When does height start causing health issues?

Member

Posts: 466

Joined: Mar 2018

Posted on May 18, 2018, 11:17 pm

#21

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMWhy 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?

"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'"

When does height start causing health issues?

And your point regarding the heart disease is someting I don't refute. However, heart disease is preventable with lifestyle changes, while cancer not necessarily.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMWhere 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.

The Cina Study is a whole book. The second study is not related to homogeneous groups but the risk from lifestyle choices.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMAgain 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/

Small sample size and pretty much all the subjects in the study were already pretty short. Еven when comparing shorter people to each other there are still risk for every cm. And again height was positively associated with all cancer mortality and mortality from cancer unrelated to smoking.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMThere is a correlation between height and mortality but it's less likely to be seen until you become 80 years old or more.

Where do you get this stats from? According to cancer.gov median age of a cancer diagnosis is 66 years. This means that half of cancer cases occur in people below this age and half in people above this age. One-quarter of new cancer cases are diagnosed in people aged 65 to 74.

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

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PM"The overall cancer death rate fell by 25% in the United States"

Still cancer is the second leading killer. People are just living longer with cancer.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PM"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."

I agree here.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMThere 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.

Indeed obesity, smoking and drinking are major risk factors. But I think now you are running away from my point that height is the result of being exposed to plenty of growth hormones during growing up which then can be a risk factor for cancer development later in life. And higher socioeconomic status is not a bad thing. The problem here is that rich people tend to overindulge in food rich in fats and growth hormones which are risk factors for cancer.

Btw, forgot to mention that height is "officially" recognised risk factor for testicular cancer: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/testicular-cancer/risks-causes

Edit Post

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMWhy 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?

"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'"

And your point regarding the heart disease is someting I don't refute. However, heart disease is preventable with lifestyle changes, while cancer not necessarily.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMWhere 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.

The Cina Study is a whole book. The second study is not related to homogeneous groups but the risk from lifestyle choices.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMAgain 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/

Small sample size and pretty much all the subjects in the study were already pretty short. Еven when comparing shorter people to each other there are still risk for every cm. And again height was positively associated with all cancer mortality and mortality from cancer unrelated to smoking.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMThere is a correlation between height and mortality but it's less likely to be seen until you become 80 years old or more.

Where do you get this stats from? According to cancer.gov median age of a cancer diagnosis is 66 years. This means that half of cancer cases occur in people below this age and half in people above this age. One-quarter of new cancer cases are diagnosed in people aged 65 to 74.

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

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PM"The overall cancer death rate fell by 25% in the United States"

Still cancer is the second leading killer. People are just living longer with cancer.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PM"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."

I agree here.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 18, 2018, 10:42:08 PMThere 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.

Indeed obesity, smoking and drinking are major risk factors. But I think now you are running away from my point that height is the result of being exposed to plenty of growth hormones during growing up which then can be a risk factor for cancer development later in life. And higher socioeconomic status is not a bad thing. The problem here is that rich people tend to overindulge in food rich in fats and growth hormones which are risk factors for cancer.

Btw, forgot to mention that height is "officially" recognised risk factor for testicular cancer: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/testicular-cancer/risks-causes

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 330

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 19, 2018, 11:47 am

#22

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PM"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'"
And your point regarding the heart disease is someting I don't refute. However, heart disease is preventable with lifestyle changes, while cancer not necessarily.

All you have is a hypothesis, so it doesn't count. I never said anything regarding what is preventable or not but cancers related to breast and prostate which are pretty common have the greatest survival rate, and the other cancers that you mentioned are pretty rare, just as rare as getting skin cancer.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMThe Cina Study is a whole book. The second study is not related to homogeneous groups but the risk from lifestyle choices.

Small sample size and pretty much all the subjects in the study were already pretty short. Еven when comparing shorter people to each other there are still risk for every cm. And again height was positively associated with all cancer mortality and mortality from cancer unrelated to smoking.

Okay you must be a statistician, so what sample size do you think they should've used in your opinion? Did you even read half of the study? The mortality seems to be seen in people that are 80 years old, its in the study

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

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMWhere do you get this stats from? According to cancer.gov median age of a cancer diagnosis is 66 years. This means that half of cancer cases occur in people below this age and half in people above this age. One-quarter of new cancer cases are diagnosed in people aged 65 to 74.

