nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Most Cancer types 'just bad luck'

SharpshooterTom

Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested.

A US team were trying to explain why some tissues were millions of times more vulnerable to cancer than others.

The results, in the journal science, showed two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle.

However some of the most common and deadly cancers are still heavily influenced by lifestyle.

And Cancer Research UK said a healthy lifestyle would still heavily stack the odds in a person's favour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30641833

As a 28 year old, I've taken an interest in (making a new years resolution like many I suppose) to live a more healthier lifestyle and to look after myself a lot better.

The reason why this prompted me more so is my father only 7 weeks ago has been diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer. We have absolutely no history of cancer in our family, so we were in total shock upon hearing the news and the grim statistics for his stage (only 5-10% stage 4 bowel cancer survive 5 or more years after diagnosis). But Cancer research does say that most people who get Bowel Cancer have previously had no family history of it. He's only 56.

However my father is overweight (5'9/10' and 15 stone) and has been like that most of my life, did eat a lot of processed meats, didn't do an awful lot of exercise, did drink 50-100 units of alcohol a week since he was a teenager, smoked till he was 40. All these are risk factors, but did they cause his cancer?

So of course I've become a neurotic idiot now looking to rapidly change my lifestyle, I'm a teetotaller and I don't smoke anyway and now I want to overhaul my diet as well, but this report suggests most cancers, regardless of if you're healthy or not, are actually down to pure luck, and its making me wonder about what I can really do.

What do you think? Is it actually worth being totally neurotic about health, concentrating on trying to live a lifestyle that reduces your risk of cancer or is it in many ways with the increased worry and stress more counterproductive?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

AnonoBoy

Research would show that smoking, drinking and an unhealthy lifestyle will probably increase your chances of having this bad luck though.

SharpshooterTom

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Research would show that smoking, drinking and an unhealthy lifestyle will probably increase your chances of having this bad luck though.

True.

Some statistics like lung cancer for example I found, a non-smoker has a 1% chance of developing lung cancer, a lifetime 40 a day smoker has around 20% chance. So that means most heavy smokers don't ever get lung cancer and a non-smoker could still get it, but a heavy smoker is far more likely to get lung cancer, so lifestyle does have some impact perhaps, but the article suggests most cancers we can't do bugger all about apparently.

[Deleted User]

Worth being neurotic and denying oneself any pleasure from vices? No. Worth trying to be sensible and drawing the line short of outright self-destruction? Yes.

Sorry to hear about your ould lad btw.

TwoShedsJackson

If you're teetotal and don't smoke you are already way ahead of most of us in the healthiness stakes.

It's entirely conterproductive to worry too much about health, and start eating only lettuce and getting your colon cleansed. Just get on with it and try to enjoy yourself.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I believe you need to strike a balance. You don't want to be an overweight, alcoholic, 60 a day smoker but there's no point going out of your way to deprive yourself of a few pints, or cigarettes if it makes you happy, in order to live a long but miserable life.

[Deleted User]

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

True.

Some statistics like lung cancer for example I found, a non-smoker has a 1% chance of developing lung cancer, a lifetime 40 a day smoker has around 20% chance. So that means most heavy smokers don't ever get lung cancer and a non-smoker could still get it, but a heavy smoker is far more likely to get lung cancer, so lifestyle does have some impact perhaps, but the article suggests most cancers we can't do bugger all about. Russian roulette.

Smoking also raises the chances of other cancers, so smokers have a 50/50 chance of getting cancer of some kind during their lifetime. There's also the heart conditions, blood pressure, clots/strokes, COPD and other associated lung issues to contend with. Some people are lucky, some aren't. My dad smoked until he had a heart attack and until about 5 years before that he was fairly OK. Had he stopped then he likely wouldn't have ended up with COPD and the issues he has now. I on the other hand developed a smoker's cough within 6 months because I was unfit/unhealthy to begin with. I quit for a while and within a month of going back on them my chest was in ribbons again. It's rarely a pure either/or situation based on one variable, even before accounting for luck.

EoghanIRL

"Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested."

This is rubbish .

lukesmom

The Cunning Linguist wrote: »

I believe you need to strike a balance. You don't want to be an overweight, alcoholic, 60 a day smoker but there's no point going out of your way to deprive yourself of a few pints, or cigarettes if it makes you happy, in order to live a long but miserable life.

Agree completely with the above. Sorry about your dad OP I really hope he has many more years ahead xx

The Backwards Man

People are a lot like Volkswagen Jettas.

Some last for years even though some farmer has dogged the crap out of them for thirty years up and down a hill with bullocks in the back seat.

Some last for thirty years because they are treated like a princess by their owner, oil and change every 5000 miles, garaged every night, full service long before its due.

And some just conk out thirty yards down the road from the dealership..

unkel

A lot of it is luck / genes

I read somewhere that only 1 in 6 life long smokers die of lung cancer

Macker2001

Also agree with striking a balance. Sorry about your dad hopefully he beats it. Once you turn 40 it's suggested you have colonoscopys if it's in your family. Though by then they may have an easier detection method.

Vomit

Important to remember the 'over the course of ones lifetime' bit - I mean you could be fine until you're 85..and sure when you're that old anything can happen.

duckcfc

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

duckcfc

Macker2001 wrote: »

Also agree with striking a balance. Sorry about your dad hopefully he beats it. Once you turn 40 it's suggested you have colonoscopys if it's in your family. Though by then they may have an easier detection method.

If his da truely wants to beat he best stay away from the doctors and hospitals!!!!!! The amount of people that have been killed by said people/place is staggering!! If he wants to heal his cancer, he best do it himself with the gearson therapy or other similar approach because the hospital ain't going to save him!

