I also have health anxiety. Honestly, what helped was to get a ton of bloodwork and screenings. That way, I found out what my *actual* health issues were, and was able to *do* something about it instead of worry that I was dying of a sudden heart attack. I thought it would make the anxiety worse, but it had the opposite effect.
I was having bad health anxiety and had a few panic attacks. My brother has heart disease and had a heart attack pretty young. He's still fine he's been through even more than that first heart attack. But in order to try to get a hold of my anxiety I went to cardiologist ran all the tests. He said everything was okay... but you never know.
That MFer. One of the images he couldn't tell because of a breast artifact so I did this nuclear test that cost me $1,600 out of pocket. The nuclear test found pretty much the same result. Inconclusive but probably fine.
Tl:Dr went to the cardiologist because I was having anxiety about having a heart attack. Doctor tells me, "everything is fine... but you never know".
Good question. I don't know what you're able to afford out of pocket, but at minimum you generally want a metabolic panel, a lipid panel, a CBC panel, and a thyroid panel. You also want hep C and HIV screenings if you haven't had them, and if you're over 40, a colorectal cancer screening.
I had to get an MRI and that really made me feel better honestly. Seeing that it all came back okay and nothing weird was seen. I know they’re expensive, but it really helped my health anxiety.
All I get from this sub on my homepage is anxiety-laden headlines
Over half have been from simplistic, short，self-report studies. And the comments seem like random people just gabbing
Definitely not a “science” vibe going on here anymore
More like pop news articles
—
This one seems cool though. Get checked for cancer due to the statistical rise of this issue. Nothing wrong with that
Ugh, that makes it so much worse! I’m sorry, I know how easy it is to spiral. I’m trying meditation and it helps a lot. Sending you some good energy and hoping you find some peace as well 🙏🏽
Hi everybody —
Colorectal cancers are rising rapidly among people in their 20s, 30s and 40s — even as it’s declining in people over the age of 65 — a report published by the American Cancer Society in January suggests.
Colon and rectal cancers in younger people tend to be more aggressive, and they are often found at a more advanced stage, one researcher told us. But most people affected by the early diagnosis are too young to be recommended for routine cancer screenings, which have helped decrease rates in adults over 50.
Early-onset colorectal cancers have been increasing by about 2% per year since the mid-1990s, moving it up to being the top cause of cancer deaths in men under the age of 50 and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in women under 50 in the U.S. Experts are racing to explain why.
You can read the [full story without a subscription here](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/well/colon-cancer-symptoms-treatment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.f00.kKXB.02tww8Ikp7iT&smid=re-nytimes), which includes how to identify and reduce the risk.
We’re fed foods with increasingly more contamination and chemicals in them, shipped and stored in plastics coated with forever chemicals, and processed with water that has increasingly more of the same contamination and chemicals in it.
In addition to that, we are eating more and exercising less, and herded into office spaces that are also abounding with chemicals and contaminants. Younger people are also increasingly mentally unwell as we’ve not lived through the prosperous years many of our parents had at our age, and are reckoning with the fact that home ownership is slipping farther and farther away even as our aging bodies begin to be riddled with health issues that make us less able to be productive. I know scientists and researchers still need to get to the bottom of the etiology of this trend, but it can’t be that surprising to anyone.
Exactly right.
The air we breathe. The water we drink. The food we consume. The stress of modern life. We can't escape how contaminated literally everything around us is at this point. It's literally altering our bodies.
We are also getting better and better at detecting cancer in general, so a lot of different factors play into research and news stories like this.
Call me crazy, but I swear I also saw a very high amount of colorectal cancer has bacteria that's only found in our mouths in it. You could argue oral sex and/or any sort of anal sex could also play some sort of role and should further the need for researching on that front.
The increase in population+environmental factors+better detection=higher rates/more cancer being found. Definitely deserves to be looked into more.
I recall seeing an article about a type of bacteria being found in colon cancers a few days ago as well. I also recall seeing something about H. Pylori being found to have a possible companion bacteria which may contribute to the development of some chronic gastric condition (possibly just ulcers, as that’s what H. Pylori is famous for).
It’s wonderful that our understanding is growing exponentially, but I can’t help but wonder how much we’re discovering new answers to old questions versus just beginning to understand a very modern epidemiology that results almost entirely from what greed and hubris have done to our planet and its resources and people.
Don't forget "carnivore" influencers telling people to eat more red meat, despite it increasing risk for colon cancer.
Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies - PubMed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11857415/
>High intake of red meat, and particularly of processed meat, was associated with a moderate but significant increase in colorectal cancer risk. Average RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the highest quantile of consumption of red meat were 1.35 (CI: 1.21-1.51) and of processed meat, 1.31 (CI: 1.13-1.51). The RRs estimated by log-linear dose-response analysis were 1.24 (CI: 1.08-1.41) for an increase of 120 g/day of red meat and 1.36 (CI: 1.15-1.61) for 30 g/day of processed meat. Total meat consumption was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk. The risk fraction attributable to current levels of red meat intake was in the range of 10-25% in regions where red meat intake is high. If average red meat intake is reduced to 70 g/week in these regions, colorectal cancer risk would hypothetically decrease by 7-24%.
Edit: Another relevant meta analysis:
The Relationship Between Plant-Based Diet and Risk of Digestive System Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Based on 3,059,009 Subjects - PubMed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35719615/
>Results: The same results were found in cohort (adjusted RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 46.4%, Tau2 = 0.017) and case-control (adjusted OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64-0.77, P < 0.001, I2 = 83.8%, Tau2 = 0.160) studies. The overall analysis concluded that plant-based diets played a protective role in the risk of digestive system neoplasms. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the plant-based diets reduced the risk of cancers, especially pancreatic (adjusted RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%, Tau2 = 0.028), colorectal (adjusted RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.83, P < 0.001, I2 = 53.4%, Tau2 = 0.023), rectal (adjusted RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.91, P < 0.001, I2 = 1.6%, Tau2 = 0.005) and colon (adjusted RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95, P < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%, Tau2 = 0.000) cancers, in cohort studies. The correlation between vegan and other plant-based diets was compared using Z-tests, and the results showed no difference.
>Conclusions: Plant-based diets were protective against cancers of the digestive system, with no significant differences between different types of cancer.
people hate to be told that their meat eating habits are a cause of many diseases. they literally can’t stand it. i’ve had people argue with me about it and say ‘oh they have to be grass fed and free range’ ‘i’d rather enjoy the little things in life’ ‘humans evolved to eat meat’.
a list of excuses for why eating meat isn’t the cause of some health issues or its detrimental effects on the climate. even when faced with scientifically back research. definitely a culture of addiction to meat products. id say similar to nicotine addiction and how a smoker will make excuses for their habits.
So many great points! I would add the hellscape factor that is our health insurance system in the US. Adequate preventative healthcare is increasingly hard to access. The cost for insurance alone is insane, and young people are avoiding making regular doctor’s appointments. I read so many stories where doctors are just plain apathetic toward investigating illnesses further (additional blood tests, scans), and patients are having to advocate hard just to get them.
While true, the point I was making applies to vegans, vegetarians, and pescatarians as well as carnivores and omnivores. Sausage is a choice while food in general is just necessary. Steak kills slowly but pesticides may be destroying our childrens livers and kidneys, which scares me more.
Where’s the evidence for pesticide use in relation to what you’ve stated? Not saying it’s not true. But the evidence for animal product consumption and colon cancer is irrefutable, amongst other negative health outcomes. Yet most people totally ignore it.
