Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149

by erinwatson • 15 years ago

177 124 15 years ago

bbc.co.uk

Nearly half of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year - over 130,000 in total - are caused by avoidable life choices including smoking, drinking and eating the wrong things, a review reveals.

tokenadult• 15 years ago

"Dr Rachel Thompson, of the World Cancer Research Fund, said the report added to the 'now overwhelmingly strong evidence that our cancer risk is affected by our lifestyles.'

"Dr Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said leading a healthy lifestyle did not guarantee a person would not get cancer but the study showed 'we can significantly stack the odds in our favour.'"

Many of these lines of evidence where developed originally by looking at environmental differences among different countries, as well as time series in cancer rates as lifestyles changed in countries over time, and comparisons of immigrants of varying ages of arrival (who adopt the lifestyles of new countries either as children or as adults) with relatives who stay in the old country. Then the best-understood models of cancer risk factors are further investigated through controlled experimentation on laboratory animals or on cell lines in vitro. Today it's plain enough that avoiding smoking, eating a varied, balanced diet, and maintaining normal weight through a combination of exercise and moderate eating offers substantial reduction of risk in all-cause mortality, including but not limited to death from cancer.

After edit: the second reply here asked how a diet higher rather than lower in fruits and vegetables can protect from cancers other than colon cancer. According to what I've read about the research, it's thought that some tendencies of healthy body cells to go into uncontrolled growth (cancer) are made worse by lack of micronutrients, which may be lacking in the diets of people who don't eat varied diets. It's also thought that the evolutionary arms race between plants (which tend to evolve tough husks but also phytotoxins as protections against being eaten) and animals (which have to eat some food source ultimately derived from autotrophic organisms, that is mostly plants) results in complex animals being selected for incidental adaptation of phytotoxins to kill off errant cell lines. What's poison in a large does can sometimes be medicine in the therapeutic dose and in the right time and place. All human beings eventually die of something, but the epidemiological evidence (and some laboratory evidence) shows that plant intake reduces chances of dying young of cancer, and these mechanisms are some of those suggested as reasons for that observation.

VladRussian• 15 years ago

>After edit: the second reply here asked how a diet higher rather than lower in fruits and vegetables can protect from cancers other than colon cancer. According to what I've read about the research, it's thought that some tendencies of healthy body cells to go into uncontrolled growth (cancer) are made worse by lack of micronutrients, which may be lacking in the diets of people who don't eat varied diets. It's also thought that the evolutionary arms race between plants

antioxidant is keyword here:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/anti...

MartinMond• 15 years ago

Can someone explain how lack of fruit and vegetables leads to cancer?

I can understand it leading to colon cancer, but does it also lead to other kinds of cancer?

AFAIK even if you never eat fruits/vegetables you aren't lacking any micronutrients?

jolan• 15 years ago

Fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants.

DanBC2• 15 years ago

Antioxidants may not do anything to prevent cancer.

(http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/10/02/antioxida...)

akadien• 15 years ago

I'm not sure if a lack of fruits and veggies leads to cancer. It leads to malnutrition. But, fruits and veggies have many benefits to prevent cancer: fiber helps your poo move through your bowels better; antioxidents fight free radicals; vitamins in natural form do lots of cool things (metabolism, brain function, etc.) that help your body's cells replicate normally.

I supposed you could argue for multivitamins. My approach is to not bet against 6000+ years of human biochemistry.

latch3• 15 years ago

Given that it's specific to men, I'd say fiber and prostate cancer. There's some evidence, specifically with respect to cancer, (I don't know if it's strong or not), that it helps clean out toxins and it helps regulate hormones.

DifE-Q• 15 years ago

There are more complex things at play here. Some foods actually contain compounds that reduce or prevent tumor growth. Cabbage for example has highest levels of two anti-cancer glucosinolates and protects against breast cancer and bread crust; has highest levels of Interlukin-B which protects against colon cancer.

