Why are tall people more likely to get cancer? What we know, don’t know and suspect

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

People who are taller are at greater risk of developing cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund reports there is strong evidence taller people have a higher chance of of developing cancer of the:

  • pancreas
  • large bowel
  • uterus (endometrium)
  • ovary
  • prostate
  • kidney
  • skin (melanoma) and
  • breast (pre- and post-menopausal).

But why? Here’s what we know, don’t know and suspect.

Pexels/Andrea Piacquadio
A tall woman and her partner are silhoutted against the sunset.
Height does increase your cancer risk – but only by a very small amount. Christian Vinces/Shutterstock

A well established pattern

The UK Million Women Study found that for 15 of the 17 cancers they investigated, the taller you are the more likely you are to have them.

It found that overall, each ten-centimetre increase in height increased the risk of developing a cancer by about 16%. A similar increase has been found in men.

Let’s put that in perspective. If about 45 in every 10,000 women of average height (about 165 centimetres) develop cancer each year, then about 52 in each 10,000 women who are 175 centimetres tall would get cancer. That’s only an extra seven cancers.

So, it’s actually a pretty small increase in risk.

Another study found 22 of 23 cancers occurred more commonly in taller than in shorter people.

Why?

The relationship between height and cancer risk occurs across ethnicities and income levels, as well as in studies that have looked at genes that predict height.

These results suggest there is a biological reason for the link between cancer and height.

While it is not completely clear why, there are a couple of strong theories.

The first is linked to the fact a taller person will have more cells. For example, a tall person probably has a longer large bowel with more cells and thus more entries in the large bowel cancer lottery than a shorter person.

Scientists think cancer develops through an accumulation of damage to genes that can occur in a cell when it divides to create new cells.

The more times a cell divides, the more likely it is that genetic damage will occur and be passed onto the new cells.

The more damage that accumulates, the more likely it is that a cancer will develop.

A person with more cells in their body will have more cell divisions and thus potentially more chance that a cancer will develop in one of them.

Some research supports the idea having more cells is the reason tall people develop cancer more and may explain to some extent why men are more likely to get cancer than women (because they are, on average, taller than women).

However, it’s not clear height is related to the size of all organs (for example, do taller women have bigger breasts or bigger ovaries?).

One study tried to assess this. It found that while organ mass explained the height-cancer relationship in eight of 15 cancers assessed, there were seven others where organ mass did not explain the relationship with height.

It is worth noting this study was quite limited by the amount of data they had on organ mass.

A tall older man leans against a wall while his bicycle is parked nearby.
Is it because tall people have more cells? Halfpoint/Shutterstock

Another theory is that there is a common factor that makes people taller as well as increasing their cancer risk.

One possibility is a hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). This hormone helps children grow and then continues to have an important role in driving cell growth and cell division in adults.

This is an important function. Our bodies need to produce new cells when old ones are damaged or get old. Think of all the skin cells that come off when you use a good body scrub. Those cells need to be replaced so our skin doesn’t wear out.

However, we can get too much of a good thing. Some studies have found people who have higher IGF-1 levels than average have a higher risk of developing breast or prostate cancer.

But again, this has not been a consistent finding for all cancer types.

It is likely that both explanations (more cells and more IGF-1) play a role.

But more research is needed to really understand why taller people get cancer and whether this information could be used to prevent or even treat cancers.

I’m tall. What should I do?

If you are more LeBron James than Lionel Messi when it comes to height, what can you do?

Firstly, remember height only increases cancer risk by a very small amount.

Secondly, there are many things all of us can do to reduce our cancer risk, and those things have a much, much greater effect on cancer risk than height.

We can take a look at our lifestyle. Try to:

  • eat a healthy diet
  • exercise regularly
  • maintain a healthy weight
  • be careful in the sun
  • limit alcohol consumption.

And, most importantly, don’t smoke!

If we all did these things we could vastly reduce the amount of cancer.

You can also take part in cancer screening programs that help pick up cancers of the breast, cervix and bowel early so they can be treated successfully.

Finally, take heart! Research also tells us that being taller might just reduce your chance of having a heart attack or stroke.

Susan Jordan, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, The University of Queensland and Karen Tuesley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • The Path to a Better Tuberculosis Vaccine Runs Through Montana
  • Everything You Need To Know About The Menopause – by Kate Muir
    Kate Muir fights for peri-menopausal health to be taken seriously. This powerful handbook covers workplace struggles, sex life changes, and the correlation between menopause and breast cancer and Alzheimer’s. Grab your copy now!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Beat Sugar Addiction Now! – by Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum & Chrystle Fiedler

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Sugar isn’t often thought of as an addiction in the same category as alcohol or nicotine, but it’s actually very similar in some ways…

    A bold claim, but: in each case, it has to do with dopamine responses to something that has:

    • an adverse effect on our health,
    • a quickly developed tolerance to same,
    • and unpleasant withdrawal symptoms when quitting.

