Each 2-2.5 st weight increase linked to cancer risk increase. AIBU to think those of us who can have a duty to lose weight?

[LapsedTwentysomething]

And by that, I mean most of us. I have PCOS am 2.5st above the highest point of my healthy weight range. PCOS makes weight gain spectacularly easy and loss more difficult but I'm also a comfort eater and can address this. I just choose to make excuses.

Link here. This particularly caught my attention: 'each 13-16kg (2-2.5 stone) of extra weight an average adult gained was linked firmly and linearly to a greater risk of six cancers'. My mum was diagnosed with one of the cancers listed at an advanced stage last year. She has never been overweight. What the fuck am I doing to myself / my DCs / DP / the NHS?

AIBU to think this is actually quite stark, and it's imperative that those if us who need to and can lose weight should just Get On With It? I know this stuff isn't new but those links are clearee than ever.

No they don't. They say calcium has lowered some cancer's, of course this is found in many foods. Very misleading!

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-milk-cause-cancer

That's an environmental factor though suziepra.

It is not about being right or wrong, it is that nobody knows for sure.

I've read the China Study, I've read Jane Plant's book about dairy, I've read hundreds of studies and I have come to the conclusion that yes eating a healthy diet helps but there are so many other factors that come in to play.

I read that report firesidechat, that dairy is protective against some cancers.

Just for the record, I have no intention of cancer bashing.

I don't really understand how knowing that there are specific risks and taking mitigating action leads to blame culture. I am also painfully aware that often there are no obvious causes.

However given that my DM has one of the cancers listed and I am 2.5st overweight (minimum) I would be pig ignorant not to recognise that I have an obligation to myself and my family to do something about it. I could very well still end up in the same boat, ie with a cancer undiagnosed until it was very advanced, but I would know that I'd attempted to act on what I knew and had also improved my general health in the hope of responding well to surgery.

On the other hand, if I continue as I am, in the full knowledge that I could at least attempt to protect myself, yes I would then feel regretful that I hadn't tried. That doesn't amount to the same as blaming myself, surely?

Exactly no body knows but there is a strong link between cancer and diet. Therefore cancer isn't totally random and you can reduce your risk.

It's like car crashes. Some of them will be caused by other people. Some by freak weather conditions or mechanical failures or a deer running in front of you.

But the lifestyle/cancer link is equivalent to the driving style/road accident link. It's one major factor. And the only one you can actively mitigate against.

That had occurred to me too, stinkingbishop.

You can reduce your chance of being in the 30% bracket of cancers that are caused by lifestyle yes. Of course we should all be doing this. I did this.

That still leaves 70% of all cancers that are not caused by diet. That you or anybody else who leads a healthy lifestyle could be affected by.

The percentages of cancer that are lifestyle related varies a lot. Some say 10%, others say 95%. 80% seems to be the value in trend at the moment.

'The value in trend' what? Just provide the link!

Dairy makes my nose run and I feel awful. Wheat is the same. It is easy to avoid them and clearly my own body hates them so it's dead easy for me to avoid them.

" Dr. Davis
Visceral fat, on the other hand, is metabolically active. It produces large quantities of inflammatory signals ("cytokines"), such as various interleukins, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor, that can trigger inflammatory responses in other parts of the body. Visceral fat also oddly fails to produce the protective cytokine, adiponectin, that protects us from diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.
It follows logically that foods that increase blood glucose the most will thereby trigger the greatest increase in visceral fat. Eggs don't lead to visceral fat, nor do salmon, olive oil, beef, broccoli, or almonds. But wheat, cornstarch, potato starch, rice starch, tapioca starch, and sugars will all trigger glucose-insulin that leads to visceral fat accumulation.
Fructose is also an extravagant trigger of visceral fat. Fructose is found in sucrose (50% fructose), high-fructose corn syrup, agave syrup, maple syrup, and honey.
Increased visceral fat can be suggested by increased waist circumference. The inflammatory hotbed created by excess visceral fat has therefore been associated with increased likelihood of heart attack, cardiovascular mortality, diabetes, cancer, and total mortality.

