Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US • Hacker News Board

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#141

Post by h4kr1 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

Jerrrrrrrry wrote: post #116

staticassertion wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Apt username from a person suggesting that non edible fiber is the nutrient causing illness and thats the presupposition we should argue against. Why would more fiber help?

The mechanism behind why more fiber helps is pretty straightforward:

Insoluble fiber speeds up gut motility. Faster gut motility means less time for toxins to sit and absorb in your gut.

Also, fermentable fibers serve as substrate for gut microbes, producing short-chain fatty acids (butyrate is one - a primary fuel source for colonocytes - the cells that line your colon).

It also lowers colonic pH, inhibiting pathogenic bacteria.

Lastly, (although there are tons more benefits I'm not listing), soluble fiber is incredible for people trying to lose weight, as highly fibrous foods increase satiety, keeping you fuller for longer.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#142

Post by vizzier » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #138

achandra03 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is probably due to people suffering from the just-world fallacy. Most folks like to believe that if you do the right things and consume the right stuff you'll have a long and healthy life when the fact of the matter is that luck/randomness plays a much larger role in your health than most people would like to admit.

I dont think this is right... most people I know care more about not doing the "wrong" thing than feeling entitled for doing the "right" thing.

The issue often manifests in victim blaming. They assume that because something bad has happened to someone then the someone must be guilty of some transgression. Its often done on an unconscious level and we have to check ourselves that we're not doing it.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#143

Post by slibhb » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:40 PM UTC

ifwinterco wrote: post #131

slibhb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link the data? I don't buy it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720530/ says there's a higher rate of AF in older, male althetes but a lower risk of stroke compared to similar aged, non-athletes. At any rate, the data doesn't seem clear enough to claim that "distance running bad for you" or "any distance over 50K is bad for you".

I'm struggling to find it but I definitely remember reading a paper that claimed that aerobic exercise in over 60s decreased heart attack risk (which is good, obviously) but increased stroke risk. I think the biggest risk though is acutely doing high intensity exercise (e.g. a marathon) whereas doing low intensity regular exercise (e.g. a 5k jogged at moderate pace 4x a week) is probably good. So it's not "running is…

> One sign that marathons (let alone ultramarathons) may not be particularly healthy is that the first guy to do one famously died, and then subsequently people die doing them every single year

I don't find this line of thinking terribly convincing

It's well known that (even young) elite athletes with unknown inborn heart defects sometimes die after extreme exertion. But it doesn't really follow that "extreme exertion is bad for you," the lurking variable is the heart defect.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#144

Post by ericmcer » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

achandra03 wrote: post #104

nativeit wrote: post #79

As a Multiple Sclerosis patient since I was a teenager, let me just say: all you “healthy diet” zealots aren’t helping. Your advice on which blended kale and gogi berry smoothie I should try is cringe and annoying. Normally, the person is right in front of me, and well-intentioned, so I typically smile and politely thank them with a non-committal gesture towards trying it someday. But since this is all one-party and…

I think this is probably due to people suffering from the just-world fallacy. Most folks like to believe that if you do the right things and consume the right stuff you'll have a long and healthy life when the fact of the matter is that luck/randomness plays a much larger role in your health than most people would like to admit.

You can control your luck a bit though. Granted you could be in perfect health but roll a 1 five times in a row and get a heart attack when you are 40. Or you could be crushing junk food and alcohol but you just keep rolling 6s and make it to 80.

If you look at the sequence of events that happen to trigger a heart attack, it becomes really clear how big a role luck is, but still you can mitigate each step. Studying this stuff also makes your body seem like a walking time bomb.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#145

Post by staticassertion » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #140

staticassertion wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what? I have not made a presuppositional argument (I made no argument at all...). I made a statement about my epistemic state - ie: that I would "bet" on low fiber being the major contributor to colon cancer rates. Someone then asserted that it can't be that, and I asked "why?". > Why would more fiber help? Because there is an incredible amount of research into high fiber diets being good for your gut, including…

My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets. There are a lot of other risk factors involved. Will high fiber help - absolutely. Is it the be all end all - no I doubt it. Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.

> My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets.