As a real world example; Polish women have the lowest incidence of breast cancer and the highest consumption of cabbage.

simpsond• 15 years ago

I don't think the study makes that claim. They are claiming that 6% of men with cancer don't eat enough fruits and vegetables (i'm not sure what enough is). There is no way to infer whether or not the lack of fruits and vegetables was the root cause of cancer in those cases.

carldall• 15 years ago

Thank god coffee wasn't on the list.

dredmorbius2• 15 years ago

Most of the research on coffee that I've seen is mixed-to-modestly positive for moderate amounts (1-2 cups day). Essentially: if you're having a few cups, have no problems with it, and enjoy it, no need to stop. Some people do experience sleep and stress problems.

I've found that relying on tea through the course of the day (after a morning mug of espresso) keeps my energy levels more even. Dittos knocking off the carbs -- much more even energy levels, and no post-lunch slump.

nivertech• 15 years ago

Coffee prevents liver cancer.

ghc2• 15 years ago

Right, I'm off to find some fruits and vegetables! Or do I get enough antioxidants as a tea-drinker? I'm conflicted because I know I don't get enough fruit in my diet, but the recommended daily amount of fruit seems difficult to get in the winter.

TillE• 15 years ago

Buy frozen fruit, make smoothies for breakfast. Easy, tasty, and not particularly expensive.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/buff-smoothie...

Since going vegan, that's been my nightly ritual: throw frozen fruit, bananas (one large or two small), juice, and vanilla soy milk in the blender carafe and put it in the refrigerator. I like to add ground flaxseed for the ALA as well.

Florin_Andrei2• 15 years ago

I eat fruits with every meal. Not a ton of them, just making sure I get some nice tasty "vegetable candy" every time I eat food.

Also focus on getting enough fiber. Auto-magically this will ensure you get a lot of veggies, minerals, vitamins, and so on - as long as you don't rely on artificial means such as fiber supplements. Lettuce, cucumbers, cabbage, tomatoes, stuff like that - all those are good.

I do eat meat, eggs, dairy and so on, I'm not a vegetarian by any means. I just try to avoid eating too much red meat, or stuff heavy on cholesterol and saturated fat. I emphasize fish, turkey, chicken, lean meat, etc. Once in a while I will enjoy a good steak - it's not like you'll drop dead from eating it, and cholesterol is actually used by your body to make hormones and so on.

As a remnant from my weight lifting days, I try to eat some protein with every meal, and I try to avoid carbs-only meals. I think the low fat diets are ridiculous; controlling the calories overall, and the carbs in particular, and exercising, are far more important.

I reduced very drastically starchy foods. Bread, rice, potatoes - gone or greatly diminished. Eat a salad instead (for dressing, use oil and vinegar, not the sugary junk that most people use). Popcorn and potato chips are blacklisted in my household. Ice cream - I'll eat some once in a while when the kids are craving it. No candy. No soda.

I do eat a small amount of chocolate, Nutella, or drink some hot chocolate, almost every day in fact, in the evening; cocoa has antioxidants too, and the sweet taste gives you a serotonin boost when you're tired. This is the "vice" that I indulge in. :)

My preferred drink is green tea. Black is fine too. I drink lots.

I take one fish oil capsule in the evening, unless I had fish for lunch or dinner, in which case I skip it. I take one resveratrol capsule in the morning, one in the evening; there is some controversy re: this substance, but overall it still looks good; if the science changes, I'll change my habits accordingly.

I don't always drink alcohol, but when I do (sorry for the rage comics pun) I drink red wine. Mostly on social occasions.

I do strength exercises ("weight lifting") twice a week, maybe half an hour; often this is just going out to a park and doing pull-ups on a tree branch or something, then a few sets of clapping push-ups on soft ground, then one-leg squats holding on to a tree, stuff like that; the gym is nice, but it's optional. I ride the bicycle a few hours every week-end; I've a nice road bike that takes me far over the hills, towards the ocean, or wherever I wanna go. I walk every day about an hour - often I'll eat my lunch walking instead of sitting in a restaurant. When I take a break from work, I go out and walk; it's very relaxing and mind-expanding; a lot of innovative, out of the box ideas come to you when you're outdoors daydreaming.

