171–180 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My bet is on low-fiber diet and people spending half hour playing with phone instead of getting up from toilet.
Why would me sitting down cause colon cancer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One should acknowledge the role genes/luck play in disease, while also admitting that there are a few foods about which there is more or less consensus they are very bad for your health. So you can roll your eyes if someone suggests eating kale sprouts will cure all your problems but don't just keep eating junk food as if the opposite of their take must be good.
This. I'm as exhausted as anyone about the latest macro/micro nutrient diet. But also, when I binge on a bag of potato chips, I assume (correctly) that I'll feel like shit later. Calorie dense food that's easily procured and eaten to excess was not part of our evolutionary path up to now. Every individual person is a cornucopia of variables though too, and one persons perfect diet would kill someone else. So advice i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t take hyperbolic appeals to the authority of chemical names = bad seriously. Let’s at least get specific and name a molecule with a known mechanism of action.
I think the people that dismiss this concern are just as bad and unscientific. It's a pretty decent Bayesian prior to assume that regular exposure to synthetic organic compounds in quantities or concentrations that hominids didn't receive exposure to in our evolution are likely to be potentially problematic. This is especially true when they don't occur naturally in any organisms biochemical processes and yet are act…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My money is on massive overexposure to high fructose corn syrup in the Western diet. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170474/
lack of fiber is a biggie too. Foods too highly processed. too many oils.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has ticked up 1-2 per 100k over the past few decades for that group. Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise. By all means, we should study this more. But the way folks are talking about this is a touch nuts.
It went up by 4 per 100k. And, since it was at 6 in 2000, that's a large increase. >Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise. That's true of all cancers, if not all statistics. The concern here is two-fold: (1) The people under 50 now will be over 50 in a decade or so. We can already see that the trend of colorectal cancer among those aged 50 to 64 was decreasing u…
And it is notable that this research largely pointed to genetics as being ~20% of the cases of early onset results. That combined with how it presents in a very different way from older patients seems to point to us also getting better at spotting it.
All of which is good! It is progress. And I hope we get even better at it.
If you are merely noting it as a concern for "things to continue to watch," I'm fully with you. Read the rest of the comments on this post, though. Tons of people pointing at things that just don't present in the evidence. Fear that we will find that one killer ingredient/process to explain the uptick here; all while failing to acknowledge that we did find many such problems in the past and have made quite astounding progress on it.
So many folks that have it say things like "I was super healthy! Did exercise, young, don't drink, etc." Then you dig deeper and realize the last vegetable meal they ate was a soggy brussel sprout their mom made them when they were 17 years old, and also eat cold cut turkey sandwiches every lunch because they're "healthy", and maybe have a tiny shred of lettuce in the sandwich. For breakfast, they eat pancakes or sug…
You can quickly find historical availability & consumption data and I don't think it supports any trivially obvious hypotheses like these. You'll find headlines saying things like that we're at a low point in vegetable consumption going back to 1988, but I'm reading an NIH paper charting '70-'2010 and the patterns look stable, except for increases in total calories, in dairy, and in added dairy fats and oils. Whateve…
So many folks that have it say things like "I was super healthy! Did exercise, young, don't drink, etc." Then you dig deeper and realize the last vegetable meal they ate was a soggy brussel sprout their mom made them when they were 17 years old, and also eat cold cut turkey sandwiches every lunch because they're "healthy", and maybe have a tiny shred of lettuce in the sandwich. For breakfast, they eat pancakes or sug…
https://realfood.gov/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I lean toward "people got better at not dying from everything else." Unfortunately, that doesn't seem the be the case here, and the article goes into this. Deaths due to colorectal cancer under 50 simply used to be incredibly uncommon. Younger people were simply not screened for it. The rise is not solely relative to other forms of death, but in absolute terms has increased.
There could still be another factor other than lifestyle or chemicals in the food, the dominant opinions as of posting. Point (which I realize I forgot to make) is we don't know and latching on to pet theories, even really smart ones, has never done anyone any good in general, but especially when it comes to health.
I'd agree that really smart and plausible theories can turn out to be incorrect. But, I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree that plausible guesses aren't doing anyone any good. So long as theory is otherwise healthy (eg: eat vegetables and exercise regularly) then they might be doing some accidental good, and if they turn out to be correct, give people a bit of a head start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With old school sedation I think it might be worth avoiding it. But with propofol you are out like a light, and then wake back up just as fast when they turn it off -- and it feels like you just had a nice nap. Aside from feeling a bit groggy for a few minutes, you just get up and walk out the door and go about your day. Personally, I do not think I'd volunteer for 7/10 pain just to avoid that.
My first colonoscopy was without anesthesia, and it was as described above. A little uncomfortable on the one bend, but I don't even think I would put it at 7/10 (perhaps a 4 or 5—but not a sharp pain, mind you). Definitely enjoyed the following times with anesthesia because, of course 0/10 as far as I know. Also, anesthesia just trips my mind—how seemingly time travel (going forward in time) seems to be involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (thankfully not in that order) without sedation. Had it done in D.C. My doc looked at me like I was crazy when I asked if it could be done without sedation, and reminded me that it would be uncomfortable, but otherwise didn't have any problem with it. I've endured 50k runs, brutal workouts, and traumatizing childhood neglect - I really can't see what the fuss is with…
I too had esophagogastroduodenoscopy and the "sedation" I received as a barely noticeable dose of fentanyl. It was unpleasant to feel like I was drowning in saliva but it was quite bearable. If I ever receive that procedure again, I will ask to skip the fentanyl microdose. The anesthesia and the buzz were not only underwhelming but for some reasons I started to feel the typical opioid warmth when the procedure was al…
However, doctors who do it are a bit hard to come by.
With a esophagogastroduodenoscopy, I think the main issue is the gag reflex, not necessarily the pain.