Red meat increased risk of colon cancer

[Renard]

Very true.
It's really not pointed out enough how important cardiovascular factors are.
More smokers die from heart disease or stroke than cancer. The body keels over before the cancer gets you.

Cigarettes cause damage to the structure of blood vessels, hence the heightened risk of stroke and heart disease. The damage to capillaries and blood vessels in the brain is visible on brain scans, even if the person has long stopped smoking or was only exposed to second hand smoke.

 

[VivaRevolution]

A lot but smoking is a huge risk factor still. I think 4X for heart attack and stroke.

I question what the stats actually imply.

Is there a higher likely hood of smokers to have other bad habits? Does smoking indicate a higher likely hood of general risky behavoir?

 

[Armbars]

Cigarettes cause damage to the structure of blood vessels, hence the heightened risk of stroke and heart disease. The damage to capillaries and blood vessels in the brain is visible on brain scans, even if the person has long stopped smoking or was only exposed to second hand smoke.

I read something ages ago about 25 years plus you can expect to see the damage done to blood vessels and capillaries to start recovering. Don't know how true it is.

 

[ocean size]

I question what the stats actually imply.

Is there a higher likely hood of smokers to have other bad habits? Does smoking indicate a higher likely hood of general risky behavoir?

These kinda other factors get pretty well controlled for in cross sectional studies.

Plus we understand the mechanisms by which smoking affects the heart -
Nicotine directly causes a higher heart rate.
Carbon monoxide makes your heart have to work harder to supply the same amount of oxygen to your body.
Smoking lowers HDL and raises LDL
Smoking damages the endothelium which primes you to develop plaques.

 

[tweedie]

Just lol at this being in the political forum

Shows you the state of our society these days

 

[VivaRevolution]

These kinda other factors get pretty well controlled for in cross sectional studies.

Plus we understand the mechanisms by which smoking affects the heart -
Nicotine directly causes a higher heart rate.
Carbon monoxide makes your heart have to work harder to supply the same amount of oxygen to your body.
Smoking lowers HDL and raises LDL
Smoking damages the endothelium which primes you to develop plaques.

I'm not trying to argue smoking isnt bad for you.

I just think it is more complicated then most people think.

You say that is controlled for, but someone would have to perform that study first to prove you have a need to control for it.

Also, heavy sugar use is as bad as smoking. So is heavy alcohol use.

I simply think smoking has been made a bit of a boogeyman. That probably isn't a good way to say it though, because it is actually a boogeyman.

Smoking has been made out to be a special kind of villain, when it is really one of many villains.

I think the power the tobacco companies once had, has led to it's special villain status.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I read something ages ago about 25 years plus you can expect to see the damage done to blood vessels and capillaries to start recovering. Don't know how true it is.

I believe it is age dependent. Read once that if you quit smoking by 35, you have no increased risk of anything.

 

[Skarr]

If you think that is a anecdote, I don't know what to say to you.

Did you know that 97% of people who smoke, don't develope cancer associated to the cigarette use?

Even really bad carcinogens, have to be taken in huge amounts to have a cancer mortality level above 10%.

no offense but this seems like a load of BS, Lung Cancer among smokers HAS to be higher than 3%
the second part im not even sure what youre trying to state but you certainly dont need to be taking in carcinogens in huge amoungs to develop and die from cancer

to the topic....the studies and new studies and old stuides and future studies ...if you use them as some sort of guide are just going to have you bouncing all over the place...its a shell game....

we know that a a raw plant based diet is the healthiest you could do just from the way the human body processes what it takes in, but where the real issue is.. whats natural and whats man made, you want to eat man made? then sickness and disease are in the cards and it doesnt matter if its man made fruit/veggies or man made meat......thats the first distinction and until people start making that distinction then they are lost in the shell game

 

[ocean size]

I'm not trying to argue smoking isnt bad for you.

I just think it is more complicated then most people think.

You say that is controlled for, but someone would have to perform that study first to prove you have a need to control for it.

Also, heavy sugar use is as bad as smoking. So is heavy alcohol use.

I simply think smoking has been made a bit of a boogeyman. That probably isn't a good way to say it though, because it is actually a boogeyman.

