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

As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#61

Post by mysterypie »

yongelee wrote: post #52
mysterypie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting well-written article, but you realize that their main point was that it contradicts the earlier calorie-restriction study: "The Nature authors found no increase in lifespan; the calorically restricted animals lived no longer, statistically, than their well-fed cousins." They try to reconcile the studies: maybe it's the natural-ingredient foods vs the refined foods, maybe it's the generous diet vs…

To even try? To try to exercise and not drink sodas is extremely frustrating? Living a healthy lifestyle is about simple choices like going to the gym or adding broccoli to your meal and avoiding junk food.

> To even try?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant, to even try to keep up with the contradictory medical studies.

Yes, you should exercise; that's a common sense thing I'm referring to. But trying to decide if things like calorie restriction really work in the face of conflicting studies is frustrating.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#62

Post by mtgx »

mysterypie wrote: post #34
ransom1538 wrote: post #9

I always think of these two monkeys[i] when I consider slowing down my age. [i] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

It's an interesting well-written article, but you realize that their main point was that it contradicts the earlier calorie-restriction study: "The Nature authors found no increase in lifespan; the calorically restricted animals lived no longer, statistically, than their well-fed cousins." They try to reconcile the studies: maybe it's the natural-ingredient foods vs the refined foods, maybe it's the generous diet vs…

I don't know about the other studies, but I assume they were short-term? I think I remember one of them being only 3 months. That could have been the issue, as I believe calorie restriction leads to a slower metabolic rate. So if you need 2,000 calories, but eat 1,500 for a year, your body should get used to eating 1,500 and maintaining your weight (after losing some initially before it adapts to fewer calories).

But I believe intermittent fasting where you eat the same 2,000 calories but just shorten the window of eating to allow your body to crank-up the growth hormone and start autophagy does have long-term benefits, that should lead to prolonged life.

And of course, a calorie isn't a calorie. If you eat 200g of net carbs a day, intermittent fasting probably won't prolong your life too much, but it's also going to be more difficult to do IF when you're body is used to having high-levels of blood sugar and insulin in it.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#63

Post by mjlangiii »

mysterypie wrote: post #61
yongelee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To even try? To try to exercise and not drink sodas is extremely frustrating? Living a healthy lifestyle is about simple choices like going to the gym or adding broccoli to your meal and avoiding junk food.

> To even try? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant, to even try to keep up with the contradictory medical studies. Yes, you should exercise; that's a common sense thing I'm referring to. But trying to decide if things like calorie restriction really work in the face of conflicting studies is frustrating.

nutritionfacts.org was created for this reason, to consolidate the evidence from nutritional studies so that you don't have to.

spoiler alert - the comprehensive review lead them to the conclusion to eat plants, unprocessed.

But anyway, it is a nice resource to get a round up of studies on a similar topic.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#64

Post by nonbel »

sungam wrote: post #25
reasonattlm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly so, which is a phenomenon that might explain how stochastic nuclear mutation at its given rates can possibly cause widespread enough harm to be significant. There is an interesting recent paper on that subject: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007108 "Recent single-cell studies point to the possibility that essentially all cells have unshared mutations in their genomes. In view of this extensive genetic…

I have shown that in elderly individuals essentially the entire epidermis stem cell compartment, whilst having normal morphology, is occupied by clonally expanded mutant stem cells:- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00993-8

That sounds very interesting, but after glancing at your figures, I don't see where you make this obvious.

Also, in the intro you say "the risk of skin cancer increases exponentially with age and is associated with accumulation of somatic mutations8". Your source groups ages into only 3 categories... If you look closer at the data you will see that developing most cancers becomes less common in old age (peaks at 60 - 90 years old). For cancers involving tissue like bone or reproductive organs this peaks much earlier, probably due to when the majority of cell divisions are occurring.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#65

Post by throwpupper »

mjlangiii wrote: post #63
mysterypie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To even try? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant, to even try to keep up with the contradictory medical studies. Yes, you should exercise; that's a common sense thing I'm referring to. But trying to decide if things like calorie restriction really work in the face of conflicting studies is frustrating.

nutritionfacts.org was created for this reason, to consolidate the evidence from nutritional studies so that you don't have to. spoiler alert - the comprehensive review lead them to the conclusion to eat plants, unprocessed. But anyway, it is a nice resource to get a round up of studies on a similar topic.

nutritionfacts.org is an extremely biased site that has been created by a vegan who built his whole career on speaking about health issues. While it has the word "facts" in its title nothing prevents them from cherry-picking studies to support their original views.

