Is the point of life just to avoid getting cancer?

[BRUTE]

It's why I dislike the 'latte factor' concept so much. Not only is a daily latte insignificant to most budgets, I think it gives people the false impression they are making an appreciable difference in their situation when they are not. WRT health, consuming a daily smoothie full of superfoods and fish oil won't offset an otherwise sedentary lifestyle.

I'm not saying to ignore the small things, but they should be viewed as 'fine tuning' which implies that the bigger items have been addressed first and that expected results will be small adjustments mostly to satisfy the personal desires of the individual.

but if jennypenny looks at the biggest impact on life-long health and longevity, the things mentioned by brute and Ego (and maybe others) are the big factors. like mentioned, statistically, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and alzheimers are the biggest killers as well as the biggest negative influencers of quality of life.

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: I'm just pleased to know I'm not the only one who's addicted to optimizing.

lol- The frustrating thing about participating in this thread is the debate on matters not yet fully revealed by science. The embarrassing thing about participating in this thread is the mess we (myself very much included, Jacob not included) are making of math and science we could know. I suggest that, at the very least, we should all pick up or download a copy of "Risk Analysis in Theory and Practice" by Jean-Paul Chavas, "A First Course in Optimization Theory" by Sundaram, and "Statistical Inference" by Casella before we reconvene for further discussion of this topic.

[enigmaT120]

Scott Adams says most of us think we are rational, but most of us are wrong.

[BRUTE]

rational is a meaningless word without context.

[Ego]

Since HIV doesn't really kill like it used to and the transmission risk is relatively low, I find it interesting how some of you are singing a different tune with regard to wearing a condom vs avoiding unhealthy habits that contribute to cancer.

Both have clear prevention techniques (see below) and failure rates, but the risk of cancer is astronomically higher than HIV. Both techniques have costs that involve self-control and diminished pleasure. Is it easier to tell someone else to wear a condom than it is to substitute a green smootie for a vodka tonic?

Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

PREVENTION OF CANCER

The fact that only 5–10% of all cancer cases are due to genetic defects and that the remaining 90–95% are due to environment and lifestyle provides major opportunities for preventing cancer. Because tobacco, diet, infection, obesity, and other factors contribute approximately 25–30%, 30–35%, 15–20%, 10–20%, and 10–15%, respectively, to the incidence of all cancer deaths in the USA, it is clear how we can prevent cancer.

The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc. Therefore, cancer prevention requires smoking cessation, increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol, caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to sunlight, minimal meat consumption, use of whole grains, use of vaccinations, and regular check-ups.

[BRUTE]

Is it easier to tell someone else to wear a condom than it is to substitute a green smootie for a vodka tonic?

other examples brute can think of:
- wearing a seatbelt
- wearing a helmet
- looking left and right before crossing the street
- locking the door before leaving the house
- cooking food (unlikely that any one piece will have salmonella)

all these things are very unlikely to make a difference in a single case. but if done several times every day, chances start adding up.

[jennypenny]

Is it easier to tell someone else to wear a condom than it is to substitute a green smoothie for a vodka tonic?

Don't condoms play a much bigger role in transmission rates though? One smoothie isn't going to save someone's life, but one condom might.

Besides, it's not just about HIV. Some STDs can cause cancer.

[Dragline]

Is it easier to tell someone else to wear a condom than it is to substitute a green smoothie for a vodka tonic?

Don't condoms play a much bigger role in transmission rates though? One smoothie isn't going to save someone's life, but one condom might.

Besides, it's not just about HIV. Some STDs can cause cancer.

This is a good illustration of the difference between a simple system model and a complex adaptive system model, which was the underlying point of my original posts.

In simple systems, individual outcomes are immediate and easy to predict -- the cause/effect chain is clear and obvious. They also scale up to large populations. In complex adaptive systems, individual outcomes are virtually impossible to predict and you only see the emergent properties and probability distributions in large populations.

@Ego -- your cancer prevention statistics reveal exactly the same thing. First, they only hold true when applied to large populations. Second, you can reverse the numbers (i.e., subtract from 100%) and see that some people are going to get it no matter what they do. The article's conclusion "we can prevent cancer" is an innumerate misinterpretation of these figures. The only conclusions that can be drawn are: we can reduce the incidence of cancer as measured in large populations; and that while individuals can reduce most of their risks with a few simple lifestyle changes, the risks cannot be eliminated (which gets you to the diminishing marginal returns of "positive" behaviors).