    However, not all sugar addictions are created equal, and Dr. Teitelbaum lays four different types of sugar addiction out for us:

    1. Most related to “I need to perform and I need to perform now”
    2. Most related to “I just need something to get me through one more stressful day, again, just like every day before it”
    3. Most related to “ate too much sugar because of the above, and now a gut overgrowth of C. albicans is at the wheel”
    4. Most related to “ate too much sugar because of the above, and now insulin resistance is a problem that perpetuates itself too”

    Of course, these may overlap, and indeed, they tend to stack cumulatively as time goes by.

    However, Dr. Teitelbaum notes that as readers we may recognize ourselves as being at a particular point in the above, and there are different advices for each of them.

    You thought it was just going to be about going cold turkey? Nope!

    Instead, a multi-vector approach is recommended, including adjustments to sleep, nutrition, immune health, hormonal health, and more.

    In short: if you’ve been trying to to kick the “White Death” habit as Gloria Swanson called it (sugar, that is, not the WW2 Finnish sniper of the same name—we can’t help you with that one), then this book is really much more helpful than others that take the “well, just don’t eat it, then” approach!

    Pick up your copy of Beat Sugar Addiction Now from Amazon, and start your journey!

    Share This Post

  • Honey vs Maple Syrup – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing honey to maple syrup, we picked the honey.

    Why?

    It was very close, as both have small advantages:
    •⁠ ⁠Honey has some medicinal properties (and depending on type, may contain an antihistamine)
    •⁠ ⁠Maple syrup is a good source of manganese, as well as low-but-present amounts of other minerals

    However, you wouldn’t want to eat enough maple syrup to rely on it as a source of those minerals, and honey has the lower GI (average 46 vs 54; for comparison, refined sugar is 65), which works well as a tie-breaker.

    (If GI’s very important to you, though, the easy winner here would be agave syrup if we let it compete, with its GI of 15)

    Read more:
    •⁠ ⁠Can Honey Relieve Allergies?
    •⁠ ⁠From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose C’s

    Share This Post

  • A new emergency procedure for cardiac arrests aims to save more lives – here’s how it works

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    As of January this year, Aotearoa New Zealand became just the second country (after Canada) to adopt a groundbreaking new procedure for patients experiencing cardiac arrest.

    Known as “double sequential external defibrillation” (DSED), it will change initial emergency response strategies and potentially improve survival rates for some patients.

    Surviving cardiac arrest hinges crucially on effective resuscitation. When the heart is working normally, electrical pulses travel through its muscular walls creating regular, co-ordinated contractions.

    But if normal electrical rhythms are disrupted, heartbeats can become unco-ordinated and ineffective, or cease entirely, leading to cardiac arrest.

    Defibrillation is a cornerstone resuscitation method. It gives the heart a powerful electric shock to terminate the abnormal electrical activity. This allows the heart to re-establish its regular rhythm.

    Its success hinges on the underlying dysfunctional heart rhythm and the proper positioning of the defibrillation pads that deliver the shock. The new procedure will provide a second option when standard positioning is not effective.

    Using two defibrillators

    During standard defibrillation, one pad is placed on the right side of the chest just below the collarbone. A second pad is placed below the left armpit. Shocks are given every two minutes.

    Early defibrillation can dramatically improve the likelihood of surviving a cardiac arrest. However, around 20% of patients whose cardiac arrest is caused by “ventricular fibrillation” or “pulseless ventricular tachycardia” do not respond to the standard defibrillation approach. Both conditions are characterised by abnormal activity in the heart ventricles.

    DSED is a novel method that provides rapid sequential shocks to the heart using two defibrillators. The pads are attached in two different locations: one on the front and side of the chest, the other on the front and back.

    A single operator activates the defibrillators in sequence, with one hand moving from the first to the second. According to a recent randomised trial in Canada, this approach could more than double the chances of survival for patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who are not responding to standard shocks.

    The second shock is thought to improve the chances of eliminating persistent abnormal electrical activity. It delivers more total energy to the heart, travelling along a different pathway closer to the heart’s left ventricle.

    Evidence of success

    New Zealand ambulance data from 2020 to 2023 identified about 1,390 people who could potentially benefit from novel defibrillation methods. This group has a current survival rate of only 14%.

    Recognising the potential for DSED to dramatically improve survival for these patients, the National Ambulance Sector Clinical Working Group updated the clinical procedures and guidelines for emergency medical services personnel.

