BBC Health: lifestyle v's cancer

sonny73

On the BBC today, life saving information: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149

GiantMike

the article wrote:

For men, the best advice appears to be: stop smoking, eat more fruit and veg and cut down on how much alcohol you drink.

For women, again, the reviews says the best advice is to stop smoking, but also watch your weight.

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."

I'll be getting some fruit and veg on the way home then.

upperoilcan

To be fair,it's not really a suprise is it ?

griffsters

To many of us this will be just stating the obvious, just trying to keep those odds stacked our favour by living a healthy lifestyle.

To many tho it will just be another reaon to scoff at the research and say 'when my time is up, its up'. The question is tho when an individuals lifestyle choices cost taxpayers a fortune, when does the 'taxpayer' (read Government) step in and do something drastic. No easy answer to that one me thinks.

Gizmodo

Griffsters wrote:

To many tho it will just be another reason to scoff at the research and say 'when my time is up, its up'. The question is tho when an individuals lifestyle choices cost taxpayers a fortune, when does the 'taxpayer' (read Government) step in and do something drastic. No easy answer to that one me thinks.

I total agree Griffsters, there are going to be people with that attitude.

To those I have this to say: I've been through 2 years of high dose chemotherapy and radiotherapy. I have lain in bed feeling so crap from Chemo that I have cried whilst they hung another bag of poison to run into my veins for another 10 hours. It's not a case of when your time is up, sometimes it's a case of have a healthy life style now or suffer the side effects of treatments that were first developed from mustard gas!

rick_chasey

You've got to die of something.

verylonglegs

The trouble is the 'reward' for healthy living can be years of wearing nappies and having every meal processed through a blender as the occupant of some rancid care home. I shall continue to enjoy beer and use butter to make my sandwiches and believe me I'm not being at all flippant, it is a decision I've rationalised and am comfortable with.

MattC59

At the same time, prepare for the cries of "I knew exercise was bad for you !!"

'Athletes risk damage to heart'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16048121

kettrinboy

I know you are meant to have your "five a day" portions of fruit and veg and a varied diet to help reduce the risk of cancer, but watching Frozen Planet last week there were people living in the Arctic regions who seemed to live almost entirely on seal/walrus/whale meat and fish and have probably never eaten a fruit or vegetable in their lives, and it doesnt seem to have done them any harm, plenty of them seem to live to a good age despite the harsh environment.

rick_chasey

kettrinboy wrote:

I know you are meant to have your "five a day" portions of fruit and veg and a varied diet to help reduce the risk of cancer, but watching Frozen Planet last week there were people living in the Arctic regions who seemed to live almost entirely on seal/walrus/whale meat and fish and have probably never eaten a fruit or vegetable in their lives, and it doesnt seem to have done them any harm, plenty of them seem to live to a good age despite the harsh environment.

You'd imagine they'd live longer on a better diet.

Also - humans have evolved to have a varied diet - s'what separates humans.

DavidBelcher

MattC59 wrote:

At the same time, prepare for the cries of "I knew exercise was bad for you !!"

'Athletes risk damage to heart'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16048121

That'll placate the rubbish-eating, exercise-phobic lard-@rses out there who are still holding out for that latest magic "eat junk food, no need to exercise, watch the pounds disappear [1]" fad diet from some snake-oil salesman or other.

David

[1] Yeah, right. From your wallet, maybe.

Pep

I've been given these advice for the last 38yr...

Anything new?

MattC59

kettrinboy wrote:

I know you are meant to have your "five a day" portions of fruit and veg and a varied diet to help reduce the risk of cancer, but watching Frozen Planet last week there were people living in the Arctic regions who seemed to live almost entirely on seal/walrus/whale meat and fish and have probably never eaten a fruit or vegetable in their lives, and it doesnt seem to have done them any harm, plenty of them seem to live to a good age despite the harsh environment.

The important thing there, as mentioned on the show, it that marine mammal meat is very high in the nutrients which would be found elsewhere in our diet. I'm guessing that marine mammal meat doesn't feature very highly on the diet of people outside of those regions.

Frank the tank

It's no suprise (to me anyway) that your chances of getting cancer will probably be increased if you persue an unhealthy lifestyle and eat poorly.

However, I work in manufacturing and come into contact with some pretty nasty substances I do wear the neccessary PPE etc but given exposure to various things over my working life (and there hopefully is still a fair bit of it left) what effect will this have on my chances of getting the big c?

