We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, October 4. 2017
Everybody knows that having a belly is the major risk factor for heart and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, and dozens of other nasty ailments, but the association of overweight with at least 13 cancers is not so well known.
Being heavy may be one of the greatest risk factors for a large variety of cancers. There are many theories about why this might be. Breast and prostate cancers are high on the list.
It is worth thinking about, even though we all must accept that the odds are, now that we can handle most infectious diseases, that we will die either of cancer or cardiovascular disease sooner or later. But why rush it?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Call me skeptical. The problem is as people age they gain weight. And cancer is "mostly" a disease of old age. So by default most/many cancer patients will be overweight. Is there provable causation? I doubt it. Like most of these claims it will probably relate more to the author(s) biases than it will to truth.
I wouldn't be so sure that we can still treat infectious diseases, or that we will be able to much longer. Even the head of the CDC has admitted that we live in a post-antibiotic world.
I don't know about cancer, but I can say that 5 or 6 annoying-to-severe (as they say in the ads) medical problems cleared up when I lost a lot of weight a year or two ago. It may be a coincidence, but my acid reflux went away, which meant that I stopped eating antacids, and then suddenly a bowel condition that had been diagnosed as chronic also went away. Blood pressure, blood sugar, all kinds of things went back to normal.
The Japanese have the highest rate of cancer deaths. One could conclude that maybe rice causes cancer. But Japanese are not noted for being overweight. Hmmmmm! But the truth is much more informative and understandable; Japan has a high population of older people and older people have higher rates of cancer. This skews their statistics.
There is something similar that holds true for the entire "1st" world. Generally we live longer so we don't die in our 20's 30's and 40's from diseases we can prevent or cure. We live into our 70's 80's and even 90's and die of diseases of old age. Diseases like; heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc. This skews our statistics. It also opens up an avenue for those who have a health related agenda to use these skewed stats for their own purposes. How often do you hear that Americans have more heart attacks than most other vountries? Never mind that the reason is we live longer than the citizens of most other countries. Similar pronouncements are made about Cancer rates in the U.S. There seems to be no controls over how much misinformation can be generated and disseminated with very little fact checking.
The Japanese have the highest rate of cancer deaths.
I'd like to see the cite. What I can find says Japan isn't even in the top ten for either cancer incidence or mortality. Japan also has the highest longevity in the world, a phenomenon related to diet.
Yet another scare story on cancer.
About 40 percent of all cancers in the United States -- more than 630,000 in all -- are associated with excess weight,
Key words . . . are associated with.
Gee whiz . . . How much cancer is associated with gray hair?
How much is associated with race? . . . age . . .gender? I could go on and on.
The point is "associated with being overweight" is not the same as caused by being overweight.
Furthermore, no risk assessment is made so it is impossible to ascertain how much, if any, your odds of cancer go up by being overweight.
This post strikes me as a cheap attempt to find evidence supporting Maggie's zealous advocacy for extreme exercise. It's obvious we are supposed to draw the conclusion that we will all die of cancer if we are not in tip top form from being in perpetual training for the iron man competition.
I don't have a citation, like so many thing I read I don't keep track of the source. One of the problems you will find when looking at Japanese medical/health stats is their culture. In their culture doctors don't tell patients that they have cancer because it is considered impolite to cause them so much worry. They prefer to let them die in peace/bliss. But because of this cultural tradition impinging on medical care much of the statistical data about Japanese health has been inaccurate.
Japanese do live "slightly" longer than most other first world citizens. I suspect that has more to do with their reverence for old people and their cultural tendency to keep their parents in their household when they can no longer care for themselves.
Could this be because of diet? Who knows, but probably not. That is exactly what I meant by my statement "It also opens up an avenue for those who have a health related agenda to use these skewed stats for their own purposes." Where individuals with a bias do data dredges for any statistical fact that seems to or can be twisted to support their biases. Interestingly Americans of Northern European descent have about the same longevity as Japanese living in Japan. Since no one would likely claim that Americans of any descent eat a "good" diet this fact isn't useful to those with a bias so it doesn't get cited as proof of anything.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Japanese diet and had lunch just today at a new Japanese restaurant in town and expect to eat there often. But I won't be giving up McDonalds anytime soon.
And with more than 40% of people in the US being overweight, the chances of getting cancer when overweight are actually lower than when not being overweight...
new mandatory food label: "this product is known by Maggie's Farm to cause cancer"
Bingo, except for the "Maggies" part. It's BD and Mrs BD's obsession with lifestyle and inferring themselves through it.
Further, weight is as much a function of diet as cancer is a function of weight. The diet faddists who have to go into permanent carnist ketosis are only addressing weight, basically using diet to justify itself via one metric, divorced from health.
That's lifestyle obsession too.
PS: What's weird is that for as much as Jordan Peterson in these pages is right on postmodernism, rightists are codependent enablers whenever they give the psycho leftist progg space at the table. Peterson doesn't; even leftist Paglia doesn't. But rightists do. Habitually, instinctively. By reflex. See: Z-bot(s), the clattering site robot(s).
What is the rightist lifestyle obsession? A veiled quasi-cultural pushback against the great existential threat of horrid, Communistic veganism as reimagined by the feeblest-thinking, most codependent rightists. The rightist lifestyle obsession is therefore a capitulation to what they want to think is their inferior when they probably have no grasp of the greater intellectual issues.
Yes you can pretty much put your head in the sand whenever you are faced with something you don't agree with and claim it is all just opinion. If that's what you need to do so that you don't feel challenged then have at it.
The thing about these end of life diseases is we all die and something kills us. If you live in the modern Western world you typically die of old age which means the big three; Heart disease, cancer and stroke. Some countries choose to not list cause of death as "cancer" just as most movie stars that die don't like to list a cause of death that implies/confirms they died from their dispicable habits/life style. So countries like Japan simply list "died of old age" So the data gets skewed.
I see. So you arrive on a load of confirmation bias, gin up an elaborate opinion to serve it, molest the actual facts, ramble all over trying to preemptively hem in as much purported reality as you can, figure nobody noticed, can't and will not produce a cite, admit the authority of the anecdote, project cognitive dissonance - "data-dredging" - where you can't prove it exists either, and meander around some more reclaiming that uniquely bizarre subjective analysis you seem to enjoy so much, not a dime of it rooted in fact.
My problem is I assume you showed up valuing some objective reality you armchair Science!-invokers always think you find so attractive before denying real knowledge. Who knows; maybe Japan like leads the world in cancer deaths or something. I was willing to learn something. As it turns out Japan has no such talent.
I ended up learning things don't change much. I learned that as the consequence of your fallacy salad somehow your opponents have their - and I quote - heads in the sand.
Funny, we go from reality to nonsense in a couple paragraphs. Probably even unmitigated morons have compunction.
Well you know... Your schtick on MF is a bomb thrower so it's hard to take you seriously. If you doubt something do the work and research it and draw your own conclusions. I'm not going to be your librarian
Japan appears in no top ten statistics for highest global cancer deaths.
Japan appears in no top ten lists for cancer incidence.
Versus the US, Japan has vastly lower cancer incidences where red meat, processed food, and sugar in the gut are factors.
Versus the US, Japan has higher incidences of cancer where salt intake, certain gut infections, and hepatitis are factors.
I can give you hundreds of bomb-throwing scientific cites where the plant diet has greatly favored outcomes over either the mixed western diet or ketosis/paleo diets. I'd cited and linked dozens. Weight and health are fundamentally tied to diet and where genetics are tied to both, they must necessarily involve epigenetics.
Few care about these facts because people tend to lead with their biases, the same biases that lead some to produce strings of fallacies.