Smoking has been made out to be a special kind of villain, when it is really one of many villains.

I think the power the tobacco companies once had, has led to it's special villain status.

What I am saying is in these observational studies, they also take data on socioeconomic status, other high risk behaviors like drinking, obesity and sedentary behavior and control for those things statistically when they isolate smoking and calculate a risk factor.

It really isn't that complicated. Smoking is bad. Other things are bad too, but smoking is bad whether or not you do other bad things.

 

[VivaRevolution]

no offense but this seems like a load of BS, Lung Cancer among smokers HAS to be higher than 3%
the second part im not even sure what youre trying to state but you certainly dont need to be taking in carcinogens in huge amoungs to develop and die from cancer

to the topic....the studies and new studies and old stuides and future studies ...if you use them as some sort of guide are just going to have you bouncing all over the place...its a shell game....

we know that a a raw plant based diet is the healthiest you could do just from the way the human body processes what it takes in, but where the real issue is.. whats natural and whats man made, you want to eat man made? then sickness and disease are in the cards and it doesnt matter if its man made fruit/veggies or man made meat......thats the first distinction and until people start making that distinction then they are lost in the shell game

Lung cancer is very much higher than 3%.

The 3% is how much more likely you are to die of lung cancer then a person that never smoked. Apparently though from the reading I did from the article I posted, lung cancer rates among smokers is rising despite smokers smoking less. This leads me to believe that either A) tobacco companies started adding something to cigarettes that is making smoking more dangerous, or B) other factors are increasing the damage smoking is doing.

I think B, is more likely. It even makes sense that if more people are obese, that being obese and smoking might raise the cancer rate.

 

[panamaican]

Literally reading this while ingesting bacon strips.

Circling right back to that Atlantic article @Jack V Savage shared in the Lounge thread.

@Jack V Savage link?

 

[VivaRevolution]

What I am saying is in these observational studies, they also take data on socioeconomic status, other high risk behaviors like drinking, obesity and sedentary behavior and control for those things statistically when they isolate smoking and calculate a risk factor.

It really isn't that complicated. Smoking is bad. Other things are bad too, but smoking is bad whether or not you do other bad things.

Right, I get you. You aren't wrong.

Let's see if I can say better what I am trying to say.

How does one control for the unknown interaction of multiple risk factors?

How does genetics effect this?

How about a guy that 6'8", 280lbs who never smokes verse, 5'8" 155lbs who smokes compare? (I know this is controlled for, it is a point of perspective.)

Is just being born a massive man increasing your risk of heart attack more than smoking does?

My point is one of perspective, and interpretation of the data we both agree on.

 

[Skarr]

Lung cancer is very much higher than 3%.

The 3% is how much more likely you are to die of lung cancer then a person that never smoked. Apparently though from the reading I did from the article I posted, lung cancer rates among smokers is rising despite smokers smoking less. This leads me to believe that either A) tobacco companies started adding something to cigarettes that is making smoking more dangerous, or B) other factors are increasing the damage smoking is doing.

I think B, is more likely. It even makes sense that if more people are obese, that being obese and smoking might raise the cancer rate.

the being obese points to other poor choices so ofc would be higher

the tobacco companies have been adding harmful shit to tobacco all throughout my life time, the biggest noticeable change was when they pretty quietly added something to smokes that makes them more likely to go out than to burn right down to nothing if left unattended. this practice by tobacco companies completely highlights how badly groups like the FDA and in my country the CHA utterly fail the people as they are literally put in place to prevent this kind of thing from going on((or so one would be led to believe))

even with the spin, Im not sure what to make of that 3% stat

 

[ocean size]

Right, I get you. You aren't wrong.

Let's see if I can say better what I am trying to say.

How does one control for the unknown interaction of multiple risk factors?

Generalised linear mixed modelling.

I don't think it really matters how other risk factors stack when discussing smoking risk. The signal of smoking as a driver of cancer and heart disease is really clear no matter what size people you are looking at.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Generalised linear mixed modelling.

I don't think it really matters how other risk factors stack when discussing smoking risk. The signal of smoking as a driver of cancer and heart disease is really clear no matter what size people you are looking at.

That isn't a rebuttal to my point of perspective and interpretation.

