meat eaters seem to get cancer more
I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
381–390 of 523 posts
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#382No post body was provided.
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#383This is one of the things where it matters more how healthy/unpolluted your environment is . I'd dare to say that a not-so-phisically-active moderate-smoker living in a less polluted environment has way lower cancer risk than a bio-vegan athlete buddhist monk living in a polluted industrial hellhole. I'd wish we lived in a world where we could actually address chemical, air-particulate +/- microplastics pollution ser…
You got me curious about cancer rates by country: https://www.wcrf.org/dietandcancer/global-cancer-data-by-cou... They list 50 countries, and relevant to your post: - Belgium #4 with 329.9/100K - Italy #24 with 290.6/100K Not a huge difference tbh. Regarding the comments about vitamin D, Sweden is lower than Italy. So I think the correct conclusion is: These things are complicated.
i was looking for india and its not even on the list. cancer is quite low in india me thinks probably because of a predominantly vegetarian diet
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
"eventually will wipe any individual out." Sure, eventually. It's one thing if people are getting cancer or having heart attacks later in life. It's a little concerning when a fairly large number of younger people are afflicted. The rate of cancer has risen about 30% for young people since the seventies. So it seems that there's something wrong in our environment or lifestyles that could be increasing risk. That's ve…
> The rate of cancer has risen about 30% for young people since the seventies. So it seems that there's something wrong in our environment or lifestyles that could be increasing risk. One would do well to read the research ( https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... ) from which that widely quoted 30% figure comes. It does not suggest any simple conclusion as to what is causing the increase. Rat…
"It does not suggest any simple conclusion as to what is causing the increase."
Nor did I. Environmental and lifestyle factors are a huge domain covering vastly complex interconnected systems, many of which we know almost nothing about. We're just now starting to look at epigenetic effects now. How many substances are we exposed to that can cause issues in the next generation when a large number of things we're exposed to have only been tested for short or medium term exposure, or simply not tested at all.
Although, anecdotally, it feels like the bulk of changes out side of tobacco is focused on cure research and not as much on preventing environmental factors. Perhaps that's mostly that cures make for good news and restrictions on using certain products or chemicals are viewed as draconian (especially with things widely loved or used like alcohol).
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of health-related things took a turn for the worse in the 70s Obesity was 13% in 1970. Now it’s 42%. Obesity can increase cancer risk by 50% https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/ho...
Yes, and what is contributing to obesity? Are there environmental factors affecting androgenic functions? Is it all just people being sedentary over eaters? Or something else?
This blog spent a bunch of time trying to answer that question, and specifically to figure out which environmental factors might be causing the effect. They looked at lithium, PFAS, antibiotic contamination and a few other candidates.
This is definitely not peer-reviewed research so please don't take it too seriously, but I came away convinced that there is more going on here than "people suddenly started eating too much and being lazy in the 1970s": http://achemicalhunger.com/
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#386First of all, I'm sorry to learn the author got cancer; I wish her all the best and continued strength. Many contributors have already made good suggestions how to reduce the risk of getting cancer, or how to deal with it; but I found most posts quite _technical_. Speaking in general terms, cancer is not a disease like a common cold. The human body sooner or later is bound to decay, which pretty much starts once one…
for we need to make space for the next generation (only adding people to planet earth would not be sustainable, as resources are scarce - imagine nobody would ever die). Being on this planet for a limited time period makes it more important to make the right choices, because we have only one life. No. Living longer means we have to live with our decisions. People who live short lives don't have to live with decisions…
> Living longer means we have to live with our decisions.
People already have to live with their decisions - and humanity as a collective sucks at looking towards the future at the cost of the now. Living longer won't magically change that.
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of health-related things took a turn for the worse in the 70s Obesity was 13% in 1970. Now it’s 42%. Obesity can increase cancer risk by 50% https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/ho...
Yes, and what is contributing to obesity? Are there environmental factors affecting androgenic functions? Is it all just people being sedentary over eaters? Or something else?
Childhood sugar consumption increased quite a bit starting in the 1970s https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X1...
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This made me realize that the best thing you can do for your health is just picking the right place to live. Imagine you’re completely wrong about this — because it’s a very dangerous assumption to be completely confident in. What’s another answer for why Belgians seem to get cancer more often than Italians?
> a very dangerous assumption to be completely confident in Why would it be "dangerous"? It should be almost completely common sense. Sure, the conclusion is not a comfortable realization for rich industrial countries that have completely poisoned themselves and really don't want to pay the bill for any sort of large scale investigation (factory by factory, soil patch by soil patch, each commonly used construction ma…
It is a dangerous assumption if wrong because it prescribes that you can do most unhealthy activities and they are not major factors for your health outcomes.
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and what is contributing to obesity? Are there environmental factors affecting androgenic functions? Is it all just people being sedentary over eaters? Or something else?
This blog spent a bunch of time trying to answer that question, and specifically to figure out which environmental factors might be causing the effect. They looked at lithium, PFAS, antibiotic contamination and a few other candidates. This is definitely not peer-reviewed research so please don't take it too seriously, but I came away convinced that there is more going on here than "people suddenly started eating too…
My personal guess is that there are multiple causes. Different people are affected differently by the same thing. If we have pervasive exposure to numerous things that have (unproven) theories behind them, it would be hard to identify any given one due to the noise and long duration (epigenetic especially) that might be required to manifest rhetoric end result.
There's so much we've learned over the past century, and yet it feels like know almost nothing when we try to dig into complicated life science topics.
Re: I am the healthiest person I know, and I got cancer
#390First of all, I'm sorry to learn the author got cancer; I wish her all the best and continued strength. Many contributors have already made good suggestions how to reduce the risk of getting cancer, or how to deal with it; but I found most posts quite _technical_. Speaking in general terms, cancer is not a disease like a common cold. The human body sooner or later is bound to decay, which pretty much starts once one…
> will wipe any individual out. I am at peace with that, for we need to make space for the next generation (only adding people to planet earth would not be sustainable, as resources are scarce - imagine nobody would ever die). Being on this planet for a limited time period makes it more important to make the right choices, because we have only one life. This common claim that "we need to die to make room for other pe…
> It's basically the worst thing that can happen.
For the individual, not the species as a whole. Or for the planet as a whole.
Sure, we might not lose some existing fantastic thinkers and doers, but what happens to the new thinkers and doers? If Sir Isaac Newton was still alive, would Einstein have gotten the attention he did, having to fight against a well established hierarchy of scientists built over the millennia? Would governmental seats ever change? Would slavery have ever gone away in a world where human rights would have no need to progress?