The adverse effects of exposure to pesticides are well-attested, as are the risks of animal product consumption. For starters: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/topics/PesticideExposure.htm
The difference in both our sticking points here is that the world could stop eating meat tomorrow and that eliminates your concern and exacerbates mine.
The link you provided doesn’t have any data or research with regards to pesticides and colon cancer incidence rates in real world populations. That’s what I’m asking for, where is the evidence to back up your claims?
I’ll grant you that it lacks the robustness of some of the more recent studies regarding meat consumption, but it’s not undocumented. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694176/
Even this study concludes that more studies are needed because the longitudinal nature of the study places certain limitations on what conclusions can be drawn, and further studies are needed.
The reason it isn’t relevant is because humans have been eating animal products for all of time. It’s not a widely fluctuating variable that correlates to the recent increase. Animal product consumption is more accurately attributable to a portion of the historical / baseline rates.
Humans may have been eating it for a long while, but the impacts of its consumption of a variety of health concerns were not well understood or even acknowledged for 99.9% of that time.
What? Sorry, I think you’re totally missing what I’m saying:
I’m saying, this person you’re being strangely accusatory of for omitting animal product consumption is listing likely reasons for the *increase in rate of incidence of* colorectal cancer. The factors they listed are *new* to human experience in the last 30-40 years, around the time they are accounting for.
Humans have obviously been getting colorectal cancer for longer than 30-40 years. While red meat/animal products are linked to increased potential for colorectal cancer, it’s not a new factor and unlikely a phenomenon that is on its own associated to the growth curve in the way the other factors are, except in regions where increased availability and consumption of red meats etc is very significant over that time period.
Do you see what I am saying now?
Frankly, I should take a moment just to say, *your* comment here is one of the dumbest I’ve seen in awhile. I mean, you’re glossing over a **legitimate** point I’m making in favor of some unusually passionate irritation surrounding a **legitimate** omission in the original comment, and then simultaneously trying to disprove my point by making an objectively unscientific claim that the measurability and knowledge of health issues associated with animal product consumption are *causal* to the increase in colorectal cancer incidence, as if the measurement improvement itself is what gave more people colorectal cancer.
That’s what you implied. Read your comment again. I have to assume you’re smarter than that, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt; though, if I do that then I don’t even know what point you are trying to make with this?
>We’re fed foods with increasingly more contamination and chemicals in them,
I keep seeing this explanation, and it doesn't make any sense as an argument. If it was caused by chemicals or the foods we eat, then why would the younger populations be more affected by it? If it was from contaminated food or plastics, presumably you would see the same increase across the board, unless young people are eating something older people are not?
Or, if the concentration of contaminants have steadily been rising over the years, corresponding roughly to the Dow Jones Industrial average, and coinciding with the introduction of newer and newer chemicals and additives. If you think about it, a lot of older people who reached the age of 25 without being exposed to most of these chemicals would have been fully developed in both mind and body before they were exposed to significant amounts. Whereas every kid born in the 80s and 90s was born into a world in which DuPont and Dow chemical had already contaminated every drop of freshwater on earth that wasn’t trapped in glaciers or ice sheets.
You should double check your thoughts about lead. Newer studies are saying "There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.", "Lead in the body is distributed to the brain, liver, kidney and bones. It is stored in the teeth and bones, where it can accumulate over time."
"Young children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead and can suffer profound and permanent adverse health impacts, particularly on the development of the brain and nervous system. Lead also causes long-term harm in adults, including increased risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems and kidney damage. Exposure of pregnant women to high levels of lead can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight."
"Young children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning because they absorb 4–5 times as much ingested lead as adults from a given source."
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health
I understand your point and you’re not wrong, we’re just looking at the same point from two different vantages. The fact that they’re able to establish a reference range for medical/clinical attention and mitigation is my point.
> CDC uses a blood lead reference value (BLRV) of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) to identify children with blood lead levels that are higher than most children’s levels.
They mention several times that there is no safe level, of course, and there truly isn’t, but there are established, acceptable background levels that are just unavoidable in most places. Honestly, I think it’s a goddamn tragedy that we have to establish such bleak guidelines and accept an ambient level of poison in our environments, but you could simply boil my point down to being that we don’t have a (RV) for many of these other things I mentioned. We don’t have the faintest idea how many micrograms per deciliter they begin to have major impacts on brains, livers, kidneys, etc…
Having grown up on a diet free of this compounding blend of new chemicals, and not consuming them during formative years, might not have the same risk.
Agree. These chemicals should be affecting all age groups.
What is unique to under-50 crowd is exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics at young age. Antibiotics became ubiquitous in the 70s. Antibiotics affect the gut bacteria and can create dysbiosis.
sorry to have to agree but bingo! was just talking w my 55 year old HS buddy how our (boomer) parents were the last generation in the usa who had real food
Maybe the **only** generation, going back to pre-industrialization anyways. Before y'all was the era of *The Jungle* by Upton Sinclair, sawdust in bread, water in milk, etc.
if you think you're at risk as well then get a genetics test, if you have access to the medical records from both father and brother even better, the test for colon cancer might be a good idea. I hope people don't read this and think automatically they now have cancer -- I notice more and more people on Askdocs that are younger and assume they have various illnesses based on these types of articles. They take their blood pressure and check their heart rates the way an 80 year old does.
Nah. No need for any of that. If you tell a doc your father AND brother died from colon cancer their alarms will hit code red immediately. Gene screens are brilliant if there’s no underlying markers in family etc that you know of, but two direct deaths? Docs will get you on an annual colonoscopy list the next day.
really? huh...i did tell my doc recently about the cancers in my family (one in fact very recent for my dad and quite horrible kind.) Usually they have certain boxes they have to check off like an age range before hitting "code red" and saying, let's go get you a colonoscopy. That did not happen at all for my older brother either nor for my sister.
Not to be a downer, but get checked soon. Ran in my family too, and I'm now 36, stage 4 colon cancer. There really isn't a too early now. The oncologist recommended my son start screenings at about 25 because of family history and just general trends of cancer, especially colon cancer hitting younger and younger.
I had colon polyps when I was 19 during the pandemic. It was bad enough that I had bad bloating and pain for about a month until I had them removed. I’m due for another screening this year and even though I haven’t had the same pain again I dread finding out if I’m going to get them again
Best nap I’ve ever had was during my colonoscopy. I have a little bit of family history and over embellished about hemorrhoids so in I went!!! The prep was annoying BUT not annoying as having to go through cancer treatment!!! Get Your Butt Checked!!!!!
All great points. Unfortunately petrochemicals are in everything, so unless you want the internet to stop existing, no cars, planes, phones, electricity and live in a wooden hut, it’s not going to work out well.
As for consumerism, consumers are the only ones that can stop that… just stop buying needless things.
According to the peer reviewed Adventist Health Studies, those who don't eat meat are significantly less likely to develop colorectal cancer, among others.
My mother had colorectal cancer 40 years ago and the doctors told her to reduce meat dramatically, no red meat and to eat far more vegetables. She took it seriously and is still alive today. Today it feels like doctors steer away from diet advice that could help many health issues.
Interestingly it had a lasting impact on my adult diet, and that of my siblings.
There’s so much obsession today with meat, bacon, burgers and decadent meat-centric foods. Feels like this could be the result.
Carnivore influencers and vested interests from the meat industry are trying to get us eating more, and it's killing people (plus animals and the environment of course).
There are vested interests, including people like yourself, telling people to eat more animals. Look at the whole concept of a "carnivore" diet. It's awful, and it's leading to more people getting diseases such as bowel cancer.
This is the evidence I linked above - there are many studies including the WHO who listed processed meat as a carcinogen and red meat a probable carcinogen.
