> good health is the best prescription for preventing chronic diseases
That's bad enough to approach self-parody, but in a way it's very illustrative of the fact that apart from smoking cessation and arguably some other forms of drug addiction treatment, we have very little in the way of demonstrably effective lifestyle interventions to prevent chronic illness. There are mountains of epidemiological associations and sometimes even plausible physiological mechanisms for many of these things, but it often turns out that the obvious intervention just defies the correlation instead of changing the outcome (cf. Goodhart's law), or changes things in a statistically significant but practically underwhelming way.
As far as I know, obesity is mostly significant as a public health issue because it makes many conditions modestly worse, not because it's the primary cause of any given problem. Losing weight might mitigate an illness such that you cross some diagnostic threshold and are thus "cured", but you're still in a much different state than someone who wasn't at risk of that illness at any weight. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to maintain a healthy weight, just that it's wishful thinking to expect that doing so is going to solve all or even most of your problems. In general, it's important to recognize that health is a complex topic and not fool ourselves into thinking we've found the key to good health.
Instead, we have Oprah selling "love your body" as if that love will save you went a health crisis comes knocking.
The fact that we are encouraged to think of being overweight as a personality flaw makes it much harder for people to lose weight. They take their weight as evidence of their weakness which causes a detrimental cycle.
It's also true that popular notions of "healthy weight" are medically inaccurate. Many people who are a normal healthy weight and have no medical reason to lose weight still think they are overweight.
There are lots of good reasons to encourage people to think of themselves as healthy at non-skinny sizes.
Many of those people probably _are_ overweight. If your bmi is greater than 25 and you’re not weightlifting (and eating to support that), you’re almost certainly overweight.
Many people who are overweight are using the love your body campaigns for justification of their weight, when they are actually overweight.
The fact is that shame keeps people from being able to engage with their body and maintain the work needed to lose weight.
Pretty sure you only brought that up because you perceive Oprah as being overweight. "Love your body" is one of NOW Foundation's programs. The program description is:
> Every day, in so many ways, the beauty industry (and the media in general) tell women and girls that being admired, envied and desired based on their looks is a primary function of true womanhood. The beauty template women are expected to follow is extremely narrow, unrealistic and frequently hazardous to their health. The Love Your Body campaign challenges the message that a woman’s value is best measured through her willingness and ability to embody current beauty standards.
Oprah helped advertise and promote that program.
In either case, the smart thing would be to avoid the high refined carb diet.
Without too much exaggeration, exercise also improves every surrogate and hard end point ever tested.
I think all you really have to do is take a look at nearly anyone over 80+ .. the vast majority of the people who make it to these ages or older have a few things in common, and we can call it coincidence, but it's probably not.
That's not true. Not only do fat cells just grow bigger (a skinny person has just as many as a fat person), you'd expect the increase in cancers to be mostly liposarcomas ("fat cell cancer"), which stay very rare.
Other organs might be distended or enlarged, but they don't contain more cells.
The reason obesity leads to cancer is not very well understood, but it's probably a complicated process involving abnormal hormone levels usual in obese people, and the constant low-grade inflammation their body is usually suffering from
I'm no longer deeply involved in this area so my information might be dated, though years ago it was pretty well understood based on the evidence that fat cells were created _and_ grew bigger as person got heavier, however, fat cells (once created) were never eliminated from the body, meaning they would shrink though they would be around forever once created.
It was also understood (if I recall correctly) that the faster someone gained fat, the easier it was for fat cells to be created. Meaning rapid weight gain was more likely to create new fat cells. (not sure if I'm remembering that one right)
It was surmised from these that this is why rebound weight gain (aside from rebound lifestyle factors) was quite easy for many, particularly the incredibly obese. It was also why it was strongly recommended to take fat gain incredibly seriously as the creation of fat cells was deemed potentially lifelong damaging.
Do you have a source for that? I find that claim interesting because I'd be surprised if obesity != more cells.
Update: I found this link about a study that found as you gain weight, you grow new fat cells (2010). I can't find the paper though.
Update 2: I believe this is the paper:
Update 3: Another paper that found growth of new fat cells on weight gain (2015):
From this article found in this thread: https://news.yale.edu/2015/03/02/new-fat-cells-created-quick...
That doesn't mean they aren't involved, proteins can go wrong, but, that is usually associated with other types of diseases besides cancer.
Someone who is very ectomorphic and "scrawny", will often have severe difficulty gaining a substantial amount of weight.
Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.
> Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality...
Which is not to say I don't enjoy a nice juicy cheezburger. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Most of their packages contain multiple servings. Even the smaller packages that you usually see on the shelf are 3 servings, at least in the US.
My point is not that Doritos aren't bad for you but that saturated fat isn't the reason they're bad
Eventually, "you are what you eat" catches up to you.
If we want a food source to blame, look at high sugar content foods like soda or the slew of 'Little Debbie' type snacks (I'm preferential to Nutter Butters) that can be consumed in one or two sittings if you aren't calorie conscious.
But, just to reiterate what's important, if we all just got a solid hour of exercise each day the rate of cancer and heart disease would drop appreciably.
But people really want a magic bullet, "X is bad, Y is good". People generally do not like to exercise so they'll keep looking for something else.
We really going to worry about a bag of chips when so many people still smoke?
The problem is people aren't interested in health. Oreos are a God given right, evidently. And it's easier to blame the healthcare system than to face the truth. That is, you are what you consume.