At 182cm (6') tall, I weighed 61kg (135lb) a decade ago and I was a couch potato geek with awful eating habits. Then I started working out, changed lots of things. After a while I weighed 85kg (187lb), no fat, and I was bench pressing 100kg (220lb). Nowadays I scaled back lifting a lot, I eat less calories, I weigh somewhat less, maybe 78kg (172lb) - I don't know for sure and I don't care. The bathroom scale is full of bullsXXt, the mirror will tell you the truth. I feel I'm in great shape, and I was told I do look very much "in shape".

Sounds like a lot, but all this stuff was just a gentle, slow, very gradual change in habits over a long period of time, years really. I never forced the issues. If you take a vow and fail, so what? Tomorrow is another day. You turn around and try again. This is not a sprint, it's a decades-long marathon. Once the habits are changed, it takes no effort to keep the regimen. Nowadays my diet is the way it is because I actually like it. E.g. I developed an intense dislike for popcorn (tastes like flavored cardboard) and fast food (it's way too salty and greasy). The body gets used to exercising and it gets restless if you don't work out.

Slow gradual gentle changes, never forcing the issues, drive the habits deep into the psyche. If you feel you can't keep this up for decades to come, you're trying too hard - so scale back a notch. That's it. Good luck.

ghc2• 15 years ago

This is fantastic advice, especially for many of my fellow Americans. For me, however, I think the problem is that fruits don't fit into my lifestyle. My meals mostly consist of fish, miso, rice, seaweed, tofu and various vegetables seasonally available. Quality fresh fruit is not as readily available at reasonable prices in the winter.

I'm 6'2" and I've never weighed over 175lbs (thanks to running), so it's not an overt health issue. My deep-seated fear is that I'm doing long-term damage to my body by not eating enough fruit compared to the amount of vegetables I consume. Health guidelines almost never make it clear if there are suitable replacements for things like fruits in other food categories.

Patrick_Bateman2• 15 years ago

tl;dr: I believe in taking care of myself, and a balanced diet and a rigorous exercise routine. In the morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an ice pack while doing my stomach crunches. I can do a thousand now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial masque which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

joverholt• 15 years ago

> Sounds like a lot, but all this stuff was just a gentle, slow, very gradual change in habits over a long period of time, years really.

This is the key. I like what you've said. So many people want a quick fix, but if you are looking for a quick fix, then most likely it's temporary.

nazgulnarsil2• 15 years ago

prunes. quite high in antioxidants and as a bonus high in fiber so the glycemic load isn't too bad. also very easy to buy in bulk, they don't spoil quickly like most fruits.

Zirro• 15 years ago

I don't smoke nor drink alcohol (at all), but I can't remember the last time I had vegetables or fruit in large quantities either. Time to get some ;)

helipad• 15 years ago

This was on BBC news the other day.

Apparently eating well, drinking in moderation, not smoking and regular exercise reduce the risk of cancer.

When interviewed, man hiding under rock expressed surprise and gratitude for the update.

randallsquared• 15 years ago

eating well

I'm not sure "eating well" has the same meaning for everybody. :) Perhaps we should say "eating safely" or something.

tomjen3• 15 years ago

Not to mention reduction in heart disase, joint pain, shortness of breath and the quality of life.

Which is why so few people do it.

fauigerzigerk2• 15 years ago

Interestingly though, the article doesn't directly mention exercise. Obviously, obesity and lack of exercise are related, but I'm surprised that exercise isn't helpful in its own right. Or maybe the study or the article just didn't cover it, which I would find rather surprising as well.

hvass• 15 years ago

Related to this topic I think you might find Dr. Terry Wahls' story fascinating, she pretty much 'cured' herself from Multiple Sclerosis by adopting a 'paleo' diet. She presented her findings at the 2011 Neuroscience conference ("Effects of intensive directed nutrition, progressive exercise program and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (PDF)[1]") She also had a TED talk[2] taking us through the process of getting out of her wheelchair and the specific food she ate.

I know this immediately turns on your B.S. sensors, but she changed her lifestyle after spending hours on Pubmed doing research on nutrition's impact on the brain and specifically the mitochondria. I highly recommend the talk, it is both very informative and very moving. And there are some saddening statistics about the lack of vitamins and minerals in the American population.

