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!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Eating disorder symptoms in teens can be traced back to family hardship, new study shows
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.
Eating disorders can affect anybody, no matter their age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or body size. Yet the myth that eating disorders are “diseases of affluence” persists, and can mean those from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to receive a diagnosis and be able to access treatment.
In fact, people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage may be more at risk of developing eating disorder symptoms, such as excessive dieting, fasting or binge eating.
A new study from the United Kingdom followed 7,824 children, roughly half male and half female, from birth to 18 years. It found those born into financial hardship were more likely than others to later experience eating disorder symptoms as teens.
This means the stereotype that eating disorders only affect the rich is simply not true. And it shows we need to better understand the risk for children from lower-income families, so we can recognise and treat their symptoms earlier.
Eugene Chystiakov/Unsplash What the study looked at
Previous research has shown eating disorders can affect people from all socioeconomic backgrounds, not just those with higher economic status. But this new study is one of the first to show deprivation in childhood could be a risk factor for eating disorder symptoms in adolescence.
This new large, long-term study collected data from thousands of people over an 18-year period to investigate the impact of social and financial hardship.
Researchers looked at parents’ education, job type and where they lived. They also examined income, which was split into five groups from low to high. These were more aspects of social studies than previous research had considered.
To assess financial hardship, mothers rated how much they struggled to afford daily expenses such as food, heating, clothing, rent and baby items. They used a scale from 0-15, with higher scores indicating greater hardship.
When the children grew up to be teenagers, researchers assessed eating disorder symptoms in all the young people across the study.
Patterns of disordered eating included excessive dieting, binge eating, vomiting or using laxatives to get rid of food, and fasting. The teens were also asked how they felt about their bodies – for example, how satisfied they were with their appearance, weight and shape.
What the study found
Eating disorder symptoms were higher in young people aged 14–18 whose parents had suffered greater financial hardship when they were babies. For patterns of disordered eating, this meant a 6% higher likelihood for every one point increase between 0 and 15 on the financial-hardship scale.
The study also found teens whose parents completed less formal education (meaning only compulsory schooling) were 80% more likely to experience disordered eating patterns than those whose parents went to university. For teens with parents in the lowest fifth and fourth income band, the risk was 34–35% higher than those in the top band of income.
These results are different to other studies on eating disorders, because they show people from low socioeconomic backgrounds have a higher chance of developing eating disorder symptoms.
The researchers suggest this difference may be because other studies only included participants with a diagnosis or who have sought help. Research has shown those experiencing financial hardship are less likely to be formally diagnosed or access treatment.
While this study is impressive in its size and results, it has a few limitations. Only around half the participants (55.9%) completed the full study, which may have affected the results.
Among those who did complete the study, some of their data was missing. This may also have influenced the findings.
The study also did not measure whether young people had a diagnosed eating disorder – only whether they had symptoms.
So, it may have captured a wider range of eating disorder experiences, including from those who wouldn’t seek formal support. But it means more research is needed to understand the link between socioeconomic status and formal diagnosis.
What does this mean?
People who are born into financial hardship may be more likely to struggle with disordered eating and body image issues in their teenage years than those who are not.
This not only debunks the stereotype that eating disorders occur only in people from affluent backgrounds, it shows disadvantage can be a risk factor.
The study sheds light on the inequalities and barriers in recognising and treating eating disorders.
Rates of people seeking help for an eating disorder are already low – and even lower among people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The researchers suggested this could be because people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may also believe eating disorders mainly affect people from wealthier backgrounds.
Another reason may be that lower income is linked to higher rates of obesity and being overweight, and this might limit referrals for eating disorder symptoms.
Eating disorders not associated with thinness, such as bulimia and binge eating disorder, are often less visible and go undetected.
Better education about eating disorders – in schools and for families and health-care professionals – may help us recognise and treat them earlier.
But treatment also needs to be more affordable. In Australia, people can access eating disorder treatment sessions under Medicare, but this typically still involves a gap fee which can be up to A$100 or more, depending on the service. More no- or low-cost services are needed to reach everyone who needs them.
