Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? • Hacker News Board

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#91

Post by masklinn » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

deep-root wrote: post #90

szundi wrote: post #82

People didn’t live long enough to have cancer back then.

It's a bit of a myth that humans have only had long life in modern times. This is partially due to the calculated "life expectancy" of many eras including infant mortality where perhaps 30% of the population died at age 0. If a quarter or half of your population is dying at age 0, then another quarter or half must likely be living into their 70s for the mean age to end up 35.

> This is partially due to the calculated "life expectancy" of many eras including infant mortality where perhaps 30% of the population died at age 0.

Well not really age 0, rather between 0 and 5.

The rest of your point stands.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#92

Post by galgalesh » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #70

_0w8t wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the last 120 years wheat was optimized for machines making its gluten content higher that could explain higher gluten intolerance among people presently.

Is there any evidence supporting this hypothesis?

For context: the molecular shape of gluten causes dough to hold better. Wheat with more gluten gives softer bread which rises better. Hence why gluten is so prevalent in domesticated wheat.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#93

Post by devmunchies » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

arnejenssen wrote: post #23

The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.

IMO above all is abundant food (overeating). No food is 100% perfect, so if you eat way too much you are more likely to expose yourself to something toxic or inflammatory.

Our bodies aren't designed to be topped-off 3 times a day.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#94

Post by ksaj » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #54

strken wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they control for age? A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality, and if you made it to 10 in 1850 (hardly preindustrial, but preindustrial stats are harder to find) you could expect to live to 60 or so. Presumably you'd compare the cancer rates of your study's skeletons with the cancer rates of today's 60 year olds.

> A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality If that was true, then age composition would be roughly the same as is now, except for larger number of infants. You could even argue that if you had weaker infants die, you should end up with statistically stronger adults than now and you should see people live to older age than now. I don't want to say infant mortality rate wasn't high, I just want…

The weakness in that argument is that it presupposes childhood health indicators and adult health indicators are linear, which we know to not be the case.

For example, the introduction and "ramping up" of testosterone and estrogen at puberty has a significant impact on the human condition that simply cannot apply to the prepubescent state, as does their subsequent decline in menopause and old age in general.

Each stage of life comes with its own signals that can be serious health conditions if present in other stages of life, but completely normal and healthy at the appropriate stage. A tween with acne is rarely something to call the doctor about. But a 3 year old with acne certainly is. A colicky baby needs a soother or some other placation. But a colicky adult certainly needs medical intervention.

So the idea that weak babies make weak adults and strong babies make strong adults doesn't work out as cleanly as this comment suggests.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#95

Post by agumonkey » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

mikewarot wrote: post #75

When I saw a great^n grandmother's 1870 census entry, which said she had 7 children, 1 of which was still alive (at 55), the reality of life back then hit me hard. This a meaningless question for most people, if it helps save lives in the future, great. I think you should also pay attention to Bret Weinstein's work on telomeres and cancer. If the environmental pressures are for a low age, you end up with long telomer…

But did they die of cancer ?

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#96

Post by _0w8t » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

gadaprog wrote: post #68

_0w8t wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the last 120 years wheat was optimized for machines making its gluten content higher that could explain higher gluten intolerance among people presently.

Asking out of ignorance here: why is higher gluten wheat more optimal for machines?

It was not done on purpose. As an unintended consequence of selection for easy to harvest mechanically, easier to bake, better to respond to fertilizers modern wheat varieties contain more specific proteins of gluten type that cause allergic reactions.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#97

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:47 PM UTC

CoryAlexMartin wrote: post #77

mikewarot wrote: post #75

When I saw a great^n grandmother's 1870 census entry, which said she had 7 children, 1 of which was still alive (at 55), the reality of life back then hit me hard. This a meaningless question for most people, if it helps save lives in the future, great. I think you should also pay attention to Bret Weinstein's work on telomeres and cancer. If the environmental pressures are for a low age, you end up with long telomer…

Are our telomeres long enough to allow for the development of cancer, or is it necessary for the system to be overridden, thus allowing cells to replicate indefinitely? My layman's understanding was that benign moles were benign, and not cancerous, because the telomere system was functioning normally and limiting growth. Am I wrong?

The main thing that stops bad cells from proliferating isn't telomeres, but our own immune system. NK cells (natural killers) are very efficient in terminating everything suspicious with extreme prejudice, so to say.

Successful cancer is the one that learns how to look innocently, at least to the immune cells patrolling the body.

Successful immunological treatment (actually using mRNA vaccines, that is what Moderna and BioNTech were originally about; Covid vaccines are only an adaptation) teaches the immune system to recognize the bad cells again based on their mutations. It will then jump into action and control the cancer growth.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#98

Post by agumonkey » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

devmunchies wrote: post #93

arnejenssen wrote: post #23

The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.

IMO above all is abundant food (overeating). No food is 100% perfect, so if you eat way too much you are more likely to expose yourself to something toxic or inflammatory. Our bodies aren't designed to be topped-off 3 times a day.

And with the ideas of 1) less food promoting better cell health (especially factory made food being altered for sales) 2) more exercise ensuring better health, I have a solid belief that past life did well for our health on many fronts. (sure they were lacking antibiotics and a lot of useful medicine)

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#99

Post by agumonkey » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

michaelmachine wrote: post #10

sonograph wrote: post #3

Tangent topic; I have often wondered if back pain was less likely in the past? How did they manage without chiropractors?

Chiropractors don’t actually help with back pain or any of the other problems they claims to help. The practice is based on “re-aligning” subtle subluxations in the spine. Two problems: there is no evidence that these subtle subluxations exist, and there is no evidence that spine alignment even extreme ones cause any ailments other than pinched nerves. Here is a good summary about the history of this pseudo-science:…

so it's a high grade placebo placebo massage ?

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#100

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, May 15, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #32

strken wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they control for age? A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality, and if you made it to 10 in 1850 (hardly preindustrial, but preindustrial stats are harder to find) you could expect to live to 60 or so. Presumably you'd compare the cancer rates of your study's skeletons with the cancer rates of today's 60 year olds.

It’s amazing how precarious being born is. I think I read that about 200 years ago around 40% of people didn’t make it past 5 years old or something like that. Antibiotics have helped a lot in modern times, especially for mothers giving birth.

From a pair that has been undergoing IVF treatment since November 2019: it is very precarious. There are a lot of opportunities to die before someone draws their first breath.