That would be a right proper rebuttal if I had argued cigarette use doesn't increase the risk of cancer and heart disease though.

 

[ocean size]

the being obese points to other poor choices so ofc would be higher

the tobacco companies have been adding harmful shit to tobacco all throughout my life time, the biggest noticeable change was when they pretty quietly added something to smokes that makes them more likely to go out than to burn right down to nothing if left unattended. this practice by tobacco companies completely highlights how badly groups like the FDA and in my country the CHA utterly fail the people as they are literally put in place to prevent this kind of thing from going on((or so one would be led to believe))

even with the spin, Im not sure what to make of that 3% stat

The three percent stat is bullshit no matter how you crunch the numbers.
The relative risk increase is 2300%. The increase in lifetime risk is more than 3% - Smokers make up 80-90% of lung cancer despite being only 1/5 people in the US. I posted links earlier in the thread showing risk increases from less than 2% to 17% and less than 1% to 24% in studies in Canada and central Europe.

 

[VivaRevolution]

the being obese points to other poor choices so ofc would be higher

the tobacco companies have been adding harmful shit to tobacco all throughout my life time, the biggest noticeable change was when they pretty quietly added something to smokes that makes them more likely to go out than to burn right down to nothing if left unattended. this practice by tobacco companies completely highlights how badly groups like the FDA and in my country the CHA utterly fail the people as they are literally put in place to prevent this kind of thing from going on((or so one would be led to believe))

even with the spin, Im not sure what to make of that 3% stat

Like I said. It is apparently a old stat, and not true anymore.

I believe it was true in the 70's. Of course for all I know it was a industry stat.

I think what makes it hard to reconcile with what we know, is that in the same way that this stat was presented in the best light possible, much of the current studies are meant to show it in it's worse light possible, so it somehow appears that both ideas can't be true.

Whoever once said numbers never lie, I think they didnt know very much about statistics.

 

[ocean size]

That isn't a rebuttal to my point of perspective and interpretation.

That would be a right proper rebuttal if I had argued cigarette use doesn't increase the risk of cancer and heart disease though.

I answered you how you can control for interacting risk factors.

But ok - in terms of if height is a larger risk factor than smoking - I've said already smoking status is a 400% relative risk factor for heart disease.

It turns out being short, not tall, increase risk for heart disease.

This study says for every 1 standard deviation shorter than average, your risk increases 13%.

So if you are in the lowest 0.03 percentile for height, your risk increases 40%. Smoking still is ten times a greater risk factor for heart disease than being abnormally short.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1404881?query=featured_home

 

[Skarr]

Like I said. It is apparently a old stat, and not true anymore.

I believe it was true in the 70's. Of course for all I know it was a industry stat.

I think what makes it hard to reconcile with what we know, is that in the same way that this stat was presented in the best light possible, much of the current studies are meant to show it in it's worse light possible, so it somehow appears that both sets of stats can't be true.

Whoever once said numbers never lie, I think they didnt know very much about statistics.

there was probably a time when these stats meant something, probably.....but that wasnt in our lifetimes..they figured out how to use these numbers to manipulate the herd and figured out how to shadow over whom is actually conducting these studies so it becomes either hard to argue or an endless debate.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I answered you how you can control for interacting risk factors.

But ok - in terms of if height is a larger risk factor than smoking - I've said already smoking status is a 400% relative risk factor for heart disease.

It turns out being short, not tall, increase risk for heart disease.

This study says for every 1 standard deviation shorter than average, your risk increases 13%.

So if you are in the lowest 0.03 percentile for height, your risk increases 40%. Smoking still is ten times a greater risk factor for heart disease than being abnormally short.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1404881?query=featured_home

That wasn't what I meant to ask.

I've never known anyone over 6'6" that lived passed 70.

Being a very large man, will likely kill you in your 50's. And I don't mean a obese man. I mean 6'8" 280 lbs. Being that big wreaks havoc on the heart.

Here let's try another one.

If your parents, and grandparents, and great grandparents all lived into their 80's and 90's, what are the chances that smoking will kill you in your 60's?

Also, if you are bound to die of pancreatic cancer due to a genetic deficiency would smoking kill you sooner?