Rendered at 09:16:19 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Aboutplants 13 hours ago [-]
How much of an impact does sitting for hours on end effect your risk of colon cancer? I’m not talking about lack of exercise but the physical act of sitting for 6+ hours a day, regardless of whether you get “adequate” exercise?
As someone with Crohn’s disease, I am sensitive to sitting for extended periods and its impact on my internals near my end. I’m sure there is some sort of effect, just curious if there has been any research
peterbecich 13 hours ago [-]
Has this factor really changed much in the past century?
unrented7977 12 hours ago [-]
Yes, unequivocally.
12 hours ago [-]
Fire-Dragon-DoL 13 hours ago [-]
Same question: I exercise and eat healthy, but I sit for long stretches
onemoresoop 13 hours ago [-]
It's probably not too healthy to sit for too long. If unavoidable, eg. in schools, best thing is to periodically stand up for a while before contining with more sitting...
Fire-Dragon-DoL 12 hours ago [-]
No I work from home and could definitely get up, but when I get in the zone I literally forget, and getting up is often detrimental to my focus.
Doesn't mean I can't do anything for it though.
swingandamiss 14 hours ago [-]
> hypotheses as to why rates are rising in younger people, including processed foods, higher obesity rates, and certain infections
Lack of moving/walking with long periods of sitting, being overweight, no fruits or vegetables and too much highly processed food/junk. It appears to be somewhat self inflicted, but it's hard to live a better life for most as the above is just the norm now.
gwbas1c 12 hours ago [-]
It's too early to jump to conclusions, it could be anything: A chemical used in bottles (for babies), traces of a chemical in infant formula, something in toothpaste, medicine, ect.
Given the rise in colon cancer in middle-aged adults, I suspect the two (teenage and middle aged colon cancer) are related.
The most ironic would be if it's caused by trace amounts of a fancy new pesticide used on a less-popular fruit or vegtable.
yrjrjjrjjtjjr 11 hours ago [-]
The current paradigm of change something and wait half a century to see if it caused or prevented cancer is ridiculous. We can do better. Look at proxies and early warning signs. Do intervention and look at something like cellular aging, DNA damage, cell death rate ( renewal requires cell division which is error prone). Bring the feedback loop down to a year and maybe we can make some progress.
jacobolus 11 hours ago [-]
I would expect a significant proportion to be caused by persistent viral infections. Hopefully at some point in the future everyone gets a multi-strain HPV vaccine, and hopefully researchers continue to develop vaccines for other similar viruses.
mejutoco 12 hours ago [-]
Maybe vaping
techgnosis 10 hours ago [-]
Heavy THC vaping absolutely screws up my bowels. The Munchies eventually changes into anorexia and constipation.
superze 12 hours ago [-]
I really hope not.
EA-3167 13 hours ago [-]
Those are certainly factors, but it’s madness to think they’re the only ones. We live in an increasingly polluted world, we truly don’t know what the long-term impact of ubiquitous microplastic, PFAS, and so on has. I’m sure increasingly unhealthy and low fiber diets don’t help, but I’d be skeptical of that as a full “explanation”.
Sometimes trends occur due to complex circumstances we can’t pin down exactly, and it’s wildly unhelpful to pretend that you have a solution to a problem that boils down to, “wwweellllll they did it to themselves I guess.”
I would hope/assume all doctors would recommend less sitting/more walking as well as eating more fruits & veggies and less ultra-processed foods.
I would also assume it's obvious to most readers here that GP's guidance don't necessarily have to be the reasons for increased prevalence of colorectal cancer, but they would at the last help decrease chances of other health-related issues.
kelseyfrog 11 hours ago [-]
It sounds like we don't actually have evidence that the GPs claim was true - that they made it up.
It's fine that walking and moving is healthy, but it's a motte and bailey to claim that sitting is a cause of colrectal cancer and retreat to the motte that walking and moving is more healthy in general. Such a retreat doesn't exactly lend credibility to the original claim; it subtracts from it.
If you're ok with it, I'd like to stay focused on the claim: That lack of moving/walking with long periods of sitting, being overweight, no fruits or vegetables and too much highly processed food/junk is the cause of increased colrectal cancer.
lossyalgo 11 hours ago [-]
I don't think GP is making that claim, rather, they are claiming that IF the hypotheses in the article (with 2 linked sources) are in fact the causes, then it will be difficult to change those things.
> ...but it's hard to live a better life for most as the above is just the norm now.
therealpygon 12 hours ago [-]
Ah yes. Kids are getting cancer “because they are fat and lazy”. How quaint.
yjftsjthsd-h 9 hours ago [-]
Nobody said anything about being lazy.
williamtell 13 hours ago [-]
Sure but it is rather paradoxical as healthy lifestyle things are far more available like every other consumer option. There's just the higher probability of choosing the more immediately satisfying new choices and/or of envying those
who do.
estearum 13 hours ago [-]
“System prefers lower-energy state” is not paradoxical at all.
It’s just about the most fundamental law in the entire universe, in fact.
williamtell 13 hours ago [-]
I didn't say what people prefer is a paradox. There is more availability and use of health related choices that violate this "law" but much more use of things that satisfy it. It would take a hell of a lot of healthy living to make up for cancer rates in 10% of the population having all the options and a dopamine addiction. Pretty remarkable the cancer rates are as low as they are.
As someone with Crohn’s disease, I am sensitive to sitting for extended periods and its impact on my internals near my end. I’m sure there is some sort of effect, just curious if there has been any research
Doesn't mean I can't do anything for it though.
Lack of moving/walking with long periods of sitting, being overweight, no fruits or vegetables and too much highly processed food/junk. It appears to be somewhat self inflicted, but it's hard to live a better life for most as the above is just the norm now.
Given the rise in colon cancer in middle-aged adults, I suspect the two (teenage and middle aged colon cancer) are related.
The most ironic would be if it's caused by trace amounts of a fancy new pesticide used on a less-popular fruit or vegtable.
Sometimes trends occur due to complex circumstances we can’t pin down exactly, and it’s wildly unhelpful to pretend that you have a solution to a problem that boils down to, “wwweellllll they did it to themselves I guess.”
https://research.uky.edu/news/markey-study-links-forever-che...
PFAS in drinking water linked to multiple cancers (oral cavity/pharynx, lung, digestive system, brain, urinary system, soft tissue, and thyroid):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00742-2
I would also assume it's obvious to most readers here that GP's guidance don't necessarily have to be the reasons for increased prevalence of colorectal cancer, but they would at the last help decrease chances of other health-related issues.
It's fine that walking and moving is healthy, but it's a motte and bailey to claim that sitting is a cause of colrectal cancer and retreat to the motte that walking and moving is more healthy in general. Such a retreat doesn't exactly lend credibility to the original claim; it subtracts from it.
If you're ok with it, I'd like to stay focused on the claim: That lack of moving/walking with long periods of sitting, being overweight, no fruits or vegetables and too much highly processed food/junk is the cause of increased colrectal cancer.
> ...but it's hard to live a better life for most as the above is just the norm now.
It’s just about the most fundamental law in the entire universe, in fact.