[1] http://www.sfn.org/am2011/pdf/prelim/SUN_Poster_PM_v2.pdf [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc&feature=playe...

Shorel3• 15 years ago

As a Paleo eater, I'm happy to see this in the research.

(also replying as a form of bookmark)

skatenerd• 15 years ago

i wonder where in the world the "occupational hazard" number is highest, and what the number looks like

latch3• 15 years ago

What about the other 60%?

I'd argue that for, a lot of people living in developed countries, things like exposure to poor air quality should be considered a lifestyle choice.

barrkel4• 15 years ago

Such things aren't choices in any conventional sense of the word - they're package deals, and you don't get to renegotiate the package. You can live in London for the opportunities and culture, but you can't easily escape the crime and traffic pollution.

latch3• 15 years ago

I'll agree it isn't a lifestyle choice in the conventional sense of the word. But I personally think each person should individually strive to make it so. Mobility is hugely underrated. And some packages are better than others.

yummyfajitas2• 15 years ago

And it's illegal or impossible to leave London? You can't renegotiate the package, but you can always choose a different package.

_delirium4• 15 years ago

That's true, but I think that's an overlooked factor in some other "lifestyle choices" as well. For example, people who significantly reduce their alcohol consumption often report changing social groups and activities to do so, so in at least some cases it can be a package deal. I don't think there are very many choices that are completely isolated, independent from all other choices, and free of consequence on any other aspect of your life, though there's definitely a spectrum of being more or less so.

barrkel4• 15 years ago

So if these 40% of cancers were eliminated, what's the chances that the survivors would have ended up with one of the remaining 60%?

You have to die of something. What's important is years of high-quality life, rather than merely avoiding death from any specific ailment. And of course, quality is ultimately a subjective measure. All the behaviours that you must conform to, to avoid these specific deaths, may themselves detract from your quality of life.

AznHisoka2• 15 years ago

Eating healthy and exercising improves the quality of your life right now, as well as in the future. As does cutting back on alcohol, and smoking.

_delirium4• 15 years ago

That seems like it depends heavily on what you consider "quality of life". In any case, it needs a lot more data to determine (alcohol in particular seems to have both complex health effects, and complex, culture-dependent sociological/psychological effects).

I could just as easily assert the opposite: eating fewer steaks and drinking less reduces your quality of life, right now.*

* But may increase it in the future, depending on various factors.

Newgy• 15 years ago

One or two drinks a day is shown to have health benefits in other studies.

barrkel4• 15 years ago

Almost all food advertised or described as "healthy", I've found to be neutral at best, to actively unpleasant. High fibre, lots of vegetables, fruit, etc.; I actively dislike almost all of it. My favourite foods are lamb, butter, cheese and freshly baked goods, to the point that my morning ritual, before breakfast, involves a (scooter) trip to a bakery.

Similarly, I've never enjoyed exercise. I used to cycle to and from school every day, about 6 miles, fairly high intensity (due to my laziness, I'd start late). My aerobic capacity was certainly higher then; I could run for perhaps 30 minutes, where I'd hazard a guess that I'd be out of breath after 10 minutes now. I'm not overweight, have no difficulty walking, jumping, running, climbing hills etc. when I get the occasion to on vacation and such. But the thought of actively exercising fills me with weariness. Not enjoyable.

What I'm getting at is that I have a lifestyle that I massively enjoy, and it took a lot of experimentation and experience to discover the things I like best. Whether it is specifically healthy or not is secondary, by a long way, to how enjoyable it is.

litmus• 15 years ago

In more depressing news: 60% of cancers may not be due to lifestyle. The correct phrase would probably be "known lifestyle choices". But seriously, shouldn't people be surprised lifestyle only accounts for 40%. What if I rewrote the entry paragraph in the following way:

Nearly half of low intelligence diagnosed in the UK each year - over 130,000 in total - are caused by avoidable life choices including not reading, debating, or thinking about interesting problems.

