6 ms·
Why are so many young people getting cancer? What the data say
- cute_boi 3y ago>The prominence of gastrointestinal cancers and the coincidence with dietary changes in many countries point to the rising rates of obesity and diets rich in processed foods as likely culprits in contributing to rising case rates Dousing our crops with toxic pesticides for decades, mass-producing the same genetically modified seeds over and over, and sucking every last nutrient out of the soil through overfarming. Nope, nothing to see there! An economy based on maximizing profits at all costs while disregarding environmental impacts will create problems like this.
- _mlbt 3y agoYou're not wrong, but obesity should not be glossed over so quickly, as it is linked to several varieties of cancer, as well as numerous other serious health conditions.
- t-3 3y agoObesity should be scrutinized more closely though. The causes of the "obesity epidemic" that has occurred across the world aren't proven and could very well be linked to agricultural chemicals, processing, packaging, or something else entirely. Too many people reflexively write off obesity as something caused by poor diet and lacking exercise, but that hasn't been proven at all.
- abracadaniel 3y agoI often wonder if something is acting as an appetite booster. Any time I let myself indulge in junk food, I find I’m way hungrier over the next week or so. It could also be something more psychologically complex though, like being raised in abundance by parents who weren’t. Food abundance has got to track pretty close to the amount of processing, refined sugars, pesticide use, etc.
- winrid 3y agoSugar isn't fulfilling, and usually it makes you want more. If you want a snack that fills you up, try something with fat (meat, peanut butter, etc).
- mvkel 3y agoSugar is inserted into most junk foods, even if savory. The purpose is not to sweeten or adjust the flavor of whatever you're eating. It's to drive the addictive "must have more" response that your body naturally creates, selling more product. It should be illegal.
- rizzom5000 3y ago> but that hasn't been proven at all. Do you know of anything that provides a strong rebuttal to the research found in documents like this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228640/
- ecoquant 3y ago[flagged]
- ecoquant 3y agoI imagine everyone in this thread is basically correct. The only real thing we have done to combat cancer is stop smoking so much while at the same time increasing every other factor imaginable to promote cancer.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NoPicklez 3y ago"likely culprits in contributing to rising case rates" So what they've said is that dietary changes to diets rich in processed foods are contributors, that doesn't mean it is the only thing and not what you suggest but one contributor.
- instagib 3y agoagreed and the rest of the quote: “But many think that the answers are still buried in studies that have tracked the lives and health of children born half a century ago. “If it had been a single smoking gun, our studies would have at least pointed to one factor,” says Sonia Kupfer, a gastroenterologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois. “But it doesn’t seem to be that — it seems to be a combination of many different factors.” They refer to a study of 20k expecting mothers and their children then data from all. There’s also the (MVP) million veterans program that has a lot of data including dna to be analyzed. There is medical records, location information, etc. Many things to correlate if they choose to put them all together.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3abiton 3y agoI have been investigating nutrition "science" for the past 4 y now, thanks to COVID, and to call it a mess is an understatement. There is still a LOT of unknown, and so many noise in the literature because of bad statistical methodologies, it gets frustrating to form any kind of consensus on big topics. Not to mention how politics have even shaped the modern discourse on everything including diet science (vegan vs vegetarian vs keto vs (un)saturated fat vs lectin vs carbs vs cholesterol). I know these are not necessary directly related, but the amount of conflicting research and the lack of transparency for certain political agendas always make it look shady and hard to trust the literature.
- jseliger 3y agoThe odd thing is also that a fair number of people with good nutrition are getting cancer. I'm one of them: https://jakeseliger.com/2023/07/22/i-am-dying-of-squamous-cell-carcinoma-and-the-treatments-that-might-save-me-are-just-out-of-reach/ https://jakeseliger.com/2023/07/22/i-am-dying-of-squamous-ce.... Long-standing interest in nutrition, have never been overweight, experimented with a blood-glucose monitor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621339.
