# Recent Diet/Obesity and Cancer Report



## bigplaidpants (Nov 1, 2007)

I assuming folk here have seen this? 

*Reuters *and *Yahoo *published an overview of this report this morning under the headline _*Report stresses link between obesity and cancer*_. The full report can be found here, at http://www.dietandcancerreport.org

The Yahoo/Reuters report should be here, at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071031/lf_nm_life/cancer_obesity_dc

I'd be interested in an comments or deconstructions from medical and science types....or anyone.

_Disclaimer: If this report has already been posted or discussed, my bad. I did a quick search and didn't find this particular link anywhere._


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 1, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> I assuming folk here have seen this?
> 
> *Reuters *and *Yahoo *published an overview of this report this morning under the headline _*Report stresses link between obesity and cancer*_. The full report can be found here, at http://www.dietandcancerreport.org
> 
> ...



Why are you 100% certain this needs to be deconstructed? Let me first say I am not a doctor or scientist. However it seems like on this board there is so often a rush to judgement against the scientific/medical community as if anything said by somebody with an actual medical background. It's not as if people become doctors or scientists for the sole purpose of promoting an anti-fat agenda. Some of them actually have an interest in public health.


----------



## k1009 (Nov 1, 2007)

There's a lot of good advice being offered, particularly in regards to eating less than 500gms of red meat a week and limiting alcohol. I think with reports like this, you can take the good from it and ignore what you view as propoganda. Personally, my views of size acceptance are that the medical community is sometimes right and sometimes wrong in regards to my fat. I'm not going to dismiss what could be good advice just because it comes with a warning about the size of my tummy.

Incidentally, from what I've heard the research suggests that one should be "as thin as possible". For many people this could be a size 0, for others it could be a size 30, but that's no reason to ignore the fruit and veg advice. Mmmm, broccoli.


----------



## Waxwing (Nov 1, 2007)

I see nothing wrong with the report. What about this did we not already know, or at least suspect? Saying that high weight potentially carries with it concomitant health problems is NOT the same as saying 'fat people are bad', just that these are things that we have to address and monitor in ourselves in order to live healthy and long lives. At any weight.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Nov 1, 2007)

Thanks for your responses. I'm interested in more, largely because I don't have time to read the whole report. 

For all it's worth, I appreciate the focus on diet over BMI, etc.



LoveBHMS said:


> Why are you 100% certain this needs to be deconstructed? Let me first say I am not a doctor or scientist. However it seems like on this board there is so often a rush to judgement against the scientific/medical community as if anything said by somebody with an actual medical background. It's not as if people become doctors or scientists for the sole purpose of promoting an anti-fat agenda. Some of them actually have an interest in public health.



I think your question about any "rush to judgment" is a good one. It asks for good reflection. The answer probably runs somewhere between - "duh...because fatness is the object of tremendous prejudice, which both medical establishment and culture industry perpetuate" and "but we need to healthy, too, ya'll."

BTW, I think it's healthy to approach most information with some sense of prejudice. Even medical research. Neither life nor health can be controlled for all its variables.....but, your question is a good one.

Just, please don't assume my post was some reactionary gesture. I am interested in informed responses.



k1009 said:


> There's a lot of good advice being offered, particularly in regards to eating less than 500gms of red meat a week and limiting alcohol. I think with reports like this, you can take the good from it and ignore what you view as propoganda. Personally, my views of size acceptance are that the medical community is sometimes right and sometimes wrong in regards to my fat. I'm not going to dismiss what could be good advice just because it comes with a warning about the size of my tummy.
> 
> Incidentally, from what I've heard the research suggests that one should be "as thin as possible". For many people this could be a size 0, for others it could be a size 30, but that's no reason to ignore the fruit and veg advice. Mmmm, broccoli.



I'm not sure I think thinness is as relative as you're saying, but point well taken. Again, I think the focus on diet is helpful....over simplistic fatness = ill-health conclusions that boost slim-fast sales.

Thanks.



Waxwing said:


> I see nothing wrong with the report. What about this did we not already know, or at least suspect? Saying that high weight potentially carries with it concomitant health problems is NOT the same as saying 'fat people are bad', just that these are things that we have to address and monitor in ourselves in order to live healthy and long lives. At any weight.



Ahhh, my Pepto Bismol dream. How are you? 

If this is what you read, I'm encouraged. Did you read the report itself? I couldn't get past the Yahoo/Reuters blub.

......

For all its worth, this report also made the front cover of USA Today.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 1, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> Thanks for your responses. I'm interested in more, largely because I don't have time to read the whole report.
> 
> For all it's worth, I appreciate the focus on diet over BMI, etc.
> 
> ...



If you didn't read it, why would you even assume it needs debunking?