If you cherry-pick different studies you might actually find that consuming large amount of plants stresses our digestive system way more than a fatty steak with potatoes.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#66

Post by saiya-jin »

mysterypie wrote: post #61
yongelee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To even try? To try to exercise and not drink sodas is extremely frustrating? Living a healthy lifestyle is about simple choices like going to the gym or adding broccoli to your meal and avoiding junk food.

> To even try? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant, to even try to keep up with the contradictory medical studies. Yes, you should exercise; that's a common sense thing I'm referring to. But trying to decide if things like calorie restriction really work in the face of conflicting studies is frustrating.

I don't see much mystery there, the linked article seems to sum up current state of affair pretty damn well.

Which also include what you wrote - no point to over-analyze everything, since we have no clue how our genes/bodies work compared to next person.

Do the sane stuff, don't eat crap, exercise cleverly and often, no stress, enjoy life and people around you. You can't do much more for good long life than that, rest is just a dice roll.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#68

Post by cies »

mjlangiii wrote: post #63
mysterypie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To even try? Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant, to even try to keep up with the contradictory medical studies. Yes, you should exercise; that's a common sense thing I'm referring to. But trying to decide if things like calorie restriction really work in the face of conflicting studies is frustrating.

nutritionfacts.org was created for this reason, to consolidate the evidence from nutritional studies so that you don't have to. spoiler alert - the comprehensive review lead them to the conclusion to eat plants, unprocessed. But anyway, it is a nice resource to get a round up of studies on a similar topic.

This website is seriously one of the best places to find science backed nutrition info. The advice comes down to: eat a balanced Whole Food Plant Based (WFPB) diet with a minimal supplementation regimen:

https://nutritionfacts.org/2011/09/12/dr-gregers-2011-optimu...

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#69

Post by thrownaway954 »

I was told once (by who I don't remember):

Live long enough and you will eventually get cancer.

To me it's a no-brainer. You get old, cells break down, immune system isn't what it use to be, increasing the risk of that rouge new cell becoming cancerous.

Re: As we age, cancer rates go up as immune system winds down

#70

Post by cies »

throwpupper wrote: post #65
mjlangiii wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nutritionfacts.org was created for this reason, to consolidate the evidence from nutritional studies so that you don't have to. spoiler alert - the comprehensive review lead them to the conclusion to eat plants, unprocessed. But anyway, it is a nice resource to get a round up of studies on a similar topic.

nutritionfacts.org is an extremely biased site that has been created by a vegan who built his whole career on speaking about health issues. While it has the word "facts" in its title nothing prevents them from cherry-picking studies to support their original views. If you cherry-pick different studies you might actually find that consuming large amount of plants stresses our digestive system way more than a fatty ste…

> If you cherry-pick different studies you might actually find that consuming large amount of plants stresses our digestive system way more than a fatty steak with potatoes.

You really, REALLY, believe with all information being out there nowadays that a diet of only "fatty steak with potatoes" will be healthier for humans that the "balanced WFPB diet" that is nutritionfacts.org claims is scientifically proven to be the healthiest?

I think you have nothing to back that up. Please cherry pick how you please and present your evidence.

Dr Greger, who started the non-profit nutritionfacts.org, is often attacked for being an ethical vegan. Since people reason that would impair his ability to present unbiased evidence. Though no-one has ever gotten beyond claiming he's cherry picking. I wish someone would describe a different diet that is as well supported by scientific evidence, as what nutritionfacts is doing for WFPB.

There is some scientific evidence building up in for the Keto diet. But that is --as far as I know-- not a diet for life.

On the other hand there is the raw diet movement (basically an uncooked WFPB diet), but that has little scientific and mostly anecdotal evidence.

Post reply on HN