Being obese causes cancer but...

[bigmike20vt]

However, this would only allow fewer calories to be available, not more than are ingested. Obvs.

This may be true... but it means that someone being holier than thou saying how easy it is staying slim is not necessarily being 100% honest when judging someone else....

a bit like if someone who is really intelligent and who had a top notch education tried to berate someone who is thick as 2 short planks and who went to a rubbish school for finding particle physics difficult.... because particle physics is easy isnt it!.
(or another one i love is when you listen to someone who is totally minted telling people that money really isnt important in life and that you cant buy happiness..)

 

[cheesyboy]

A calorie is a fixed value but you are right about people having different uptakes of their consumed nutrition. It depends on lots of things. However, this would only allow fewer calories to be available, not more than are ingested. Obvs.

Not if the stated calorie value of the food was standardised to account for the average loss through the human digestive process, which I think it might be (as said, i can't recall where I heard this, so needs to be fact checked).

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

I don't think anyone can honestly say that some people don't find it harder than others. I suspect posters in this thread are more concerned with the rationalisation around it.

The money example is probably not that good because, until you've been rich and unhappy, you couldn't know. They could be genuinely sharing that knowledge rather than gloating. I suppose it depends how it is said.

 

[GGizmo]

So now we're blaming being obese for causing cancer. Years ago it was smoking, and now more people have stopped and cancer rates are still rising we've moved on to something else.

I wonder what it will be blamed on in a few years time.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Not if the stated calorie value of the food was standardised to account SNIP

In which case it is wrong to call them calories.

 

[cheesyboy]

In which case it is wrong to call them calories.

Not really - food is marked at its usable calorie rating from eating*, rather than the energy you would get from burning it to heat your house.

*see previous disclaimers

 

[bigmike20vt]

So now we're blaming being obese for causing cancer. Years ago it was smoking, and now more people have stopped and cancer rates are still rising we've moved on to something else.

I wonder what it will be blamed on in a few years time.

to be honest the biggest cause of people getting cancer is....... Medicine
Sooner or later if we live long enough we will all get cancer. Years ago people died of all sorts of other things, however general improved health care and what not means that something which would have killed you 30 years ago likely wont now, Average life expectancy is on the increase and so cancer will go up with it.

so, more accurately I would say...... old age is a pretty big cause of cancer.

 

[cheesyboy]

to be honest the biggest cause of people getting cancer is....... Medicine
Sooner or later if we live long enough we will all get cancer. Years ago people died of all sorts of other things, however general improved health care and what not means that something which would have killed you 30 years ago likely wont now, Average life expectancy is on the increase and so cancer will go up with it.

so, more accurately I would say...... old age is a pretty big cause of cancer.

Yes and no. Living to 70 has always been pretty standard for humans (three score and ten is in the Bible!) - the vast bulk of life expectancy increases have been in infant mortality. People weren't really keeling over dead by 45 in the middle ages.

Diagnosis has increased for cancer. People just used to get ill and die somewhat mysteriously. But the rates are certainly up for some cancers - probably pollutants are contributing.

 

[Dis86]

So now we're blaming being obese for causing cancer. Years ago it was smoking, and now more people have stopped and cancer rates are still rising we've moved on to something else.

I wonder what it will be blamed on in a few years time.

Smoking hasn't stopped causing cancer - there are multiple causes for multiple cancers. Historic smokers are also still being diagnosed even after they've stopped. I suggest you remove yourself from your position of ignorance and actually gain some understanding.

 

[200sols]

So now we're blaming being obese for causing cancer. Years ago it was smoking, and now more people have stopped and cancer rates are still rising we've moved on to something else.

I wonder what it will be blamed on in a few years time.

I think you need to educate yourself and not treat everything as a conspiracy.

 

[Gixer]

So now we're blaming being obese for causing cancer. Years ago it was smoking, and now more people have stopped and cancer rates are still rising we've moved on to something else.

I wonder what it will be blamed on in a few years time.

In my mum's case it was so I've seen it first hand. She was obese, that started the dice rolling. Diabetes type II, fatty liver disease, sclerosis of the liver and finally the big one which was cancer of the liver. Diagnosed in August and passed away the following May. Maybe there were other factors involved but when you look at how things developed in my mum's case her being overweight for so long is likely to be a massive contributor to her conditions.

