Sure, eventually. It's one thing if people are getting cancer or having heart attacks later in life. It's a little concerning when a fairly large number of younger people are afflicted. The rate of cancer has risen about 30% for young people since the seventies. So it seems that there's something wrong in our environment or lifestyles that could be increasing risk. That's very concerning in my opinion.
And on the subject of dying from a heart attack in one's 20s. That's "significant", but 1 in 100,000 is pretty rare. Some could be congenital or obesity related, but the majority in that age group is due to substance abuse. That's a factor people can control, and thus not as scary to most people.
Yes, and what is contributing to obesity? Are there environmental factors affecting androgenic functions? Is it all just people being sedentary over eaters? Or something else?
- micro plastic everywhere, water, food, ground. Majority of American women breastfeed their children with their own milk containing plastic
- cancerous substances from cars exhaustion, cigarettes and such going inside people every day of their lives
- toxic and cancerous chemicals used for processing foods and drinks
we are breathing, drinking, eating and staying in contact with cancerous substances 24/h day. I'm surprised the human body is so resilient and we don't have 80% of under 40s with cancer tbh
the fix is to:
- stop burning fossil fuels
- stop producing and releasing in the environment plastic and toxic waste
- switch to a sustainable diet and ditch intensive farms using chemicals to boost production
the technology is here but it would require the innovation of many industries, and without governments pushing for it a profit driven industry obviously wouldn't never change
Then you have to add the mental and physical health that is going down the drain. Lonely and depressed people stuck in bad jobs that can't have a decent life. Suburban sprawl, car-centric urbanism, alienation and isolation of communities and such
Yeah. I remember seeing WHO estimates that the world can support 8-12 billion with an expected peak around 11 billion. These figures use conventional agriculture and even assumes some advances. That's why I was wondering how many people we can sustainably support. I don't think I've ever heard of a report that looks at it that way.
New information is coming out that seems to imply that the content of the fats we eat have effects on the body. Unsaturated fats seem to be obesogenic and interfere with the body's satiation mechanism, increasing the amount of white fat and decreasing the amount of brown fat (which is more metabolically active and may be the kind of fat that is lost first when people start dieting, which would explain part of the yo-yo dieting lose a lot of weight and then get stuck and gain more back system that plagues the obese), and the American food purity aesthetic has been pushing for the elimination of saturated fats from the diet as they typically come from animal sources.
Once the body hits a tipping point with excess white body fat, the fat becomes a sort of parasite which gets preferential treatment in consuming calories and nutritional resources out of the bloodstream, starving the organs while the body is bathing in an abundance of calories and nutrition.
If this turns out to be the whole story it is really quite insidious!
I don't know of a single-prong approach to solving this issue. Maybe wegovy will come down in price and help people break the cycle, maybe keto is the way to go, intermittent fasting may be helpful, finding saturated fats or supplementing with stearic acids and eliminating antioxidants to help promote fat oxidization... The list goes on for potential cures and we still haven't even begun work on solidifying the direct cause of the disease.
And yes, obesity is a disease. It's not just lazy people shoveling doritos in their faces and reaping their just rewards. The foods that we are provided are not balanced nutritionally and they have been designed by food scientists to not trigger the satiation mechanism so that we will consume more of them.
So yeah, when you eat processed foods your brain is tricked into thinking one more bite will satisfy, but the satisfaction never comes. Then you overindulge, getting lots of fast carbs and unsaturated fats, your body produces insulin, the calories get converted into white fat, the white fat grows, eventually becoming a parasite that eats your food first while you still haven't dealt with the initial issue, you become obese and since your white fat gets to eat first every time you eat you become more fat before your organs and muscles get the leftovers.
That's positively devilish, and right now the solution seems to be to intermittent fast so that your other organs get moved ahead in the nutritional priority list, to eat keto so that your body begins rapidly oxidizing fat, to limit vitamin C and other antioxidants until you get closer to your goal weight to limit your body fat's resistance to oxidization, and to supplement your diet with chemicals that help your body bypass the labyrinth of obesity you've found yourself in.
And despite all of that, we still don't know the full story.
> Once the body hits a tipping point with excess white body fat, the fat becomes a sort of parasite which gets preferential treatment in consuming calories and nutritional resources out of the bloodstream, starving the organs while the body is bathing in an abundance of calories and nutrition.
Also read that fat cells don't really get destroyed, just get deflated. It really does act like a parasite.
Simultaneously, full body liposuction doesn't seem to decrease the likelihood that formerly obese people will put the weight back on, either, but that may be due to not solving for the fundamental nutritional or dietary issue that caused the obesity in the first place.