Thanks for proving my point.

[7Wannabe5]

Condom use is different than alcohol abstinence because you might be directly influencing the health of another person. I am not very fear motivated, but I am overly quilt motivated, so I err on the side of safety most in realms of direct influence. For instance, I did not get my license to operate a motor vehicle until quite an advanced age because I believed I might cause an accident while day-dreaming. The spread of HPV and herpes are not prevented by condom use. So, I make my potential partners shave, apply a reactive purple ointment, and then present themselves for inspection under a special range lighting system, before signing a document absolving me from all possible liability. Also, whenever one of them offers me an ice cream cone or a drink, I say "Are you trying to make me obese, and die of cancer?" I have also special ordered a quantity of gloves and face masks to use this autumn when I return to the task of educating the germ-laden youth recently immigrated from many lands.

I wonder if the inability to properly metabolize sugar is related to weak metabolic and digestive system functioning, like the inability to clear infections is related to weak immune system functioning? I seem to have no difficulty with metabolizing sugar or any other foodstuff commonly consumed by humans, and I also have a cast-iron digestive system. Sometimes I get the impression that the people who are the most concerned with nutrition, like Dr. Kellogg the inventor of the concept of nutritious cereals whose museum I have visited a few times, are people who were born with a greater tendency towards constipation or irritable bowel syndrome or other such maladies.

[Ego]

Is it easier to tell someone else to wear a condom than it is to substitute a green smoothie for a vodka tonic?

The article's conclusion "we can prevent cancer" is an innumerate misinterpretation of these figures.

A dozen cancer experts concluded that "we can prevent cancer" and dragline decides that their conclusion is an "innumerate misinterpretation".

The OP quoted the study that alcohol causes certain cancers. Don't drink alcohol and your likelihood of contracting those cancers plummets. Individually. It works in exactly the same way that wearing a condom causes the likelihood of contracting HIV to plummet.

Alcohol related cancer are a (relatively) huge lifetime risk for any one teenager today when compared to HIV/AIDS.

Yet you sip your drink while you tell others to wear condoms. Who here is always saying, "DO BOTH"?

Motivated reasoning.

[GandK]

... I am overly quilt motivated...

Probably not a Freudian slip as much as a finger slip, but it looks enough like one that I LOLed.

This thread is otherwise giving me a headache.

[7Wannabe5]

@GandK: Egads, true on so many levels. (insert laughing at chagrined self emoticon) Co-sign on the headache. More coffee anyone?

[7Wannabe5]

@ffj: Absolutely agree. In fact, it is likely that my flavor of hedging has a lot to do with my take on death and disability. I believe that when I die the energy in my body will join the white light of the universe and that will feel sort of good, but then that will be it for me, and I absolutely will choose to assertively render myself into compost rather than wallowing about in state of severe disability. I admired the practice of Maude in "Harold and Maude", but I think 80 is a bit too early. I'm shooting for 92 or "can't squat to pee, comprehend to read, or enjoy a cup of coffee", which ever comes first. Sadly, I fear it may be necessary to give up the "quilting" at 85. So, 7 skins down. 7 skins to go. Then out I go to the worm farm!!

[jennypenny]

I'm curious why this thread is giving people headaches?

I understand wanting to know how to get the most bang for your buck wrt cancer prevention. And we're an extreme group that's willing to consider non-traditional methods. I've had the ubiome test done to learn more about myself and I'm experimenting with other things right now.

But like I said, I think it's important to avoid acting out of fear, and it's important to evaluate any changes from a holistic perspective and not just from a cancer-prevention perspective.

[BRUTE]

It's about moderation and hedging your bets for most people. Becoming fanatical about anything in life diminishes the quality, at least for me.

brute absolutely disagrees. moderation is a meaningless word, and hedging bets in a world where many things are bad for human health is ensuring catching at last some of them. diversification might be cool in a context of uncertainty, but there's a lot more certainty in nutrition than in the stock market.

[7Wannabe5]

The uptick in headaches may be purely correlative, but I think that is about as likely as my excess butt fat causing me to suffer a cardiac infarction.

[GandK]

I'm curious why this thread is giving people headaches?

Because I perceive (perhaps wrongly) that we've moved past the meaningful exchange of facts, ideas and personal experience on the subject, and are now quibbling over unprovable minutiae and over whose expert is bigger.

