21–30 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the notion that we can live for an extended period of time will motivate more people to become ecologically responsible.
Our hearts would eventually give out anyway. I'd just much rather die of a sudden heart attack than a long and torturous cancer battle.
We need to fix that too.
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
Plenty of “healthy” people die of cancer. My sister in law passed away at 49. She had no family history of cancer, ate healthy, ran daily, was not overweight for her entire life.
My mother, sister, brother, father, multiple aunts and grandmother have had it one or more times.
I've had it zero times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diet and exercise are near-universally accepted as reasonable health advice and is basically ubiquitous.
I'm aware of that. It doesn't matter. You can't have a meaty discussion about this in relation to actually trying in earnest to avoid or delay cancer. For the record, this was posted as a PSA without replying to any of the comments that made me think people could use a reminder because a direct reply gets interpreted as a personal attack.
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
There is no truth to your statement that is it not socially acceptable to suggest diet and lifestyle changes to improve quality of life. Those suggestions are made all the time and people who suggest them in general suffer little to no negative consequences. I am not sure how you go about making those suggestions, but perhaps your approach is less optimal. There are situations where suggestions will be made and go unheeded. Many alcoholics know that drinking is bad for them and many smokers know that smoking is not having a positive effect on their health. They choose to ignore the advice.
My wife, who passed away almost two years ago, received CAR-T therapy for triple-hit large B-cell lymphoma. I can assure you that her diet and lifestyle choices were most likely not the cause. CAR-T therapy is not made available to any and all and her case was most likely caused by exposure to specific toxic chemicals. I only wish she would have survived the extremely toxic and negative side-effects of the therapy so she could be here to reply to your comment.
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
1) The best diet studies where people were asked to follow Mediterranean diet only managed to lower CVD and/or mortality by 10s of % points. This is a very poor outcome. At best adds a few years to someone's lifespan. At best. The average Mediterranean dieter fares a lot worse. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26528631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368053 Don't get me started about Keto, Vegan etc. Those have even less convincing evidence regarding hard outcomes (e.g. MACE, Cancer etc) though our opinion might change if they ever get tested in large scale.
2) Exercise is even worse. It has virtually zero effect on CVD outcomes, mortality outcomes in trials where participants were asked to change their behaviors. "Exercise did not reduce all-cause mortality and incident CVD in older adults or in people with chronic conditions, based on RCTs comprising ∼50,000 participants" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10512580439138189...
It's a myth that diet and exercise will save you from Cancer or CVD. There's virtually zero evidence for that, when you look at things from intervention point of view -- intervention evidence is the only evidence acceptable in science. The rest is pseudo-science or proto-science.
Btw, I believe weight loss is the best thing you can do to live longer (that is if you're overweight or obese). But diets still universally fail. E.g. bariatric surgery probably works, maybe drugs will be shown to work (Tirzepatide/Semaglutide I'm looking at you). A publication on how 90% of obese dieters fail after 1-2 yrs on the same diet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5764193/
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
This is an obnoxious response that has no bearing on the content of the article. You may as well state that cancer is caused by not praying to the god of your choice or by not following some specific 12-step program that you have deemed vital. There is no truth to your statement that is it not socially acceptable to suggest diet and lifestyle changes to improve quality of life. Those suggestions are made all the time…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of “healthy” people die of cancer. My sister in law passed away at 49. She had no family history of cancer, ate healthy, ran daily, was not overweight for her entire life.
I do have a family history of cancer. My mother, sister, brother, father, multiple aunts and grandmother have had it one or more times. I've had it zero times.
Study after study after study says diet and lifestyle are major factors in every deadly disease. But it's not socially acceptable to suggest that as an approach. However, having already committed the unspeakable sin and egregious faux pas, I will suggest that if cancer is a thing you fret about, you can do something to reduce your risk starting today.
Diet and exercise are universally failed interventions to stop major diseases (CVD, cancer...). People who have a vested interest in them promote them (e.g. exercise specialists, keto experts, vegan gurus, your favorite TV Dr, harvard nutrition dept whose livelihood depends on the effectiveness of "optimal diet" etc), but the results in intervention trials have been extremely disappointing. 1) The best diet studies w…
This is simply not true and you jump through some curious hoops to make it look credible. The paragraph you cite basically says "if you start after 60 it's too late". Is then proceeds to add that a few weeks of exercise are not enough, and a few months of follow-up don't catch measurable differences.
But if you actually read the full study that you cite and check the papers it reviews, you'll see that multi-year interventions at middle age with multi-year follow-ups are extremely effective.
Here's one of the reviewed papers, with 6-year intervention and 30-year follow-up: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
> During the 30-year follow-up, compared with control, the combined intervention group had a median delay in diabetes onset of 3·96 years (95% CI 1·25 to 6·67; p=0·0042), fewer cardiovascular disease events (hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·59–0·92; p=0·0060), a lower incidence of microvascular complications (0·65, 0·45–0·95; p=0·025), fewer cardiovascular disease deaths (0·67, 0·48–0·94; p=0·022), fewer all-cause deaths (0·74, 0·61–0·89; p=0·0015), and an average increase in life expectancy of 1·44 years (95% CI 0·20–2·68; p=0·023).