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

101–110 of 171 posts

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

#101

Post by throwaway7767 »

duozerk wrote: post #97
bbarn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as a culture (speaking here in the US) we've made quitting smoking out to be much harder than it actually is. One of the problems with this massive marketing campaign saying things like "You can quit with help!", etc.. is it's focusing on how difficult it's supposed to be. After 20 years or so of being a smoker, I just decided I didn't want to be embarrassed about the way I smelled in elevators anymore, and q…

The pain of cold turkey stopping and the hardship of quitting in general vary widely between individuals; and even to a lesser extent at different periods of time for the same individual, I think. I once stopped smoking for ~3 weeks and I too found it easier than advertised, but not nearly as easy as you; also, the most problematic symptom for me was irritability (I was a complete irrascible bastard while stopping).…

As another anecdote, I've found that it takes about 3 days for me to pretty much lose all the physical addiction. That part is pretty easy as long as you can find a 3 day chunk of time in which you don't have stressful obligations and fill it with some activity (even if it's just binge-watching Star Trek or something).

After that, it's all habit. That takes closer to 3 weeks to break. Here I find it helps to create another habit, maybe buy a bunch of candy and eat one when you feel like a cigarette.

It's all very doable.

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

#102

Post by peteretep »

coldtea wrote: post #19
sosborn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It is good for predicting in general populations, but can easily fall apart with individuals. While it can "easily fall apart with individuals", the difficulty lies in finding an individual to measure that will make BMI fall apart. And that's because the huge majority of us is of the kind of complexion and body type where BMI works well. So, sure it can give false positives, but for a quite small fraction -- beside…

    > the difficulty lies in finding an individual to
    > measure that will make BMI fall apart
I'm 5'11 with a 36 inch waist. This gives me a waist-to-height ratio of 0.507, which has me just under or over the healthy cut-off, depending on who you ask[0].

I was 212lbs this morning, giving me a BMI of 29.6, which has me at the border of "Overweight" and "Obese Class I (Moderately obese)", and is high risk.

I don't think you'd think I was a weird shape if you looked at me.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-to-height_ratio

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

#103

Post by throwaway7767 »

maccard wrote: post #84
elchief wrote: post #66

BMI is so bad. I'm 6'0 and the last time I was under BMI 25 I was a triathlete. The only way I could be I did quit smoking though: - Really wanted to - Picked a good mental argument against it ($100k CAD over 20 years) - Picked a quit date - Patch + zyban + nicotene lozenges If you live in British Columbia, the government will pay for your patches or lozenges (hint: ask a friend)

I'm 6'1 and I had a BMI of about 26 until recently - I was definitely pudgy. I also claimed that BMI was worthless until I dropped a few pounds and realised that it was right and I was just making excuses. If you're an athlete, or a bodybuilder, or particularly tall or small, it won't necessarily fit you. but if you're of normal-ish stature (ie 5'4 to 6'3), and don't keep track of your weight, it's probably bang on.

I'm about 6'2 and very lanky. My problem has always been that I don't eat enough, and my doctors have told me all my life I need to consciously try to eat more (which I try to do) to gain weight. I don't really do any planned exercise but I don't have a car so I get some daily workout from walking/cycling. In short, I'm no fitness nut or bodybuilder.

Every time I've taken BMI, the result is that I'm "slightly overweight". That's bullshit. If I actually tried to eat less, I'd probably end up having health complications related to malnutrition.

So BMI is very much bullshit when applied to individuals. It might have some relevance for the average case, and therefore be useful for demographic comparisons of large groups.

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

#104

Post by amalcon »

bbarn wrote: post #88
l1feh4ck wrote: post #44

To guys out there who still smoke. Please quit. It can be done.

I think as a culture (speaking here in the US) we've made quitting smoking out to be much harder than it actually is. One of the problems with this massive marketing campaign saying things like "You can quit with help!", etc.. is it's focusing on how difficult it's supposed to be. After 20 years or so of being a smoker, I just decided I didn't want to be embarrassed about the way I smelled in elevators anymore, and q…

The difficulty of quitting varies a lot from person to person. I knew a couple back in the nineties, where one partner was able to quit using the patch. It just worked for him, and was reportedly not that difficult. He was done with tobacco immediately, and done with nicotine entirely within the month.

