Being obese causes cancer but...

Avenged7Fold said:
To be fair you can also be skinny and unhealthy. :p
Click to expand...

Incorrect use of 'to be fair' :p

The point is, you can be skinny and healthy and skinny and unhealthy, you cannot be obese and healthy.

A bit of strawmanning would be that drinking peanut butter smoothie can kill you (if you have an allergy) or not (if you don't), however drinking a ricin smoothie will kill you regardless. Which is a better thing to risk drinking?
 
DrToffnar said:
It always comes down to the same thing. You can be obese and happy, you can even be reasonably fit and obese, but you can't be obese and healthy.
Click to expand...
Whatever truth there is in that, what do we do with that information?

Feels like a dead end, in isolation. An empty statement.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Only if you're chronically malnourished. :p
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_weight_obesity

In 2008, the first prevalence of US adults above 20 years was published, based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999-2004, finding that 24% of normal-weight adults metabolically abnormal; on the other hand 51% of overweight adults and 32% of obese adults were metabolically healthy.[7] An analysis from an earlier NHANES from 1988 to 1994 found people with NWO had a four-fold higher frequency of metabolic syndrome compared with the low body fat group.
Click to expand...

We know fat people can be metabolically healthy and thin people can be metabolically unhealthy. In fact, the statistics show that the eye is a poor judge of health.

I say this because many people fool themselves into thinking they are healthy as far as obesity related diseases go because they don't look obese. You can most definitely be at a much higher risk than than someone twice your size if you live a sedentary lifestyle and eat crap. In today society it can actually be quite common.
 
cheesyboy said:
narf :p

But also:


Did taxation really not work with cigarettes?
And is junk food a bit different, in that there's a decent substitute (healthy food) unlike cigarettes?

And hasn't the sugar tax already lowered sugar consumption?

I mean this seems to show it has:
https://www.ft.com/content/091b9a38-ecd2-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57
Click to expand...

On sugar tax, we don’t have enough data to know whether it’s been effective yet - in terms of actually reducing obesity in children, my prediction is that it won’t be effective - but we’ll have to wait and see until the statistics for 2020 come out, I’ll be happy if I’m proven wrong.

On the subject of cigarettes, if you look at the trends, smoking was on a very steady decline since the 1980s, regardless of taxation, however - the real impact same after the ban on smoking in public places.

Banning smoking in public places hit the problem from so many different angles, smoking became much more socially unacceptable overnight, people had to make significant changes to how they behaved - or risk prosecution.
 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/209...r-you-than-you-think-and-why-tuna-is-a-no-go/

Rubbish source I know but good to see that the Food Standards Agency have been pushing for reducing things like saturated fat and food manufactures did respond (even if it was by just reducing the size).

Worrying that Chicken contains a third more calories and a third less protein compared to 40 years ago and that potatoes contain fewer vitamins and minerals. Study was from 2004 so hopefully thing have improved but doubtful.

https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1...n-such-a-healthy-option-the-food-investigator
 
Minusorange said:
As an aside it's funny that a few hundred years ago being fat and pale skinned was a sign of wealth, now today it's the opposite :D
Click to expand...
Cant remember what culture, some polynesian tribe?, being fat is extremely desirable and a huge sign of opulence.
Gonna retire there, unless its just somewhere i made up :P
 
Just happen to be looking at my local Echo site, they had a school prom photo shoot. 90% of the teenage girls in the photos were obese, not just fat but obese. It was truly horrifying to see children being allowed to get into this state. At such a young age its completely down to the parents, but I'm sure the kind of parents that let their kids get so fat will blame someone else.
 
1) is it being fat that causes cancer or chemicals in the food people eat? (fat people consuming more of the chemicals)
2) is it the types of food fat people eat?
3) is it something else fat people do (or don't do) that makes them more prone to some cancers?
4) is it something fat people are less likely to eat that makes them more likely to get cancer?
5) is it a genetic different that causes some people to eat more that also makes them more prone to some cancers?
 
edscdk said:
1) is it being fat that causes cancer or chemicals in the food people eat? (fat people consuming more of the chemicals)
2) is it the types of food fat people eat?
3) is it something else fat people do (or don't do) that makes them more prone to some cancers?
4) is it something fat people are less likely to eat that makes them more likely to get cancer?
5) is it a genetic different that causes some people to eat more that also makes them more prone to some cancers?
Click to expand...

1- A combination of both, some foods are known to cause cancer (processed/cured red meat) especially colon cancer. Fat people generally consume a lot of meat.
2- As above, red / cured meats, fat people eat lots of fast good which usually includes lots of processed meats.
3- Lack of activity is a problem, being active and fit is known to reduce the risks, fat people tend to be inactive (but some aren't)
4- Fibre. A lack of fibre in the diet is known to help contribute towards Colon cancer (this is especially prevalent in the US)
5- The evidence is unclear, there are very rare diseases which can cause obesity (mostly brain tumours) but aside from that - it's a very complex question with no known answers yet.
 
I suppose there's a difference between being fit and healthy.

Andy Ruiz definitely has a lot of strength and stamina, and is definitely fit, but healthy? I'd imagine probably not, not as healthy as an average person at a healthy weight.

The biggest problem will be the amount of visceral fat he's carrying around his waist, that alone drastically increases the risk of metabolic disease and cancer, so he's far more likely to run into serious health issues just because that fat is there, than someone who isn't super fit - but is a healthy weight.
 
Screeeech said:
I suppose there's a difference between being fit and healthy.

Andy Ruiz definitely has a lot of strength and stamina, and is definitely fit, but healthy? I'd imagine probably not, not as healthy as an average person at a healthy weight.

The biggest problem will be the amount of visceral fat he's carrying around his waist, that alone drastically increases the risk of metabolic disease and cancer, so he's far more likely to run into serious health issues just because that fat is there, than someone who isn't super fit - but is a healthy weight.
Click to expand...

This, plus using outliers to prove a point doesn't prove the point very well. The average obese person has significantly higher body fat ratio than those boxers do, purely by way of the average person having way less muscle mass.
 
Funny this topic was on Question Time last night. Yet nobody on it seems to remember all the junk food you could get back in the 80s and 90s. The only difference back then the majority weren't in sedentary lifestyles.

It's even more alarming seeing old football footage events seeing how thin the population was back then in the stands.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32839222/
Click to expand...

Firstly, that paragraph is a bit duplicitous, comparing apples to apples normal-weight were metabolically healthy 76% of the time, whereas those who are obese only 32% of the time. Or 24% of normal weight people are unhealthy vs 68% of obese people. So being obese indicates a three-fold greater chance of being metabolically unhealthy, pretty damning in and of itself.

Also, as they used BMI as the deciding factor, those high muscle-mass outliers would still be classed as obese and are likely to make up a large chunk of that healthy 32%.

It would be really interesting to see the results factoring in body-fat ratios
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom