Hate these studies. They’re always just based on correlations, and ignores the elephant in the room: class. How wealthy you are, how wealthy the area you live in, those factors have the highest impact on health outcomes, but the mainstream media (which is owned by the ruling class) will never be honest about that. So they just find correlations that let them blame poor people for having shitty diets.
the people run the studies are rich, and thin, and healthy.
Elephants are much likier to get cancer than your room. How wealthy you are doesn’t matter. The elephant will die, and It will bring the room down on you.
It’s science.
More you = more of you that can mutate.
You hate these studies because they don’t specifically endorse your world view?
Most of the time, these studies are looking for the mechanical causes of the problem, not the socio-economic conditions that led to those mechanisms being present. So if smoking or getting fat increases cancer risk, that will be true regardless of what’s in your bank account.
Also, these are cancer researchers. Dealing with the structural poverty that leads to the adverse health outcomes is way outside their expertise.
Without doxing myself, I have expertise in this topic. It’s not a matter of my world view, it’s a matter of science and communication.
It is very unlikely that human adiposity leads to increased cancer risk directly. It is correlational, not causational. Human adiposity itself, isolated from compounding factors, has a complex relationship with health outcomes, and not at all the linear correlation where more fat = more bad that the mainstream likes to pretend.
We know that certain foods, particularly animal products, especially cheaper animal products, lead to cancers, heart disease, etc. This is most likely explanation for the results in this study. But yet again we have yet another study uselessly pointing out a correlation which is unhelpful for actually solving public health issues and continues to encourage the passing of the blame to those in society who have the least responsibility for their situation.
We know that certain foods, particularly animal products, especially cheaper animal products, lead to cancers, heart disease, etc.
It’s very very difficult to get obese on a well balanced healthy diet composed of mostly vegetables.
But yet again we have yet another study uselessly pointing out a correlation which is unhelpful for actually solving public health issues
What do you mean? This is very helpful. It says that if you want to reduce cancer incidence, you should work to decrease obesity. If we only did science that produced direct results that require zero political action to be effective, no science would get done.
Besides, its not as if it’s a giant mystery what causes the obesity epidemic, it’s just that undoing that would mean some massive regulation in the food industry, changes to zoning, increases in public funding and a dozen other areas, and other things that aren’t a mystery, but are very politically unpopular.
continues to encourage the passing of the blame to those in society who have the least responsibility for their situation.
The paper absolutely does not say “Don’t want cancer? Don’t be a fatty!”. The article does do, but that’s not the fault of the researchers.
Does visceral fat not produce inflammatory substances, which might be a cause for some problems - potentially including a higher risk for cancer?
Maybe I’ve read misleding articles. I hope you have some info about that.Plus more biomass = more chances of something getting cancer in there somewhere.
That’s way too simplistic. Cancers rarely develop in the actual subcutaneous or intra-abdominal fat tissue which is what obese people have too much of.
Sarcomas comprise a heterogeneous group of rare neoplasms that develop from bone and soft tissue. With an incidence of ~7 per 100,000 people, they account for 1% of adult cancer diagnoses […] Liposarcomas (LSs) are rare mesenchymal soft-tissue sarcomas that are thought to arise from cells in the lipocyte lineages in soft tissues. LSs account for ~13–20% of all soft-tissue sarcomas.
Their organs aren’t any bigger, except for maybe the steatotic liver, so no it is definitively not a case of more tissue to develop cancer in.
Their organs aren’t any bigger, except for maybe the steatotic liver
And the skin
Yes, but the big difference isn’t in skin cancer either
Body mass index and risk of over 100 cancer forms and subtypes in 4.1 million individuals in Sweden: the Obesity and Disease Development Sweden (ODDS) pooled cohort study https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00201-1/fulltext
None 👏 of this 👏 shit matters 👏 if food 👏is unaffordable👏 and healthcare 👏 bankrupts your 👏 household.
Eating less 👏 always costs 👏 less than 👏 eating more.
Does this make the point more clearly? I think it looks pretty dumb, but you do you.
The organic food industry has done great damage to Western society by making people think you need to buy fresh organic food to eat healthy, when canned/jarred/frozen conventional food is absolutely fine as well, for a fraction of the cost.
Yes, you will need to spend some time preparing it, unlike fastfood. But it’s MUCH cheaper, less calorie dense and contains more micronutrients.
I just want fruit with actual flavor that makes me want to eat it than the tasteless shit we get now in the US
I stopped worrying about stuff like this ages ago once I realised I’m never getting out of life alive.
i’m kinda convinced that obesity is mostly caused from some obscure and poorly-understood mental health condition. i remember reading that people who are depressed have a much higher rate of drug abuse. well, that might seem obvious. but excessive eating can be seen as a drug as well. it’s not healthy, people do it as a coping mechanism. so it’s really more like bad mental health -> excessive eating -> sickness, but it’s more the bad mental health that causes it all and not so much the excessive eating itself. like, if you were mentally healthy but still ate a lot, then the eating wouldn’t hurt you so much. it’s really more the mental health issues, i suspect, though it’s difficult to study that because the mental health issues aren’t really measurable so well. they’re deep inside.
Anything that triggers the reward pathways in your brain has at least some addictive potential and eating is no exception. Not all foods are created equal, either - adding ex. sugar boosts the reward and makes the food more addictive. Now many foods have huge amounts of added sugars for the sake of preserving shelf life and getting recurrent customers, that sort of thing increases the power of the reward. Over time you become habituated to it though so you can’t get quite the same good feeling with the same amount you ate before - you have to eat even more to get there.
It’s certainly a weaker effect than in drugs, but unlike them EVERYONE has to eat food to survive and over their entire life. There’s a lot of money to be made by enhancing the addictive potential of food so many efforts have been made towards that over time, plus as the obesity rate has risen and people eat more cultural expectations around food on portion size and the like have also been increasing. When I cut weight some years ago after getting overweight and almost at the edge of obesity some of my coworkers were wondering why I was bothering to do so because in their eyes I was a relatively skinny guy, even though I was 197 lbs.
Who would have thought that getting fat would lead to adverse health outcomes?
/s (just in case people miss it)