Highflyer13

I dont know. I'd love to know how common cancer was maybe 100 years ago. The conspiracy theorist in me is telling me that cures are being found but the patents are being bought out by big pharma companies. Something about the whole cancer thing doesn't sit right with me. I've seen so many ravaged by it. Cancer really is big business for medical companies.

I do think what we eat could be a cause and a lot of what we eat is controlled by 10 major companies nowadays.

http://brightsideglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10-companies.jpg

Just a thought.

Macker2001

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

Agree but why does Joe get cancer and someone else with the same routine doesn't get it?...Luck??? genes ???

SharpshooterTom

duckcfc wrote: »

If his da truely wants to beat he best stay away from the doctors and hospitals!!!!!! The amount of people that have been killed by said people/place is staggering!! If he wants to heal his cancer, he best do it himself with the gearson therapy or other similar approach because the hospital ain't going to save him!

Well he had an emergency operation to take out his tumour in his bowel, still has a few specs of it in his lungs and liver, begins chemo on the 14th. If he stayed away from the hospital and never had the op he'd probably be dead by now, so yes some of the NHS hospitals (city hospital in Belfast we live in the north) aren't the cleanest, we didn't have enough money to go private, but I think they did a pretty good job.

Martin567

duckcfc wrote: »

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

But all of these apparent "risks" that you say Joe Bloggs is taking are being taken by almost everyone else as well. As a majority of people will likely not get cancer, your post seems to support the view that bad luck is the most important factor!

Saipanne

Not a lot of cancer, in my family. So I might be in the good luck group. We have plenty of strokes and heart problems though.

Yay? :-/

Kiwi in IE

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

Ah for fecks sake! I was going to say Joe Bloggs should have lived in a plastic bubble, but I am sure the plastic used to construct the bubble is carcinogenic too, so I won't bother.

So we can't drive, get dressed, eat, drink, walk, get dental treatment, wash or even breathe without risking cancer! What do you suggest? Perhaps we should just all kill ourselves now to prevent the inevitability of cancer!

I hope Joe Bloggs wasn't taking carcinogenic anti psychotics for his paranoia as well.

Tin Foil Hat

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

You are actually arguing against yourself.

citrus burst

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices. I hate hearing some people spout sh1t that Joe bloggs didn't smoke or drink, used to run everyday but still got cancer.

Yes Joe bloggs did but Joe blogs also woke up every morning and brushed his teeth filled with mercury fillings in toxic toothpaste washes his mouth out with toxic ridden water contaminated with fluoride. After tgat he jumps in shower and washs in same water only to make matters worse, he covers himself in a concoction of chemicals that Wash's him.

Before he put on clothes that has been dyed in other cancer ridden chemicals, he sprays himself all over with something that might smell nice but is loaded with heavy metals and otger cancer ridden chemicals.

Next up is his breakfast that consists of food that technically isnt fit for human consumption but is widely accepted as food. Yes there might be protein and carbs in said food but its missing very essential nutrients. He'll proply have wee cup tea filled with tea grown with chemical fertilizer and sprayed with pesticides and washed down with same poison water he brushed his teeth and washed with.

Of he goes into the car but before he steps foot into it he's now breathing in toxic air. I could go on and in here but I think you get the just of it.

But hey, Joe blogs never smoked or drunk so he's just been one of the unlucky ones!! Lol

But do you not think that what you described above supports the idea of the paper?

If there were N Joe Bloggs all living the same life style why would some develop cancers and others not? That's the whole point of statistics they analyse a large data set and are pretty much meaningless when used on an individual.

hmmm

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

What do you think? Is it actually worth being totally neurotic about health, concentrating on trying to live a lifestyle that reduces your risk of cancer or is it in many ways with the increased worry and stress more counterproductive?

Sorry to hear about your Dad, mine passed away from the same disease. It seems to trigger a realisation in everyone that life is short, no matter what age you live.

I think it's about a balance - and there are plenty of reasons to stay healthy, not just tipping the odds against cancer. If you're reasonably fit, and eat well, you're more likely to both live longer and most importantly live a happier life, particularly when you're older. It's no fun being in your 40s hobbling around because your joints are knackered from years of being overweight, or spending your 50s,60s and 70s with a hacking couch from smoking. The cancer benefits are secondary.

gladrags

unkel wrote: »

A lot of it is luck / genes

I read somewhere that only 1 in 6 life long smokers die of lung cancer

There are many other diseases to which smoking is associated.

If you inhale smoke,you are looking for trouble.

My name is URL

duckcfc wrote: »

Cancer isn't down to bad luck, cancer is down to ones eating drinking smoking and lifestyle choices.

Aging causes cancer too.. that's hardly a 'lifestyle choice'

Highflyer13

gladrags wrote: »

There are many other diseases to which smoking is associated.

If you inhale smoke,you are looking for trouble.

Yep smoke was never meant to go into our bodies. A ridiculous past time.

Padraig Mor

EoghanIRL wrote: »

"Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested."

This is rubbish .

A peer reviewed, major study, published in arguably the world's most prestigious scientific journal - ripped to shreds by a cutting, evidence based, post by a Boards member! Call the Science editors!

fedor.2.

EoghanIRL wrote: »

"Most types of cancer can be put down to bad luck rather than risk factors such as smoking, a study has suggested."

This is rubbish .

Thanks for clearing that up, doc

rossie1977

lung cancer was almost unheard of pre 1920

Calibos

Probably mis-diagnosed as TB pre 1920.

Side-note: nothing like a cancer thread to bring out the CT nuts....