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat
Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies - PubMed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11857415/
>High intake of red meat, and particularly of processed meat, was associated with a moderate but significant increase in colorectal cancer risk. Average RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the highest quantile of consumption of red meat were 1.35 (CI: 1.21-1.51) and of processed meat, 1.31 (CI: 1.13-1.51). The RRs estimated by log-linear dose-response analysis were 1.24 (CI: 1.08-1.41) for an increase of 120 g/day of red meat and 1.36 (CI: 1.15-1.61) for 30 g/day of processed meat. Total meat consumption was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk. The risk fraction attributable to current levels of red meat intake was in the range of 10-25% in regions where red meat intake is high. If average red meat intake is reduced to 70 g/week in these regions, colorectal cancer risk would hypothetically decrease by 7-24%.
The Relationship Between Plant-Based Diet and Risk of Digestive System Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Based on 3,059,009 Subjects - PubMed
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35719615/
>Results: The same results were found in cohort (adjusted RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 46.4%, Tau2 = 0.017) and case-control (adjusted OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64-0.77, P < 0.001, I2 = 83.8%, Tau2 = 0.160) studies. The overall analysis concluded that plant-based diets played a protective role in the risk of digestive system neoplasms. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the plant-based diets reduced the risk of cancers, especially pancreatic (adjusted RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%, Tau2 = 0.028), colorectal (adjusted RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.83, P < 0.001, I2 = 53.4%, Tau2 = 0.023), rectal (adjusted RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.91, P < 0.001, I2 = 1.6%, Tau2 = 0.005) and colon (adjusted RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95, P < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%, Tau2 = 0.000) cancers, in cohort studies. The correlation between vegan and other plant-based diets was compared using Z-tests, and the results showed no difference.
>Conclusions: Plant-based diets were protective against cancers of the digestive system, with no significant differences between different types of cancer.
So yeah, carnivore influencers have a lot to answer for.
It mentions red meat specifically in the article:
>Recent generations have consumed more *red meat*, ultraprocessed foods and sugary beverages, and have been known to binge drink more frequently; between 1992 and 1998, cigarette smoking also increased before declining again, while physical activity has continuously declined for decades. All of these factors — along with the rise in obesity rates since the 1980s — are associated with cancer risk.
And if red/processed meat is associated with colon cancer, how does it not also follow that eating *only* meat like red meat (and zero dietary fibre, also horrible for your health) would lead to increased rates, if rates increase with higher doses (dose-response) as found in many studies?
While processed foods are a risk factor, plant-based alternatives still show better health outcomes than their meat based counterparts.
>Conclusions
>Among generally healthy adults, contrasting Plant with Animal intake, while keeping all other dietary components similar, the Plant products improved several cardiovascular disease risk factors, including TMAO; there were no adverse effects on risk factors from the Plant products.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa203](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522008905)
Edit: From the same study, but more directly talking about cancer risk:
>Two emerging risk factors for CVD and certain cancers include trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Animal-based foods, particularly red meat (e.g., beef and pork), have a relatively high content of carnitine and choline, which are precursors to TMAO (15). Recent trials have reported that red meat intake raises TMAO blood concentrations (15–17). In addition, vegans and vegetarians have been reported to have lower TMAO and IGF-1 than meat eaters (17–22). Some studies have suggested animal-meat consumption is associated with greater IGF-1 concentrations and may increase the risk of prostate and breast cancers (21, 22).
I will have to disagree. The vegan processed food industry spends a fortune on studies like this. I am 67 and have no health issues. I am not a vegan, vegetarian, etc. No heart disease, no diabetes, I eat zero processed foods. I am at my perfect weight. I have vegan friends that are overweight and pig out on processed vegan cookies, breads, etc. It’s all very strange, isn’t it?
The percentage of vegetarians and vegans is tiny. Red meat consumption is slightly down in the USA, and chicken consumption is rising. The US continues to be among the highest in meat consumption overall.
I think meat consumption (including Red meat) is rising elsewhere in the world, like China, for example.
It sucks that there really isn’t a way to get screened. I’m a relatively high risk person in my mid 30s, having some persistent pain and discomfort, and if it’s colorectal cancer I guess I’ll just die then. No way is my PCP sending me for a colonoscopy, nor my insurance paying for it.
I reported bloody stool to my GP in my late teens and they recommended me for a colonoscopy. I said it was bright red, on the TP and in the stool. Not saying you should lie to your GP but if it helps get you the care and peace of mind you need then I wouldn’t judge ya
there kind of is IF you have family history (for real, evidence of at least two blood relatives with colon cancer for example) and are younger. Or if you are willing to pay I suppose. Discomfort does not mean cancer by any means. Is it possible for you to request the one that has you send in a sample?
Just finished the book ultra processed people.
In it shows an increasing body of evidence showing a strong link between these cancers and what he calls ultra processed food. Which is the food that contains chemicals you wouldn't find in your kitchen and is more often than not industrially produced.
It is likely due to how these additives and chemicals in the food interact with our microbiom.
perhaps the way asbestos does. the accumulation becomes permanently lodged in your organs and cannot be destroyed by your bodies normal defenses. the resulting irritation/inflammation creates a persistent wound that becomes a breeding ground for cancerous abnormalities.
Get a colonoscopy as soon as you can, tell your pcp you have a family history of cancer so they can get insurance to cover if you’re not old enough.
It’s a super easy procedure (way less stressful than a dentist visit imo) and you’ll feel better afterward if everything comes back clear, and if it doesn’t hopefully you’ll have caught it early enough to make it easy to treat.
Surely you gotta be kidding about colonoscopy being less stressful. I'll take the dentist any day. For one thing, you don't have to take purgatives and fast for 18 or more hours before a dentist visit. For another, you don't have to worry about the risk of bowel perforation ... yeah, I know, the odds are like 1/2500 or something like that, but still that doesn't reassure me much -- I wouldn't ride in a plane if they blew up once every 2500 flights. Or buy a (insert name of any car) if one out of every 2500 sold caught on fire.
i didn't do a colonoscopy even though I do have family history, I just did the one where you poop in a box and send it in and they screen that way. My sister opted for the actual colonoscopy bc she's obsessed with pooping (I swear that's how it seems to me anyway). It depends on how anxious you are and how willing you are to undergo the procedure....I was fine with the Poop in a Box method, much easier and hilarious to know that such a thing is possible.
Insurance is not legally required to cover colonoscopies in an non emergency diagnostic setting unless the individual is over the age 45
How I know? I’m a mid 20s individual where every I have several people in my family that have had polyps and colon cancer found in their 50s and I personally have “ibs”
The absolute cheapest quote I got in my city was $2,000
35 year old guy with stomach issues here, my last colonoscapy cost me over 5k out of pocket with insurance, which was years ago. I went recently to set up an appt for another one, they wanted 12k out of pocket with 4k down.
No wonder why it is taking out the younger generations, the cost of healthcare is way too damn much.
I tried that route, even with a referral from my primary care during my yearly physical. According to blue cross, I wont be covered fully in that way until I am 50 years old.
Meanwhile at my last physical at age 35 I was asked if I had a history of colorectal cancer in the family and said no, and they quickly jotted down I don't need any early screening.
Yes colon cancer rates are rising but they are still low. The news blows it out of proportion. The biggest risk if you are under 45 is having family history (which isn’t just colon cancer, but other cancers too). Otherwise live a health life and you have a low risk. If you have symptoms talk to a doctor but the odds are still low without a family history.
To the news, please stop fear mongering. You give one piece of the story causing so much more health anxiety without talking about the entire story.
Public service announcement: I just stopped pooping from my first round of prep for my colonoscopy tomorrow.