If you have a history of an eating disorder or suspect you may have one, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 334 673 (or via their online chat).
Catherine Houlihan, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast and Kathina Ali, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
6 Worst Foods That Cause Dementia
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.
How many do you consume?
The hit list
Dr. Li bids us avoid:
High carb, low fiber foods: consuming a diet high in carbohydrates, particularly refined carbs like cakes, white bread, pizza, and sugary syrups, can significantly harm brain health. Over time, imbalanced (i.e. not balanced with fiber) carbohydrate consumption leads to the growth of visceral fat (not the same as subcutaneous fat, which is the squishy bits just under your skin; visceral fat is further underneath, around your viscera), , which triggers systemic inflammation and oxidative stress. These processes disrupt communication between brain cells, impair memory, and increase the risk of diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. High carb diets can also contribute to metabolic syndrome—a cluster of conditions, including diabetes, obesity and high blood pressure—that damage blood vessels, leading to strokes and vascular dementia.
Trans fats: these are region-bound, as they’re banned in some places and not others—check your local regulations. Found in processed foods such as fried items, baked goods, packaged snacks, and margarine, trans fats are created through hydrogenation, which makes fats more stable at room temperature. These artificial fats raise bad cholesterol, lower good cholesterol, and promote atherosclerosis. This damages the brain by reducing oxygen supply, triggering chronic inflammation, and increasing the risk of Alzheimer’s and dementia.
Sodas: regular consumption of sodas, whether sugary or artificially sweetened, is harmful to brain health. A single can of soda contains around 9 teaspoons of sugar, which overwhelms metabolism, contributes to insulin resistance, and leads to inflammation. These effects damage blood vessels and brain tissue, disrupt neuron function, and increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and dementia. Furthermore, insulin resistance caused by excessive sugar intake can impair neuronal survival, activate immune responses, and exacerbate cognitive decline. As for the artificial sweeteners, the mechanism of harm depends on the sweetener (and some can also mess up insulin response, for reasons that are not entirely clear yet, but they measurably do), but even picking the healthiest artificial sweetener, training your palate to enjoy hyper-sweetened things will tend to lead to more sugar-laden food choices in other parts of one’s diet.
Processed foods: arguably a broad category that encompasses some of the above, but it’s important to consider it separately for catch-all purposes: these convenience foods, laden with artificial preservatives, colors, and sweeteners, harm brain health through chronic inflammation and usually a lack of essential nutrients. Processed foods are also a significant source of microplastics, which have been found to accumulate in the arteries, contributing to plaque build-up, atherosclerosis, and reduced blood flow to the brain. This combination of inflammation and oxidative stress from microplastics damages brain cells, paving the way for cognitive decline and dementia.
Seafood with high mercury levels: large fish such as tuna, swordfish, sharks, and tilefish accumulate high amounts of mercury, a potent neurotoxin. Fish that are larger, older, and/or higher up the food chain will have the most mercury (and other cumulative contaminants, for that matter, but we’re considering mercury here). Mercury disrupts essential brain chemicals like dopamine and serotonin, triggering oxidative stress and damaging brain cells. Chronic exposure to mercury leads to inflammation and neuroinflammation, both of which increase the risk of Alzheimer’s and dementia.
Alcohol: contrary to popular belief, any amount of alcohol is detrimental to brain health. While red wine is often promoted for its health benefits, the purported positive effects come from polyphenols, not the alcohol itself, and (for example) resveratrol from red wine cannot be delivered in meaningful doses without drinking an impossibly large quantity. Alcohol is a neurotoxin that can damage or kill brain cells, impair neuronal communication, and lead to cognitive decline. Excessive drinking results in hangover symptoms like headaches and brain fog, which are indicators of its harmful impact on the brain. Chronic alcohol consumption exacerbates neuron death, increases inflammation, and raises the risk of dementia.
As for what to eat instead?
Dr. Li recommends including foods such as:
- foods rich in omega-3s that aren’t mercury-laden fish, e.g. flaxseeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and hemp seeds, as they reduce inflammation, protect blood vessel linings, and prevent vascular dementia.
