When does height start causing health issues?

Member

Posts: 342

Joined: Mar 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 12:48 pm

#11

Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Quote from: IwannaBeTaller on May 18, 2018, 12:23:02 PMThe survey is pretty interesting though. Amazing that even at 5'10'', only 50% of the men questioned seem satisfied with their height. Does it have to do with societal expectations on masculinity, with our shallow society, heightism, women's preferences, or a combination? It's also a morbid fact that this tendency will hardly be covered by any large media outlet, while women being unsatisfied with their appearance will get massive attention in mass media.

It's human nature to always want more.

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 477

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 3:57 pm

#12

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 12:48:40 PMMany medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Mind citing the study you are referencing? https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-12-58 This one seems to state the opposite of what you are saying,

"Among adults with a chronic disease, most ‘moderate or severe problems’ are reported more often in the low (compared with the high) educational group."

"Low SES groups seem to be faced with a double burden: first, increased levels of health impairments and, second, lower levels of valuated HRQL(health-related quality of life) once health is impaired."

Relating to ethnically homogeneous groups, do you mean hypertension in China ? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X11000848

"Correlations between SES and various measures of hypertension are examined. ► We find no significant wealth and education gradients in hypertension prevalence."

"Wealth plays some roles in improving the treatment and control of hypertension."

Instead it seems being affluent improves your health conditions, which might seem dubious to you. Btw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer, your schadenfreude against tall people is apparent from your posts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hxc06/do_taller_people_die_younger/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

"There probably is an association between being tall and earlier death. One recent paper found a relative risk of 1.006 per cm of height, which is a very small though statistically significant effect.

Note, though, that other studies have found the reverse, and hypothesized that being tall is an indicator of having better nutrition and better health during childhood, which in turn should lead to longer lifespan. This paper argues that studies that did find that had various statistical issues, particularly that they didn't track the same group of people over very long periods but used different age cohorts instead. They argue that you need to track thousands of people, preferably a fairly homogenous group (in this case, men of Japanese ancestry) for many decades to pick up on the statistical signature.

In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

QuoteWe compared survival curves between participants who were 165 cm or taller in height, those who were 158 cm or shorter, and those whose height was between 158 cm and 165 cm. We found no significant difference between the groups for survival prior to the age of 80 years. Survival curves in the follow-up for these three groups of people differed significantly between age 80 and 95 years ...

(My emphasis)

Consistent with the taller-people-had-healthier childhoods hypothesis, they found that even though taller men tended to die younger, they also tended to be healthier in old age - less risk of dementia, stronger grip strength, etc.

The mortality effect was driven mainly by cancer, and one hypothesis is that because taller people have more growth factors they may be more prone to cancer. Another is that it's linked, at the genetic level, to the calorie reduction model of longevity.

The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually -- that is, your observation that old people seem to be smaller is almost certainly due to confirmation bias and confounding effects (for example, on average people are getting taller, so older people were smaller on average)."

Seems isn't that big of a deal after all, only when you factor in the population and statistics. Besides I would rather live 50 years being happy and tall (Height and satisfaction) rather than with diminutive stature and bittersweet transient contentment.

Edit Post

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 12:48:40 PMMany medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Mind citing the study you are referencing? https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-12-58 This one seems to state the opposite of what you are saying,

"Among adults with a chronic disease, most ‘moderate or severe problems’ are reported more often in the low (compared with the high) educational group."

"Low SES groups seem to be faced with a double burden: first, increased levels of health impairments and, second, lower levels of valuated HRQL(health-related quality of life) once health is impaired."

Relating to ethnically homogeneous groups, do you mean hypertension in China ? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X11000848

"Correlations between SES and various measures of hypertension are examined. ► We find no significant wealth and education gradients in hypertension prevalence."

"Wealth plays some roles in improving the treatment and control of hypertension."

Instead it seems being affluent improves your health conditions, which might seem dubious to you. Btw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer, your schadenfreude against tall people is apparent from your posts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hxc06/do_taller_people_die_younger/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

"There probably is an association between being tall and earlier death. One recent paper found a relative risk of 1.006 per cm of height, which is a very small though statistically significant effect.

