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.
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.
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
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Running: Getting Started – by Jeff Galloway
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.
Superficially, running is surely one of the easiest sports to get into, for most people. You put one foot in front of the other, repeat, and pick up the pace.
However, many people do not succeed. They head out of the door (perhaps on January the first), push themselves a little, experience runner’s high, think “this is great”, and the next day wake up with some minor aches and no motivation. This book is here to help you bypass that stage.
Jeff Galloway has quite a series of books, but the others seem derivative of this one. So, what makes this one special?
It’s quite comprehensive; it covers (as the title promises) getting started, setting yourself up for success, finding what level your ability is at safely rather than guessing and overdoing it, and building up from there.
He also talks about what kit you’ll want; this isn’t just about shoes, but even “what to wear when the weather’s not good” and so forth; he additionally shares advice about diet, exercise on non-running days, body maintenance (stretching and strengthening), troubleshooting aches and pains, and running well into one’s later years.
Bottom line: if you’d like to take up running but it seems intimidating (perhaps for reasons you can’t quite pin down), this book will take care of all those things, and indeed get you “up and running”.
Click here to check out Running: Getting Started, and get started!
Share This Post
-
Fat’s Real Barriers To Health
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.
Fat Justice In Healthcare
This is Aubrey Gordon, an author, podcaster, and fat justice activist. What does that mean?
When it comes to healthcare, we previously covered some ideas very similar to her work, such as how…
There’s a lot of discrimination in healthcare settings
In this case, it often happens that a thin person goes in with a medical problem and gets treated for that, while a fat person can go in with the same medical problem and be told “you should try losing some weight”.
Top tip if this happens to you… Ask: “what would you advise/prescribe to a thin person with my same symptoms?”
Other things may be more systemic, for example:
When a thin person goes to get their blood pressure taken, and that goes smoothly, while a fat person goes to get their blood pressure taken, and there’s not a blood pressure cuff to fit them, is the problem the size of the person or the size of the cuff? It all depends on perspective, in a world built around thin people.
That’s a trivial-seeming example, but the same principle has far-reaching (and harmful) implications in healthcare in general, e.g:
- Surgeons being untrained (and/or unwilling) to operate on fat people
- Getting a one-size-fits-all dose that was calculated using average weight, and now doesn’t work
- MRI machines are famously claustrophobia-inducing for thin people; now try not fitting in it in the first place
…and so forth. So oftentimes, obesity will be correlated with a poor healthcare outcome, where the problem is not actually the obesity itself, but rather the system having been set up with thin people in mind.
It would be like saying “Having O- blood type results in higher risks when receiving blood transfusions”, while omitting to add “…because we didn’t stock O- blood”.
Read more on this topic: Shedding Some Obesity Myths
Does she have practical advice about this?
If she could have you understand one thing, it would be:
You deserve better.
Or if you are not fat: your fat friends deserve better.
How this becomes useful is: do not accept being treated as the problem!
Demand better!
If you meekly accept that you “just need to lose weight” and that thus you are the problem, you take away any responsibility from your healthcare provider(s) to actually do their jobs and provide healthcare.
See also Gordon’s book, which we’ve not reviewed yet but probably will one of these days:
“You Just Need to Lose Weight”: And 19 Other Myths About Fat People – by Aubrey Gordon
Are you saying fat people don’t need to lose weight?
That’s a little like asking “would you say office workers don’t need to exercise more?”; there are implicit assumptions built into the question that are going unaddressed.
Rather: some people might benefit healthwise from losing weight, some might not.
In fact, over the age of 65, being what is nominally considered “overweight” reduces all-cause mortality risk.
For details of that and more, see: When BMI Doesn’t Measure Up
But what if I do want/need to lose weight?
Gordon’s not interested in helping with that, but we at 10almonds are, so…
Check out: Lose Weight, But Healthily
Where can I find more from Aubrey Gordon?
You might enjoy her blog:
Aubrey Gordon | Your Fat Friend
Or her other book, which we reviewed previously:
What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Fat – by Aubrey Gordon
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
A new government inquiry will examine women’s pain and treatment. How and why is it different?
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.
The Victorian government has announced an inquiry into women’s pain. Given women are disproportionately affected by pain, such a thorough investigation is long overdue.
The inquiry, the first of its kind in Australia and the first we’re aware of internationally, is expected to take a year. It aims to improve care and services for Victorian girls and women experiencing pain in the future.
The gender pain gap
Globally, more women report chronic pain than men do. A survey of over 1,750 Victorian women found 40% are living with chronic pain.
