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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s very very difficult to get obese on a well balanced healthy diet composed of mostly vegetables.
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.
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.
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.
And the skin
Yes, but the big difference isn’t in skin cancer either