Edit: this may just be me being snippy. I have trouble parsing "health" info such as this when I can't relate it to improving people's lives.

[Dragline]

A dozen cancer experts concluded that "we can prevent cancer" and dragline decides that their conclusion is an "innumerate misinterpretation".

The OP quoted the study that alcohol causes certain cancers. Don't drink alcohol and your likelihood of contracting those cancers plummets. Individually. It works in exactly the same way that wearing a condom causes the likelihood of contracting HIV to plummet.

Alcohol related cancer are a (relatively) huge lifetime risk for any one teenager today when compared to HIV/AIDS.

Yet you sip your drink while you tell others to wear condoms. Who here is always saying, "DO BOTH"?

Motivated reasoning.

Um, no, I actually read the article. Correct me if I am wrong, but it does not say "don't drink alcohol" or "cease alcohol consumption". As to alcohol, the specific recommendation from the abstract is that "cancer prevention requires . . . moderate use of alcohol", along with consuming a number of other substances, exercising, caloric restriction and not smoking. This is probably because the data in the alcohol section suggests that chronic drinking of amounts such as 50-70 grams of alcohol per day (about 4-6 drinks per day) has been shown to increase the prevalence of certain forms of cancer.

Let me know if you read that differently or I misquoted it.

You'll also see that only 60-70% at the maximum of cancers can be attributed to diet and tobacco (see the conclusion), leaving the remainder attributed to exercise, infections, genetics, radiation and many other environmental things like chlorinated water.

[enigmaT120]

I wonder if the inability to properly metabolize sugar is related to weak metabolic and digestive system functioning, like the inability to clear infections is related to weak immune system functioning? I seem to have no difficulty with metabolizing sugar or any other foodstuff commonly consumed by humans, and I also have a cast-iron digestive system. Sometimes I get the impression that the people who are the most concerned with nutrition, like Dr. Kellogg the inventor of the concept of nutritious cereals whose museum I have visited a few times, are people who were born with a greater tendency towards constipation or irritable bowel syndrome or other such maladies.

I think you are correct (though you were wondering, not stating as fact). Do you get hyper when you eat a lot of sugar? Do you get light headed or weak if you go more than a few hours without eating? Either way, I think there's something wrong.

I don't mind hedging my bets in life somewhat. I bicycle out on rural back roads, 55 mph speed limits but usually not much traffic. I wear a high-viz shirt, and run two very bright rear blinkies and a steady tail light, even when riding in the daytime, as stuff like that (mostly the lights) are what are very visible to me from a long distance when I've driving. I don't think my practices will stop somebody from running me down from behind, telling the cop "I didn't see him!" and at worse, having his insurance rates go up. But I think my odds are better than if I wore non-contrasting clothing and didn't have the lights.

The problem with all the worry about what increases cancer risk is the whole thing is out of perspective. I didn't see any numbers to compare the risk of drinking alcohol (cancer, not to mention other potential problems) with the risk of taking a bath or driving a car. And as a motorcyclist, I've defined my tolerance for risk as pretty high. Unlike Brute, I don't ride sport bikes (well, a 1970 Triumph Bonneville is one, but nothing like modern ones) but I ride slow bikes fast. People seem to get hung up on certain things in their lives whilst ignoring elephants.

[7Wannabe5]

enigmaT120 said: I think you are correct (though you were wondering, not stating as fact). Do you get hyper when you eat a lot of sugar? Do you get light headed or weak if you go more than a few hours without eating? Either way, I think there's something wrong.

I was thinking about my recent experiment with living off the land (slow starvation level calorie intake) which was shortly followed with ingestion of a large plate of pancakes with butter and syrup. I felt great after eating those pancakes, and while I was eating them my primal being was chanting 'Mmmm...good food. Good food. " I generally seem to crave all varieties of food, and pretty much in alignment with the extent to which I haven't ingested them lately. Maybe not all human beings are meant to be widely omnivorous scavengers, but it seems to me that's how I function. I think there are maybe 3 things other people eat that I can't or won't eat, and those are peanuts, chitlins and gorilla hands. I rationally know that other people are sometimes trying to make intelligent decisions about what they eat, but they sometimes just seem like they are being peevish to me. Like I wouldn't want to be stuck in a hut with them in the end times because they would rather die than eat a pig or a Pop-tart.