Shorel3• 15 years ago

How many of the remaining cancers are colon or insulin resistance related?

melling• 15 years ago

The top comment is from a healthy smoker of 65. People always love to discuss how they or someone they know has smoked their entire life and never had a problem. I know lots of smokers who still aren't convinced of the health issues. Seems like there's still a long way to go.

ukgent2• 15 years ago

It depends on the person,

I got a nan, 96, walks to town 3 times a week, still rides her bike, been smoking 60 a day for 40 years, and recently cut back to 40. If i compare her to my other nan 86 frail and pretty much falling apart, now guess which one has had the better lifestyle? the second, very well off always comfortable.

At 96 i think she gets up to keep smoking, and if that keeps her alive then keep doing it.

isamuel• 15 years ago

This is like saying the dangerousness of Russian roulette "depends on the person," because you have a grandmother who's played a bunch of times and didn't die.

xer02• 15 years ago

Unfortunately you have to live your whole life to discover whether you're an exception or a statistic. I'll go with the statistics for my personal choices.

vijayr2• 15 years ago

60 a day, at 96 years old???!! wow, that is unbelievable

DevX101• 15 years ago

Susceptibility to lung cancer due to smoking is at least partly genetic. If you have certain variants of a specific gene (don't have time for the lit search right now), smoking won't significantly increase your chances of lung cancer.

The problem is not everyone has this gene variant, and you probably don't want to be playing Russian Roullette with your health.

itmag3• 15 years ago

Does this mean a person can potentially get tested for this, and find out that they have a free pass to smoke as much as they want?

lincolnq2• 15 years ago

OK, the gene is called CHRNA5 and it seems to be related to a nicotine receptor. Here's where I found that: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n5/abs/ng.109.html

According to that article, the SNPs in question are rs1051730 and rs8034191. 23andme tests for both.

(My results indicate that I'm at lower risk, but I'm still not going to pick up a pack of cigarettes anytime soon :)

mechanical_fish• 15 years ago

If only it were easier to find the blog comments of the 65-year-old smokers who died of lung cancer at age 57.

Lost_BiomedE• 15 years ago

A lot of the problem is that too many organisations shy away from harm reduction. They will make villains of much safer alternatives like snus or e-cigs. Many people who smoke are self-medicating. Reducing the risk to nicotine exposure from smoke exposure would go a very long way.

EricDeb• 15 years ago

What I always wondered about eating healthy is, is it the unhealthy foods on their own that is the root cause, or the fact that unhealthy eaters don't eat wholesome foods?

For example, if I eat McDonalds, but then I also eat a bunch of fruits and veggies, would that mitigate the risk?

EdiX• 15 years ago

OTOH, discounting tobacco, most cases of cancer (78%) are unrelated to lifestyle choices. I also have problems coming to terms with the idea that occupational hazards are lifestyle choices.

monochromatic• 15 years ago

With socialized medicine, these people are stealing from the state. Britain should outlaw smoking, drinking, and eating fatty foods. Two servings of vegetables per day is now compulsory, enforceable by a fine of 20 shillings.

ThomPete• 15 years ago

Or they should drop socialized medicine so that people can do whatever they want.

barrkel4• 15 years ago

Of course, people might not be able to do everything they want without socialized medicine, whether it's because they can't afford the risk, privatized medicine costs too much, etc. A liberty principle doesn't cut evenly one way or the other on this issue.

arethuza• 15 years ago

"people can do whatever they want"

People can do whatever they want in the UK when it comes to healthcare - you can go to the NHS or go private if you want. Nobody makes you go to an NHS hospital.

Of course, what you can't opt out of is the tax bill that pays for the NHS - but as the NHS is reasonably efficient I don't mind paying for it if it means that everyone in the country has access to decent health care.