- xk_id 3y agoThere is consensus and robust evidence around the basic principles (e.g obesity). The effect size of the remaining details in those debates is negligible anyway.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
- victor22 3y agoWe eat garbage, carry a phone all day, stare at millions of micro led lights all day
- coldtea 3y agoNot to mention untold amounts of non-natural (evolutionary adapted) forced lifestyle choices, like sedentary jobs, staying indoors, tons of sugar and ultra processed foods, constant noise (and "music"), air pollution, constant bullshit information fed to us (from celebrity gossip to the "news"). And especially tons of modern-life induced stress - which is death by some huge-ass cuts and thousands of small cuts (a different experience to fewer big stressors in the past, like a bad farming season, otherwise combined with a quite lax lifestyle).
- MichaelRo 3y ago>> And especially tons of modern-life induced stress Actually there was an article on HN a few days ago which differentiated work-related distress between stress (induced by too much work) and anxiety (induced by too little work). It's become a nuisance in the background now after many years but each new task usually brings both these 'joys': 1) When I first get "Do/change/add X into the giant ball of mud of application that noone completely understands", I first get anxiety. Literally I have no idea not just how am I going to implement that but if it's at all possible. The definition of "anxiety caused by too little work" still goes, because I'm not "working" (not anything palpable like lines of code that can be measured and PRs be made). I'm just 'thinking', but that isn't much considered in business. Can't charge the customers for 'thinking', you need to produce. 2) Once I get familiar with the complexity involved and have some idea on how things can be solved, it's already too late in the sprint phase, it should have been done already. Now follows stress of delivering on time the 'commitment'. Not to mention that I usually implement half the task before stumbling into new evidence that changes the equation enough to require a different approach or further 'thinking' all while time is running out and commitments are not met. Task solved, another one pops up, rinse and repeat #1-#2.
- kozd 3y ago
- lambdaba 3y agoDiet and lifestyle of course, but mostly diet. I suggest everybody interested listen to this interview of Dr. Thomas Seyfried with an open mind https://youtu.be/qa3j40c8iAo?si=DTeIAaO2_Unn-dpL https://youtu.be/qa3j40c8iAo?si=DTeIAaO2_Unn-dpL In short, chronically elevated insulin + inflammation + mutagens = cells with degraded ability to breathe => switch to fermentation = cancer. This is known as the Otto Wartburg effect and has been known for a century. Metabolic therapy is tremendously successful in eradicating cancers even in later stages. I have seen so many direct testimonials and stories I wouldn't even know where to begin.
- PostOnce 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_typing#Metabolic_therapies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_typing#Metabolic_t... ''' "Metabolic therapy", including administration of laetrile, was promoted for cancer patients by John Richardson in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1970s, until his arrest for violating the California Cancer Law and revocation of his license by the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance.[4] ... "...retrospective reviews of the Gerson, Kelley, and Contreras metabolic therapies show no evidence of efficacy."[5] '''
- lambdaba 3y agoYou're trying to paint it as something cooky. I asked Claude 3 Opus: > Metabolic therapy for cancer is an approach that aims to exploit the differences in metabolism between cancer cells and normal cells. The idea is to target the unique metabolic vulnerabilities of cancer cells to slow down their growth or cause their death. While there has been some promising preclinical research, the efficacy of metabolic therapies in human cancer patients is still an area of active investigation. > Some key points about the efficacy of metabolic therapy for cancer: > Ketogenic diet: High-fat, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets have been proposed as a way to starve cancer cells of glucose, their primary fuel source. Some animal studies and small human trials have shown potential benefits, but larger, well-controlled clinical trials are needed to establish efficacy. > Insulin potentiation therapy (IPT): IPT involves administering insulin alongside low-dose chemotherapy, with the idea that insulin makes cancer cells more susceptible to the effects of chemotherapy. While some case reports and small studies have suggested benefits, the efficacy of IPT remains unproven. > Targeting metabolic enzymes: Researchers are investigating drugs that inhibit enzymes involved in cancer cell metabolism, such as glutaminase and pyruvate kinase M2. While some of these agents have shown promise in preclinical studies, their efficacy in human patients is still being evaluated in clinical trials. > Combination with other therapies: Metabolic therapies may be most effective when combined with other cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy. More research is needed to identify the most promising combinations and to assess their efficacy and safety.
- Log_out_ 3y agoSo they should get higher wages to pay for for better diets?
- bdjsiqoocwk 3y ago[flagged]