For me, I well know I could still get cancer but if I do I know it will not be because I've lived a non healthy lifestyle and that it is caused by something genetic or a reason that is out of my control. The hardest part with my mum was hearing say how she wish she'd looked after herself better, lived healthier etc but by then it was all too late and she passed away with those regrets.

At the end of the day it's up to the individual how they want to live but I cannot accept big is beautiful and I cannot accept that we should promote it as a lifestyle to live in any way or form, just as we don't promote smoking anymore.

 

[GGizmo]

I think you need to educate yourself and not treat everything as a conspiracy.

I'm afraid only you think its a conspiracy. Because that IS what all the health experts were saying back in the day, that it was down to smoking. Why do you think you hardly see any tv series or movies with actors smoking these days? Because TV was blamed for glamorising smoking and causing cancer.

Smoking hasn't stopped causing cancer - there are multiple causes for multiple cancers. Historic smokers are also still being diagnosed even after they've stopped. I suggest you remove yourself from your position of ignorance and actually gain some understanding.

They don't officially know why cancer gets triggered. They just seem to blame it on the bad habits of the day. Like why do some people smoke all their lives, living to 100+ years and never get ill, while others get cancer and have their life cut short?

I've had quite a few people die in my family of cancer, and I'm perfectly entitled to speak my mind about it without being called ignorant by someone who doesn't know me from adam. If you can enlighten us all and tell us why some obese people get cancer and other obese people dont, or smokers who get it and smokers who dont, then I'll bow to your higher education on this subject.

 

[Dis86]

I'm afraid only you think its a conspiracy. Because that IS what all the health experts were saying back in the day, that it was down to smoking. Why do you think you hardly see any tv series or movies with actors smoking these days? Because TV was blamed for glamorising smoking and causing cancer.



They don't officially know why cancer gets triggered. They just seem to blame it on the bad habits of the day. Like why do some people smoke all their lives, living to 100+ years and never get ill, while others get cancer and have their life cut short?

I've had quite a few people die in my family of cancer, and I'm perfectly entitled to speak my mind about it without being called ignorant by someone who doesn't know me from adam. If you can enlighten us all and tell us why some obese people get cancer and other obese people dont, or smokers who get it and smokers who dont, then I'll bow to your higher education on this subject.

It's fully understood. It's a combination of genetics and chance.

You can speak your mind all you want, doesn't stop you talking bull crap.

I've flown in a plane on many occasions, doesn't make me a pilot.

 

[Roar87]

I'm afraid only you think its a conspiracy. Because that IS what all the health experts were saying back in the day, that it was down to smoking. Why do you think you hardly see any tv series or movies with actors smoking these days? Because TV was blamed for glamorising smoking and causing cancer.

They don't officially know why cancer gets triggered. They just seem to blame it on the bad habits of the day. Like why do some people smoke all their lives, living to 100+ years and never get ill, while others get cancer and have their life cut short?

I've had quite a few people die in my family of cancer, and I'm perfectly entitled to speak my mind about it without being called ignorant by someone who doesn't know me from adam. If you can enlighten us all and tell us why some obese people get cancer and other obese people dont, or smokers who get it and smokers who dont, then I'll bow to your higher education on this subject.

So smoking can't cause cancer unless all smokers get cancer, same with obesity? Is this your argument? Do you understand that statistically you're more likely to get cancer if you do these things, but you aren't guaranteed. You can apparently reduce your chance of getting cancer by 80% with good life style choices, but there's always going to be that 1 in 1000 guy who's never going to touch a cigarette yet he still gets lung cancer.

 

[GGizmo]

So smoking can't cause cancer unless all smokers get cancer, same with obesity? Is this your argument? Do you understand that statistically you're more likely to get cancer if you do these things, but you aren't guaranteed. You can apparently reduce your chance of getting cancer by 80% with good life style choices, but there's always going to be that 1 in 1000 guy who's never going to touch a cigarette yet he still gets lung cancer.

No, thats not my argument as that would be a foolish generalisation.

Lets say if smoking increases the chances of someone getting cancer, and being obese does too. But most people don't get cancer from those two activities, it suggests its some kind of genetic pre-disposition in some people that do get cancer.

So I'm saying those two actions are contributory factors, but we know also not smoking and not being obese people still get cancer. The logical conclusion is the answer to curing cancer is to find the specific gene that gets triggered.

The point of my first post was that we could say any bad lifestyle choice can increase your chances of getting cancer. I'm saying its a contributing factor, not the direct cause.