_delirium4• 15 years ago

There's an interesting question about where to draw the line, but in any extant country there are individual behaviors that can increase costs for the state, which doesn't necessarily mean we should ban them. For example, in countries with a state-provided fire department, one might argue candles, propane grills, and halogen lamps should be banned. In countries with a state-provided police department, perhaps we ought to ban controversial speeches and parades that induce extra police protection (not to mention enforce a strict nighttime curfew). And in countries with state-provided pensions, perhaps we ought to make various lifespan-reducing behaviors mandatory, to discourage people from living more than their fair share of years.

noonespecial• 15 years ago

I wouldn't go that far, but it is reasonable to tax those things in order to internalize that cost to the individual. The trick is getting the politicians to spend the tax mitigating the effects instead of selling favors.

fauigerzigerk2• 15 years ago

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but don't forget that Britain is also a country with socialized pensions. Dying shortly after retirement might even reduce the overall financial burden on the public.

And this kind of financial view ignores that the whole purpose of doing something collectively is to support what the collective, on average, _wants_ to do. It makes no sense to apply some supposedly objective standard of how people should lead their lives.

eneveu• 15 years ago

Actually, smokers cost less to the state, since their lives are shortened:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-c...

mike_ivanov• 15 years ago

Reproduction is a key cause of cancer? WTF is that?

nixarn• 15 years ago

It's at least not that rare that women who get their first child after the age of 35 get breas cancer (don't quote me on this). Maybe that's what they mean.

refurb2• 15 years ago

The incidence of breast and uterine cancer is lower the more children you have.

I think the link is tentative, but pregnancy and breast feeding reduces your lifetime exposure to estrogen which can be a promoter of certain types of cancers.

pflats• 15 years ago

I have a lifestyle cancer: melanoma.

That said, I didn't realize "going outside with short hair and no hat" was a bad lifestyle choice until it was too late, so I'm posting here:

Hey fair skinned folks! Just wearing sunscreen IS NOT ENOUGH. Wear a hat if you're going to spend more than a short time outside! If you have a family history of skin cancer, ask your barber to keep an eye out for moles when you're getting your hair cut.

giardini• 15 years ago

Using sunscreen reduces the body's production of vitamin D, a potent anti-cancer agent:

http://greathealinggetaways.com/Sunscreenarticle.html

Sunscreens often contain carcinogens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_health_risks_of_sunsc...

Consequently staying indoors and using sunscreen may _increase_ your likelihood of developing cancer.

Children who avoid sunshine will get rickets, a disease that was once almost absent from the US population:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8128781/Middle-...

Nonetheless, the fair-skinned must balance their exposure carefully. Good news is that their skin produces vitamin D more efficiently than darker skin, so the fair-skinned can obtain vitamin D in a shorter exposure period (minutes a day):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-04-19-your-...

nottombrown• 15 years ago

Vitamin D deficiency is extremely common in the US. If you are going to take a single supplement, make it 1000 UI/day of D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovitaminosis_D#Cancer

That said, if you are going to spend time outside, the benefits of wearing sunscreen and a hat undoubtedly outweigh whatever risk they may induce.

dhughes• 15 years ago

I read somewhere (never can remember) wearing sunglasses fools your thymus (?) into reacting as if it's dark outside so less melanin is produced making you more likely burn.

thret• 15 years ago

My compromise is a 20-30 minute run during the day, each day. I get almost no other sunlight but I think that is enough.

itmag3• 15 years ago

I look around at my colleagues and see apparent misuse of the body. Carbs and fat for lunch every day, smoking, no exercise, sitting in a chair all day long, buckets of coffee, stress, poor posture and body alignment, doing the same shit every day, poor outlook on life, no sunshine on you during half of the year, etc. Of course this is going to wreck a person.

Yet no one seems to even be conscious of the wrongness of this.

richcollins• 15 years ago

Where is the evidence that dietary fat and coffee increase cancer risk?

itmag3• 15 years ago

It was just a remark on poor health in general.

loire280• 15 years ago

Drinking lots of coffee likely doesn't increase cancer risk, but it can be an indicator of poor sleep habits.