The other partner tried everything. Cold turkey, gradual reduction, patches, gum, change of location plus each of those, the works. As you can imagine given the domestic situation, she had exactly the right kind of support. None of it helped for over a decade. She was finally able to quit for good around 2010, and just a month later discovered that it was too late. Smoking had already given her the cancer that would end her life.

That said, this story kind of agrees with you. The partner who quit is still alive, and quite healthy. It might be easy, or it might be the hardest thing you've ever done. No matter how hard it is, though, lung cancer is even harder.

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

#106

Post by roldie »

>A bigger concern to me is that people might interpret these findings as assigning fault to people who get cancer. You don’t want to get into situations where you feel as if people don’t deserve help because they didn’t try hard enough to stay healthy. Much of cancer is still out of people’s control.

Although only one paragraph, I'm glad the author addressed this.

All of these tips and lifestyle changes are great but this doesn't make those of us with loved ones with cancer feel any better. By all accounts she has done everything to qualify as "low risk," but still got cancer.

It's still an odds game. Better odds don't guarantee anything. It's unfair, frustrating, and infuriating.

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

#107

Post by bbarn »

amalcon wrote: post #104
bbarn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as a culture (speaking here in the US) we've made quitting smoking out to be much harder than it actually is. One of the problems with this massive marketing campaign saying things like "You can quit with help!", etc.. is it's focusing on how difficult it's supposed to be. After 20 years or so of being a smoker, I just decided I didn't want to be embarrassed about the way I smelled in elevators anymore, and q…

The difficulty of quitting varies a lot from person to person. I knew a couple back in the nineties, where one partner was able to quit using the patch. It just worked for him, and was reportedly not that difficult. He was done with tobacco immediately, and done with nicotine entirely within the month. The other partner tried everything . Cold turkey, gradual reduction, patches, gum, change of location plus each of t…

I guess the point I was trying to make wasn't to brag that it was so great and easy for me to do, it's to say that maybe we have culturally made it seem harder than it is. The more press it gets the more the belief is reinforced.

We have tobacco companies still cranking out the same garbage, almost with the attitude that they are forced to keep making this horrific product because people are hooked on it. They keep taking our money, apologetically, as they kill us.

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

#108

Post by MicroBerto »

I recently wrote an article discussing how increased fruits and vegetables can prevent mortality from cardiovascular diseases, yet not cancer.[1]

My conclusion was that cancer is best prevented by removing negatives from life, not necessarily adding positives. ie avoid anything from stress to pollution to sunburn to obviously smoking. Interestingly, organic food doesn't seem to matter in the cancer equation, given the data we have.

Yet there's one thing you can ADD to reduce cancer: exercise. Preferably moderately hard to strenuous.

[1] https://blog.priceplow.com/vegetables

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

#109

Post by nradov »

Benji_San wrote: post #68
elchief wrote: post #66

BMI is so bad. I'm 6'0 and the last time I was under BMI 25 I was a triathlete. The only way I could be I did quit smoking though: - Really wanted to - Picked a good mental argument against it ($100k CAD over 20 years) - Picked a quit date - Patch + zyban + nicotene lozenges If you live in British Columbia, the government will pay for your patches or lozenges (hint: ask a friend)

BMI isn't really reliable on a individual level as it doesn't take body composition into account. Athletes are generally "overweight" according to the BMI cutoff.

That's generally untrue. Winning endurance athletes are almost all in the normal BMI range. You'll only see "overweight" (by BMI) athletes in certain sports such as weightlifting and (American) football which require huge bursts of muscle power for only a few seconds at a time. Those are also the athletes who unfortunately tend to gain a lot of fat and have many health problems once they retire from competitive sports.

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

#110

Post by reasonattlm »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #46
reasonattlm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see that the answer to the question of, "Cui bono" is "You".

I don't run this research. It is a non-profit initiative. I have donated myself. I'm persuading other people to do so as well because I think it is a good idea, an important idea, and very necessary for the strategic reasons noted above. The benefit I'm going to get out of it is that my odds of surviving future incidence of cancer increase should it succeed. But then the same is true of everyone else.
Post reply on HN