
Study finds almost half of all cancers linked to preventable factors - cpncrunch
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/study-finds-almost-half-of-all-cancers-linked-to-preventable-factors-1.3434002
======
jensen123
I wonder how long it will take before we'll see more studies on dairy and
IGF-1 and how they affect cancer. I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence
that the Nordic countries have some of the highest cancer rates in the world,
since they also drink the most milk. Or that the people with the Laron
syndrome are resistant to cancer, since (if I remember correctly) they have
some sort of defect in their IGF-1 receptors.

T. Colin Campbell talks a bit about this in his books (China Study etc.). I
think he's correct that there is some sort of taboo against questioning dairy
and protein.

Edit: I should probably mention that IGF-1 is a growth hormone. Cow's milk
contains a lot of IGF-1. You know, those calves are pretty small when they are
born, but are supposed to grow into full-size cows. Both humans and cows have
receptors for the very same IGF-1.

~~~
erkkie
Also I wonder if type of dairy (fermented/processed/etc) serve as additional
confounders.

PS do not forget sunlight/vitamin D levels if speaking about Nordic countries
specifically not just dairy. Also a known cancer risk factor.

------
mberning
I am very curious how they can come to the conclusion that unhealthy eating
(whatever that means) contributes to cancer. There is so much tied up in that
statement. Let's put aside the fact that dietary guidelines for a healthy diet
are dubious at best. How would they determine that a person that contraced
cancer had an unhealthy diet? Did they simply look at the weight or perhaps
the perennially maligned BMI? Did they rely on self reporting? Did they
account for changes in diet across the entire lifetime? It is just crazy to
think about all the ways that the foundation for such a claim could be faulty.

~~~
manmal
Probably having more than 50g sugar per day etc? While the decade-long
saturated-acid-bashing is controversial, there are things that are proven to
help longevity, like eating fatty fish regularly or not eating more than you
spend.

~~~
alextgordon
50g sugar is like 2.5 apples.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
Fruits have been cultivated and bred towards greater sweetness. They are much
sweeter than their natural ancestor.

~~~
saiya-jin
indeed, not something I like. now apple doesn't feel healthy at all, more like
a giant candy (i know it's still probably healthier to eat it rather than not,
but I really wish there would be types which would be less sweet)

~~~
domas
I think "healthy food" is a bit misnomer: only people can be healthy or
unhealthy, while food can be nutritious or not. While health of an apple is
quite a different thing (apple tree disease?)

------
dawhizkid
I always find it ironic when I see people fundraising for cancer research by
selling doughnuts.

~~~
timje1
The worst has surely got to be the 'Buckets for the Cure' campaign by KFC.

[http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/04/16/5/301/3019466/0d0b...](http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/04/16/5/301/3019466/0d0b89bb6461864e_Aviary_ww5-komen-
org_Picture_1.preview.jpg)

------
blakesterz
I wonder how many places will report this with the headline: "Study finds
majority of all cancers are not preventable"

I can't tell exactly what this does mean... does it really mean most cancers
are just not preventable? If 45% are preventable, then are the rest NOT? The
risks [0] are pretty obvious. The "Other Risks" [1] are rather interesting
though.

[0] [http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-
risk/](http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/)

[1][http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/other-
risks...](http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/other-risks/)

~~~
chrisamiller
Many cancers really aren't avoidable, as there's a spectrum of causes. The
mutations that cause cancer can come from many sources - carcinogen exposure,
UV light/radiation, inherited defects, or unavoidable errors that occur when
cells divide (on average, around 3 errors per cell division).

Getting cancer is a lot like playing the lottery (or perhaps more accurately,
Russian Roulette). It requires an accumulation of mutations in two or more key
genes, and these mutations occur more or less randomly throughout the genome,
regardless of cause. So maybe your first hit happens from a chest X-ray, and
the second hit comes from smoking. Or maybe you just get old and the
replication errors pile up in blood stem cells, giving you leukemia.

The point is that it's all probablistic, and that's why some smokers live to
be 100 cancer-free, and some health-nut marathoners get cancer. In general,
though, these external factors can bend the odds one way or the other.

~~~
erkkie
While still (probably) probabilistic to a large extent, specially concerning
environmental exposure, there's more acceptance recently into cancer having a
metabolic component, many cancer and metabolic related pathways cross (eg
fasting/insulin/igf-1). So it's not necessarily just lottery, or rather, we
still don't know how large of an factor the lottery part actually is.

------
tokenadult
I made sure to read all the previous comments here and the article kindly
submitted to open the thread before posting this comment. I see the article
links to a related website[1] with interactive advice on how to reduce risk of
cancer, based on the study findings. That website has a page that sums up
research has been showing for years, in multiple different studies:

"Research suggests that only 5 to 10% of cancers run in families. Some
factors, like age, are outside our control, and some we just don’t know about
yet.

"The really good news is that up to 45% of cancer in Alberta is caused by
factors we can control.

"So while it’s not possible to completely prevent getting cancer, there are
many proven things we can do to greatly reduce our risk. This is what cancer
prevention is all about."

As I look at the site's advice, I see

Eat Healthy (I should still do a bit more to reduce calories while increasing
dietary fiber from vegetables and whole grains, but I'm mostly on that
already)

Prevent HPV Infections (I've got this covered)

Get Screened (some screening programs are useless, actually, but I participate
in the screening programs with proven benefit)

Limit UV Rays (easy to do in Minnesota in the winter)

Live Tobacco-Free (I have always done that)

Be Active (I exercise moderately every day)

Maintain a Healthy Weight (I can improve on this a little)

Drink Less Alcohol (I go weeks at a time without drinking at all, and have
never been drunk)

and control other risk factors, which I do.

You could do all of this too.

[1] [http://albertapreventscancer.ca/](http://albertapreventscancer.ca/)

------
ucaetano
Absolutely all cancers are linked to being alive, which is an easily
preventable factor.

------
EvanPlaice
Really? Half of all cancers? Really!?

I would love to see a research organization attempt to come up with a single,
comprehensive, complete list of all cancers first.

What I read from this is, somebody was given 3/4 of a million to prove
something that's already known. Moderate exercise, not having unprotected
hookups with randos, and not eating shit all the time will make your body more
healthy.

The only thing novel sbout this study is they added, '...for cancer
sufferers'.

------
entee
It's really hard to figure out whether to trust this study, I can't find a
link to anything that's been published/peer reviewed on the OP link. These
kinds of epidemiological studies are incredibly difficult, and easy to get
wrong.

There is a good paper on this topic though:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16166.html)

------
draw_down
Problem is figuring out which behaviors, and which foods not to eat.

~~~
chrisamiller
Here: \- Stop smoking, \- keep active and at a healthy weight range \- reduce
red meat consumption (and barbecued/charred food) \- reduce your alcohol
intake \- wear sunscreen.

Boom - you've just covered most of the risks that you can control.

~~~
Geee
And don't eat antioxidants...
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10983214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10983214)

~~~
philovivero
People are downvoting you... why? You even provided a citation.

This is one of the more fascinating recent discoveries about diet, that anti-
oxidants can actually CAUSE cancer instead of prevent as previously assumed.

Obviously the jury is still out, but we had thought the jury was not out until
recently.

~~~
erkkie
It's well known that cancer cells die under oxidative metabolic pressures, and
also that antioxidants can help prevent free radical caused DNA damage (which
might lead to cancer). So antioxidants can both help and cause damage,
depending on the context, the problem is finding the balance.