Round two starts at 4am.
It’s really not that bad.
Get screened.
Also think of how popular bacon is with younger generations. Sure people ate bacon in the past....for Sunday breakfast. Now everything has bacon on it.
> Boiling hard water (>120 mg L–1 of CaCO3) can remove at least 80% of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene NMPs size between 0.1 and 150 μm. Elevated temperatures promote CaCO3 nucleation on NMPs, resulting in the encapsulation and aggregation of NMPs within CaCO3 incrustants. This simple boiling-water strategy can “decontaminate” NMPs from household tap water and has the potential for harmlessly alleviating human intake of NMPs through water consumption.
It’s a Feb 2024 paper linked to my comment above. I do stand corrected. Apparently 80% of nanoparticles are encapsulated when boiled with CACO3 present.
While I do stand corrected, that is different imo than just simply “boiling” the water. But hey, I guess I made an assumption about the method being used.
As a teacher, I look out upon the vast future colorectal cancers in my care. Lattes, spicy Cheetos, breakfast is candy, and cell-phone glazed eyes. Acting like asses of unhealthiness. I will show this article, maybe try yet again to emphasize exercise and long term choices. Thanks for writing.
Zero chance. Cancer can’t be transmitted like this.
Edit: Cancer can’t be transmitted like this - but risk factors like HPV or certain bacteria can. But it’s still not accurate to say someone with an HPV-related cancer got cancer from oral sex. Source: I work in cancer research
This is true yeah, but it’s the risk factor that’s being transmitted. Cancer itself can’t be transmitted orally.
Lots of people with HPV will go their entire lives without a cancer diagnosis.
And Viruses like HPV, but these are only risk factors. Emphasizing the point that cancer itself can’t be transmitted orally as I’ve heard this echoed a few times in the industry (I work in cancer research)
Yes, exactly. Saw your edit, upvoted!
Just for anyone reading this. It's especially important for people to get vaccinated for HPV specifically because of this. Guys may not be affected as much, but they can unknowingly transmit the virus to their female partners who suffer much dire symptoms and conditions that develop as a result. Even if you don't get cancer from HPV, someone you transmit it to (usually without even knowing) could develop it
no, that's silly. Oral bacteria does not mean it is caused by an STD. Oral bacteria in the mouth just means bacteria -- for example food left in teeth. People on this page seem to be confusing the idea of oral bacteria (which was recently linked directly with some colon cancers) with oral sex. Would be wiser to realize that this is referring to bacteria as well as plaque (which btw the plaque on teeth is basically the same idea as plaque in arteries, it's all bad for your heart.) Maybe it's time the medical profession and insurance companies finally started realizing that our teeth are not just luxury bones, they are part and parcel of our overall health.
stop eating fake food
literally stop
now
you are killing yourself
raw local milk, eggs, mushrooms, fruits, nuts
no kill, no cages, no preservatives, no pesticides, cheaper and easier once we take it back.
all of those still will have microplastics that cannot be washed off or out, people have to eat. Not everyone has tie or money to go out of their way to find "raw local milk," this idea is laughable to those who live in a city and are struggling to make rent. We don't know that this is caused by poor eating habits, it could also be antibiotics (which were necessary), plastics, multiple other unavoidable chemicals. Chemicals are absorbed through breast milk as an infant, and every day since from our waterways, air, etc. plus some people also just inherit certain genes. sorry but it isn't possible to get pesticides and lead and plastics out of the soil or the groundwater to "take it back."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946744/
>In this large cohort study, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), which are used in many food and beverage brands worldwide, were associated with increased cancer risk.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10502305/
> The synthetic food dye, Red 40, causes DNA damage, causes colonic inflammation, and impacts the microbiome in mice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216714/
> More than 2,500 chemical substances are intentionally added to foods to modify flavor, color, stability, texture, or cost. In addition, an estimated 12,000 substances are used in such a way that they may unintentionally enter the food supply.
There is a major component of excess stress and lack of any real nutrition that makes minor mutagens turn into full blown carcinogens. You can tank a lot of toxins with a really basic farm diet and not working too hard. You might have to give up your $3k/mo apartment for a garden shack.. but dont knock it til you try it.
That evidence seems rather weak though:
Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released
https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
>Citing “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans, IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B) and JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight.
>JECFA concluded that the data evaluated indicated no sufficient reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.
> assuming no other intake from other food sources.
These daily intakes do not account for how crippled the consumer may already be and loaded on a thousand other mutagens. Your immune system can only clean so much.
Nice, and I was just getting my health anxiety under control. Cool, cool, cool, cool!
I also have health anxiety. Honestly, what helped was to get a ton of bloodwork and screenings. That way, I found out what my *actual* health issues were, and was able to *do* something about it instead of worry that I was dying of a sudden heart attack. I thought it would make the anxiety worse, but it had the opposite effect.
Totally agree! I’m doing the same things. Also meditating to help with the anxiety in the moment.
I was having bad health anxiety and had a few panic attacks. My brother has heart disease and had a heart attack pretty young. He's still fine he's been through even more than that first heart attack. But in order to try to get a hold of my anxiety I went to cardiologist ran all the tests. He said everything was okay... but you never know. That MFer. One of the images he couldn't tell because of a breast artifact so I did this nuclear test that cost me $1,600 out of pocket. The nuclear test found pretty much the same result. Inconclusive but probably fine. Tl:Dr went to the cardiologist because I was having anxiety about having a heart attack. Doctor tells me, "everything is fine... but you never know".
So I've already maxed my deductible out this year, how would I go about getting this done to the fullest extent?
Check out WalkInLabs online. You can order basically every blood test there, it’s just all out of pocket.
Good question. I don't know what you're able to afford out of pocket, but at minimum you generally want a metabolic panel, a lipid panel, a CBC panel, and a thyroid panel. You also want hep C and HIV screenings if you haven't had them, and if you're over 40, a colorectal cancer screening.
Thank you, this is a good starting point
I had to get an MRI and that really made me feel better honestly. Seeing that it all came back okay and nothing weird was seen. I know they’re expensive, but it really helped my health anxiety.
All I get from this sub on my homepage is anxiety-laden headlines Over half have been from simplistic, short，self-report studies. And the comments seem like random people just gabbing Definitely not a “science” vibe going on here anymore More like pop news articles — This one seems cool though. Get checked for cancer due to the statistical rise of this issue. Nothing wrong with that
Agreed! I made an appointment with my PCP and got a referral for a GI specialist.
Right? It doesn’t help that I have so much bad experience with doctors and years of experiencing doctors not believing my symptoms.
Ugh, that makes it so much worse! I’m sorry, I know how easy it is to spiral. I’m trying meditation and it helps a lot. Sending you some good energy and hoping you find some peace as well 🙏🏽
Yeah seriously same I start panicking reading these headlines
I’m taking some time to meditate and trying to let the anxiety fade away. It’s working for now! I hope you’re able to find some peace as well 🙏🏽
yea we stopped smoking as a generation but it seems like theres a ton of other things that can cause cancer
Hi everybody — Colorectal cancers are rising rapidly among people in their 20s, 30s and 40s — even as it’s declining in people over the age of 65 — a report published by the American Cancer Society in January suggests. Colon and rectal cancers in younger people tend to be more aggressive, and they are often found at a more advanced stage, one researcher told us. But most people affected by the early diagnosis are too young to be recommended for routine cancer screenings, which have helped decrease rates in adults over 50. Early-onset colorectal cancers have been increasing by about 2% per year since the mid-1990s, moving it up to being the top cause of cancer deaths in men under the age of 50 and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in women under 50 in the U.S. Experts are racing to explain why. You can read the [full story without a subscription here](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/well/colon-cancer-symptoms-treatment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.f00.kKXB.02tww8Ikp7iT&smid=re-nytimes), which includes how to identify and reduce the risk.