Approximately half of chronic pain conditions have a higher prevalence in women compared to men, including low back pain and osteoarthritis. And female-specific pain conditions, such as endometriosis, are much more common than male-specific pain conditions such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.
These statistics are seen across the lifespan, with higher rates of chronic pain being reported in females as young as two years old. This discrepancy increases with age, with 28% of Australian women aged over 85 experiencing chronic pain compared to 18% of men.
It feels worse
Women also experience pain differently to men. There is some evidence to suggest that when diagnosed with the same condition, women are more likely to report higher pain scores than men.
Similarly, there is some evidence to suggest women are also more likely to report higher pain scores during experimental trials where the same painful pressure stimulus is applied to both women and men.
Pain is also more burdensome for women. Depression is twice as prevalent in women with chronic pain than men with chronic pain. Women are also more likely to report more health care use and be hospitalised due to their pain than men.
Women seem to feel pain more acutely and often feel ignored by doctors.
ShutterstockMedical misogyny
Women in pain are viewed and treated differently to men. Women are more likely to be told their pain is psychological and dismissed as not being real or “all in their head”.
Hollywood actor Selma Blair recently shared her experience of having her symptoms repeatedly dismissed by doctors and put down to “menstrual issues”, before being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2018.
It’s an experience familiar to many women in Australia, where medical misogyny still runs deep. Our research has repeatedly shown Australian women with pelvic pain are similarly dismissed, leading to lengthy diagnostic delays and serious impacts on their quality of life.
Misogyny exists in research too
Historically, misogyny has also run deep in medical research, including pain research. Women have been viewed as smaller bodied men with different reproductive functions. As a result, most pre-clinical pain research has used male rodents as the default research subject. Some researchers say the menstrual cycle in female rodents adds additional variability and therefore uncertainty to experiments. And while variability due to the menstrual cycle may be true, it may be no greater than male-specific sources of variability (such as within-cage aggression and dominance) that can also influence research findings.
The exclusion of female subjects in pre-clinical studies has hindered our understanding of sex differences in pain and of response to treatment. Only recently have we begun to understand various genetic, neurochemical, and neuroimmune factors contribute to sex differences in pain prevalence and sensitivity. And sex differences exist in pain processing itself. For instance, in the spinal cord, male and female rodents process potentially painful stimuli through entirely different immune cells.
These differences have relevance for how pain should be treated in women, yet many of the existing pharmacological treatments for pain, including opioids, are largely or solely based upon research completed on male rodents.
When women seek care, their pain is also treated differently. Studies show women receive less pain medication after surgery compared to men. In fact, one study found while men were prescribed opioids after joint surgery, women were more likely to be prescribed antidepressants. In another study, women were more likely to receive sedatives for pain relief following surgery, while men were more likely to receive pain medication.
So, women are disproportionately affected by pain in terms of how common it is and sensitivity, but also in how their pain is viewed, treated, and even researched. Women continue to be excluded, dismissed, and receive sub-optimal care, and the recently announced inquiry aims to improve this.
What will the inquiry involve?
Consumers, health-care professionals and health-care organisations will be invited to share their experiences of treatment services for women’s pain in Victoria as part of the year-long inquiry. These experiences will be used to describe the current service delivery system available to Victorian women with pain, and to plan more appropriate services to be delivered in the future.
Inquiry submissions are now open until March 12 2024. If you are a Victorian woman living with pain, or provide care to Victorian women with pain, we encourage you to submit.
The state has an excellent track record of improving women’s health in many areas, including heart, sexual, and reproductive health, but clearly, we have a way to go with women’s pain. We wait with bated breath to see the results of this much-needed investigation, and encourage other states and territories to take note of the findings.
Jane Chalmers, Senior Lecturer in Pain Sciences, University of South Australia and Amelia Mardon, PhD Candidate, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Guava vs Pineapple – 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 guava to pineapple, we picked the guava.
Why?
Pineapple is great, but guava just beats it in most ways:
In terms of macros, guava has nearly 4x the fiber and nearly 5x the protein, for the same carbs, giving it the notably lower glycemic index. An easy win for guava in this category.
In the category of vitamins, guava has a lot more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B5, B9, C, E, K, and choline, while pineapple has marginally more vitamin B1. Another clear win for guava.
When it comes to minerals, guava has more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while pineapple has more iron and manganese. One more win for guava.
