TheAgitator.com
Headline and Reality
Thursday, February 14th, 2008“Weight gain increases risk of variety of cancers”
Third paragraph:
“While the study suggests a link, there is no definitive proof that being fat in itself causes cancer.”
I’m not splitting hairs, here. It’s entirely possible, for example, that dieting is what makes being overweight so unhealthy. In other words, if overweight people just ignored their weight, and worked on staying active, they’d be much healthier than constantly altering their diet in an effort to lose weight, which they’ll inevitably put back on, anyway.
It’s what people like Paul Campos and other obesity hype critics have been saying for years. Yo-yo dieting is what’s dangerous. Obesity isn’t dangerous until you’re well in the “morbid” range. If they’re right, alarmist headlines like the one above are what are killing people, not love handles.
““This study begins to tick the first two or three boxes, but more research is needed to confirm it.””
Translated; We need some massive grants of public hand outs to continue NOT being to prove a link to fatties and cancer.
One can bet we will see it in a bookstore as well.
You’re correct, Radley; exercise is far more important and useful than dieting for maintaining good overall health and helping to lose those few extra pounds. It’s just been my experience that people really, really hate to work out because it can take a relatively long while to see results, whereas starving yourself or doing a fad diet can result in weight loss much more quickly.
When I was a kid in school, the one point that was drilled into everyone’s head about satistics is that they are, more often than not, intentionally misused for the purpose of deceiving people about cause and effect.
Nothing has changed.
I mean aside from it having become much more comon.
This just in: eating well and exercising definitely might help you not to avoid major disease.
Doublespeaking motherfuckers are everywhere.
The article’s claim is about cancer, specifically. Your claim is about overall health. You might be correct about overall health, but the article is almost surely correct about obesity and cancer risk.
Really, this is not news. It is merely confirmation of what has been found repeatedly – that obesity increases risk for certain types of cancer. Though the paragrpah you exceprted (“While the study suggests a link, there is no definitive proof that being fat in itself causes cancer.”) could sound confusing, it is actually responsible reporting. In fact, an association, no matter how strong, can never be proof of causation.
Nonetheless, we have known for a while that these associations exist, and there are very good physiologic reasons to believe they are causative, at least in some instances like breast, endometrial (uterine) and gallbladder.
I think we are in agreement that the health risks of obesity are likely oversold, and surely the information in more nuanced than most health reporting indicates; but we should not deny the health risks where they clearly exist. That just damages our credibility.
Trent,
I agree with you that there’s a link between extreme obesity and incidence of cancer, at least within some demographic groups. But the seminal American Cancer Society study on obesity and cancer actually shows a decrease in risk among people moderately overweight. In fact, the study showed a protective effect among overweight people for some types of cancer. I wrote a bit about it here:
http://spurlockwatch.typepad.com/front/2005/07/the_big_c.html
The headline says, “Weight gain increases risk of a variety of cancers.” My point is that that’s just not true. And to the extent that this kind of alarmism encourages overweight people to diet, it probably does more harm than good.
Radley,
I don’t think that study shows what you think it does. As someone very sympathetic to what you are saying here, I read it differently. Yes, the overall mortality rate from cancer is slightly lower in the overweight group than normal weight. But a closer look at the numbers show the mortality rate to be the same or increased for ever single cancer, with the exception of lung cancer. And this is an important exception because the decrease is large enough and incidence is high enough that it swings the total mortality to the negative side and appears to support your claim that overwightness (but, notably, not obesity) is protective.
However, it is important to ask why this might be. The only claim you could plausibly make based on that data in support of your view is that being overweight is protective against lung cancer and neutral or an increase risk for all others. But there is probably a more likely explanation – a confounding variable both increases the risk for lung cancer and decreases weight, i.e. smoking.
And, indeed, when they look at non-smokers, being overweight has a statistically significant effect of increasing risk for cancer mortality. Now, one might say this is data-mining, but it is what I would predict a priori, and I think it a plausible and defensible manipulation of the data.
Even if you don’t, and if you use this study to make the claim that being slightly overweight is protective from cancer mortality overall, then you have to be willing to make the follow-up claim that this is not so if you are a non-smoker.
Mr McBride,
Are you confused? You argue about the other reports mentioned by Mr Balko. Then you start talking about smoking. No one was talking about smoking, and you bring it into the argument! Stick to the story. There is way too much sensationlism in the title of this article. I learned years ago not to trust the ” experts” because they will more often than not, use propaganda, instead of science, to prove their point. The articles must withstand the scrutiny of the scientific community, not the tabloids (or news organizations that act like them)! The news media is way too eager to jump on a story and sensationalize it!
“Eat drink and be merry! For tomorrow we die!”
People don’t listen to this crap anyway! Everybody dies!
There is increased risk of cancer with aging, as well. Maybe we should just terminate everyone over fifty!? (that is everyone but me!)
Actually, mlang52, I brought up smoking because it is a prominent part of the “seminal” study that Balko alluded to in his comment. Balko brought up the study and I followed the link and repsonded. If you would actually do the same you would know I am “sticking to the story”.
Sorry Trent,
I thought it was about obestiy increasing the risk of getting cancer. Is it any wonder the people are confused?
Uhhh. How about the billions of dollars made by the “lose weight” industry. No one ever mentions that. Look up the story behind oat bran. Some commodies brokers were looking to take it in the shorts over some oat futures, when on of them came up with the idea of taking a little known medical study and publicizing it. I’m not saying that they intended to decieve anyone, but it worked out prety good for them. Next one. Look up who owns Subway.
I’ve seen a bunch of studies mentioned here, what I don’t see is who funded these studies.
One day I’m a big guy who works out, some quack doing a study changes a number and now I’m over weight. Same thing with my blood pressure. My numbers haven’t changed in years. My doctor spent years telling me that I have great blood pressure. Now I suffer from hypertension and he wants to give me drugs for it. I agree with the guy who mentioned statistics.