I highly doubt anyone goes into medicine or science solely so they can promote anti-fat bigotry. I'd rather give doctors and scientists the benefit of the doubt that they truly care about health and wellness and are not using the intials after their names as a bully pulpit.

I can understand approching things with prejudice, but oftentimes I see posts on here that pretty much say we need to view anything that comes from the medical establishment with skepticism strictly because doctors are just out to get fat people and are only saying things out of bigotry rather than a genuine concern for heath.

Now if a study was sponsored by Jenny Craig, I can understand wondering if it was biased. But if that is not the case here, hopefully people will just see it as a source of important information about their health.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Nov 1, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> If you didn't read it, why would you even assume it needs debunking?
> 
> I highly doubt anyone goes into medicine or science solely so they can promote anti-fat bigotry. I'd rather give doctors and scientists the benefit of the doubt that they truly care about health and wellness and are not using the intials after their names as a bully pulpit.
> 
> ...



LoveBHMS,

I said I appreciate your questions. If you want to pursue them further, please start another thread. I'd be happy to share more about my thoughts and feelings on it if I have a chance.

I am simply interested in informed responses to this report and the media's reports on it. I did read the article, just not the whole report. Frankly, I haven't had time to read the whole report. It's lengthy. There are a few on Dim who are interested in such things, and may be able to give an opinion. This seems the right forum. 

I don't expect a protracted discussion on it.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Nov 1, 2007)

So you want me to start a new thread to discuss your thread? That would be silly.

At some point, I hope this board will get away from the presumption that the whole medical establisment is rife with anti-size acceptance bigotry and doctors care more about hating fat people than about curing the sick.

If you go to medical school or get a science degree or certificate, you likely gain a large amount of medical and scientific knowlege that make you not smarter, but more knowlegable then others. I don't think the SA world does itself any favors by always insisting that if a doctor think a patient is too heavy, or if there are health risks associated with either weight gain or being overweight that his/her concerns should be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Nov 1, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> .... I don't think the SA world does itself any favors by always insisting that if a doctor think a patient is too heavy, or if there are health risks associated with either weight gain or being overweight that his/her concerns should be dismissed out of hand.



This quote above would be a good position to take on a new thread. I think, by itself, it could stimulate some discussion on the medical establishment and people's experience with it: how they feel about doctors, the way they are treated as fat patients, as well as medical research and the way the media reports on it. If you do a tad of research, I think you'll find there's quite a bit already posted on the subject. Perhaps you could find a more substantial rant than my one reference to the word "deconstruction" and explain why it is so problematic for you.

And for emphasis: Notice, the focus of your post is on the health risks of being fat and the problem it is that anyone should dismiss them "out of hand."

I, on the other hand, while seeing the correlation between the two issues, am more concerned with _this specific report_. On the off chance, anyone has read it, I'm interested in their impression or critical review of it.

If you go back to my initial post, I think you'll see that I started this thread on the specifics of this report and the reporting done on it. You, on the other hand, began a lengthy discussion on the word "deconstruction" and generalized the context to all medicine in general. You did this all your own. While I understand and agree with your overall generalization, it is not the focus of my OP. I am interested in this particular report.

It is unfortunate that in your passion, you have been unable to see the difference.

The thread's all yours. I'm done.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Nov 4, 2007)

I don't have time to "deconstruct" the entire report (It's 140 pages for just one section and if I had time to read stuff like that, it'd be more related to my specialty -- obstetrics) but I do plan to look at the conclusions at the end of each chapter. That usually gives a good idea of what the chapter stated, and then it's easier to look at the things that are of interest. I thought the chapter on food was interesting, though.

From the Yahoo article: _The report makes 10 recommendations including 30 minutes of moderate activity a day, rising to 60 minutes; drinking water rather than sugary drinks; eating fruit, vegetables and fiber and limiting salt consumption._

Say what you will (or let the media make of this what it likes) but this seems like very reasonable, very "common sensical" advice. Also, by doing these things many people -- not all people, but many -- may lose a small to moderate amount of weight which will, according to the article, reduce their risk of cancer. I think too many of us get caught up in the "normal BMI" trap that's handed to us by the media and many in Western medicine: if you're even overweight at ALL you're at higher risk; this is an attitude, sadly, that makes most of us not bother trying since how likely are we to get down to what the insurance charts (now BMI) deems an 'acceptable' weight? 

What I gleaned from the Yahoo article, though, is that being as lean as possible within the healthy range is optimal. For each person that "as possible" will be different. For some it may still be over 200 pounds, but I have to believe that if they reach and maintain that 200 pounds healthily they will be better off than they would be at a higher weight, particularly if to maintain that weight they have poor lifestyle choices. 

What I'd like to see are more studies of people who are considered overweight by medical standards but who eat a healthy diet and exercise. What are THEIR risks of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke? And if they're still high risk, what's their family history like?