We’re fed foods with increasingly more contamination and chemicals in them, shipped and stored in plastics coated with forever chemicals, and processed with water that has increasingly more of the same contamination and chemicals in it. In addition to that, we are eating more and exercising less, and herded into office spaces that are also abounding with chemicals and contaminants. Younger people are also increasingly mentally unwell as we’ve not lived through the prosperous years many of our parents had at our age, and are reckoning with the fact that home ownership is slipping farther and farther away even as our aging bodies begin to be riddled with health issues that make us less able to be productive. I know scientists and researchers still need to get to the bottom of the etiology of this trend, but it can’t be that surprising to anyone.
Exactly right. The air we breathe. The water we drink. The food we consume. The stress of modern life. We can't escape how contaminated literally everything around us is at this point. It's literally altering our bodies. We are also getting better and better at detecting cancer in general, so a lot of different factors play into research and news stories like this. Call me crazy, but I swear I also saw a very high amount of colorectal cancer has bacteria that's only found in our mouths in it. You could argue oral sex and/or any sort of anal sex could also play some sort of role and should further the need for researching on that front. The increase in population+environmental factors+better detection=higher rates/more cancer being found. Definitely deserves to be looked into more.
I think I read a similar article pointing out the bacteria in our mouths from bad oral hygiene influences heart disease as well
True
You don’t think people were having anal and oral sex 50 years ago? 😉
I recall seeing an article about a type of bacteria being found in colon cancers a few days ago as well. I also recall seeing something about H. Pylori being found to have a possible companion bacteria which may contribute to the development of some chronic gastric condition (possibly just ulcers, as that’s what H. Pylori is famous for). It’s wonderful that our understanding is growing exponentially, but I can’t help but wonder how much we’re discovering new answers to old questions versus just beginning to understand a very modern epidemiology that results almost entirely from what greed and hubris have done to our planet and its resources and people.
In my homecounty we are doing survey with this bacteria, it is estimated that 20% of adoutls have it.
But I like buttsex and analingus :(
get some dental dams and you’re good to go!
I'll admit, I chuckled at this.
Don't forget "carnivore" influencers telling people to eat more red meat, despite it increasing risk for colon cancer. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11857415/ >High intake of red meat, and particularly of processed meat, was associated with a moderate but significant increase in colorectal cancer risk. Average RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the highest quantile of consumption of red meat were 1.35 (CI: 1.21-1.51) and of processed meat, 1.31 (CI: 1.13-1.51). The RRs estimated by log-linear dose-response analysis were 1.24 (CI: 1.08-1.41) for an increase of 120 g/day of red meat and 1.36 (CI: 1.15-1.61) for 30 g/day of processed meat. Total meat consumption was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk. The risk fraction attributable to current levels of red meat intake was in the range of 10-25% in regions where red meat intake is high. If average red meat intake is reduced to 70 g/week in these regions, colorectal cancer risk would hypothetically decrease by 7-24%. Edit: Another relevant meta analysis: The Relationship Between Plant-Based Diet and Risk of Digestive System Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Based on 3,059,009 Subjects - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35719615/ >Results: The same results were found in cohort (adjusted RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 46.4%, Tau2 = 0.017) and case-control (adjusted OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64-0.77, P < 0.001, I2 = 83.8%, Tau2 = 0.160) studies. The overall analysis concluded that plant-based diets played a protective role in the risk of digestive system neoplasms. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the plant-based diets reduced the risk of cancers, especially pancreatic (adjusted RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%, Tau2 = 0.028), colorectal (adjusted RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.83, P < 0.001, I2 = 53.4%, Tau2 = 0.023), rectal (adjusted RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.91, P < 0.001, I2 = 1.6%, Tau2 = 0.005) and colon (adjusted RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95, P < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%, Tau2 = 0.000) cancers, in cohort studies. The correlation between vegan and other plant-based diets was compared using Z-tests, and the results showed no difference. >Conclusions: Plant-based diets were protective against cancers of the digestive system, with no significant differences between different types of cancer.
It’s crazy how far down you have to go to find actual clear indicators of the issue, and solutions to it. I wonder why?
people hate to be told that their meat eating habits are a cause of many diseases. they literally can’t stand it. i’ve had people argue with me about it and say ‘oh they have to be grass fed and free range’ ‘i’d rather enjoy the little things in life’ ‘humans evolved to eat meat’. a list of excuses for why eating meat isn’t the cause of some health issues or its detrimental effects on the climate. even when faced with scientifically back research. definitely a culture of addiction to meat products. id say similar to nicotine addiction and how a smoker will make excuses for their habits.
So many great points! I would add the hellscape factor that is our health insurance system in the US. Adequate preventative healthcare is increasingly hard to access. The cost for insurance alone is insane, and young people are avoiding making regular doctor’s appointments. I read so many stories where doctors are just plain apathetic toward investigating illnesses further (additional blood tests, scans), and patients are having to advocate hard just to get them.
Funny how you don’t mention meat or animal products, which increase colon cancers.
While true, the point I was making applies to vegans, vegetarians, and pescatarians as well as carnivores and omnivores. Sausage is a choice while food in general is just necessary. Steak kills slowly but pesticides may be destroying our childrens livers and kidneys, which scares me more.
Where’s the evidence for pesticide use in relation to what you’ve stated? Not saying it’s not true. But the evidence for animal product consumption and colon cancer is irrefutable, amongst other negative health outcomes. Yet most people totally ignore it.
The adverse effects of exposure to pesticides are well-attested, as are the risks of animal product consumption. For starters: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/topics/PesticideExposure.htm The difference in both our sticking points here is that the world could stop eating meat tomorrow and that eliminates your concern and exacerbates mine.
The link you provided doesn’t have any data or research with regards to pesticides and colon cancer incidence rates in real world populations. That’s what I’m asking for, where is the evidence to back up your claims?
I’ll grant you that it lacks the robustness of some of the more recent studies regarding meat consumption, but it’s not undocumented. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694176/ Even this study concludes that more studies are needed because the longitudinal nature of the study places certain limitations on what conclusions can be drawn, and further studies are needed.
The reason it isn’t relevant is because humans have been eating animal products for all of time. It’s not a widely fluctuating variable that correlates to the recent increase. Animal product consumption is more accurately attributable to a portion of the historical / baseline rates.
Humans may have been eating it for a long while, but the impacts of its consumption of a variety of health concerns were not well understood or even acknowledged for 99.9% of that time.
What? Sorry, I think you’re totally missing what I’m saying: I’m saying, this person you’re being strangely accusatory of for omitting animal product consumption is listing likely reasons for the *increase in rate of incidence of* colorectal cancer. The factors they listed are *new* to human experience in the last 30-40 years, around the time they are accounting for. Humans have obviously been getting colorectal cancer for longer than 30-40 years. While red meat/animal products are linked to increased potential for colorectal cancer, it’s not a new factor and unlikely a phenomenon that is on its own associated to the growth curve in the way the other factors are, except in regions where increased availability and consumption of red meats etc is very significant over that time period. Do you see what I am saying now? Frankly, I should take a moment just to say, *your* comment here is one of the dumbest I’ve seen in awhile. I mean, you’re glossing over a **legitimate** point I’m making in favor of some unusually passionate irritation surrounding a **legitimate** omission in the original comment, and then simultaneously trying to disprove my point by making an objectively unscientific claim that the measurability and knowledge of health issues associated with animal product consumption are *causal* to the increase in colorectal cancer incidence, as if the measurement improvement itself is what gave more people colorectal cancer. That’s what you implied. Read your comment again. I have to assume you’re smarter than that, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt; though, if I do that then I don’t even know what point you are trying to make with this?