Note, though, that other studies have found the reverse, and hypothesized that being tall is an indicator of having better nutrition and better health during childhood, which in turn should lead to longer lifespan. This paper argues that studies that did find that had various statistical issues, particularly that they didn't track the same group of people over very long periods but used different age cohorts instead. They argue that you need to track thousands of people, preferably a fairly homogenous group (in this case, men of Japanese ancestry) for many decades to pick up on the statistical signature.

In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

QuoteWe compared survival curves between participants who were 165 cm or taller in height, those who were 158 cm or shorter, and those whose height was between 158 cm and 165 cm. We found no significant difference between the groups for survival prior to the age of 80 years. Survival curves in the follow-up for these three groups of people differed significantly between age 80 and 95 years ...

(My emphasis)

Consistent with the taller-people-had-healthier childhoods hypothesis, they found that even though taller men tended to die younger, they also tended to be healthier in old age - less risk of dementia, stronger grip strength, etc.

The mortality effect was driven mainly by cancer, and one hypothesis is that because taller people have more growth factors they may be more prone to cancer. Another is that it's linked, at the genetic level, to the calorie reduction model of longevity.

The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually -- that is, your observation that old people seem to be smaller is almost certainly due to confirmation bias and confounding effects (for example, on average people are getting taller, so older people were smaller on average)."

Seems isn't that big of a deal after all, only when you factor in the population and statistics. Besides I would rather live 50 years being happy and tall (Height and satisfaction) rather than with diminutive stature and bittersweet transient contentment.

Like (0)

M

myloginacct

Member

Posts: 249

Joined: Nov 2017

Posted on May 18, 2018, 5:49 pm

#13

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 03:57:15 PMhttps://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hxc06/do_taller_people_die_younger/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

"There probably is an association between being tall and earlier death. One recent paper found a relative risk of 1.006 per cm of height, which is a very small though statistically significant effect.

Note, though, that other studies have found the reverse, and hypothesized that being tall is an indicator of having better nutrition and better health during childhood, which in turn should lead to longer lifespan. This paper argues that studies that did find that had various statistical issues, particularly that they didn't track the same group of people over very long periods but used different age cohorts instead. They argue that you need to track thousands of people, preferably a fairly homogenous group (in this case, men of Japanese ancestry) for many decades to pick up on the statistical signature.

In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

Consistent with the taller-people-had-healthier childhoods hypothesis, they found that even though taller men tended to die younger, they also tended to be healthier in old age - less risk of dementia, stronger grip strength, etc.

The mortality effect was driven mainly by cancer, and one hypothesis is that because taller people have more growth factors they may be more prone to cancer. Another is that it's linked, at the genetic level, to the calorie reduction model of longevity.

The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually -- that is, your observation that old people seem to be smaller is almost certainly due to confirmation bias and confounding effects (for example, on average people are getting taller, so older people were smaller on average)."

So you said a whole lot of nothing.

The data Ivan presented is still standing.

Edit Post

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 03:57:15 PMhttps://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hxc06/do_taller_people_die_younger/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

"There probably is an association between being tall and earlier death. One recent paper found a relative risk of 1.006 per cm of height, which is a very small though statistically significant effect.

Note, though, that other studies have found the reverse, and hypothesized that being tall is an indicator of having better nutrition and better health during childhood, which in turn should lead to longer lifespan. This paper argues that studies that did find that had various statistical issues, particularly that they didn't track the same group of people over very long periods but used different age cohorts instead. They argue that you need to track thousands of people, preferably a fairly homogenous group (in this case, men of Japanese ancestry) for many decades to pick up on the statistical signature.

In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

Consistent with the taller-people-had-healthier childhoods hypothesis, they found that even though taller men tended to die younger, they also tended to be healthier in old age - less risk of dementia, stronger grip strength, etc.

The mortality effect was driven mainly by cancer, and one hypothesis is that because taller people have more growth factors they may be more prone to cancer. Another is that it's linked, at the genetic level, to the calorie reduction model of longevity.

The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually -- that is, your observation that old people seem to be smaller is almost certainly due to confirmation bias and confounding effects (for example, on average people are getting taller, so older people were smaller on average)."

So you said a whole lot of nothing.

The data Ivan presented is still standing.

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 406

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 6:14 pm

#14

Which one the richer and taller people are getting sick of chronic disease and cancer or just only the tall people are getting cancer?

Regarding the latter I just copied a reddit post that explained that its actually a small increase and only when factoring the population it seems statistically likely of getting cancer, referring the study http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094385

Quote A Cox regression model with time-dependent covariates showed that relative risk for baseline height on mortality increased as the population aged

"In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old" I suggest you read my post again since I never refuted or disregarded that tall height causes cancer I was stating that the effects aren't as significant, it seems you misapprehended my comment.

Like (0)

M

myloginacct

Member

Posts: 317

Joined: Nov 2017

Posted on May 18, 2018, 6:21 pm

#15

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 06:14:13 PMI never refuted or disregarded that tall height causes cancer

Cool.

So it seems you do get why:

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 03:57:15 PMBtw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer

Thread title.

Thread message:

QuoteAndre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature. Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 323

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 6:38 pm

#16

Again you seem to misinterpret my comment that was personally redirected at ivan's post not about the title of the post

QuoteMany medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Seems I have walk you through my post, at first I wanted the citation of the claim "Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status."

Second the statement of homogeneous nations and chronic illness (nothing relating to height and SES was found)

QuoteAlso, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

also nothing, but since he was so adamant about cancer/height/affluence I tried searching for studies but instead found that reddit post which was more substantial than ivan's claims (SES/height/ethnicity) and thought to share it here.

Now we've gained some insight about cancer and height other than Ivan's specs of percentage of diseases associated with tall stature, It seems that you are bothered by my post for some reason.

Quote from: myloginacct on May 18, 2018, 06:21:29 PMBtw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer

Thread title.

Thread message:

Quote
Andre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature. Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

What does this even imply exactly? I know what the thread is about, he was reiterating the same thing coupled with a claim that wealth somehow relates to it.

Edit Post

Again you seem to misinterpret my comment that was personally redirected at ivan's post not about the title of the post

QuoteMany medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Seems I have walk you through my post, at first I wanted the citation of the claim "Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status."

Second the statement of homogeneous nations and chronic illness (nothing relating to height and SES was found)

QuoteAlso, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

also nothing, but since he was so adamant about cancer/height/affluence I tried searching for studies but instead found that reddit post which was more substantial than ivan's claims (SES/height/ethnicity) and thought to share it here.

Now we've gained some insight about cancer and height other than Ivan's specs of percentage of diseases associated with tall stature, It seems that you are bothered by my post for some reason.

Quote from: myloginacct on May 18, 2018, 06:21:29 PMBtw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer

Thread title.

Thread message:

Quote
Andre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature. Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

What does this even imply exactly? I know what the thread is about, he was reiterating the same thing coupled with a claim that wealth somehow relates to it.

Like (0)

I

ivan

Member

Posts: 139

Joined: Mar 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 8:25 pm

#17

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 06:14:13 PMWhich one the richer and taller people are getting sick of chronic disease and cancer or just only the tall people are getting cancer?

Tallness is associated with higher economic status. Both are related.

Take a look at this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148429/

Quote"Epidemiological studies have shown that taller people are at increased risk of cancer, but it is unclear if height-associated risks vary by cancer site, or by other factors such as smoking and socioeconomic status. Our aim was to investigate these associations in a large UK prospective cohort with sufficient information on incident cancer to allow direct comparison of height-associated risk across cancer sites and in relation to major potential confounding and modifying factors."