It's complicated stuff, disease risk, but it seems like they're trying -- with this report -- to put it all together and figure out what we know (fiber helps reduce the risk of colon cancer) and what we don't (the effect of grains on cancer risk is unknown). I don't see how that's a bad thing.

And LoveBHM's, like you I get tired of the anti-medicine rhetoric that we hear all the time. As someone who got involved in health care to help people, and whose colleagues have similar goals, I think the perception of doctors and scientists as fat hating asshats is wrong and unfair. I don't think science is perfect, and I think we need a lot more research, but I think that most people who are in the business are there to help people and they genuinely believe -- through their training and education -- that being fat is dangerous. I don't think that's always the case, but when you see enough patients who are diabetic, have sleep apnea, heart disease and the like -- what's a provider supposed to take from that? That the two are unrelated? OTOH it's simplistic to say that being fat is a death sentence. I think the truth is probably, for most people, somewhere in the middle. As it usually is, eh?


----------



## bigplaidpants (Nov 4, 2007)

Miss Vickie said:


> I don't have time to "deconstruct" the entire report (It's 140 pages for just one section and if I had time to read stuff like that, it'd be more related to my specialty -- obstetrics) but I do plan to look at the conclusions at the end of each chapter. That usually gives a good idea of what the chapter stated, and then it's easier to look at the things that are of interest. I thought the chapter on food was interesting, though.
> 
> From the Yahoo article: _The report makes 10 recommendations including 30 minutes of moderate activity a day, rising to 60 minutes; drinking water rather than sugary drinks; eating fruit, vegetables and fiber and limiting salt consumption._
> 
> ...



Miss Vickie,

As a personal in the field, this is just the kind of response I hoped for. Thanks.

I knew the report was long, but I wasn't aware of how long. 

This quote is something that I have always wondered. I'm sure I'm not alone:



> What I'd like to see are more studies of people who are considered overweight by medical standards but who eat a healthy diet and exercise. What are THEIR risks of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke? And if they're still high risk, what's their family history like?



If you have anything to add once you read the conclusions, I'd be happy to hear them. I, too, would like to read at least that. I am an avid reader. However, in grad work, I have little time to read anything but what I'm studying right now. As some kind of student yourself at one time, I'm sure you understand relying on others for their critical opinions and a synopsis.

Thanks, again.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 5, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> Miss Vickie,
> 
> As a personal in the field, this is just the kind of response I hoped for. Thanks.
> 
> ...



Such studies have been done in the past. I recall coming across magazine articles citing studies that proved people who are overweight who ate more grains, vegetables and exercised regularly were at lower risk for chronic disease than thin people who did nothing. I know of a doctor directly involved in such a study conducted at the Joslin Diabetes Center here in MA. 

This particular study is written very carefully to avoid claiming that fat causes cancer. A 'link' has been found but again, the recommendation is to exercise, avoid red meat, eat vegetables and as a result reduce some weight. The article falls short of saying, "You must fall within 'xyz' size in order to be safe." You cannot avoid cancer merely by being thin. 

The thing that bothers me about the conclusions made from these studies is the implication that somehow if you are thin you are at lower risk for chronic disease. I'd love to hear someone come forward and say that if you are thin you are automatically at lower risk so you needn't trouble yourself overly so much to do anything unless you start to put on a few pounds. It creates a hysteria about fat in and of itself that is not always warranted and a complacency about risk for people who should be concerned.


----------



## bigplaidpants (Nov 5, 2007)

LillyBBBW said:


> Such studies have been done in the past. I recall coming across magazine articles citing studies that proved people who are overweight who ate more grains, vegetables and exercised regularly were at lower risk for chronic disease than thin people who did nothing. I know of a doctor directly involved in such a study conducted at the Joslin Diabetes Center here in MA.
> 
> This particular study is written very carefully to avoid claiming that fat causes cancer. A 'link' has been found but again, the recommendation is to exercise, avoid red meat, eat vegetables and as a result reduce some weight. The article falls short of saying, "You must fall within 'xyz' size in order to be safe." You cannot avoid cancer merely by being thin.
> 
> The thing that bothers me about the conclusions made from these studies is the implication that somehow if you are thin you are at lower risk for chronic disease. I'd love to hear someone come forward and say that if you are thin you are automatically at lower risk so you needn't trouble yourself overly so much to do anything unless you start to put on a few pounds. It creates a hysteria about fat in and of itself that is not always warranted and a complacency about risk for people who should be concerned.



Hey, Lilly. Pray ur well.

I'm not gonna respond to every post, but considering how this thread started....I just wanted to acknowledge yours, too. People often uncritically assume "deconstruct" to mean annihilate, disprove, expose as more false ideas. It's too bad, and perhaps, my poor choice of wording. Your critical thoughts are the kind of critical perspective I was looking forward to hearing.