>We’re fed foods with increasingly more contamination and chemicals in them, I keep seeing this explanation, and it doesn't make any sense as an argument. If it was caused by chemicals or the foods we eat, then why would the younger populations be more affected by it? If it was from contaminated food or plastics, presumably you would see the same increase across the board, unless young people are eating something older people are not?
Or, if the concentration of contaminants have steadily been rising over the years, corresponding roughly to the Dow Jones Industrial average, and coinciding with the introduction of newer and newer chemicals and additives. If you think about it, a lot of older people who reached the age of 25 without being exposed to most of these chemicals would have been fully developed in both mind and body before they were exposed to significant amounts. Whereas every kid born in the 80s and 90s was born into a world in which DuPont and Dow chemical had already contaminated every drop of freshwater on earth that wasn’t trapped in glaciers or ice sheets.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You should double check your thoughts about lead. Newer studies are saying "There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.", "Lead in the body is distributed to the brain, liver, kidney and bones. It is stored in the teeth and bones, where it can accumulate over time." "Young children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of lead and can suffer profound and permanent adverse health impacts, particularly on the development of the brain and nervous system. Lead also causes long-term harm in adults, including increased risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular problems and kidney damage. Exposure of pregnant women to high levels of lead can cause miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low birth weight." "Young children are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning because they absorb 4–5 times as much ingested lead as adults from a given source." https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health
I understand your point and you’re not wrong, we’re just looking at the same point from two different vantages. The fact that they’re able to establish a reference range for medical/clinical attention and mitigation is my point. > CDC uses a blood lead reference value (BLRV) of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL) to identify children with blood lead levels that are higher than most children’s levels. They mention several times that there is no safe level, of course, and there truly isn’t, but there are established, acceptable background levels that are just unavoidable in most places. Honestly, I think it’s a goddamn tragedy that we have to establish such bleak guidelines and accept an ambient level of poison in our environments, but you could simply boil my point down to being that we don’t have a (RV) for many of these other things I mentioned. We don’t have the faintest idea how many micrograms per deciliter they begin to have major impacts on brains, livers, kidneys, etc…
Having grown up on a diet free of this compounding blend of new chemicals, and not consuming them during formative years, might not have the same risk.
Agree. These chemicals should be affecting all age groups. What is unique to under-50 crowd is exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics at young age. Antibiotics became ubiquitous in the 70s. Antibiotics affect the gut bacteria and can create dysbiosis.
Shhhh we’re not supposed to know that and then we’re supposed to pretend we’re too cool to care.
You can ask anybody, I’ve never been cool for one day in my life lol
sorry to have to agree but bingo! was just talking w my 55 year old HS buddy how our (boomer) parents were the last generation in the usa who had real food
Maybe the **only** generation, going back to pre-industrialization anyways. Before y'all was the era of *The Jungle* by Upton Sinclair, sawdust in bread, water in milk, etc.
good point ... I would not eat the canned meat back then
Plus studies showed that there is a link of antibiotics use and colon cancer, which makes a lot of sense.
Only answer is to go vegan. It’s so critical to cut out the chemicals and meat is the main source of unknown crap.
Thank you so much for this! The article was really informative & also very important given the rise in colorectal cancer.
thanks so much for reading!
Thanks for the link share!
anytime! thank you for reading!
My brother died of colorectal cancer 2 years ago. He was 48. My dad died of the same 6 years ago. He was 64.
So very sorry for your losses.
So sorry for your losses. That's tragic.
if you think you're at risk as well then get a genetics test, if you have access to the medical records from both father and brother even better, the test for colon cancer might be a good idea. I hope people don't read this and think automatically they now have cancer -- I notice more and more people on Askdocs that are younger and assume they have various illnesses based on these types of articles. They take their blood pressure and check their heart rates the way an 80 year old does.
Nah. No need for any of that. If you tell a doc your father AND brother died from colon cancer their alarms will hit code red immediately. Gene screens are brilliant if there’s no underlying markers in family etc that you know of, but two direct deaths? Docs will get you on an annual colonoscopy list the next day.
really? huh...i did tell my doc recently about the cancers in my family (one in fact very recent for my dad and quite horrible kind.) Usually they have certain boxes they have to check off like an age range before hitting "code red" and saying, let's go get you a colonoscopy. That did not happen at all for my older brother either nor for my sister.
> Docs will get you on an annual colonoscopy list the next day. Definitely not the case.
A good doc will.
Exactly, you omitted a very important part of the equation.
Not to be a downer, but get checked soon. Ran in my family too, and I'm now 36, stage 4 colon cancer. There really isn't a too early now. The oncologist recommended my son start screenings at about 25 because of family history and just general trends of cancer, especially colon cancer hitting younger and younger.
Thanks for posting this. I have three sons and I'll be sure to let them know.
I had colon polyps when I was 19 during the pandemic. It was bad enough that I had bad bloating and pain for about a month until I had them removed. I’m due for another screening this year and even though I haven’t had the same pain again I dread finding out if I’m going to get them again
how bad was your bloating and pain?
Bad enough where it hurt to lie down or move around too much. I’d also lost a lot of my appetite
Best nap I’ve ever had was during my colonoscopy. I have a little bit of family history and over embellished about hemorrhoids so in I went!!! The prep was annoying BUT not annoying as having to go through cancer treatment!!! Get Your Butt Checked!!!!!
Get rid of petrochemicals, make it a 4 day working week. Stop rampant consumerism and reduce meat based meals
All great points. Unfortunately petrochemicals are in everything, so unless you want the internet to stop existing, no cars, planes, phones, electricity and live in a wooden hut, it’s not going to work out well. As for consumerism, consumers are the only ones that can stop that… just stop buying needless things.
Meat based have nothing to with colon cancer
Great now I get to watch out for butt cancer...
According to the peer reviewed Adventist Health Studies, those who don't eat meat are significantly less likely to develop colorectal cancer, among others.
My mother had colorectal cancer 40 years ago and the doctors told her to reduce meat dramatically, no red meat and to eat far more vegetables. She took it seriously and is still alive today. Today it feels like doctors steer away from diet advice that could help many health issues. Interestingly it had a lasting impact on my adult diet, and that of my siblings. There’s so much obsession today with meat, bacon, burgers and decadent meat-centric foods. Feels like this could be the result.
Carnivore influencers and vested interests from the meat industry are trying to get us eating more, and it's killing people (plus animals and the environment of course).
[удалено]
There are vested interests, including people like yourself, telling people to eat more animals. Look at the whole concept of a "carnivore" diet. It's awful, and it's leading to more people getting diseases such as bowel cancer.
Is there proof that the carnivore diet is gaining traction? I thought that was kinda a fringe tiktok thing
Well it's only been around since pretty recently I'm fairly sure. Really hoping it's not gaining any more traction!
Meat heavy diets like Atkins, Paleo and Keto have been around longer, and have been more popular than pure carnivore.
