View Full Version : Body Composition May Be Key Player In Controlling Cancer Risks

kevin mckay
01-03-2007, 08:38 AM

Mike ODonnell
01-03-2007, 09:26 AM
I like to keep it simple....a healthy body can not get sick.

Most people do not have healthy bodies. We all have a "cancer" gene in us. Not something we catch from a toilet seat. Now every individual is different in how easily that gene is turned "on" or "off". Some easier than others to turn "on". But a 100% healthy body will keep it "off". Most science comes at us from the perspective of "it's all genetics" and then takes the power of health away from the individual....we should take the opposite approach of we have complete control of our health through lifestyle, nutrition, exercise, stress reduction, sleep, etc. I like the saying "Prevention, not Cure". Take control of health not wait for some magic pill that will never come.

Just my simple take on it. Keeps me happy.

Scott Kustes
01-03-2007, 11:52 AM
I was thinking as I started reading the article how it would relate to the hormones that a large fat mass spews and they mentioned it in the leptin comment. Good stuff. I agree with Mike that a healthy body cannot get sick. It goes back to the CrossFit continuum of Sickness-Wellness-Fitness....to get to Sickness from Fitness, you have to go through Wellness.

Note to self: can't get cancer from a toilet seat.

Elliot Royce
01-03-2007, 01:24 PM
Actually, the NY Times ran several interesting articles on related subjects. To summarize grossly, first was that genes are poor predictors of health outcomes. Identical twins ended up with vastly different life outcomes, sometimes as dying as early as 40 years apart. Second was that income had relatively little impact on longevity. The second longest lived Americans are poor upper Midwesterners (think Minnesota). Third, which was published today, was that education was the best predictor of health, far more important that income or genes.

Fourth, which I found most interesting, was that the reason we age is that the body turns off the ability to replicate cells over time to prevent cancerous mutations. When young, the probability of a cell replication causing a cancerous mutation is low but as these replications accumulate over time, the probability goes up (kinda like a Xerox of a xerox of a xerox). They proved this by using a protein to restore the cell replication process to that of a young rat. Within some short period of time, all the rats who had the cell replication of young rats died of cancer. In other words, we age because we have to to avoid cancer. This is too bad because any eventual Fountain of Youth will also have to come with a potent anti-cancer treatment. I have always been fascinated (and having an increasingly vested interest) in the question of why we age. Tortoises live hundreds of years, some trees live for more than a thousand years and are usually the victim not of disease but of some accident -- why do humans get only their fourscore and ten? Now we have a pretty good idea. Our bodies contain the seeds of their own destruction.

Jeremy Jones
01-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Elliot's stuff just validates everything about Deadpool (my favorite comicbook character).

To cure his terminal cancer, the Weapon X project infused him with a regenerative gene. The side effects are mental unstability, horrible disfigurement, and a terrible amount of black humor. The way I understand it, all the cells in his entire body is constantly regenerating on top of themselves.

I love it when science catches up to comic books.

Pierre Auge
01-04-2007, 07:14 PM