I dare say there are a lot of us on here in a similar boat and I am yet to see any government/university survey etc advise against working as it increases your chances of contracting cancer.

sonny73

Frank the tank wrote:

However, I work in manufacturing and come into contact with some pretty nasty substances I do wear the neccessary PPE etc but given exposure to various things over my working life (and there hopefully is still a fair bit of it left) what effect will this have on my chances of getting the big c?
I dare say there are a lot of us on here in a similar boat and I am yet to see any government/university survey etc advise against working as it increases your chances of contracting cancer.

I'd imagine if you wear all the right protective gear etc. you'll be pretty safe.

cougie

I saw the clip of this on BBC Breakfast. They had a woman who I think had fought off Cancer and she was living a healthy lifestyle. We saw her putting on her helmet and setting off on her bike. Straight out onto the road without looking, and then riding down the right hand side of the road...........

daviesee

kettrinboy wrote:

I know you are meant to have your "five a day" portions of fruit and veg and a varied diet to help reduce the risk of cancer, but watching Frozen Planet last week there were people living in the Arctic regions who seemed to live almost entirely on seal/walrus/whale meat and fish and have probably never eaten a fruit or vegetable in their lives, and it doesnt seem to have done them any harm, plenty of them seem to live to a good age despite the harsh environment.

Ah. But how old were they? Could have been 28 for all you know :twisted:

kettrinboy

daviesee wrote:

kettrinboy wrote:

I know you are meant to have your "five a day" portions of fruit and veg and a varied diet to help reduce the risk of cancer, but watching Frozen Planet last week there were people living in the Arctic regions who seemed to live almost entirely on seal/walrus/whale meat and fish and have probably never eaten a fruit or vegetable in their lives, and it doesnt seem to have done them any harm, plenty of them seem to live to a good age despite the harsh environment.

Ah. But how old were they? Could have been 28 for all you know :twisted:

Well if the "old" guy that was scaling 100M cliffs looking for guillemot eggs was 28 then he must have had a very hard life.

Redhog14

So 3 words sum up this study - "No shit, Sherlock"

DavidBelcher

Redhog14 wrote:

So 3 words sum up this study - "No shoot, Sherlock"

In other news:

Bear Defecates In Woods, Claim Zoologists

Leading Theologian States: Benedict XVI "Almost Certainly Roman Catholic"



David

sloppyschleckonds

cougie wrote:

I saw the clip of this on BBC Breakfast. They had a woman who I think had fought off Cancer and she was living a healthy lifestyle. We saw her putting on her helmet and setting off on her bike. Straight out onto the road without looking, and then riding down the right hand side of the road...........

Was it a Boris Bike?

Frank the tank

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

cougie wrote:

I saw the clip of this on BBC Breakfast. They had a woman who I think had fought off Cancer and she was living a healthy lifestyle. We saw her putting on her helmet and setting off on her bike. Straight out onto the road without looking, and then riding down the right hand side of the road...........

Was it a Boris Bike?

In all fairness it was an item about her surviving cancer, not passing her cycling proficiency test...........or not.

tim_wand

Okay no great revelations here. I think the more interesting point was made by an earlier poster.

How long should those of us who have bought in an adopted a healthy lifestyle diet and practice be suspected to subsidise a NHS that has to serve those who prescribe to the ideallogy that hey we all die in the end might as well enjoy myself.

Fair enough, I derive a lot of pleasure from exercise and staying fit, others may derive their pleasure from boozing and bingeing, its not my place to judge.

Wouldnt it be fair though that those who could prove that they adopt healthier lifestyles and practices get some kind of Fiscal relief from National Insurance, otherwise we are just paying for all those that dont.

Rather than a C2W scheme maybe we should get money back off NI if we spend it on Gym membership or cycling to work or other such activities.

All VAT on Cigarettes, Booze and foods high in saturated fats should go straight to NHS budgets.

Seems fair to me,

Frank the tank

tim wand wrote:

Okay no great revelations here. I think the more interesting point was made by an earlier poster.

How long should those of us who have bought in an adopted a healthy lifestyle diet and practice be suspected to subsidise a NHS that has to serve those who prescribe to the ideallogy that hey we all die in the end might as well enjoy myself.

Fair enough, I derive a lot of pleasure from exercise and staying fit, others may derive their pleasure from boozing and bingeing, its not my place to judge.

