From the BBC:
Over half of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year - 160,000 in total - are not caused by avoidable life choices such as smoking, drinking or eating the wrong things, a review reveals...
The report is published in the British Journal of Cancer. Its authors claim it is the most comprehensive analysis to date on the subject.
Lead author Prof Max Parkin said: "Many people believe cancer is down to fate or 'in the genes' and that it is the luck of the draw whether they get it. Looking at all the evidence, it's clear that this is indeed correct, as around 60% of all cancers are caused by things we have no power to change."
For men, the best advice appears to be: enjoy life while you can, smoke, eat and drink what you. For women, again, the reviews says the best advice is to enjoy life: if slimming is your thing, do it; if not, then tuck in.
Prof Parkin said: "We didn't expect to find that eating fruit and vegetables would prove to be so important in protecting men against cancer. And among women we didn't expect being overweight to be more of a risk factor than alcohol. And to be honest, the statistics are in line with what we expected."
In total, 14 lifestyle factors, such as all the things they keep telling you not to do, and environmental factors, such as where you live and the job you do, still only combine to 134,000 cases of cancer out of a total of 300,000 cases in the UK each year.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Health Scare Story Du Jour
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Sadly this won't stop some NHS staff lecturing all cancer patients for their supposedly unhealthy lifestyles.
Old insurance saw.
Chances of getting something gruesone/death are:
40% Choosing your parents. 40% Lifestyle. 10% Environment. 10% Chance.
The stats would be more useful if they indicated how people tend to die if they avoid cancer via lifestyle choices. In other words, were the lifestyle choices worth it?
Apart from the obvious conclusion that cancer avoidance lifestyles must frequently fail, it would be useful to know if the chance of contracting dementia is increased. My guess is yes.
Epidemiology has been largely fruitless in identifying causes of illness. Its triumphs have been for a few occupational diseases and, of course, the hazards of cigarette smoking. Plus (if memory serves) one SDT.
I've decided to ignore anything from epidemiologists, even when I welcome the news e.g. about the merits of a snifter.
dearieme, you've forgotten John Snow who, arguably, is a founder of epidemiology.
Basic question, I know, but what's the margin for error on all of this?
After all, there's surely no such thing as a perfect control group in the population at large; the BBC article must be largely preaching to the converted by now and everyone else is following your version.
Nothing new there, all been known for years, except they are still trying to cling to their 'lifestyle' rubbish.
I suppose that's what brings in the grant money for their non-existent 'advances'?
I suspect there is a great deal of inaccuracy in this survey. Of the 40% that caught cancer who did things that experts say can cause cancer many probably did not catch cancer from those things but had caught it because they were prone to it. So that 40% I suggest is grossly misleading and probably deliberately so.
Still, no harm in eating well and exercising.
@VFTS: Nah, Snow proved his point by his experiment with the pump handle, whereas Epidemiology does the stats and stops. You could make a case that the vicar who explained his suspicions to Snow was an epidemiologist. (A vicar who doesn't appear in the account at your link.) Hats off to Snow, mind, epidemiologist or not. Or perhaps he was an Epidemiologist Plus.
Post a Comment