    The guidelines now specify that if ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia persist after two shocks with standard defibrillation, the DSED method should be administered. Two defibrillators need to be available, and staff must be trained in the new approach.

    Though the existing evidence for DSED is compelling, until recently it was based on theory and a small number of potentially biased observational studies. The Canadian trial was the first to directly compare DSED to standard treatment.

    From a total of 261 patients, 30.4% treated with this strategy survived, compared to 13.3% when standard resuscitation protocols were followed.

    The design of the trial minimised the risk of other factors confounding results. It provides confidence that survival improvements were due to the defibrillation approach and not regional differences in resources and training.

    The study also corroborates and builds on existing theoretical and clinical scientific evidence. As the trial was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the researchers could recruit fewer than half of the numbers planned for the study.

    Despite these and other limitations, the international group of experts that advises on best practice for resuscitation updated its recommendations in 2023 in response to the trial results. It suggested (with caution) that emergency medical services consider DSED for patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who are not responding to standard treatment.

    Training and implementation

    Although the evidence is still emerging, implementation of DSED by emergency services in New Zealand has implications beyond the care of patients nationally. It is also a key step in advancing knowledge about optimal resuscitation strategies globally.

    There are always concerns when translating an intervention from a controlled research environment to the relative disorder of the real world. But the balance of evidence was carefully considered before making the decision to change procedures for a group of patients who have a low likelihood of survival with current treatment.

    Before using DSED, emergency medical personnel undergo mandatory education, simulation and training. Implementation is closely monitored to determine its impact.

    Hospitals and emergency departments have been informed of the protocol changes and been given opportunities to ask questions and give feedback. As part of the implementation, the St John ambulance service will perform case reviews in addition to wider monitoring to ensure patient safety is prioritised.

    Ultimately, those involved are optimistic this change to cardiac arrest management in New Zealand will have a positive impact on survival for affected patients.The Conversation

    Vinuli Withanarachchie, PhD candidate, College of Health, Massey University; Bridget Dicker, Associate Professor of Paramedicine, Auckland University of Technology, and Sarah Maessen, Research Associate, Auckland University of Technology

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Path to a Better Tuberculosis Vaccine Runs Through Montana
  • Popcorn vs Peanuts – Which is Healthier

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing air-popped popcorn to peanuts (without an allergy), we picked the peanuts.

    Why?

    Peanuts, if we were to list popular nuts in order of healthfulness, would not be near the top of the list. Many other nuts have more nutrients and fewer/lesser drawbacks.

    But the comparison to popcorn shines a different light on it:

    Popcorn has very few nutrients. It’s mostly carbs and fiber; it’s just not a lot of carbs because the manner of its consumption makes it a very light snack (literally). You can eat a bowlful and it was perhaps 30g. It has some small amounts of some minerals, but nothing that you could rely on it for. It’s mostly fresh air wrapped in fiber.

    Peanuts, in contrast, are a much denser snack. High in calories yes, but also high in protein, their fats are mostly healthy, and they have not only a fair stock of vitamins and minerals, but also a respectable complement of beneficial phytochemicals: mostly assorted antioxidant polyphenols, but also oleic acid (as in olives, good for healthy triglyceride levels).

    Another thing worth a mention is their cholesterol-reducing phytosterols (these reduce the absorption of dietary cholesterol, “good” and “bad”, so this is good for most people, bad for some, depending on the state of your cholesterol and what you ate near in time to eating the nuts)

    Peanuts do have their clear downsides too: its phytic acid content can reduce the bioavailability of iron and zinc taken at the same time.

    In summary: while popcorn’s greatest claim to dietary beneficence is its fiber content and that it’s close to being a “zero snack”, peanuts (eaten in moderation, say, the same 30g as the popcorn) have a lot to contribute to our daily nutritional requirements.

    We do suggest enjoying other nuts though!

    Read more: Why You Should Diversify Your Nuts!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The Exercises That Can Fix Sinus Problems (And More)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Who nose what benefits you will gain today?

    This is James Nestor, a science journalist and author. He’s written for many publications, including Scientific American, and written a number of books, most notably Breath: The New Science Of A Lost Art.

    Today we’ll be looking at what he has to share about what has gone wrong with our breathing, what problems this causes, and how to fix it.

    What has gone wrong?

    When it comes to breathing, we humans are the pugs of the primate world. In a way, we have the opposite problem to the squashed-faced dogs, though. But, how and why?

    When our ancestors learned first tenderize food, and later to cook it, this had two big effects:

    1. We could now get much more nutrition for much less hunting/gathering
    2. We now did not need to chew our food nearly so much

    Getting much more nutrition for much less hunting/gathering is what allowed us to grow our brains so large—as a species, we have a singularly large brain-to-body size ratio.

