of the berries).
EDIT: removed coffee
> coffee
Should not be on that list.
"In the most comprehensive study of coffee drinking and systemic markers of inflammation and immunity to date, we found that heavier coffee consumption was associated with lower levels of a number of different inflammatory markers, including chemokines (CX3CL1/fractalkine, CCL4/MIP-1β), cytokines (IFNγ, sTNFRII) and basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490956/
Should not be on that list.
"In the most comprehensive study of coffee drinking and systemic markers of inflammation and immunity to date, we found that heavier coffee consumption was associated with lower levels of a number of different inflammatory markers, including chemokines (CX3CL1/fractalkine, CCL4/MIP-1β), cytokines (IFNγ, sTNFRII) and basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4490956/
This is an excellent point, I have edited my comment.
Thanks. Some of this is quite easy -- I try to eat a very low carb diet. Bacon and alcohol is going to be slightly problematic.
Another comment suggested that even eggs and fish should be avoided. Is that valid?
Another comment suggested that even eggs and fish should be avoided. Is that valid?
Heh, you're talking about me.
Eggs: https://www.forksoverknives.com/whats-wrong-with-eggs/#gs.Sd...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-choline-and-cancer/
Fish: https://www.forksoverknives.com/is-fish-a-health-food-or-hav...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fis...
If it's a food you can't live without, having it once in a while on special occasions isn't going to hurt you much, just like smoking a cigarette a few times a year wouldn't hurt you much. You decide what's right for you. As far as I can tell, though, the science seems pretty clear that fish and eggs aren't health foods.
Eggs: https://www.forksoverknives.com/whats-wrong-with-eggs/#gs.Sd...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-choline-and-cancer/
Fish: https://www.forksoverknives.com/is-fish-a-health-food-or-hav...
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fis...
If it's a food you can't live without, having it once in a while on special occasions isn't going to hurt you much, just like smoking a cigarette a few times a year wouldn't hurt you much. You decide what's right for you. As far as I can tell, though, the science seems pretty clear that fish and eggs aren't health foods.
Avoiding eggs and fish sounds dubious.
Likely generalized inflammation.
It is also not unlikely that overweight people eat less nutritious diet in terms of phyto- and micronutrients some of which may prevent cancer.
Fat cell proliferation uses some of the same mechanisms as certain cancers too.
Also overweight people have more cells than thin people. So there is bigger risk to malicious cell mutations. Taller people have same problem https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/01/taller-peopl...
Yes.
The current thought is that cancer arises by tissue stem cells accumulating mutations at a low rate until it goes out of control. Every division there is some chance of error. If you have more divisions, there is a higher chance of cancer.
If you always keep this in mind: cell division -> cancer, so much will make sense. Anything requiring an increase in cell division will increase the chances of cancer in that tissue (smoking damages lung cells which need to be replaced, uv damages skin cells, being larger means you have more cells).
That is not to say that immune surveillance for clearing these bad cells plays no role, or that DNA damage sensitivity/repair can't be increased/decreased, or that those rates need be similar in different species. However, the main idea behind the entire modern cancer research programme is that cell division -> cancer.
More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/
The current thought is that cancer arises by tissue stem cells accumulating mutations at a low rate until it goes out of control. Every division there is some chance of error. If you have more divisions, there is a higher chance of cancer.
If you always keep this in mind: cell division -> cancer, so much will make sense. Anything requiring an increase in cell division will increase the chances of cancer in that tissue (smoking damages lung cells which need to be replaced, uv damages skin cells, being larger means you have more cells).
That is not to say that immune surveillance for clearing these bad cells plays no role, or that DNA damage sensitivity/repair can't be increased/decreased, or that those rates need be similar in different species. However, the main idea behind the entire modern cancer research programme is that cell division -> cancer.
More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/
"If you always keep this in mind: cell division -> cancer, so much will make sense."
I am not so sure this is a good heuristic.
An athlete, or even a moderately active (fit) person is inducing quite a bit of cell division due to the teardown and regrowth of muscle and bone, etc., caused by exercise.
However, activity and exercise seem to be (strongly) negatively correlated with cancer.
Instead, I think a better mental model is the winnowing of a population. When you subject your (muscles/bones/heart/lungs) to a highly stressful exertion, some of the cells just can't maintain that output and so they are killed off, or commit suicide by the process of apoptosis.
But if you never subject your cell population to an apoptosis-inducing level of stress, you're just cultivating an increasingly weak population of cells.
I highly recommend the book by Nick Lane titled: Power, Sex, Suicide which explores these topics...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Sex,_Suicide
I am not so sure this is a good heuristic.
An athlete, or even a moderately active (fit) person is inducing quite a bit of cell division due to the teardown and regrowth of muscle and bone, etc., caused by exercise.
However, activity and exercise seem to be (strongly) negatively correlated with cancer.
Instead, I think a better mental model is the winnowing of a population. When you subject your (muscles/bones/heart/lungs) to a highly stressful exertion, some of the cells just can't maintain that output and so they are killed off, or commit suicide by the process of apoptosis.
But if you never subject your cell population to an apoptosis-inducing level of stress, you're just cultivating an increasingly weak population of cells.
I highly recommend the book by Nick Lane titled: Power, Sex, Suicide which explores these topics...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Sex,_Suicide
>overweight people eat less nutritious diet in terms of phyto- and micronutrients
Would you mind to explain this a little bit further? It seems paradox at first.
Would you mind to explain this a little bit further? It seems paradox at first.
A typical developed world diet that is easiest to become overweight or obese from would have to include extremely calorie dense but nutritionally empty foods; junk food, basically. They’re usually not all that great in terms of nutrients in general, and are basically made whole-cloth via hardcore processing and chemical transformations (quite fascinating really!).
Also, sugar. Can easily dump 30% by weight of sugar into what amounts to edible “plastic” and have it taste “good” as well as being super cheap, but of course, completely lacking in any birdies other than carbs/sugars.
Also, sugar. Can easily dump 30% by weight of sugar into what amounts to edible “plastic” and have it taste “good” as well as being super cheap, but of course, completely lacking in any birdies other than carbs/sugars.
Percentages are no good without NNTs. It does not mention that some cases are much harder to treat than others.
(NNT = number or treatments needed to treat or prevent one case of cancer)
(NNT = number or treatments needed to treat or prevent one case of cancer)
Good, less calories means less livestock means less transport and pollution. Virtuous cycle.
>The charity also found that excess weight now caused 6.3% of all cancer cases - up from 5.5% in 2011
>Prof Mel Greaves, a cancer biologist at the Institute of Cancer Research, in London, said the study was an "endorsement" of the idea that many cancers were potentially preventable. But he said the idea that obesity itself or eating too little fibre "causes" cancer was "somewhat simplistic" and still needed to be explored further.
What a rollercoaster.