One big thing in pineapple’s favor is that it contains bromelain, which is an enzyme* found in pineapple (and only in pineapple), that has many very healthful properties, some of them unique to bromelain (and thus: unique to pineapple)
*actually a combination of enzymes, but most often referred to collectively in the singular. But when you do see it referred to as “they”, that’s what that means.
However cool that is, we think it unfair to weight it against guava winning in every other category, so we still say guava gets the overall win.
Of course, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Let’s Get Fruity: Bromelain vs Inflammation & Much More
Enjoy!
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:
-
Sweet Cinnamon vs Regular Cinnamon – 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 sweet cinnamon to regular cinnamon, we picked the sweet.
Why?
In this case, it’s not close. One of them is health-giving and the other is poisonous (but still widely sold in supermarkets, especially in the US and Canada, because it is cheaper).
It’s worth noting that “regular cinnamon” is a bit of a misnomer, since sweet cinnamon is also called “true cinnamon”. The other cinnamon’s name is formally “cassia cinnamon”, but marketers don’t tend to call it that, preferring to calling it simply “cinnamon” and hope consumers won’t ask questions about what kind, because it’s cheaper.
Note: this too is especially true in the US and Canada, where for whatever reason sweet cinnamon seems to be more difficult to obtain than in the rest of the world.
In short, both cinnamons contain cinnamaldehyde and coumarin, but:
- Sweet/True cinnamon contains only trace amounts of coumarin
- Regular/Cassia cinnamon contains about 250x more coumarin
Coumarin is heptatotoxic, meaning it poisons the liver, and the recommended safe amount is 0.1mg/kg, so it’s easy to go over that with just a couple of teaspoons of cassia cinnamon.
You might be wondering: how can they get away with selling something that poisons the liver? In which case, see also: the alcohol aisle. Selling toxic things is very common; it just gets normalized a lot.
Cinnamaldehyde is responsible for cinnamon’s healthier properties, and is found in reasonable amounts in both cinnamons. There is about 50% more of it in the regular/cassia than in the sweet/true, but that doesn’t come close to offsetting the potential harm of its higher coumarin content.
Want to learn more?
You may like to read:
- A Tale Of Two Cinnamons ← this one has more of the science of coumarin toxicity, as well as discussing (and evidencing) cinnamaldehyde’s many healthful properties against inflammation, cancer, heart disease, neurodegeneration, etc
Enjoy!
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:
-
Tasty Hot-Or-Cold Soup
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.
Full of fiber as well as vitamins and minerals, this versatile “serve it hot or cold” soup is great whatever the weather—give it a try!
You will need
- 1 quart low-sodium vegetable stock—ideally you made this yourself from vegetable offcuts you kept in the freezer until you had enough to boil in a big pan, but failing that, a large supermarket will generally be able to sell you low-sodium stock cubes.
- 2 medium potatoes, peeled and diced
- 2 leeks, chopped
- 2 stalks celery, chopped
- 1 large onion, diced
- 1 large carrot, diced, or equivalent small carrots, sliced
- 1 zucchini, diced
- 1 red bell pepper, diced
- 1 tsp rosemary
- 1 tsp thyme
- ¼ bulb garlic, minced
- 1 small piece (equivalent of a teaspoon) ginger, minced
- 1 tsp red chili flakes
- 1 tsp black pepper, coarse ground
- ½ tsp turmeric
- Extra virgin olive oil, for frying
- Optional: ½ tsp MSG or 1 tsp low-sodium salt
About the MSG/salt: there should be enough sodium already from the stock and potatoes, but in case there’s not (since not all stock and potatoes are made equal), you might want to keep this on standby.
Method
(we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)
1) Heat some oil in a sauté pan, and add the diced onion, frying until it begins to soften.
2) Add the ginger, potato, carrot, and leek, and stir for about 5 minutes. The hard vegetables won’t be fully cooked yet; that’s fine.
3) Add the zucchini, red pepper, celery, and garlic, and stir for another 2–3 minutes.
4) Add the remaining ingredients; seasonings first, then vegetable stock, and let it simmer for about 15 minutes.
5) Check the potatoes are fully softened, and if they are, it’s ready to serve if you want it hot. Alternatively, let it cool, chill it in the fridge, and enjoy it cold:
Enjoy!
Want to learn more?
For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:
- Eat More (Of This) For Lower Blood Pressure
- Our Top 5 Spices: How Much Is Enough For Benefits? ← 5/5 in our recipe today!
- Monosodium Glutamate: Sinless Flavor-Enhancer Or Terrible Health Risk?
Take care!
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: