Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'

>I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy”...

I think it's a universal absolute that every individual has a healthy and non-healthy state. Regardless of our ability to classify that state accurately with labels or tests.

I know I had stupid transposed bit of wording... har.

> Surrealists, dadaists and fans of retrocausality tried in vain to warn us that smoking caused cigarettes

At risk of taking this typo-launched tangent far too seriously, smoking absolutely caused cigarettes, and without retrocausality; cigarettes weren't the first vehicle for smoking, and were developed as a result of the popularity of the practice.

lol, wow, I have a slight issue with transposing information... it caught me this time. Watch out you may catch lung cigarettes...

You might be interested to learn that one of the fathers of modern statistics believed this too

https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...

>... cut corners because things "seemed right" has a horrendous body count.

I don't disagree, but I would emphasize your phrase "cut corners". I think there's an diametrically opposite approach to health between "guessing for a cure" and "guessing for a cause".

People who used leeches to suck their blood out were "guessing it helped", where people who sought out clean air and clean water for say tuberculosis for example, weren't "guessing a cure", they knew clean air and water were good for you, even if it didn't cure the disease, it should at least help.

I think this same logic applies in the issue of obesity/[cancer|any health issue]. Maybe it's not a cure, but it can't hurt until we know more.

The parent is wrong in that they fail to distinguish between terminal/differentiated cells and tissue stem cells. Also they imply there is a one-to-one correspondence between the relevant cell divisions and number of total cells at any one time. This is not the case.

Eg, you can have one skin stem cell divide once to replace a single terminal cell (one of the daughters remains as a stem cell). Or that one daughter cell can divide itself once to replace two terminal cells per stem cell divisions. Or those two cells can each divide to get 4 terminal cells per stem cell division, etc.

The relevant number is divisions since the fertilized egg for each stem cell lineage.

This is actually an interesting open question, known as Peto's paradox [1]. The "hypertumors" hypothesis is especially fun - a tumor has to get really big to affect something the size of a whale, and a tumor that big needs a fair amount of internal structure to support it, and tumor cells have a demonstrated tendency to misbehave already, so the tumors get cancer of their own and die before they can get big enough to affect the host.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto%27s_paradox

Hm. I had hoped that the caveats I explicitly mentioned would make this the opposite of “overly simplistic”. But, yes: all other things being equal, whales would have a lot more tumours than other, smaller organisms. Now, it should be maddeningly obvious that all other things are not equal.

In the end we’re not comparing whales to other species here, we’re comparing between humans.

going to bed with excess blood sugar is the problem.

Yes.

The current thought is that cancer arises by tissue stem cells accumulating mutations at a low rate until it goes out of control. Every division there is some chance of error. If you have more divisions, there is a higher chance of cancer.

If you always keep this in mind: cell division -> cancer, so much will make sense. Anything requiring an increase in cell division will increase the chances of cancer in that tissue (smoking damages lung cells which need to be replaced, uv damages skin cells, being larger means you have more cells).

That is not to say that immune surveillance for clearing these bad cells plays no role, or that DNA damage sensitivity/repair can't be increased/decreased, or that those rates need be similar in different species. However, the main idea behind the entire modern cancer research programme is that cell division -> cancer.

More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/

A typical developed world diet that is easiest to become overweight or obese from would have to include extremely calorie dense but nutritionally empty foods; junk food, basically. They’re usually not all that great in terms of nutrients in general, and are basically made whole-cloth via hardcore processing and chemical transformations (quite fascinating really!).

Also, sugar. Can easily dump 30% by weight of sugar into what amounts to edible “plastic” and have it taste “good” as well as being super cheap, but of course, completely lacking in any birdies other than carbs/sugars.

Definitely, it usually boils down to reducing the intake of inflammation-causing food:

* soda, snack bars, candy, baked sweets

* mayonnaise, most salad dressings, barbecue sauces, most crackers, most breads, most potato chips

* fried foods (fries, fried chicken, fish sticks, chicken tendies, onion rings)

* refined white flour foods (pizza, white bread, most pasta, pretzels, flour tortillas, breakfast cereals, bagels)

* most milks and milk-based products (soft cheeses, butter)

* grain-fed meats, processed meats (bacon, hot dogs, bologna, sausage, jerky)

* chronic intake of alcoholic beverages

* doughnuts, cookies, muffins, frosting

While this list might seem excessive and it is by no means exhaustive or applicable or every person suffering from chronic inflammation, I'm sure you can speak from personal experience that several items on these lists have caused you some manner of discomfort.

There are so many substitutions available in every large grocery store and substituting fractions of every meal can go a long way. It's tough to get into the habit of regularly purchasing (for example) a variety of fruits and vegetables but it is definitely worth it.

For many of the items in the lists above, there are plenty of low-inflammatory options (eg: switching to whole grain breads instead of refined white flour breads, having dark leafy greens instead of Caesar salad, adding almonds, swapping in skim milk and yogurt from regular full-fat milk, any of the berries).

EDIT: removed coffee

The simplest answer is, as much as you can, stick to a whole-foods, plant based diet. So:

Whole grain bread and pasta instead of white bread and pasta. Brown rice instead of white rice. Vegetables, vegetables, vegetables, and fruit. Beans, chickpeas, split peas, and lentils. Things to avoid: Meat, fish, dairy, eggs, OIL (of any sort), junk food (of course).

Whole foods mean foods where nothing bad has been added, and nothing good has been taken away.

This diet is scientifically proven to reduce inflammation, and in fact, make you live longer. The closer you can get to it, the better off you'll be. The only thing to be wary of is that if you cut out animal protein entirely, you'll need a vitamin B12 supplement, unless you get your water from natural streams and eat vegetables without washing off the dirt :) (B12 comes from bacteria -- that's where grazing animals get it from).

If you're interested in the science, here's a long (but good) talk by Dr. Michael Greger (creator of nutritionfacts.org) at google: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ

Note that he's different from most of the diet advocates out there in that he seems to try quite hard to remain focused on the science, his website is entirely free, he's not selling supplements, and all the proceeds of his books go to charity. I'm a big fan :)

"As a person frequently prone to various forms of inflammation, is there something I can do to minimize this risk?"

I think you should consider fasting - or, at the very least, reducing the size of your "feeding window".

This is quite simple, actually - don't have any calories of any kind after dinner, and then wait until noon to have any calories of any kind.

Just like that, you've increased by 50% the time your body spends in fasting state.

If you think of what your metabolic markers look like when you wake up in the morning (blood pressure, free cholesterol, insulin levels, blood sugar ...) imagine what you're doing for yourself when you extend the length of that state by 50% a few days per week.

It's quite easy and I think you may find that markers of inflammation (like eczema, asthma, etc.) decrease in ways they never did with changes in diet.

Remember: no matter how "whole" or "healthy" or "nutritious" your diet is, you're still stoking all the fires of metabolism when you eat it - and that radiates out through your entire body.

Yes, but I would have written it as a proper noun as it was written there. They could have instead said "exposure to sun". But if you add the definite article, it's a proper noun.

FWIW "playing in the Sun" kinda sounds like you're somehow managing to exist inside the sun's mass and playing there, whereas "playing in the sun" clearly refers to merely being exposed to sunshine and "playing in The Sun" sounds like you're trying to say that The Sun published an article about your play.

That's because it should be 'sunlight' or 'sunshine', not abbreviated to 'sun'.