QuoteFindings

1 297 124 women included in our analysis were followed up for a total of 11·7 million person-years (median 9·4 years per woman, IQR 8·4–10·2), during which time 97 376 incident cancers occurred. The RR for total cancer was of 1·16 (95% CI 1·14–1·17; p<0·0001) for every 10 cm increase in height. Risk increased for 15 of the 17 cancer sites we assessed, and was statistically significant for ten sites: colon (RR per 10 cm increase in height 1·25, 95% CI 1·19–1·30), rectum (1·14, 1·07–1·22), malignant melanoma (1·32, 1·24–1·40), breast (1·17, 1·15–1·19), endometrium (1·19, 1·13–1·24), ovary (1·17, 1·11–1·23), kidney (1·29, 1·19–1·41), CNS (1·20, 1·12–1·29), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1·21, 1·14–1·29), and leukaemia (1·26, 1·15–1·38). The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed, but was significantly lower in current than in never smokers (p<0·0001). In current smokers, smoking-related cancers were not as strongly related to height as were other cancers (RR per 10 cm increase in height 1·05, 95% CI 1·01–1·09, and 1·17, 1·13–1·22, respectively; p=0·0004). In a meta-analysis of our study and ten other prospective studies, height-associated RRs for total cancer showed little variation across Europe, North America, Australasia, and Asia.

QuoteWe identified a clear and highly significant trend of increasing cancer risk with increasing height in this large prospective study of UK women, with RR for total incident cancer of 1·16 (99% CI 1·14–1·17) for every 10 cm greater height. The magnitude of the height-associated increase in cancer risk was similar for women with different years of birth, from different socioeconomic groups, and across subgroups defined by alcohol intake, body-mass index, physical activity, age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, menopausal status, and use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy. By contrast, current smokers had a lower RR for total cancer incidence per 10 cm increase in height than never smokers, and this was largely because the height-associated cancer RRs in smokers were lower for smoking-related than for other cancers. In never smokers, there was only weak variation in height-related risk across 17 cancer sites.

QuoteWomen in higher socioeconomic groups are on average taller (table 1), and socioeconomic status is related to total cancer incidence (figure 4),29 yet the association between height and risk of cancer was similar for women of low, medium, and high socioeconomic status. As in other studies that could adjust for a range of potential confounding factors, our results suggest that the relation between height and cancer risk is not due to other known risk factors for cancer.

I'll try to give more comprehensive arguments when I'm available.

Edit Post

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 06:14:13 PMWhich one the richer and taller people are getting sick of chronic disease and cancer or just only the tall people are getting cancer?

Tallness is associated with higher economic status. Both are related.

Take a look at this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148429/

Quote"Epidemiological studies have shown that taller people are at increased risk of cancer, but it is unclear if height-associated risks vary by cancer site, or by other factors such as smoking and socioeconomic status. Our aim was to investigate these associations in a large UK prospective cohort with sufficient information on incident cancer to allow direct comparison of height-associated risk across cancer sites and in relation to major potential confounding and modifying factors."

QuoteFindings

1 297 124 women included in our analysis were followed up for a total of 11·7 million person-years (median 9·4 years per woman, IQR 8·4–10·2), during which time 97 376 incident cancers occurred. The RR for total cancer was of 1·16 (95% CI 1·14–1·17; p<0·0001) for every 10 cm increase in height. Risk increased for 15 of the 17 cancer sites we assessed, and was statistically significant for ten sites: colon (RR per 10 cm increase in height 1·25, 95% CI 1·19–1·30), rectum (1·14, 1·07–1·22), malignant melanoma (1·32, 1·24–1·40), breast (1·17, 1·15–1·19), endometrium (1·19, 1·13–1·24), ovary (1·17, 1·11–1·23), kidney (1·29, 1·19–1·41), CNS (1·20, 1·12–1·29), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1·21, 1·14–1·29), and leukaemia (1·26, 1·15–1·38). The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed, but was significantly lower in current than in never smokers (p<0·0001). In current smokers, smoking-related cancers were not as strongly related to height as were other cancers (RR per 10 cm increase in height 1·05, 95% CI 1·01–1·09, and 1·17, 1·13–1·22, respectively; p=0·0004). In a meta-analysis of our study and ten other prospective studies, height-associated RRs for total cancer showed little variation across Europe, North America, Australasia, and Asia.