Green vegetables are the best foods on earth. They reduce risk for cancer, diabetes, bone disease, and coronary heart disease.

Recall that the innocent appearing wheat belly is actually a hotbed of inflammatory activity beneath the surface. The visceral fat of the wheat belly, i.e., fat kidneys, fat liver, fat intestines, fat pancreas, produces abnormal inflammatory signals, such as various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and leptin. These are the inflammatory signals that create insulin resistance and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer.

Visceral fat also, oddly, triggers estrogen release. Estrogen triggers growth of breast tissue. That's why females with wheat bellies have up to four-fold (400%) greater likelihood of breast cancer."

heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search?q=cancer

Oh wow. Thanks for that , I eat salmon , broccoli, eggs, loads of veg. Got any other ideas? I definitely don't have a wheat belly.

Are you just pointing out what a healthy diet looks like? I think most of us know.

There was another (now banned) poster called Suzie who was tactless as hell in threads about cancer and had a bee in her bonnet about diary. Interesting!

suzie I refuse to take you seriously until you produce a decent piece of research that says 80% is a medically sound figure for identifiable risk. I've asked you 3 times already.

Some say 10%, others say 95%. 80% seems to be the value in trend at the moment.

Very scientifically sound.

That figures MyFairyKing.

Suzie is giving off "I have an agenda" vibes from a 10 mile radius.

Dairy not diary! Or wheat, whatever.

Stupid. This thread is the equivalent of someone saying 'omg if you cross the road you have a 30% higher chance of being ran over than if you don't cross the road'
Quite the revelation

Delatron I've lost count of the well-meaning friends who told me that my DS, diagnosed with cancer at just turned 3, got it due to diet or simply because he wasn't happy enough.

Good grief, Trazzletoes. No court in the world would convict you if you just punched the stupid bastards.

Some people consider life not worth living if they have to quit the things they love though. Those things may be smoking, drinking, drugs, food... They know it isn't good for them but quite frankly they don't care.

My DSF had meat with every single meal every single day. For him life wasn't worth living without his meat. He was astonished that anyone would want to be vegetarian/vegan and regularly told DH and I to "eat some bloody meat" in a jokey tone but half serious. He had a massive heart attack and died aged 50. It was directly linked to his fatty diet of course but I think if he'd had to quit it he'd rather be dead.

I can sort of understand the logic. You're going to die regardless and you're only attempting to extend your life by not smoking, drinking, eating healthy, keeping fit etc. we all know of people who were fighting fit but still died young, suddenly, got cancer etc. Death happens to us all and I guess they'd rather die doing what they love. It's totally selfish though for the sake of their loved ones and the NHS who has to foot the bill for any possible illnesses. Swings and roundabouts but I can see both sides.

Oh trazzletoes. How unbelievably stupid and crass of them. Shocking behaviour. I guess you know you your friends are in times like this.

I am fairly sure that statistically the biggest cancer 'risk' is age , the older you get the more chance you have of developing it , not sure how we can all address that particular risk ?

I get this with my mum's dementia too, 'oh she should have learned a foreign language/played the piano/written a novel, that would have kept her brain active and she would not have got dementia' my Mum spoke three languages and was president of the local history society. She lived a full life until her brain started shrinking for no apparent reason that the doctors have been able to identify. Yet still we get these hurtful comments that somehow an active brain does not get affected. Tell that to Iris Murdoch. Sometimes shit does just happen, and no one should be blamed.

I personally believe most of us know a healthy diet is low fat, low sugar, low salt and eat only as much energy as you need (in the most basic terms).

We know the risks to health, we know that obesity isn't attractive, we live with the reduced quality of life and irritations being larger causes, we want what's best for our children.

Which begs the question:

If we mostly know what we should be doing for a healthy lifestyle, why aren't we doing it so that there is a fiancé on diets?

*reliance on diets