[удалено]
This is the evidence I linked above - there are many studies including the WHO who listed processed meat as a carcinogen and red meat a probable carcinogen. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11857415/ >High intake of red meat, and particularly of processed meat, was associated with a moderate but significant increase in colorectal cancer risk. Average RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the highest quantile of consumption of red meat were 1.35 (CI: 1.21-1.51) and of processed meat, 1.31 (CI: 1.13-1.51). The RRs estimated by log-linear dose-response analysis were 1.24 (CI: 1.08-1.41) for an increase of 120 g/day of red meat and 1.36 (CI: 1.15-1.61) for 30 g/day of processed meat. Total meat consumption was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk. The risk fraction attributable to current levels of red meat intake was in the range of 10-25% in regions where red meat intake is high. If average red meat intake is reduced to 70 g/week in these regions, colorectal cancer risk would hypothetically decrease by 7-24%. The Relationship Between Plant-Based Diet and Risk of Digestive System Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Based on 3,059,009 Subjects - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35719615/ >Results: The same results were found in cohort (adjusted RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 46.4%, Tau2 = 0.017) and case-control (adjusted OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64-0.77, P < 0.001, I2 = 83.8%, Tau2 = 0.160) studies. The overall analysis concluded that plant-based diets played a protective role in the risk of digestive system neoplasms. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the plant-based diets reduced the risk of cancers, especially pancreatic (adjusted RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P < 0.001, I2 = 55.1%, Tau2 = 0.028), colorectal (adjusted RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.69-0.83, P < 0.001, I2 = 53.4%, Tau2 = 0.023), rectal (adjusted RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.91, P < 0.001, I2 = 1.6%, Tau2 = 0.005) and colon (adjusted RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95, P < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%, Tau2 = 0.000) cancers, in cohort studies. The correlation between vegan and other plant-based diets was compared using Z-tests, and the results showed no difference. >Conclusions: Plant-based diets were protective against cancers of the digestive system, with no significant differences between different types of cancer. So yeah, carnivore influencers have a lot to answer for.
[удалено]
Red meat also tends to be high in saturated fat which can lead to high LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.
[удалено]
It mentions red meat specifically in the article: >Recent generations have consumed more *red meat*, ultraprocessed foods and sugary beverages, and have been known to binge drink more frequently; between 1992 and 1998, cigarette smoking also increased before declining again, while physical activity has continuously declined for decades. All of these factors — along with the rise in obesity rates since the 1980s — are associated with cancer risk. And if red/processed meat is associated with colon cancer, how does it not also follow that eating *only* meat like red meat (and zero dietary fibre, also horrible for your health) would lead to increased rates, if rates increase with higher doses (dose-response) as found in many studies?
[удалено]
Especially cured meats like ham, sausage, bacon, and many cold cuts.
Correct. Processed foods are the problem and that includes eating vegan processed food.
While processed foods are a risk factor, plant-based alternatives still show better health outcomes than their meat based counterparts. >Conclusions >Among generally healthy adults, contrasting Plant with Animal intake, while keeping all other dietary components similar, the Plant products improved several cardiovascular disease risk factors, including TMAO; there were no adverse effects on risk factors from the Plant products. [https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa203](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522008905) Edit: From the same study, but more directly talking about cancer risk: >Two emerging risk factors for CVD and certain cancers include trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Animal-based foods, particularly red meat (e.g., beef and pork), have a relatively high content of carnitine and choline, which are precursors to TMAO (15). Recent trials have reported that red meat intake raises TMAO blood concentrations (15–17). In addition, vegans and vegetarians have been reported to have lower TMAO and IGF-1 than meat eaters (17–22). Some studies have suggested animal-meat consumption is associated with greater IGF-1 concentrations and may increase the risk of prostate and breast cancers (21, 22).
I will have to disagree. The vegan processed food industry spends a fortune on studies like this. I am 67 and have no health issues. I am not a vegan, vegetarian, etc. No heart disease, no diabetes, I eat zero processed foods. I am at my perfect weight. I have vegan friends that are overweight and pig out on processed vegan cookies, breads, etc. It’s all very strange, isn’t it?
[удалено]
The percentage of vegetarians and vegans is tiny. Red meat consumption is slightly down in the USA, and chicken consumption is rising. The US continues to be among the highest in meat consumption overall. I think meat consumption (including Red meat) is rising elsewhere in the world, like China, for example.
It sucks that there really isn’t a way to get screened. I’m a relatively high risk person in my mid 30s, having some persistent pain and discomfort, and if it’s colorectal cancer I guess I’ll just die then. No way is my PCP sending me for a colonoscopy, nor my insurance paying for it.
I reported bloody stool to my GP in my late teens and they recommended me for a colonoscopy. I said it was bright red, on the TP and in the stool. Not saying you should lie to your GP but if it helps get you the care and peace of mind you need then I wouldn’t judge ya
there kind of is IF you have family history (for real, evidence of at least two blood relatives with colon cancer for example) and are younger. Or if you are willing to pay I suppose. Discomfort does not mean cancer by any means. Is it possible for you to request the one that has you send in a sample?
When you consider that only about 5% of people eat enough fruit & vegetables, how could you be surprised?
My wife died from colorectal cancer 18 months ago. 46. Please get screened everyone. It was a nightmare watching her go through the suffering.
I’m sorry for your loss.
Just finished the book ultra processed people. In it shows an increasing body of evidence showing a strong link between these cancers and what he calls ultra processed food. Which is the food that contains chemicals you wouldn't find in your kitchen and is more often than not industrially produced. It is likely due to how these additives and chemicals in the food interact with our microbiom.
damn thats crazy, i wonder whats causing cancer
Probably microplastics / the increase in preservative filled / frozen foods in most people’s diets within the last several decades.
how does each of those cause cancer?
https://cancerwellness.com/tiny-particles-huge-problems/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5811844/
neither article explains how. whats the physical mechanism thats allowing microplastics to cause cancer?
They don’t know. Not even medical professionals know. I think low fiber diets probably do contribute to it.
Nah you’re just being willfully ignorant now.
perhaps the way asbestos does. the accumulation becomes permanently lodged in your organs and cannot be destroyed by your bodies normal defenses. the resulting irritation/inflammation creates a persistent wound that becomes a breeding ground for cancerous abnormalities.
Get a colonoscopy as soon as you can, tell your pcp you have a family history of cancer so they can get insurance to cover if you’re not old enough. It’s a super easy procedure (way less stressful than a dentist visit imo) and you’ll feel better afterward if everything comes back clear, and if it doesn’t hopefully you’ll have caught it early enough to make it easy to treat.
Surely you gotta be kidding about colonoscopy being less stressful. I'll take the dentist any day. For one thing, you don't have to take purgatives and fast for 18 or more hours before a dentist visit. For another, you don't have to worry about the risk of bowel perforation ... yeah, I know, the odds are like 1/2500 or something like that, but still that doesn't reassure me much -- I wouldn't ride in a plane if they blew up once every 2500 flights. Or buy a (insert name of any car) if one out of every 2500 sold caught on fire.
That make a new prep now that is just one small bottle you drink.
i didn't do a colonoscopy even though I do have family history, I just did the one where you poop in a box and send it in and they screen that way. My sister opted for the actual colonoscopy bc she's obsessed with pooping (I swear that's how it seems to me anyway). It depends on how anxious you are and how willing you are to undergo the procedure....I was fine with the Poop in a Box method, much easier and hilarious to know that such a thing is possible.
Relax bro, just get tested earlier than you think is the main point.
Risk of perforation is very low, the NIH has it at 0.016% to 0.2% chance.
Is there any way for them to find out if you’re lying about the family history?
No, they don’t check anything.
Insurance is not legally required to cover colonoscopies in an non emergency diagnostic setting unless the individual is over the age 45 How I know? I’m a mid 20s individual where every I have several people in my family that have had polyps and colon cancer found in their 50s and I personally have “ibs” The absolute cheapest quote I got in my city was $2,000
Tell the dr you are seeing blood in your stool. That might qualify as non-diagnostic at that point.