I know some of that may be due to the idea that you 'beat' obesity and so you get lax with yourself. At the same time, something is blatantly, horribly wrong with the food that is available when it causes obese people have to satiate their fat before their own organs are allowed to eat.
Not only that but our diets can cause someone who has literally cut pounds of deflated body fat cells out of their bodies to grow it back in a matter of years. That's insane, that's the kind of stuff that makes me think of Famine in Good Omens. In the book, Famine ran a food company that fed millions of people but the food had no nutritional quality, indistinguishable from "real" food but surgically designed to be entirely made of empty calories and grease and salt so that his victims could eat until their stomachs burst, grow fat and miserable and hate their own bodies and ultimately starve to death if their hearts didn't give out first.
This blog spent a bunch of time trying to answer that question, and specifically to figure out which environmental factors might be causing the effect. They looked at lithium, PFAS, antibiotic contamination and a few other candidates.
This is definitely not peer-reviewed research so please don't take it too seriously, but I came away convinced that there is more going on here than "people suddenly started eating too much and being lazy in the 1970s": http://achemicalhunger.com/
We already know the key contributor: we eat enormously more sugar now than our parents did, and enormously less saturated fat.
Now that we know, with certainty, what a disastrous choice this was, it will take time to switch back. Most people are still convinced saturated fat is the bugaboo it has been painted as, and that sugar is A-OK, and government policy is still overwhelmingly directed that way.
What can be done with half the US maize crop (of what is left over after 1/3 has been diverted to make into alcohol to add to gasoline, enriching Archer Daniels Midland at taxpayer expense) when it is no longer enzymatically converted to sugar is an open question. Does the world want that much maize?
The main point the blog makes is that there's a huge discontinuity in the 1970s that doesn't seem to be explained by diet. And it occurs in other countries as well, though often with a delay.
My personal guess is that there are multiple causes. Different people are affected differently by the same thing. If we have pervasive exposure to numerous things that have (unproven) theories behind them, it would be hard to identify any given one due to the noise and long duration (epigenetic especially) that might be required to manifest rhetoric end result.
There's so much we've learned over the past century, and yet it feels like know almost nothing when we try to dig into complicated life science topics.
> The rate of cancer has risen about 30% for young people since the seventies. So it seems that there's something wrong in our environment or lifestyles that could be increasing risk. One would do well to read the research (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...) from which that widely quoted 30% figure comes. It does not suggest any simple conclusion as to what is causing the increase. Rather, it paints a very complex picture, with likely very different causes for increases in different cancers, and also documents significant decreases in certain cancers. Among the three categories of causes for increases listed, increased detection is prominent.
Note also that the study is a retrospective study, and comes with all the statistical cautions that are inherent in that methodology.
"It does not suggest any simple conclusion as to what is causing the increase."
Nor did I. Environmental and lifestyle factors are a huge domain covering vastly complex interconnected systems, many of which we know almost nothing about. We're just now starting to look at epigenetic effects now. How many substances are we exposed to that can cause issues in the next generation when a large number of things we're exposed to have only been tested for short or medium term exposure, or simply not tested at all.
Although, anecdotally, it feels like the bulk of changes out side of tobacco is focused on cure research and not as much on preventing environmental factors. Perhaps that's mostly that cures make for good news and restrictions on using certain products or chemicals are viewed as draconian (especially with things widely loved or used like alcohol).
Yeah, but I would be more interested in the other two stated causes - environmental and lifestyle factors. These would contribute to a net increase and/or earlier onset.
The more likely explanation for rising cancer rates for young people are: better detection, and other diseases/causes of death being dealt with. Not lifestyle or environment. A better example for lifestyle/environment would be the fates of Japanese people who switch from Japanese diets when moving to America. Significant distributional shift in types of cancers.
When all other causes of death are removed, only cancers will remain.
Sure, eventually. It's one thing if people are getting cancer or having heart attacks later in life. It's a little concerning when a fairly large number of younger people are afflicted. The rate of cancer has risen about 30% for young people since the seventies. So it seems that there's something wrong in our environment or lifestyles that could be increasing risk. That's very concerning in my opinion.
https://www.healthcentral.com/article/cancer-rates-rising-in...
And on the subject of dying from a heart attack in one's 20s. That's "significant", but 1 in 100,000 is pretty rare. Some could be congenital or obesity related, but the majority in that age group is due to substance abuse. That's a factor people can control, and thus not as scary to most people.