*The report is just cancer, but diabetes will be just as happy to kill too.
I've read that constant digesting gets in the way of the body doing nightly internal cleanup processes that detox your system, as energy is diverted to process food instead. That might be another source of problems.
I think you are postulating. There was an article here a week or two ago that showed how bodies frequently in motion tend to live longer and be healthiest. There are different types of effects on the body from activities, and I'd be willing to bet that a body that's constantly in a state of digestion is stressed more than one in natural motion. However, I say this with a disclaimer that I'm guessing based on recent articles posted here. But if you really think otherwise, you should just provide a source.
Also, unless you are training for the Olympics, you do not need to linearly scale your food intake in proportion to your exercise. The average diet for many people does not need to change much after introducing exercise because the average diet already is usually too many calories.
Lets assume that you are. Would that mean you will die earlier? Does that mean that the more exercise you do the earlier you die?
Sorry to be 'that guy', but I'd expect official statements from the CDC to be better proof-read as this sort of thing really does impact the credibility of the message.
Intermittent fasting studies tend to focus on IGF-1 levels in the interests of slowing aging, which is of course strongly related to cancer prevention.
I don't get to order pizza. I don't get to pick up something from a fast food joint on the way home. I can't go to a restaurant with friends. I have to avoid gatherings where free food will be present. I dread the days a coworker brings in donuts. I've had to get used to going to bed hungry. I usually don't have much energy at all because my caloric intake has to be restricted so much to prevent me from gaining weight back, so I take stimulants to suppress appetite and make it possible to get through the day without falling asleep at my desk. I am a slave to the scale.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with your statement. Oh, it sucked to be fat alright, because people treated me like shit just for existing and because it was embarrassing every time I broke a chair, but I wouldn't say I had less energy and I definitely wouldn't say I had less fun either.
Thank you for sharing.
Or even the other day I realized I was taking steps two at a time! Woah! That is Not the old me.
Particularly for me, the series of comments about how the nervous system can play a role in cancer development (via inflammation promoting activity) is fascinating.
There are even some comments from Carlos Monteiro, a controversial cardiologist. He postulates that cardiac glycosides (used to treat cardiac problems) are also a potent anti-cancer drug.
The older we get the more opportunity for cell mutation?
Reminds me of climate change deniers.
I mean if your infrastructure (e.g., bones, major organs, etc.) are designed to support a mass of X and you're more than 1.1 times that mass then there are going to be "side effects."
And people wonder why healthcare costs are so high? Maybe that's because excess weight also compromises brain function.
We've had all the science we need. What we lack is the ability to handle the truth.
My personal, not-very tested belief is that there is a strong biological component to political alignments and if you put that person in a different culture they’d gravitate toward similar values on a relative scale.
This report isn't new. It's not a surprise. We already knew that if you make the body do something outside the norm of natural (e.g., smoking) the odds of bad things happening is going to increase.
Sure it's nice to have micro proof of a cancer connextion. But at the macro level this is just new chapter in a pattern we've proven plenty of times before.
Living on no meat?
Sitting on an elevated seat to defecate?
Eating bananas in the wintertime? Or in non-tropical regions?
Living surrounded by 1,000,000 other people?
Sleeping in a heated (or air conditioned) room?
Modern medical care when you're injured or ill?
We really have no idea what "the norm of natural" would be. And some things that are not "natural" are clearly beneficial.
So is long distance running natural?
The point is, for many things, we aren't sure if they are natural, and many things we take as natural and healthy ("Three square meals a day!") may not be
With just about every recommendation for "healthy living" you can find scientific arguments on both sides.
That said, I can't recall a study that concluded soda is good for you, yet a vast majority of US adults choose that path and stick with it.
One of the reasons they stick with it is everyone else sticks with it. There was a time smoking was normalized, to say nothing of cool. Then finally it was marginalized. Can the same happen with weight and obesity? Maybe. But to date it's extremely non-PC to even imply excess weight is bad.
I'm advocating shame. But allowing the unhealthy to become normalized isn't working either. Geez, the DoD declared it a threat to national security. Kneeling in unAmerican but being to big to fight is patriotic?
I can't get my head wrapped around that. I see no hope for things changing for the better anytime soon.
As for not natural but beneficial, can you give an example? Or three?
But perhaps we have different definitions of natural :)
Purified drinking water.
Antiseptics in medical contexts
Washing hands after using the restroom
Lifting heavy things on a regular basis even though you don't have to.
Maybe we just have different definitions :) But to me, progress (i.e., human's reproducing existing patterns) doesn't necessarily equate to unnatural.
it wasn't even "obvious" for most of the 20th century cigarettes gave you cancer. people have short memories.
a contemporary example: is it "obvious" right now that sugar gives you cancer? because to a lot of people it is blindingly, astoundingly obvious, and to some that sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense.
i don't understand this aversion to doing "obvious" science -- we have to do science to make things obvious, not the other way around.
If you overeat of a Standard American Diet you increase the risk of heart disease and cancer.
A link between cancer incidence and height has also been reported in the past. There may be several factor at play (higher exposure to growth hormone, higher caloric intake) but it is not unreasonable to think that cell count is one of them. For things like skin cancer, it’s hard to justify that size doesn’t matter.
Obesity means you have more cells than other people... to have more cells there must have been more cell divisions. The role of mitogenesis in cancer has been realized for many, many years, so I'm not sure why there is still any controversy about it.