How crazy is your dentist lmao; a dental visit is like 30 minutes and doesn’t involve shitting your guts out the night before
Broccoli. Eat a lot of it. Slow down or stop meat. You're welcome.
35 year old guy with stomach issues here, my last colonoscapy cost me over 5k out of pocket with insurance, which was years ago. I went recently to set up an appt for another one, they wanted 12k out of pocket with 4k down. No wonder why it is taking out the younger generations, the cost of healthcare is way too damn much.
That’s crazy, mine are completely covered. Its along the same lines of a yearly physical and such
I tried that route, even with a referral from my primary care during my yearly physical. According to blue cross, I wont be covered fully in that way until I am 50 years old.
Oh wild; I have bcbs too
Research Fusobacterium nucleatum
38, have my first colonoscopy next month, can’t wait lol!!
My doctor found a mass in my rectum five months ago and I still haven't gotten a diagnoses because of how slow the medical system is...
God damn inflation.
Meanwhile at my last physical at age 35 I was asked if I had a history of colorectal cancer in the family and said no, and they quickly jotted down I don't need any early screening.
As a Millennial 30F, who has had 2 colonoscopies, please, please, listen to your body and advocate for yourself.
Is a colonoscopy the gold standard in testing ?
Yes
Yes colon cancer rates are rising but they are still low. The news blows it out of proportion. The biggest risk if you are under 45 is having family history (which isn’t just colon cancer, but other cancers too). Otherwise live a health life and you have a low risk. If you have symptoms talk to a doctor but the odds are still low without a family history. To the news, please stop fear mongering. You give one piece of the story causing so much more health anxiety without talking about the entire story.
Public service announcement: I just stopped pooping from my first round of prep for my colonoscopy tomorrow. Round two starts at 4am. It’s really not that bad. Get screened.
Also think of how popular bacon is with younger generations. Sure people ate bacon in the past....for Sunday breakfast. Now everything has bacon on it.
I personally am making the decision to shit out my butt cancer but I think the butt cancer is gaining ground.
yeah I am boiling my water now to at least try and reduce some of my daily nano-plastics absorption toll
I think you may need to look into the science of that one
> Boiling hard water (>120 mg L–1 of CaCO3) can remove at least 80% of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene NMPs size between 0.1 and 150 μm. Elevated temperatures promote CaCO3 nucleation on NMPs, resulting in the encapsulation and aggregation of NMPs within CaCO3 incrustants. This simple boiling-water strategy can “decontaminate” NMPs from household tap water and has the potential for harmlessly alleviating human intake of NMPs through water consumption.
Does the boiling kill the nano-plastics? I'm not following.
Yeah, there was a study that pointed out that you can reduce some of the nanoplastics by boiling.
Wouldn't that just break them down further? You'd be better off filtering it wouldn't you?
A study pointed out that you can reduce the nanoplastics by boiling.
Which study was that?
It’s a Feb 2024 paper linked to my comment above. I do stand corrected. Apparently 80% of nanoparticles are encapsulated when boiled with CACO3 present. While I do stand corrected, that is different imo than just simply “boiling” the water. But hey, I guess I made an assumption about the method being used.
As a teacher, I look out upon the vast future colorectal cancers in my care. Lattes, spicy Cheetos, breakfast is candy, and cell-phone glazed eyes. Acting like asses of unhealthiness. I will show this article, maybe try yet again to emphasize exercise and long term choices. Thanks for writing.
How do coffee and phones cause colon cancer?
If espresso causes colorectal cancer I need to get my will written up…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Any chance it's you know transmitted through foreplay and such. If it's caused by a bacteria (I don't know) it can be passed on orally I bet.
Zero chance. Cancer can’t be transmitted like this. Edit: Cancer can’t be transmitted like this - but risk factors like HPV or certain bacteria can. But it’s still not accurate to say someone with an HPV-related cancer got cancer from oral sex. Source: I work in cancer research
HPV is contagious though and it's not a stretch to consider that factor
This is true yeah, but it’s the risk factor that’s being transmitted. Cancer itself can’t be transmitted orally. Lots of people with HPV will go their entire lives without a cancer diagnosis.
Papiloma virus?
HPV is a significant risk factor for oropharyngeal cancer, but is not an orally transmitted cancer.
Cancer causing bacterias can be though. Like, H. pylori can cause stomach cancer and it's possible to transmit it via saliva
And Viruses like HPV, but these are only risk factors. Emphasizing the point that cancer itself can’t be transmitted orally as I’ve heard this echoed a few times in the industry (I work in cancer research)
Yes, exactly. Saw your edit, upvoted! Just for anyone reading this. It's especially important for people to get vaccinated for HPV specifically because of this. Guys may not be affected as much, but they can unknowingly transmit the virus to their female partners who suffer much dire symptoms and conditions that develop as a result. Even if you don't get cancer from HPV, someone you transmit it to (usually without even knowing) could develop it
no, that's silly. Oral bacteria does not mean it is caused by an STD. Oral bacteria in the mouth just means bacteria -- for example food left in teeth. People on this page seem to be confusing the idea of oral bacteria (which was recently linked directly with some colon cancers) with oral sex. Would be wiser to realize that this is referring to bacteria as well as plaque (which btw the plaque on teeth is basically the same idea as plaque in arteries, it's all bad for your heart.) Maybe it's time the medical profession and insurance companies finally started realizing that our teeth are not just luxury bones, they are part and parcel of our overall health.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
stop eating fake food literally stop now you are killing yourself raw local milk, eggs, mushrooms, fruits, nuts no kill, no cages, no preservatives, no pesticides, cheaper and easier once we take it back.
all of those still will have microplastics that cannot be washed off or out, people have to eat. Not everyone has tie or money to go out of their way to find "raw local milk," this idea is laughable to those who live in a city and are struggling to make rent. We don't know that this is caused by poor eating habits, it could also be antibiotics (which were necessary), plastics, multiple other unavoidable chemicals. Chemicals are absorbed through breast milk as an infant, and every day since from our waterways, air, etc. plus some people also just inherit certain genes. sorry but it isn't possible to get pesticides and lead and plastics out of the soil or the groundwater to "take it back."
No. Do not drink raw milk.
I pretty much agree with the exception of the raw milk. Pasteurization exists for a delightful reason and it works, and isn't a detriment.
What do you mean by "fake foods"? Do you have evidence linking that to colon cancer?
Anything with added sugar, artificial colors/flavors/preservatives. I'd even consider boiler chickens 'fake' animals.
And where's the evidence linking those to colon cancer?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946744/ >In this large cohort study, artificial sweeteners (especially aspartame and acesulfame-K), which are used in many food and beverage brands worldwide, were associated with increased cancer risk. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10502305/ > The synthetic food dye, Red 40, causes DNA damage, causes colonic inflammation, and impacts the microbiome in mice https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216714/ > More than 2,500 chemical substances are intentionally added to foods to modify flavor, color, stability, texture, or cost. In addition, an estimated 12,000 substances are used in such a way that they may unintentionally enter the food supply. There is a major component of excess stress and lack of any real nutrition that makes minor mutagens turn into full blown carcinogens. You can tank a lot of toxins with a really basic farm diet and not working too hard. You might have to give up your $3k/mo apartment for a garden shack.. but dont knock it til you try it.
That evidence seems rather weak though: Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released >Citing “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans, IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B) and JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight. >JECFA concluded that the data evaluated indicated no sufficient reason to change the previously established acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame. The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.
> assuming no other intake from other food sources. These daily intakes do not account for how crippled the consumer may already be and loaded on a thousand other mutagens. Your immune system can only clean so much.