AznHisoka2• 15 years ago

Yup. Problem is poor health doesn't produce visibly harmful results right now, so it's hard for us to envision the long term effects.

jamesriley• 15 years ago

From the headline I expected this article to be about over working and exhaustion, a topic I'm sure many here can relate to in some way. In the authorised biography of Steve Jobs, he comments on how he believes the exhaustive hours worked in 1997 when driving back and forth between Apple and Pixar were the cause for his cancer. In a similar vein, there seems to be a higher ratio of cancer sufferers in high pressured environments like financial trading. As a developer wanting to achieve amazing things, working what others consider crazy hours, the worry does occasionally cross my mind. I love what I do, but I do wonder how much harm can be caused by over working, regardless of the fact that there's nothing else I'd rather do with my time.

Someone• 15 years ago

"Steve Jobs […] comments on how he believes the"

Steve was lots of things, but I think few would say he was an expert in medicine. For another data point with more or less the same weight: If I had to guess, I would blame his stay in India, in particular the hepatitis he reportedly got there. I know that is an unverifiable statement, and am willing to change position once a fact presents itself, though.

"there seems to be a higher ratio of cancer sufferers in high pressured environments like financial trading"

Believes aren' worth anything here. Show me the numbers. For what it is worth (zero), I would guess on lower incidence, due to higher risks of heart attacks and of accidents with fast cars, all others being equal.

Summary: nothing to worry about, there, except for your own worries.

known• 15 years ago

Eating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turmeric powder will prevent cancer.

Florin_Andrei2• 15 years ago

Lots of spices do that. Cinnamon is pretty good too. Ginger. Horseradish. Garlic. Goes on and on.

hyko• 15 years ago

Go easy on the cassia cinnamon though - it contains coumarin, which is a known hepatotoxin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin#Toxicity_and_use_in_fo...

herbivore• 15 years ago

While the study did consider fruits and veggies, it did not account for factory farmed meat and dairy consumption, genetically modified foods, animal protein intake, food dyes, cell towers, etc. In 20 years from now we might finally realize that genes alone play a very small role in development of cancer cells. Time will tell.

mgh2• 15 years ago

I don't get one thing, which is by luck...Steve Jobs died of cancer...and he was vegetarian

Shorel3• 15 years ago

May be this is related:

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-s...

adrianN• 15 years ago

That's not how statistics work.

jimmeh2• 15 years ago

The thing that I dislike about cancer reporting (and don't get me wrong I'm all for improving ones lifestyle through better nutrition, exercise and social engagement) is that cancer is fundamentally different from a disease like the flu. If 40% of all flu cases were caused my lifestyle then it would be reasonable to say that you could change your lifestyle and dramatically cut down on the number of flu cases. But cancer is a disease of old age. Basically all of us are going to die and the long you live the more likely it is that you'll die of cancer, if not of the esophagus, then of the stomach, if not of the stomach then brain cancer, or pancreas cancer. So a healthy life style on average will delay the onset of cancer, but will by no means reduce the like-hood that you'll get cancer in your lifetime by 40%. Actually it probably has the perverse effect of making you much more resistant to cardiovascular decease, and therefor MORE likely to die of cancer, albeit at a more advanced age than you would have otherwise.

araneae2• 15 years ago

Does anyone know why there's a little thumbnail of "reproduction" there?

My understanding is that in women, a lack of reproduction causes cancer. Basically, each period you have adds to your risk of breast cancer. Did the BBC just get it wrong or is there something I'm missing?

hs2• 15 years ago

i find it interesting that 'meat' is not written (thus not searchable) in the main article (it's down there in 'key causes of cancer' as icon)

FTA (scroll down): Colorectal / Bowel : meat 21.1%, obesity 13%, lack-of-fibre 12.2%

it's not surprising meat and lack-of-fibre are correlated (meat contains no fibre)

hs2• 15 years ago

there is trend in the 'key cause of cancer' down in the article, throat and colon cancer follow power distribution, while breat cancer kinda follows uniform dist

for breast cancer: the highest offender = obesity is 8.7%, only a multiple of two to the mean <4%

to me it only means that the cause of throat and colon cancer is relatively known (smoke and meat) while it's gray area for breast cancer

smoke -> throat kinda makes sense meat -> bowel? (turns out meat contains no fiber, and lack of fiber accounts for 12.2% so lumping meat and lack of fiber equal a whopping 33.3%) ... makes sense?

Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

Related Stories