QuoteWe identified a clear and highly significant trend of increasing cancer risk with increasing height in this large prospective study of UK women, with RR for total incident cancer of 1·16 (99% CI 1·14–1·17) for every 10 cm greater height. The magnitude of the height-associated increase in cancer risk was similar for women with different years of birth, from different socioeconomic groups, and across subgroups defined by alcohol intake, body-mass index, physical activity, age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, menopausal status, and use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy. By contrast, current smokers had a lower RR for total cancer incidence per 10 cm increase in height than never smokers, and this was largely because the height-associated cancer RRs in smokers were lower for smoking-related than for other cancers. In never smokers, there was only weak variation in height-related risk across 17 cancer sites.

QuoteWomen in higher socioeconomic groups are on average taller (table 1), and socioeconomic status is related to total cancer incidence (figure 4),29 yet the association between height and risk of cancer was similar for women of low, medium, and high socioeconomic status. As in other studies that could adjust for a range of potential confounding factors, our results suggest that the relation between height and cancer risk is not due to other known risk factors for cancer.

I'll try to give more comprehensive arguments when I'm available.

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 420

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 9:07 pm

#18

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 12:48:40 PMMany medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status.

The quotes you mentioned ironically disagrees with your point about socioeconomic status "The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed"

"Women in higher socioeconomic groups are on average taller (table 1), and socioeconomic status is related to total cancer incidence (figure 4),29 yet the association between height and risk of cancer was similar for women of low, medium, and high socioeconomic status."

Why didn't you cite the sources for the claim that people with low SES are less likely to get chronic illnesses, where is your citation for tall affluent people suffering from chronic diseases other than the study you linked which involved tall women smoking are susceptible to cancer.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 12:48:40 PMWhen you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Where is the study about homogeneous group and the disparity of SES and chronic diseases pertaining to it? Yes I know tall people are more prone to cancer but where did you find that poor people are susceptible to infections while rich are to heart disease and cancer? And where does the height come in?

The subjects of the study you linked were very old,

QuoteThe 1 297 124 women included in our analysis had a mean age at recruitment of 56·1 years (SD 4·9) and an average year of birth of 1942. The median length of follow-up was 9·4 years per woman (IQR 8·4–10·2 years), for a total of 11·7 million person-years, during which 97 376 incident cancers were notified.

See my prior post about age and cancer, I briefly stated that tall old people are prone to cancer but the likelihood of getting it is insignificant, only when you factor in the population and statistics it seems significant.

"The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually"

"In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

We compared survival curves between participants who were 165 cm or taller in height, those who were 158 cm or shorter, and those whose height was between 158 cm and 165 cm. We found no significant difference between the groups for survival prior to the age of 80 years. Survival curves in the follow-up for these three groups of people differed significantly between age 80 and 95 years"

You didn't give any comprehensive or coherent study now, and I doubt you will later.

Edit Post

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 12:48:40 PMMany medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status.

The quotes you mentioned ironically disagrees with your point about socioeconomic status "The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed"

"Women in higher socioeconomic groups are on average taller (table 1), and socioeconomic status is related to total cancer incidence (figure 4),29 yet the association between height and risk of cancer was similar for women of low, medium, and high socioeconomic status."

Why didn't you cite the sources for the claim that people with low SES are less likely to get chronic illnesses, where is your citation for tall affluent people suffering from chronic diseases other than the study you linked which involved tall women smoking are susceptible to cancer.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 12:48:40 PMWhen you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Where is the study about homogeneous group and the disparity of SES and chronic diseases pertaining to it? Yes I know tall people are more prone to cancer but where did you find that poor people are susceptible to infections while rich are to heart disease and cancer? And where does the height come in?

