Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review • Hacker News Board

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#111

Post by scott_s » Fri, Dec 09, 2011, 11:53 PM UTC

moheeb wrote: post #110

scott_s wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that she was addicted to nicotine, and she felt less anxious when she had nicotine. It's difficult to separate the "got what she was addicted to" from the "reduced anxiety."

No it's not difficult to separate the two. You test a bunch of people that have never smoked and see what the effects are. I bet this has been done before.

It's difficult for someone who is self-reporting to do - if all you have is an anecdote. It's not difficult with good experimental design, which is part of my point.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#112

Post by hyko » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:04 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #96

known wrote: post #76

Eating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turmeric powder will prevent cancer.

Lots of spices do that. Cinnamon is pretty good too. Ginger. Horseradish. Garlic. Goes on and on.

Go easy on the cassia cinnamon though - it contains coumarin, which is a known hepatotoxin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin#Toxicity_and_use_in_fo...

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#113

Post by anamax » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:20 AM UTC

DrPhish wrote: post #78

anamax wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that there are significant benefits to smoking as well. Yes, even for people who it will kill. (In fact, that's probably one of the benefits for some.)

Could you expand on that? I'd be interested in hearing what the benefits are, as it doesn't seem to be something that is talked about (taboo against discussing the positive aspects of things seen as societally undesirable?).

Smoking appears to offer some mental benefits. Some acuity-related, as described by other responders. I've also heard that smoking has mental-health benefits for some people. (We know that many folks don't respond to existing standard drugs.)

I don't actually care about what the benefits are. Instead, I think that it's important to acknowledge that they do exist.

And yes, benefits clearly do exist for some people. That's why they smoke.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#114

Post by rhino42 » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:33 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #75

barrkel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all food advertised or described as "healthy", I've found to be neutral at best, to actively unpleasant. High fibre, lots of vegetables, fruit, etc.; I actively dislike almost all of it. My favourite foods are lamb, butter, cheese and freshly baked goods, to the point that my morning ritual, before breakfast, involves a (scooter) trip to a bakery. Similarly, I've never enjoyed exercise. I used to cycle to and…

A still useful definition of eating healthy is to eat approximately the correct amount of calories. Obviously the what is also going to have impact, but it is easy to observe that the great majority of people are not walking around with severe nutritional deficiencies.

Debatable. They clearly have enough calories, but you need more than just that to live and be healthy. I would strongly argue that omega-3's and vitamin D3 are essential nutrients that a substantial portion of the population are deficient in.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#115

Post by freehunter » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 12:37 AM UTC

lupatus wrote: post #101

freehunter wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a user of the e-cigarettes for these benefits he mentioned. I don't like that term, I prefer personal vaporizer, since cigarettes contain much more than just nicotine and vegetable glycol. Particularly for me, I like the increased awareness, concentration, and focus that come from the stimulant effect. When I need to do a code sprint or do a double shift, that plus coffee will keep me awake, focused, and able to…

Ever try a nicotine patch?

I have not, no. I like the e-cig because I can carry it around in my pocket and I can use it at work only when I need the pick-me up. No worries fumbling about undoing my clothes to find a place to stick a patch. Personal vaporizers are cheaper too, and can have any flavor I like.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#116

Post by hs » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 1:15 AM UTC

i find it interesting that 'meat' is not written (thus not searchable) in the main article (it's down there in 'key causes of cancer' as icon)

FTA (scroll down): Colorectal / Bowel : meat 21.1%, obesity 13%, lack-of-fibre 12.2%

it's not surprising meat and lack-of-fibre are correlated (meat contains no fibre)

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#117

Post by hs » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 1:35 AM UTC

there is trend in the 'key cause of cancer' down in the article, throat and colon cancer follow power distribution, while breat cancer kinda follows uniform dist

for breast cancer: the highest offender = obesity is 8.7%, only a multiple of two to the mean to me it only means that the cause of throat and colon cancer is relatively known (smoke and meat) while it's gray area for breast cancer

smoke -> throat kinda makes sense meat -> bowel? (turns out meat contains no fiber, and lack of fiber accounts for 12.2% so lumping meat and lack of fiber equal a whopping 33.3%) ... makes sense?

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#118

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 2:34 AM UTC

rhino42 wrote: post #114

maxerickson wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A still useful definition of eating healthy is to eat approximately the correct amount of calories. Obviously the what is also going to have impact, but it is easy to observe that the great majority of people are not walking around with severe nutritional deficiencies.

Debatable. They clearly have enough calories , but you need more than just that to live and be healthy. I would strongly argue that omega-3's and vitamin D3 are essential nutrients that a substantial portion of the population are deficient in.

I said severe because there are clear complications for severe deficiencies (rickets, scurvy, etc.). The science surrounding correct levels and consequences of not quite correct levels of such nutrients is much less settled.

So among the group of people that are not basically falling apart from a nutrient deficit, the ones that eat about the right amount of calories tend to be (quite a lot!) healthier than the ones that eat far more or far less calories.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#119

Post by eurleif » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 2:40 AM UTC

lincolnq wrote: post #73

DevX101 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Susceptibility to lung cancer due to smoking is at least partly genetic. If you have certain variants of a specific gene (don't have time for the lit search right now), smoking won't significantly increase your chances of lung cancer. The problem is not everyone has this gene variant, and you probably don't want to be playing Russian Roullette with your health.

OK, the gene is called CHRNA5 and it seems to be related to a nicotine receptor. Here's where I found that: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n5/abs/ng.109.html According to that article, the SNPs in question are rs1051730 and rs8034191. 23andme tests for both. (My results indicate that I'm at lower risk, but I'm still not going to pick up a pack of cigarettes anytime soon :)

I find it surprising that a nicotine receptor-related gene would have anything to do with lung cancer risk, since it's supposed to be the tar in cigarette smoke that causes most of the carcinogenic effect, not the nicotine. I wonder if that means smokeless e-cigarettes aren't much healthier than normal cigarettes.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#120

Post by joverholt » Sat, Dec 10, 2011, 4:28 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #95

ghc wrote: post #6

Right, I'm off to find some fruits and vegetables! Or do I get enough antioxidants as a tea-drinker? I'm conflicted because I know I don't get enough fruit in my diet, but the recommended daily amount of fruit seems difficult to get in the winter.

I eat fruits with every meal. Not a ton of them, just making sure I get some nice tasty "vegetable candy" every time I eat food. Also focus on getting enough fiber. Auto-magically this will ensure you get a lot of veggies, minerals, vitamins, and so on - as long as you don't rely on artificial means such as fiber supplements. Lettuce, cucumbers, cabbage, tomatoes, stuff like that - all those are good. I do eat meat,…

> Sounds like a lot, but all this stuff was just a gentle, slow, very gradual change in habits over a long period of time, years really.

This is the key. I like what you've said. So many people want a quick fix, but if you are looking for a quick fix, then most likely it's temporary.