Wouldnt it be fair though that those who could prove that they adopt healthier lifestyles and practices get some kind of Fiscal relief from National Insurance, otherwise we are just paying for all those that dont.

Rather than a C2W scheme maybe we should get money back off NI if we spend it on Gym membership or cycling to work or other such activities.

All VAT on Cigarettes, Booze and foods high in saturated fats should go straight to NHS budgets.

Seems fair to me,

The cynic in me says. This government has said it intends uniting income tax and NI cotributions into one payment but it will take aprox 10years. Who's to say they won't say "there is now no such thing as national insurance, if you want health care you have to take out private health insurance".

Being as you don't drink or smoke you'll be able to p1ss the premiums on top of the 35% income tax you'll be paying. Unless of course you're already in the high income tax bracket.

Stone Glider

But what about the other 50% that is genetic? If your numbers up, it's up.

The increasing body of knowledge about early onset obesity is starting to make clear that not only does it restrict quality of life it seems that it also restricts quantity. It does seem strange to think that the generation behind the one behind mine :? will probably have an average life expectancy well below mine.

tim_wand

Sure there are genetic markers, Lost two mates in the last 3 years who didnt make it beyond there 41 st birthday to heart attacks even though they kept themselves fit, they were both the sons of farthers who died early from heart disease.

My point is that if we are absolubtely brutal if you look at most services those who consume the most are charged either directly or inderectly the most, so why cant this model be applied to health services.

I m answering my own question here, yes inequalities exist through no fault of the individiual which means they will require more medical care than others, and perversely these people are often the ones who find those services the most difficult to access.

Those who do take a vested interest in their own health are probably more likely to shell out for private health care and services. So it ends up a double paradox, as a result of your own dilligence you are probably less likely to need this care , but generally more likely to provision it for yourself.

I m sorry for me it still comes down to Tax the fat and sedentry because I end up getting taxed for them any way.

Cleat Eastwood

I think all in all life is too short to deny yourself any pleasures. Stress is the big factor, i believe, in most peoples illnesses: and its stress that all too often makes us miss the important and beautiful people who pass through our lives. Eat drink and be merry.

Headhuunter

verylonglegs wrote:

The trouble is the 'reward' for healthy living can be years of wearing nappies and having every meal processed through a blender as the occupant of some rancid care home. I shall continue to enjoy beer and use butter to make my sandwiches and believe me I'm not being at all flippant, it is a decision I've rationalised and am comfortable with.

Conversely the "reward" for a "bad" lifestyle of drinking, smoking and no exercise is that you quietly die in your sleep,comfortably of old age?! I very much doubt it! If you live a healthy lifestyle, you're far more likely to live a healthy existence into old age, largely disease free than if you abuse your body!

Stone Glider

Some of the most expensive elements of treatment on the NHS are the emergency services. Will the 'Tax the Fat' brigade extend that principle to the people who have to be helicoptered off a mountain or out of the sea? The people who decided to go swimming/sailing, climb the cliff, cross that ridge, descend that single-track...... It all gets a bit complicated when hypothication is applied to universal benefits. Did that party of walkers who were featured on that BBC Scotland report on the recent terrible weather have a bill for the search and rescue exercise they occasioned?

Headhuunter

Stone Glider wrote:

Some of the most expensive elements of treatment on the NHS are the emergency services. Will the 'Tax the Fat' brigade extend that principle to the people who have to be helicoptered off a mountain or out of the sea? The people who decided to go swimming/sailing, climb the cliff, cross that ridge, descend that single-track...... It all gets a bit complicated when hypothication is applied to universal benefits. Did that party of walkers who were featured on that BBC Scotland report on the recent terrible weather have a bill for the search and rescue exercise they occasioned?

I can see your point but generally emergency services respond to accidents which largely could not have been forseen. Of course if you barely ever ventured out of the house to go swimming, sailing or walking you would never come to harm, however the argument for a "fat tax" is that people allow themselves to get fat and unhealthy despite the absolute wealth of evidence and information telling them to eat vegetables, stop smoking and not to drink to excess. Some people are prepared to let their health go to pot in the face of all this information and expect the NHS to pick up the bill when they fall ill. The question is if people knowingly damage their bodies should the taxpayer be expected to foot the bill?

Stone Glider

We may be straying into the labyrinth that is mental illness. Many of the ills you have described could be traced back to depression, et al. You do have a neat solution, unfortunately it seems we have an untidy problem which might not fit.