The subjects of the study you linked were very old,

QuoteThe 1 297 124 women included in our analysis had a mean age at recruitment of 56·1 years (SD 4·9) and an average year of birth of 1942. The median length of follow-up was 9·4 years per woman (IQR 8·4–10·2 years), for a total of 11·7 million person-years, during which 97 376 incident cancers were notified.

See my prior post about age and cancer, I briefly stated that tall old people are prone to cancer but the likelihood of getting it is insignificant, only when you factor in the population and statistics it seems significant.

"The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually"

"In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

We compared survival curves between participants who were 165 cm or taller in height, those who were 158 cm or shorter, and those whose height was between 158 cm and 165 cm. We found no significant difference between the groups for survival prior to the age of 80 years. Survival curves in the follow-up for these three groups of people differed significantly between age 80 and 95 years"

You didn't give any comprehensive or coherent study now, and I doubt you will later.

Like (0)

I

ivan

Member

Posts: 155

Joined: Mar 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 9:52 pm

#19

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 09:07:09 PMThe quotes you mentioned ironically disagrees with your point about socioeconomic status "The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed"

So the conclusion is being tall is still a risk factor and again tallness is corrlated with socioeconomic status. There are still tall people from lower socioeconomic status and they are still at higher risk just because of the fact that they are taller.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 09:07:09 PMWhy didn't you cite the sources for the claim that people with low SES are less likely to get chronic illnesses, where is your citation for tall affluent people suffering from chronic diseases other than the study you linked which involved tall women smoking are susceptible to cancer.

Where is the study about homogeneous group and the disparity of SES and chronic diseases pertaining to it? Yes I know tall people are more prone to cancer but where did you find that poor people are susceptible to infections while rich are to heart disease and cancer? And where does the height come in?

The China Study is a good example for the prevalence of cancer in rich people and infectious diseases in poor people. China is a good example of homogenous nation. How height and affluance are related? Rich people are spending more and more for animal food rich in protein and this may have role in cancer later in life due to IGF-1, other growth hormones etc. So height here is a indicator of the process of conception to adulthood. For example dairy (considered important for growing tall according to science) consumption earlier in life is a risk factor for cancer: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/6/1722/4649776

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 09:07:09 PMThe subjects of the study you linked were very old,
See my prior post about age and cancer, I briefly stated that tall old people are prone to cancer but the likelihood of getting it is insignificant, only when you factor in the population and statistics it seems significant.

Average of 56 is not very old. I appreciate you understand statistics but this is still significant.

Edit Post

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 09:07:09 PMThe quotes you mentioned ironically disagrees with your point about socioeconomic status "The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed"

So the conclusion is being tall is still a risk factor and again tallness is corrlated with socioeconomic status. There are still tall people from lower socioeconomic status and they are still at higher risk just because of the fact that they are taller.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 09:07:09 PMWhy didn't you cite the sources for the claim that people with low SES are less likely to get chronic illnesses, where is your citation for tall affluent people suffering from chronic diseases other than the study you linked which involved tall women smoking are susceptible to cancer.

Where is the study about homogeneous group and the disparity of SES and chronic diseases pertaining to it? Yes I know tall people are more prone to cancer but where did you find that poor people are susceptible to infections while rich are to heart disease and cancer? And where does the height come in?

The China Study is a good example for the prevalence of cancer in rich people and infectious diseases in poor people. China is a good example of homogenous nation. How height and affluance are related? Rich people are spending more and more for animal food rich in protein and this may have role in cancer later in life due to IGF-1, other growth hormones etc. So height here is a indicator of the process of conception to adulthood. For example dairy (considered important for growing tall according to science) consumption earlier in life is a risk factor for cancer: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/6/1722/4649776

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 09:07:09 PMThe subjects of the study you linked were very old,
See my prior post about age and cancer, I briefly stated that tall old people are prone to cancer but the likelihood of getting it is insignificant, only when you factor in the population and statistics it seems significant.

Average of 56 is not very old. I appreciate you understand statistics but this is still significant.

