Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43502144

by onuralp • 8 years ago

140 59 8 years ago

bbc.com

wyclif• 8 years ago

and third was exposure to the Sun

That capitalised "Sun" will no doubt unintentionally amuse UK readers of the news...

sleavey• 8 years ago

Looks like some eagle-eyed editor fixed it already.

EDIT: the edit is not showing up yet on NewsDiffs [1], but maybe later.

[1] http://www.newsdiffs.org/article-history/www.bbc.co.uk/news/...

cup-of-tea3• 8 years ago

Why? Sun is a proper noun. The newspaper would be "The Sun" (capital T).

croon3• 8 years ago

It can be, but that's not usually how it's used.

You're playing in the sun, not "the Sun".

Earth's yellow sun, not Earth's yellow "Sun".

It's both common and proper, depending on context.

V-2• 8 years ago

Not a native here, but the way I understand is that it's Sun the celestial object vs. sun as short for sunlight. No? You can't really be "exposed" to the former.

_b8r0• 8 years ago

If only the Express could take a break from bashing immigrants to run a front page shouting, "The Sun Causes Cancer"

vixen99• 8 years ago

Will you please take a break from beating your wife.

ec109685• 8 years ago

What is the mechanism to correlate an incidence of cancer with being over weight versus another risk factor?

AstralStorm2• 8 years ago

Likely generalized inflammation. It is also not unlikely that overweight people eat less nutritious diet in terms of phyto- and micronutrients some of which may prevent cancer. Fat cell proliferation uses some of the same mechanisms as certain cancers too.

atupis• 8 years ago

Also overweight people have more cells than thin people. So there is bigger risk to malicious cell mutations. Taller people have same problem https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/01/taller-peopl...

0xFFC• 8 years ago

overweight people eat less nutritious diet in terms of phyto- and micronutrients

Would you mind to explain this a little bit further? It seems paradox at first.

ihsw24• 8 years ago

As mentioned by another commenter, chronic low-level inflammation is one risk factor. This can lead to DNA damage that leads to cancer.

Gallstones are a characteristic of chronic gallbladder inflammation, and a history of gallstones is a strong risk factor for gallbladder cancer.

Obese people have increased levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), high levels of IGF-1 may promote the development of multiple cancers.

Correlations between several cancers and obesity range between 5-50% (eg: ~10% in women can be directly attributed to obesity, ~50% of gallbladder cancer in women can be directly attributed to obesity).

Correlations between cancer risk and healthy weight levels are strong, where (for example) those that maintain healthy weight levels are more likely to be more mindful of what they eat.

hliyan3• 8 years ago

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

AstralStorm2• 8 years ago

Percentages are no good without NNTs. It does not mention that some cases are much harder to treat than others.

(NNT = number or treatments needed to treat or prevent one case of cancer)

agumonkey• 8 years ago

Good, less calories means less livestock means less transport and pollution. Virtuous cycle.

jere• 8 years ago

Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'
The charity also found that excess weight now caused 6.3% of all cancer cases - up from 5.5% in 2011
Prof Mel Greaves, a cancer biologist at the Institute of Cancer Research, in London, said the study was an "endorsement" of the idea that many cancers were potentially preventable. But he said the idea that obesity itself or eating too little fibre "causes" cancer was "somewhat simplistic" and still needed to be explored further.

What a rollercoaster.

zombieprocesses• 8 years ago

As soon as I read the title, I knew this would be the case. Have the media started doing more of this clickbait misrepresentation or are we just now more aware of it. It's so frustrating that it's getting harder to trust media or take them seriously. When the history channel did it, it was obnoxious. Pyramids built by "aliens". The media doing it is pathetic and dangerous.

Wish we could go back to the good old boring objective factual news rather than journalists trying to clickbait or push an agenda.

RobertRoberts4• 8 years ago

What a rollercoaster.

Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes. As a middle schooler I could intuitively see that overeating sugar would lead to diabetic issues that are just now being "proven" by science.

Is it possible that the UK health system has figured out something that is obvious through their experiences with so many people? If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?

But until there are actual concerted scientific studies, not intimidated by social/political bullying, to consider behavior as a risk factor for disease, what can be done?

We can only rely on common sense, simplistic views, spreadsheets of private data we aren't legally allowed to share, etc... People in health care are stuck between a rock and a hard-place. (scientific studies vs what is obvious in front of them)

Someone• 8 years ago

”If you are overweight and unhealthy in general, that in general you will have more instances of every disease?”

I don’t think there’s an agreed upon testable definition of “healthy” that’s substantially different from “free of disease”. That makes that statement trivially true. That’s part of the reason these experts are so careful in the conclusions they draw.

And smoking doesn’t _cause_ cigarettes, it destroys them ;-)

lebrad• 8 years ago

Decades ago everyone _knew_ smoking caused cigarettes.

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

otakucode• 8 years ago

While it can often seem that way, that lack of scientific studies is 'holding us back'... consider the alternative. Leaded gasoline. Thalidomide. Eugenics. Slipshod scientific rigor and a willingness to cut corners because things "seemed right" has a horrendous body count.

learnstats2• 8 years ago

The charity shouldn't be allowed to make this claim in its press release (here) or blanket advertising campaign (ongoing). It's a bad faith claim which doesn't really benefit anyone.

Even if it is the case that weight is correlated with cancer, it's not evident that weight causes cancer. The scientist dances around this statement because he can't say it.

spodek• 8 years ago

Across the UK, smoking remained by far the leading cause of preventable cancer, although it dropped from 19.4% in 2011 to 15.1%. Second was being overweight or obese . . .

Since obesity doesn't just randomly happen but has causes, shouldn't they say "caused by" the causes of obesity -- i.e. sugar, inactivity, etc?

klmr3• 8 years ago

It’s not that simple. As the article correctly states:

But he said the idea that obesity itself or eating too little fibre "causes" cancer was "somewhat simplistic" and still needed to be explored further.

Diet is certainly contributing to cancer risk but there’s no simple, direct line from sugar to cancer, or from inactivity to cancer.

For example, one aspect of cancer risk is that it’s simply a game of numbers: obese people have bigger cells (and, at least in the case of children, more cells!). More cells trivially translates into a higher cancer risk because every single cell individually has the potential of becoming a tumour precursor. But even a constant number of bigger cells increases cancer risk by a similar logic: more cellular mass increases the risk of a cell becoming cancerous because there are more molecules that can become abnormal, disrupt cellular processes and ultimately lead to DNA damage.

These are the facts. Whether this noticeably contributes to the increased cancer risk in obese people is an open question. Nevertheless, in this scenario it’s actually the obesity itself, and not the diet/inactivity that acts as a causal factor for cancer.

Ultimately this is probably a tiny contributor. Another comment correctly singles out that obesity causes (chronic) inflammation, which is almost certainly a much bigger single contributor to cancer risk.

jiggunjer• 8 years ago

By that overly simplistic statistical reasoning, whales should be riddled with tumors.

jlebrech3• 8 years ago

"over-consumption of sugar", if you were a top athlete there would be no problem consuming sugar.

EpicEng• 8 years ago

In that case it wouldn't be "over" consumption, right? It's a relative term.

stefap2• 8 years ago

At the time, she was nearly 20 stone.

20 stone = 127 kg = 280 lbs

jlebrech3• 8 years ago

Funnily enough, lack of exercise, alcohol, meat can cause obesity. and not eating enough veg gives people fibre deficiency.

Also to note none of those causes of cancers are protein deficiency.

n0tme• 8 years ago

Bottom line: I am so fucked

Rise in cancers 'caused by weight'

Related Stories