3 ms·

Except that adipose cells don't undergo mitosis. When is the last time you heard someone dying of "fat cancer"? Believe it or not, professional researchers pro

Except that adipose cells don't undergo mitosis. When is the last time you heard someone dying of "fat cancer"? Believe it or not, professional researchers probably tried to think of "obvious pathways" too.

whimsicalism 2y ago
i wasn’t claiming professional researchers didn’t know something, so not sure where you are pulling that from. i guess the mechanism correlating weight and cancer is more complex than “more cells more cancer”, but the correlation is still well measured and i assume a reason why physical exercise would anti-correlate as well e: also my understanding was non-adipose cell count was also correlated as weight
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Of course there is a correlation. You were proposing an "obvious" explanation for it based on relative cell counts, which "obviously" is not correct if you consider the nature of the tissues involved.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    Oh definitely. It wasn’t clear from my above comment, but I acknowledge that bit was definitely wrong and will eat crow for that. I guess the main thing I was trying to say was that we know obesity is correlated with cancer and I thought we had some understanding of the mechanism behind that, so my guess is that physical exercise is just the inverse of that mechanism?
copperx 2y ago
Lipomas can turn into cancer. That's literally fat cancer.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Liposarcoma is a comparatively rare type of cancer. If the parent's hypothesis is: "less exercises == higher weight == more cells == (more mitosis / mutagenic potential) == more cancer" Which tissue type is accounting for most of the weight difference (in equal height people) who do and don't exercise? You could even reverse this and look at body builders with greater muscularity than average. The number of cells itself is clearly not the cause of increased cancer risk, because neither fat nor muscle cells cause the most common cancers.

whimsicalism 2y ago

i wasn’t claiming professional researchers didn’t know something, so not sure where you are pulling that from. i guess the mechanism correlating weight and cancer is more complex than “more cells more cancer”, but the correlation is still well measured and i assume a reason why physical exercise would anti-correlate as well e: also my understanding was non-adipose cell count was also correlated as weight

anon84873628 2y ago
Of course there is a correlation. You were proposing an "obvious" explanation for it based on relative cell counts, which "obviously" is not correct if you consider the nature of the tissues involved.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  Oh definitely. It wasn’t clear from my above comment, but I acknowledge that bit was definitely wrong and will eat crow for that. I guess the main thing I was trying to say was that we know obesity is correlated with cancer and I thought we had some understanding of the mechanism behind that, so my guess is that physical exercise is just the inverse of that mechanism?

copperx 2y ago

Lipomas can turn into cancer. That's literally fat cancer.

anon84873628 2y ago
Liposarcoma is a comparatively rare type of cancer. If the parent's hypothesis is: "less exercises == higher weight == more cells == (more mitosis / mutagenic potential) == more cancer" Which tissue type is accounting for most of the weight difference (in equal height people) who do and don't exercise? You could even reverse this and look at body builders with greater muscularity than average. The number of cells itself is clearly not the cause of increased cancer risk, because neither fat nor muscle cells cause the most common cancers.