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 126

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 10:42 pm

#20

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 09:52:29 PMSo the conclusion is being tall is still a risk factor and again tallness is corrlated with socioeconomic status. There are still tall people from lower socioeconomic status and they are still at higher risk just because of the fact that they are taller.

Why are you conflating different studies? This is absurd, correlation doesn't equal causation and what about High SES group prone to heart disease while poor SES group prone to infections?

Just because of correlation of short height and low SES doesn't mean they are susceptible to infections and diseases, the same goes for high SES and tall people.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 09:52:29 PMThe china study is a good example for the prevalence of cancer in rich peopleand infections in poor people. China is a good example of homogenous nation. How height and affluance are related. Richer people are spending more and more for animal food rich in protein rich and this may have role in cancer later in life due to insulin, IGF-1, other growth hormones etc. So height here is a indicator of the process of conception to adulthood. For example dairy (important for growing tall according to science) consumption earlier in life is a risk factor for cancer: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/6/1722/4649776

Where is the china study? This one didn't account homogeneous groups or height, just that a diet rich in dairy products during childhood is associated with a greater risk of colorectal cancer in adulthood.

Again why are conflating studies to suit your misconceptions, here is a study about height, homogeneous group and mortality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013008/

QuoteWe compared survival curves between participants who were 165 cm or taller in height, those who were 158 cm or shorter, and those whose height was between 158 cm and 165 cm. We found no significant difference between the groups for survival prior to the age of 80 years. Survival curves in the follow-up for these three groups of people differed significantly between age 80 and 95 years"

There is a correlation between height and mortality but it's less likely to be seen until you become 80 years old or more.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

"The overall cancer death rate fell by 25% in the United States since 1990s"

"Nearly 1 out of 3 people in the United States will have cancer during their lifetimes. Cancer can happen at any age, but nearly 9 out of 10 cancers are diagnosed in people ages 50 and older."

There are many types of cancers, and I wager that age and bad habits (obesity, smoking, drinking) plays a major role rather height or socioeconomic status, unless you can prove me wrong.

Edit Post

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 09:52:29 PMSo the conclusion is being tall is still a risk factor and again tallness is corrlated with socioeconomic status. There are still tall people from lower socioeconomic status and they are still at higher risk just because of the fact that they are taller.

Why are you conflating different studies? This is absurd, correlation doesn't equal causation and what about High SES group prone to heart disease while poor SES group prone to infections?

Just because of correlation of short height and low SES doesn't mean they are susceptible to infections and diseases, the same goes for high SES and tall people.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 09:52:29 PMThe china study is a good example for the prevalence of cancer in rich peopleand infections in poor people. China is a good example of homogenous nation. How height and affluance are related. Richer people are spending more and more for animal food rich in protein rich and this may have role in cancer later in life due to insulin, IGF-1, other growth hormones etc. So height here is a indicator of the process of conception to adulthood. For example dairy (important for growing tall according to science) consumption earlier in life is a risk factor for cancer: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/6/1722/4649776

Where is the china study? This one didn't account homogeneous groups or height, just that a diet rich in dairy products during childhood is associated with a greater risk of colorectal cancer in adulthood.

Again why are conflating studies to suit your misconceptions, here is a study about height, homogeneous group and mortality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013008/

QuoteWe compared survival curves between participants who were 165 cm or taller in height, those who were 158 cm or shorter, and those whose height was between 158 cm and 165 cm. We found no significant difference between the groups for survival prior to the age of 80 years. Survival curves in the follow-up for these three groups of people differed significantly between age 80 and 95 years"

There is a correlation between height and mortality but it's less likely to be seen until you become 80 years old or more.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

"The overall cancer death rate fell by 25% in the United States since 1990s"

"Nearly 1 out of 3 people in the United States will have cancer during their lifetimes. Cancer can happen at any age, but nearly 9 out of 10 cancers are diagnosed in people ages 50 and older."

There are many types of cancers, and I wager that age and bad habits (obesity, smoking, drinking) plays a major role rather height or socioeconomic status, unless you can prove me wrong.

Like (0)

When does height start causing health issues?

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics