8 ms·
Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'
- ec109685 9y agoWhat is the mechanism to correlate an incidence of cancer with being over weight versus another risk factor?
- AstralStorm 9y agoLikely 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.
- atupis 9y agoAlso 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-people-more-likely-to-get-cancer-say-researchers https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/01/taller-peopl...
- nonbel 9y agoYes. 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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/
- rsync 9y ago"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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Sex,_Suicide
- 0xFFC 9y ago>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.
- girvo 9y agoA 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.
- ihsw2 9y agoAs 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.
- hliyan 9y agoAs a person frequently prone to various forms of inflammation, is there something I can do to minimize this risk?
- ihsw2 9y agoDefinitely, 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
- AstralStorm 9y agoPercentages 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)
- wyclif 9y agoand third was exposure to the Sun That capitalised "Sun" will no doubt unintentionally amuse UK readers of the news...
- cup-of-tea 9y agoWhy? Sun is a proper noun. The newspaper would be "The Sun" (capital T).
- croon 9y agoIt 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.
- cup-of-tea 9y agoYes, 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.
- croon 9y ago> 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?
- cup-of-tea 9y agoWell, quite, but in the BBC article it could have been either IMO.
- pluma 9y agoFWIW "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.
- pknopf 9y agoSofia Hagen would like a word with the author of this article. https://twitter.com/SofieHagen/status/968841936906981376?s=19 https://twitter.com/SofieHagen/status/968841936906981376?s=1...
- jk4930 9y agohttps://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/id-rather-be-fat-shamed-than-have-cancer/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/id-rather-be-fat-shamed-...
- simooooo 9y agoMakes sense. The more cells in your body, the bigger the chance
- agumonkey 9y agoGood, less calories means less livestock means less transport and pollution. Virtuous cycle.
- jere 9y ago>Rise in cancers 'caused by weight' >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.
- zombieprocesses 9y agoAs 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.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago>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)
- Someone 9y ago”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 ;-)
- spodek 9y ago> 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?
- klmr 9y agoIt’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.
- jiggunjer 9y agoBy that overly simplistic statistical reasoning, whales should be riddled with tumors.
- nonbel 9y agoThe 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.
- stefap2 9y agoAt the time, she was nearly 20 stone. 20 stone = 127 kg = 280 lbs
- jlebrech 9y agoFunnily enough, lack of exercise, alcohol, meat can cause obesity. and not eating enough veg gives people fibre deficiency. Also to note none of those causes of cancers are protein deficiency.