 

[GGizmo]

It's fully understood. It's a combination of genetics and chance.

You can speak your mind all you want, doesn't stop you talking bull crap.

I've flown in a plane on many occasions, doesn't make me a pilot.

I think you have misunderstood the post I made. I was saying that yes these are contributary factors and like you said you take your chance when doing them as you could be genetically pre-disposed to that gene being triggered.

It's the gene that causes the cancer. The chance part is because us mortals don't know what gene it is or if we have it. If you knew you didn't have the gene then there wouldnt be any chance part.

 

[Angilion]

Thing is, (IIRC - worth checking, but I recall hearing this explained somewhere) food calorie values aren't based on their actual energy content, but on a revised figure that takes into account the efficiency of the human gut.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I'm willing to bet that not all guts are made equal. Maybe for some, food rated at 2,000 calories will actually provide, say, 2,500 calories of energy, but for others only 1,500?

All that said, it's speculation on my part, and not something I've ever seen mentioned elsewhere - I might be talking ****

As far as I know, food calorie values are based on their actual energy content. Specifically, 1 food calorie is the energy required to raise the temperature of 1Kg of water by 1C. The figures were originally obtained by literally burning a sample of the food and measuring the heat generated. Nowadays, it's done by analysing the broad nutritional content of the food (e.g. how much fat, how much protein, etc) and using standard values for each. There's some debate about how accurate this simplified approximation is.

On a personal basis, the figure I've seen mentioned for the variation in efficiency of digestion from person to person is 10% (outside of a medical disorder affecting digestion). Probably also an estimate - how can it be accurately measured?

 

[Angilion]

Yes and no. Living to 70 has always been pretty standard for humans (three score and ten is in the Bible!) - the vast bulk of life expectancy increases have been in infant mortality. People weren't really keeling over dead by 45 in the middle ages.

A significantly larger number of people were. 70 has always been pretty standard for a full lifespan for humans, but until recently an awful lot of people died from infection or disease before then. Usually before adulthood (though not necessarily in infancy), but still quite often in adulthood. Also, average lifespan is more like 80 now (in this country). Those 10 years make a lot of difference.

Diagnosis has increased for cancer. People just used to get ill and die somewhat mysteriously. But the rates are certainly up for some cancers - probably pollutants are contributing.

Probably, but who knows for sure? Maybe it's diet. Or lifestyle. A lot of things have changed in the last ~100 years, even the last ~50 years.

 

[Angilion]

No, thats not my argument as that would be a foolish generalisation.

Lets say if smoking increases the chances of someone getting cancer, and being obese does too. But most people don't get cancer from those two activities, it suggests its some kind of genetic pre-disposition in some people that do get cancer.

Or luck. Or an unrelated disease at the wrong time. Most cancerous cells are killed by the person's immune system before they cause cancer itself. It's the ones that aren't that cause the disease. Why were they missed? The immune system fighting something else at the crucial period of time when only a couple of cells were cancerous? The mutation of the cell that made it cancerous just happening to be something that the immune system didn't detect and respond to?

It's possible for X to always cause cells to become cancerous and for a person exposed to X repeatedly to never get cancer and die at 90 from a heart attack. That would just mean that their immune system always detected and killed the cancerous cells before they became a problem.

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

Each time a new cell is made from the existing DNA there is the risk of mutation. There is another level of risk that said mutation could be cancerous. Then there is the chance, as Angilion says, that the immune system stops it before it multiplies or spreads. Certain conditions (chemicals, radioactivity, physical structures) increase the chance of mutation, with some even specifically towards cancerous mutation.

Interestingly, there is plenty of research going on now around fasting reducing the risk of cancer. I first saw this theory on a Panorama about fasting with that TV doctor Moseley. The idea is that when you eat lots the body has lots of resources and produces lots of and insulin growth factor that instructs the body to create new cells rather than repair old, damaged ones. More cell creation results in more opportunities for mutation, increasing the risk of cancerous mutations. When fasting there is less insulin growth factor, and fewer resources, so the body instead repairs old and knackered cells rather than building new ones. Thus less cell creation and lower cancer risk. Some scientists believe this already but I think conclusive medical research is yet to be published.

This would go some way to explaining increased cancers in the modern world. We have more and cheaper food than any previous generations.

Edit: and it has parallels with our lack of recycling/throwaway society, whereby we are always making new stuff instead of repairing old stuff.