Well, you said "can't" and I asked "why", which feels very reasonable to me. Your argument seems to be that it wouldn't account properly for the data - specifically, you're saying we would have seen colon cancer rates rise earlier.

> Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.

I don't really buy this for a lot of reasons. Probably the two most important are (a) ability to screen historically and (b) the timing isn't particularly "off" for the fiber argument. We did see it already, we've been seeing increases in color cancer risks for decades.

Now, I'm not married to it "just" being fiber whatsoever, but if I were to "bet" on the major contributing factor, naively, that's where my money would go. I think it's very reasonable to not place your bet there.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#146

Post by wpm » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

luhn wrote: post #133

freshpots wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar is 50:50 fructose:sugar and "high"-fructose sugar is 55:45. The slight difference in fructose:sugar between the two is not significant in terms of health outcomes, unless you mean sugar in general.

I can't make sense of your comment, but whatever you're trying to get at is wrong: Table sugar is sucrose. Corn syrup is mostly glucose and contains no fructose. HFCS is commonly produced at 42% and 55% fructose formulations. I don't think HFCS is meaningfully more or less harmful than any other sugar, but chemically there's a significant difference.

Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of 1 glucose and 1 fructose molecule, so the GP comment is correct, sugar is 50:50 glucose and fructose.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#147

Post by Guid_NewGuid » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

z9e wrote: post #107

Pxtl wrote: post #52

Amazing how everybody in this thread has posted their pet theories as to cause: - insufficient fibre - too much high fructose corn syrup - too much milk - too much citric acid - toxins and parasites (gut cleanse!) - washing chicken in chlorine (voiced as hypothetical) - ultra-marathoners - maybe their supplements and too much carbs or dehydration? - too much processed junk - vitamin and mineral deficiencies - radiati…

Yeah. Amazing how people on a forum are offering their opinions on something. Let’s point and laugh at them. /s I’m more amazed at the toxic (no pun intended) comments in this post. It seems HN isn’t a place to voice health theories.

There's a difference between informed speculation and uninformed speculation and most of the opinions so far fall into uninformed speculation where the writer implicitly blames those suffering for poor diet and lifestyle choices.

In addition a lot of the speculation assumes something specific to the US where this is a trend in multiple countries, predominantly high income ones[0][1], but this speculation that it might be 'chemicals' is fairly dull to read and adds nothing. Why this cohort specifically? What commonalities are there between countries with an observed increase? If it's diet why would it only impact the younger cohort?

[0]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... [1]: https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(21)00010-X/...

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#148

Post by volkl48 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

boringg wrote: post #60

staticassertion wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my personal bet. It's just low fiber diets.

It can't just be low fiber diets - there has to be some other exposures involved.

I mean, there's a well-documented link between colon cancer and inadequate fiber intake.

And it's also well-documented that the average Western diet is highly deficient in fiber and that this is a thing which has gotten much worse in the last 75 years.

There also seems to be at least some light evidence that there may be generational effects - that the starting point of your gut is already bad if your mother's was.

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#149

Post by elinear » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:00 PM UTC

Hank Green's visualization[0] a few weeks ago cite several statistically significant risk increases to CRC incidence (omitting ultra endurance athletes):

- Sugary drinks (≥2/day as teen) - 2x

- Sedentary lifestyle (>2hr TV/day) - 1.7x

- Childhood antibiotics (recurrent) - 1.5x

Have any studies tracked the growth of these behaviors in recent decades, potentially lining up with the increase in early onset CRC?

[0] https://www.hankgreen.com/risk-factors

Re: Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

#150

Post by m3nu » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 6:02 PM UTC

elinear wrote: post #149

Hank Green's visualization[0] a few weeks ago cite several statistically significant risk increases to CRC incidence (omitting ultra endurance athletes): - Sugary drinks (≥2/day as teen) - 2x - Sedentary lifestyle (>2hr TV/day) - 1.7x - Childhood antibiotics (recurrent) - 1.5x Have any studies tracked the growth of these behaviors in recent decades, potentially lining up with the increase in early onset CRC? [0] http…

Interesting but link is dead? Would love to see this.

Found it: https://www.hankgreen.com/crc