- berries, and in particular he recommends organic strawberries, which are rich in ellagic acid and anthocyanins, which improve memory, reduce depressive symptoms, and enhance cognitive function.
For more on all of these, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Fruit & Veg In The Fridge: Pros & Cons
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.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝What effect does refrigeration have on the nutritional value of fruit and vegetables??❞
It’s difficult to give a single definitive answer, because naturally there are a lot of different fruits and vegetables, and a lot of different climates. The answer may be different for tomatoes in Alaska vs bananas in Arizona!
However, we can still generalize at least somewhat
Refrigeration will generally slow down any degradation process, and in the case of fruit and vegetables, that can mean slowing down their “ripening” too, as applicable.
However…
Refrigeration will also impede helpful bioactivity too, and that includes quite a list of things.
Here’s a good study that’s quite illustrative; we’d summarize the conclusions but the rather long title already does that nicely:
So, this really is a case of “there are pros and cons, but probably more cons on balance”.
In practical terms, a good take-away from this can be twofold:
- don’t keep fruit and veg in the fridge unless the ambient temperature really requires it
- if the ambient temperature does require it, it’s best to get the produce in fresh each day if that’s feasible, to minimize time spent in the fridge
An extra thing not included there: often when it comes to the spoilage of fruit and veg, the problem is that it respires and oxidizes; reducing the temperature does lower the rate of those, but often a far better way is to remove the oxygen. So for example, if you get carried away and chop too many carrot batons for your hummus night, then putting them in a sealed container can go a long way to keeping them fresh.
See also: How Does the Nutritional Value of Fruits and Vegetables Change Over Time?
Enjoy!
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
Bamboo Shoots vs Red Cabbage – 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 bamboo to red cabbage, we picked the bamboo.
Why?
Both have their merits!
In terms of macros, bamboo has slightly more fiber and protein, while red cabbage has slightly more carbs; the numbers are close though, so we could call this round a tie if not a small nominal win for bamboo.
In the category of vitamins, bamboo has more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, B7, and E, while red cabbage has more of vitamins A, B9, C, and K, yielding a modest 5:4 win to bamboo here.
Looking at minerals, bamboo has more copper, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc, while red cabbage has more calcium, iron, and magnesium, making this one a 6:3 win for bamboo.
In other considerations, red cabbage is higher in polyphenols, so that’s a point in its favor.
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for bamboo, but by all means do enjoy either or both, as diversity is best!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Don’t Be Bamboozled By Bamboo! ← including how to eat bamboo, for those unfamiliar with such, as we have been asked about it 🙂
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:
-
Figs vs Guava – 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 figs to guava, we picked the figs.
Why?
This one’s pretty straightforward:
In terms of macros, figs have slightly more carbs while guava has nearly 2x the fiber (and figs were already good for that), as well as about 3x the protein, but the numbers are smaller there. In any case, a clear win for guava.
In the category of vitamins, figs have more of vitamins B2 and K, while guava has more of vitamins A, B1, B3, B5, B9, C, E, and choline, including for some very notable margins, especially the vitamin C (of which guavas are a very good source, and figs aren’t). Another very clear win for guava.
When it comes to minerals, figs have more calcium and iron, while guava has more copper, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. One more win for guava.
It’s worth noting that guava also has a much higher polyphenol content, so that’s another point guava.
Adding up the sections makes for a clear overall win for guava, but by all means enjoy either or both; figs are actually great too; they just don’t look it when standing next to guava!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
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:
-
The Princess of Wales wants to stay cancer-free. What does this mean?
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.
Catherine, Princess of Wales, has announced she has now completed a course of preventive chemotherapy.
The news comes nine months after the princess first revealed she was being treated for an unspecified form of cancer.
In the new video message released by Kensington Palace, Princess Catherine says she’s focused on doing what she can to stay “cancer-free”. She acknowledges her cancer journey is not over and the “path to recovery and healing is long”.
While we don’t know the details of the princess’s cancer or treatment, it raises some questions about how we declare someone fully clear of the disease. So what does being – and staying – “cancer-free” mean?
Pete Hancock/Shutterstock What’s the difference between being cancer-free and in remission?
Medically, “cancer-free” means two things. First, it means no cancer cells are able to be detected in a patient’s body using the available testing methods. Second, there is no cancer left in the patient.
These might sound basically the same. But this second aspect of “cancer-free” can be complicated, as it’s essentially impossible to be sure no cancer cells have survived a treatment.
Testing can’t completely rule out the chance some cancer cells have survived treatment. Andrewshots/Shutterstock It only takes a few surviving cells for the cancer to grow back. But these cells may not be detectable via testing, and can lie dormant for some time. The possibility of some cells still surviving means it is more accurate to say a patient is “in remission”, rather than “cancer-free”.
Remission means there is no detectable cancer left. Once a patient has been in remission for a certain period of time, they are often considered to be fully “cancer-free”.
Princess Catherine was not necessarily speaking in the strict medical sense. Nonetheless, she is clearly signalling a promising step in her recovery.
What happens during remission?
During remission, patients will usually undergo surveillance testing to make sure their cancer hasn’t returned. Detection tests can vary greatly depending on both the patient and their cancer type.
Many tests involve simply looking at different organs to see if there are cancer cells present, but at varying levels of complexity.
Some cancers can be detected with the naked eye, such as skin cancers. In other cases, technology is needed: colonoscopies for colorectal cancers, X-ray mammograms for breast cancers, or CT scans for lung cancers. There are also molecular tests, which test for the presence of cancer cells using protein or DNA from blood or tissue samples.
For most patients, testing will continue for years at regular intervals. Surveillance testing ensures any returning cancer is caught early, giving patients the best chance of successful treatment.
Remaining in remission for five years can be a huge milestone in a patient’s cancer journey. For most types of cancer, the chances of cancer returning drop significantly after five years of remission. After this point, surveillance testing may be performed less frequently, as the patients might be deemed to be at a lower risk of their cancer returning.
Skin cancer may be detected by the naked eye, but many other cancers require technology for detection and monitoring. wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock Measuring survival rates
Because it is very difficult to tell when a cancer is “cured”, clinicians may instead refer to a “five-year survival rate”. This measures how likely a cancer patient is to be alive five years after their diagnosis.
For example, data shows the five-year survival rate for bowel cancer among Australian women (of all ages) is around 70%. That means if you had 100 patients with bowel cancer, after five years you would expect 70 to still be alive and 30 to have succumbed to the disease.
These statistics can’t tell us much about individual cases. But comparing five-year survival rates between large groups of patients after different cancer treatments can help clinicians make the often complex decisions about how best to treat their patients.
The likelihood of cancer coming back, or recurring, is influenced by many factors which can vary over time. For instance, approximately 30% of people with lung cancer develop a recurrent disease, even after treatment. On the other hand, breast cancer recurrence within two years of the initial diagnosis is approximately 15%. Within five years it drops to 10%. After ten, it falls below 2%.
These are generalisations though – recurrence rates can vary greatly depending on things such as what kind of cancer the patient has, how advanced it is, and whether it has spread.
Staying cancer-free
Princess Catherine says her focus now is to “stay cancer-free”. What might this involve?
How a cancer develops and whether it recurs can be influenced by things we can’t control, such as age, ethnicity, gender, genetics and hormones.
However, there are sometimes environmental factors we can control. That includes things like exposure to UV radiation from the sun, or inhaling carcinogens like tobacco.
Lifestyle factors also play a role. Poor diet and nutrition, a lack of exercise and excessive alcohol consumption can all contribute to cancer development.
Research estimates more than half of all cancers could potentially be prevented through regular screening and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (not to mention preventing other chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes).
Recommendations to reduce cancer risk are the same for everyone, not just those who’ve had treatment like Princess Catherine. They include not smoking, eating a nutritious and balanced diet, exercising regularly, cutting down on alcohol and staying sun smart.
Amali Cooray, PhD Candidate in Genetic Engineering and Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) ; John (Eddie) La Marca, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research) , and Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, WEHI (Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research)
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!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
