Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 171 posts

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#21

Post by nchelluri »

rhondapatrick wrote: post #4

It's amazing just how badly this study was distorted by generalized clickbaitism. It chafed me sufficiently enough to put out a video on the subject at the time[1]. The hype really wasn't even necessary... the underlying findings were plenty interesting enough already: that there is an association between stem cell division rate of specific tissues and overall cancer risk. This, however, in no way implies that cancer…

IMO, the author does clarify this sufficiently,

> In other words, this study argued that the more times D.N.A. replicates, the more often something can go wrong. Some took this to mean that cancer is much more because of “bad luck” than because of other factors that people could control.

> Unfortunately, this simple explanation is not really what the study showed. Lung cells, for instance, divide quite rarely, and still account for a significant amount of cancer. Cells in the gastrointestinal tract divide all the time and account for many fewer cancers. Some cancers, like melanoma, were found to be in the group of cancers influenced more by intrinsic factors (or those we can’t control), when we clearly know that extrinsic factors, like sun exposure, are a major cause.

as well, he only opens with that and aims to debunk the bad luck hypothesis by means of the other two studies. which again I personally have no idea about :)

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#22

Post by coldtea »

pmiller2 wrote: post #7

I wonder what the psychology behind believing heart disease is preventable vs cancer being unpreventable.

No deep psychology needed.

With hearts, you open up and you see clogged arteries, for example. It doesn't get much simpler than "too much fat is bad for your heart".

With cancer? It could be anything. And there are tons of different types, seemingly hitting all kinds of people, fat smokers and lean non-smoking vegans alike.

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#23

Post by amock »

sosborn wrote: post #14
amock wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with BMI for something like this? It's such a simple measure and it seems to be useful for predicting health issues. From what I've read body fat percentage is what really matters, but accurately calculating that takes expensive equipment. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sci... seems to indicate that BMI does a pretty good job, although it may be too generous on the high end.

> It's such a simple measure and it seems to be useful for predicting health issues. It is good for predicting in general populations, but can easily fall apart with individuals. It doesn't take into account what the makeup of your mass is. Muscle is denser than fat, so a muscular man and a fat man of the same height and weight would have the same BMI, but vastly different health profiles.

I see how it is a bad measure for some cases, but I don't think that makes it a bad tool. It's like financial advice that says how much someone should save for retirement or spend on rent based on income. Someone with a normal job progression will probably be fine following it, but for doctors who take out huge loans and eventually have a huge increase in income it's not helpful and a more specific plan should be created. For BMI, most people should aim for the middle of the range and if they think there's a reason that they don't fit the scale then a doctor can be consulted.

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#24

Post by pkaye »

sosborn wrote: post #14
amock wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with BMI for something like this? It's such a simple measure and it seems to be useful for predicting health issues. From what I've read body fat percentage is what really matters, but accurately calculating that takes expensive equipment. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/summer-of-sci... seems to indicate that BMI does a pretty good job, although it may be too generous on the high end.

> It's such a simple measure and it seems to be useful for predicting health issues. It is good for predicting in general populations, but can easily fall apart with individuals. It doesn't take into account what the makeup of your mass is. Muscle is denser than fat, so a muscular man and a fat man of the same height and weight would have the same BMI, but vastly different health profiles.

Why do people keep bringing up this point. Even blood tests are not perfect tools but we still make use of them. There are always some false positives and negatives. It is a combination of all the available results that a doctor will use to make a determination. If your BMI is high but you look muscular, have normal BP and cholesterol and no other concerns, they may feel that you are in good health.

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#25

Post by pkaye »

wil421 wrote: post #12
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI is a surprisingly relevant metric for many things as it's a comparison between volume (weight) and surface area (height ^2). And yes, short people do have an inherent advantage there which for example possibly relates to how small dogs tend to live longer.

BMI is a horrible metric because it doesn't take body composition into account. I can't believe I was once almost considered obese with a body fat of less than 5%. 5'10" at 200-210.

Who considered you obese? Also is it healthy to even have <5% body fat?

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#26

Post by reasonattlm »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #8
reasonattlm wrote: post #6

If peak cancer years are two or more decades in your future, I'd argue that the best thing you can do today is donate to research programs that are likely to change the economic landscape of cancer research. You should also not get fat, not smoke, and all the other things that require no money, but research is much more transformative. You want the future to be no cancer, not less cancer. Why economic transformation…

> This is much on my mind because I'm helping to raise funds for one such project right now After two paragraphs about how the only way to save yourself is to give generously? Ya don't say...

You see the argument for this approach to cancer as being less valid because in addition to making it, I have chosen to act on it? Strange thought process.

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#27

Post by wil421 »

pkaye wrote: post #25
wil421 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI is a horrible metric because it doesn't take body composition into account. I can't believe I was once almost considered obese with a body fat of less than 5%. 5'10" at 200-210.

Who considered you obese? Also is it healthy to even have <5% body fat?

According to the BMI scale, over 30 is obese and 25 to 30 is overweight.

I'm not sure of the health factors but if you're training for 2 - 2.5 hours a day and dieting it can be normalish.

Why the down votes?

Check the scales: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmic...

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#28

Post by sndean »

wil421 wrote: post #12
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI is a surprisingly relevant metric for many things as it's a comparison between volume (weight) and surface area (height ^2). And yes, short people do have an inherent advantage there which for example possibly relates to how small dogs tend to live longer.

BMI is a horrible metric because it doesn't take body composition into account. I can't believe I was once almost considered obese with a body fat of less than 5%. 5'10" at 200-210.

My BMI is 26+ and I run ~8 miles/day. It can be pretty far off for larger built people...

I clearly remember asking my gym teacher in middle school why my BMI suggests I was fat even though I clearly wasn't. He then proceeded to tell the entire class "he's a good example of someone who's labeled as fat, but isn't." Somewhat embarrassing.

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#29

Post by Retric »

wil421 wrote: post #12
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI is a surprisingly relevant metric for many things as it's a comparison between volume (weight) and surface area (height ^2). And yes, short people do have an inherent advantage there which for example possibly relates to how small dogs tend to live longer.

BMI is a horrible metric because it doesn't take body composition into account. I can't believe I was once almost considered obese with a body fat of less than 5%. 5'10" at 200-210.

Your heart does not care if it's supporting fat or muscle it must pump blood for both. Further skin and colorectal cancer are both surface area and don't care about fat vs. mussel.

Metabolically muscle is worse as it needs more oxygen and fuel. Which is one of the reasons body builders can often die young from a heart attack.

Re: Helpless to Prevent Cancer? Actually, Quite a Bit Is in Your Control

#30

Post by atomical »

wil421 wrote: post #12
Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI is a surprisingly relevant metric for many things as it's a comparison between volume (weight) and surface area (height ^2). And yes, short people do have an inherent advantage there which for example possibly relates to how small dogs tend to live longer.

BMI is a horrible metric because it doesn't take body composition into account. I can't believe I was once almost considered obese with a body fat of less than 5%. 5'10" at 200-210.

It's not a good metric for you but it's pretty relevant for everyone else. Also, joints don't take body composition into account either...
Post reply on HN