    Not needing to chew our food nearly so much, meanwhile, had even more effects… And these effects have become only more pronounced in recent decades with the rise of processed food making our food softer and softer.

    It changed the shape of our jaw and cheekbones, just as the size of our brains taking up more space in our skull moved our breathing apparatus around. As a result, our nasal cavities are anatomically ridiculous, our sinuses are a crime against nature (not least of all because they drain backwards and get easily clogged), and our windpipes are very easily blocked and damaged due to the unique placement of our larynx; we’re the only species that has it there. It allowed us to develop speech, but at the cost of choking much more easily.

    What problems does this cause?

    Our (normal, to us) species-wide breathing problems have resulted in behavioral adaptations such as partial (or in some people’s cases, total or near-total) mouth-breathing. This in turn exacerbates the problems with our jaws and cheekbones, which in turn exacerbates the problems with our sinuses and nasal cavities in general.

    Results include such very human-centric conditions as sleep apnea, as well as a tendency towards asthma, allergies, and autoimmune diseases. Improper breathing also brings about a rather sluggish metabolism for how many calories we consume.

    How are we supposed to fix all that?!

    First, close your mouth if you haven’t already, and breathe through your nose.

    In and out.

    Both are important, and unless you are engaging in peak exercise, both should be through your nose. If you’re not used to this, it may feel odd at first, but practice, and build up your breathing ability.

    Six seconds in and six seconds out is a very good pace.

    If you’re sitting doing a breathing exercise, also good is four seconds in, four seconds hold, four seconds out, four seconds hold, repeat.

    But those frequent holds aren’t practical in general life, so: six seconds in, six seconds out.

    Through your nose only.

    This has benefits immediately, but there are other more long-term benefits from doing not just that, but also what has been called (by Nestor, amongst many others), “Mewing”, per the orthodontist, Dr. John Mew, who pioneered it.

    How (and why) to “mew”:

    Place your tongue against the roof of your mouth. It should be flat against the palate; you’re not touching it with the tip here; you’re creating a flat seal.

    Note: if you were mouth-breathing, you will now be unable to breathe. So, important to make sure you can breathe adequately through your nose first.

    This does two things:

    1. It obliges nose-breathing rather than mouth-breathing
    2. It creates a change in how the muscles of your face interact with the bones of your face

    In a battle between muscle and bone, muscle will always win.

    Aim to keep your tongue there as much as possible; make it your new best habit. If you’re not eating, talking, or otherwise using your tongue to do something, it should be flat against the roof of your mouth.

    You don’t have to exert pressure; this isn’t an exercise regime. Think of it more as a postural exercise, just, inside your mouth.

    Quick note: read the above line again, because it’s important. Doing it too hard could cause the opposite problems, and you don’t want that. You cannot rush this by doing it harder; it takes time and gentleness.

    Why would we want to do that?

    The result, over time, will tend to be much healthier breathing, better sinus health, freer airways, reduced or eliminated sleep apnea, and, as a bonus, what is generally considered a more attractive face in terms of bone structure. We’re talking more defined cheekbones, straighter teeth, and a better mouth position.

    Want to learn more?

    This is the “Mewing” technique that Nestor encourages us to try:

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Brain Maker – by Dr. David Perlmutter

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Regular 10almonds readers probably know about the gut-brain connection already, so what’s new here?

    Dr. David Perlmutter takes us on a tour of gut and brain health, specifically, the neuroprotective effect of healthy gut microbiota.

    This seems unlikely! After all, vagus nerve or no, the gut microbiota are confined to the gut, and the brain is kept behind the blood-brain barrier. So how does one thing protect the other?

    Dr. Perlmutter presents the relevant science, and the honest answer is, we’re not 100% sure how this happens! We do know part of it: that bad gut microbiota can result in a “leaky gut”, and that may in turn lead to such a thing as a “leaky brain”, where the blood-brain barrier has been compromised and some bad things can get in with the blood.

    When it comes to gut-brain health…

    Not only is the correlation very strong, but also, in tests where someone’s gut microbiota underwent a radical change, e.g. due to…

    • antibiotics (bad)
    • fasting (good)
    • or a change in diet (either way)

    …their brain health changed accordingly—something we can’t easily check outside of a lab, but was pretty clear in those tests.

    We’re also treated to an exposé on the links between gut health, brain health, inflammation, and dementia… Which links are extensive.

    In closing, we’ll mention that throughout this book we’re also given many tips and advices to improve our gut/brain health, reverse damage done already, and set ourselves up well for the future.

    Click here to check out “Brain Maker” on Amazon and take care of this important part of your health!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: