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
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...
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you mean healthy foods as well? They vary from "much more expensive than" normal" food (not necessarily just highly processed/worst), to "impossible to purchase at all" due to living in the place that doesn't offer these options.
On top of that there's time cost - making healthy meals form scratch takes far more time than making them from store-bought "parts" (eg: to get boiled beans I need to soak them, them boil for hours. For this I need time, more time and a lot of energy)
I think you're not taking the average human's reality.
I think you are not aware of the average human's reality before 1980. The food deserts of today affect a small percentage of people. If you want something almost as healthy as the produce but prepared/processed you can buy it today but couldn't in 1980. You would also be spending considerably more of your income on food before 1980 no matter the quality. It's fun to blame scarcity of needed things but this has no reality. There is an abundance of preferred things.
In '80s in mine we had mostly only healthy foods. Crap sold as food today was completely unavailable; the most unhealthy would be a birthday cake or additional slice of bacon on a plate.
I think I am aware and I posit it's very hard for people on low I comes to even be able to buy a quality food.
Unprepared food was pretty much the only healthy food in shops before 1980. Poor people were more likely to need two bread winners..
The memes you are repeating do not match actual US or world statistics. They do make everyone feel better all around. I.e. even free enterprise and freedom of choice stories work worse when we are genetically tuned to choose ourselves to death and market tuned to profit from it. (A bag of potatoes is far more available globally than decades ago but a bag of doritos has a far more impressive availability increase.)
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.
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
Has this factor really changed much in the past century?
Yes, unequivocally.
Same question: I exercise and eat healthy, but I sit for long stretches
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...
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Well for sure we absolutely certainly know what it absolutely certainly isn’t causing it so it absolutely doesn’t need to be researched.
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.
Maybe vaping
Heavy THC vaping absolutely screws up my bowels. The Munchies eventually changes into anorexia and constipation.
I really hope not.
People will go to extraordinary lengths to argue against this.
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.”
Also PFAS has been found to have links to colorectal cancer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12661558/
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
Is this medical advice?
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes. Kids are getting cancer “because they are fat and lazy”. How quaint.
Nobody said anything about being lazy.
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.
Do you mean healthy foods as well? They vary from "much more expensive than" normal" food (not necessarily just highly processed/worst), to "impossible to purchase at all" due to living in the place that doesn't offer these options.
On top of that there's time cost - making healthy meals form scratch takes far more time than making them from store-bought "parts" (eg: to get boiled beans I need to soak them, them boil for hours. For this I need time, more time and a lot of energy)
I think you're not taking the average human's reality.
I think you are not aware of the average human's reality before 1980. The food deserts of today affect a small percentage of people. If you want something almost as healthy as the produce but prepared/processed you can buy it today but couldn't in 1980. You would also be spending considerably more of your income on food before 1980 no matter the quality. It's fun to blame scarcity of needed things but this has no reality. There is an abundance of preferred things.
Depends on the country.
In '80s in mine we had mostly only healthy foods. Crap sold as food today was completely unavailable; the most unhealthy would be a birthday cake or additional slice of bacon on a plate.
I think I am aware and I posit it's very hard for people on low I comes to even be able to buy a quality food.
Unprepared food was pretty much the only healthy food in shops before 1980. Poor people were more likely to need two bread winners..
The memes you are repeating do not match actual US or world statistics. They do make everyone feel better all around. I.e. even free enterprise and freedom of choice stories work worse when we are genetically tuned to choose ourselves to death and market tuned to profit from it. (A bag of potatoes is far more available globally than decades ago but a bag of doritos has a far more impressive availability increase.)
“System prefers lower-energy state” is not paradoxical at all.
It’s just about the most fundamental law in the entire universe, in fact.
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.
side of body cancer develops on is closely linked to side of body phone is carried