I know it's hashed and rehashed amidst subgroups on Dim...and, more often, its seems to be amongst women. Diet. The issue of diet is such a complicated one - and one that, I agree, comes much closer to any valid understanding of the relation of body composition to overall health.

I'm not prepared to say more at this point, but I would very much like to see more studies that look more closely at diet and diet suppliments, as well as exersize, emotional health and environment, etc. I think we do live in such an unfree and biased environment of ideas that thinness does need to be detangled from the automatic assumption of "health." 

Our layman's understanding of cancer, too, needs might need to be deepened. I understand we live with cancer all the time. The issue of "getting cancer" occurs when the immune system can no longer adequately, or does not adequately, clean the body of cancerous cells and cell mutations.

On a related, but different point, I remember reading in the first few pages of a pop-health book by Andrew Weil. He was suggesting the pursuit to stay young and avoid death was an insidious, unhealthy, and sinister popular belief. He was quick to remind the reader: there is only one kind of cell/organism in the body that doesn't follow the proper life-cycle of growing and dying....and, that was cancer.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Nov 5, 2007)

bigplaidpants said:


> Miss Vickie,
> 
> As a personal in the field, this is just the kind of response I hoped for. Thanks.
> 
> ...



I remember being in school and having even less time to read than I do now. Also, these things aren't just light reading but take a good deal of knowledge about how they suss things out to be able to really evaluate well. This is why I think media gets it wrong sometimes; they clearly don't have the skills to look at especially large pieces of data like this and evaluate it well. Hell, even *I* don't, and I'm a so called professional. It's no wonder they pick the biggest shiniest things they can find and report on that. That's why the focus on weight, rather than nutrition, which I found to be the most interesting part.



LillyBBBW said:


> Such studies have been done in the past. I recall coming across magazine articles citing studies that proved people who are overweight who ate more grains, vegetables and exercised regularly were at lower risk for chronic disease than thin people who did nothing. I know of a doctor directly involved in such a study conducted at the Joslin Diabetes Center here in MA.



I've heard of small studies but we don't have the same large scale studies that come close to what this study has showed us. Unfortunately, as the rise in diabetes matches the rise in obesity it's not looking good for us.  And the media doesn't help, to be sure.



> This particular study is written very carefully to avoid claiming that fat causes cancer. A 'link' has been found but again, the recommendation is to exercise, avoid red meat, eat vegetables and as a result reduce some weight. The article falls short of saying, "You must fall within 'xyz' size in order to be safe." You cannot avoid cancer merely by being thin.



Right. Which is why I find the results a little more moderate than what is being reported in the media. I think that scientists are better about saying "be as thin as you can" as opposed to "you must weigh 110 pounds". For many of us "as thin as you can" is -- as in my case -- about 180 pounds. That's still a heavyweight compared to what is traditionally recommended but the weight loss has helped me, and would probably help others who also had weight-related health problems. 

And no, you can't avoid cancer -- or heart disease, stroke or autoimmunity or car accidents or even death -- by being thin. As they say, none of us gets out of this alive. 



> The thing that bothers me about the conclusions made from these studies is the implication that somehow if you are thin you are at lower risk for chronic disease. I'd love to hear someone come forward and say that if you are thin you are automatically at lower risk so you needn't trouble yourself overly so much to do anything unless you start to put on a few pounds. It creates a hysteria about fat in and of itself that is not always warranted and a complacency about risk for people who should be concerned.



I'm not sure I agree about saying if you're thin you're at lower risk for chronic disease. Maybe you're at lower risk for heart disease and diabetes but things like MS or other autoimmune diseases? I must have missed that part of the report (which I admit I didn't read too carefully).

I agree, though, about the anti-fat hysteria. It's a little crazymaking and isn't at ALL helpful for anyone - not for us, not for thin folks. No. Body.




bigplaidpants said:


> On a related, but different point, I remember reading in the first few pages of a pop-health book by Andrew Weil. He was suggesting the pursuit to stay young and avoid death was an insidious, unhealthy, and sinister popular belief. He was quick to remind the reader: there is only one kind of cell/organism in the body that doesn't follow the proper life-cycle of growing and dying....and, that was cancer.



Huh. Interesting. I agree wholeheartedly but I think it's human nature to look for the fountain of youth. It's normal to be afraid of death and want to prolong it, but I do think our obsession is a bit much sometimes. I wish we'd focus more on living life to the fullest -- and healthiest -- than cheating death. After all, would you want to live to 100 if the last 10 years of your life were spent in a nursing home, unable to speak, being fed by some sweet young thing (okay maybe that part is okay), wearing diapers, etc? Just because we can live longer doesn't always mean our quality of life matches that.


----------



## moore2me (Nov 7, 2007)

For an interesting update on this article and a new spin, go to the Main Dims Forum & see the Thread Titled "Interesting Article in Today's NY Times".


----------