Previous study wasn't linked to cancer but mortality, the stats are from there which you deemed invalid, because it didn't agree with your narrative.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMIndeed obesity, smoking and drinking are major risk factors. But I think now you are running away from my point that height is the result of being exposed to plenty of growth hormones during growing up which then can be a risk factor for cancer development later in life. And higher socioeconomic status is not a bad thing. The problem here is that rich people tend to overindulge in food rich in fats and growth hormones which are risk factors for cancer.

http://time.com/money/2791993/cancer-rate-poverty-wealth/

"A new study from Cancer, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, finds that cancer afflicts wealthy and poor areas at about the same rate. But the study also found that they suffer from different kinds of cancer—and the cancers that strike the poor are more often deadly."

The compete opposite to what you are saying related to SES is in this study, again your strawmans doesn't refute or disregards what I have said previously. Again I never disregarded the correlation between height and cancer you buffoon.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMBtw, forgot to mention that height is "officially" recognised risk factor for testicular cancer: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/testicular-cancer/risks-causes

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/27/do-taller-men-need-to-be-more-aware-of-testicular-cancer/

Quote"As we said before, tall men shouldn’t panic. Height is only a minor risk factor for testicular cancer. Family history, inherited faulty genes, previous medical conditions, ethnic background and age all play a more significant role in affecting a man’s risk."

"Testicular cancer is relatively rare. Fewer than 2000 cases are diagnosed each year in the UK, which accounts for just over one per cent of all male cancers.

If there were a league table showing which cancers had the best outcomes then testicular would be right up there at the top. Not only is it a relatively rare form of the disease it has one of the best cure rates for all cancers."

You seem to exaggerate anything related to cancer, High SES and height. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean causation, I think you don't get what it even means.

Your only point that is standing is there is a correlation between height and cancer, well in my opinion majority of cancers are a hereditary disease and it doesn't matter if you are 4'11 or 6'9 if your family has cancer you will get it too.

Edit Post

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PM"Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'"
And your point regarding the heart disease is someting I don't refute. However, heart disease is preventable with lifestyle changes, while cancer not necessarily.

All you have is a hypothesis, so it doesn't count. I never said anything regarding what is preventable or not but cancers related to breast and prostate which are pretty common have the greatest survival rate, and the other cancers that you mentioned are pretty rare, just as rare as getting skin cancer.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMThe Cina Study is a whole book. The second study is not related to homogeneous groups but the risk from lifestyle choices.

Small sample size and pretty much all the subjects in the study were already pretty short. Еven when comparing shorter people to each other there are still risk for every cm. And again height was positively associated with all cancer mortality and mortality from cancer unrelated to smoking.

Okay you must be a statistician, so what sample size do you think they should've used in your opinion? Did you even read half of the study? The mortality seems to be seen in people that are 80 years old, its in the study

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

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMWhere do you get this stats from? According to cancer.gov median age of a cancer diagnosis is 66 years. This means that half of cancer cases occur in people below this age and half in people above this age. One-quarter of new cancer cases are diagnosed in people aged 65 to 74.

Previous study wasn't linked to cancer but mortality, the stats are from there which you deemed invalid, because it didn't agree with your narrative.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMIndeed obesity, smoking and drinking are major risk factors. But I think now you are running away from my point that height is the result of being exposed to plenty of growth hormones during growing up which then can be a risk factor for cancer development later in life. And higher socioeconomic status is not a bad thing. The problem here is that rich people tend to overindulge in food rich in fats and growth hormones which are risk factors for cancer.

http://time.com/money/2791993/cancer-rate-poverty-wealth/

"A new study from Cancer, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, finds that cancer afflicts wealthy and poor areas at about the same rate. But the study also found that they suffer from different kinds of cancer—and the cancers that strike the poor are more often deadly."

The compete opposite to what you are saying related to SES is in this study, again your strawmans doesn't refute or disregards what I have said previously. Again I never disregarded the correlation between height and cancer you buffoon.

Quote from: ivan on May 18, 2018, 11:17:12 PMBtw, forgot to mention that height is "officially" recognised risk factor for testicular cancer: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/testicular-cancer/risks-causes

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/27/do-taller-men-need-to-be-more-aware-of-testicular-cancer/

Quote"As we said before, tall men shouldn’t panic. Height is only a minor risk factor for testicular cancer. Family history, inherited faulty genes, previous medical conditions, ethnic background and age all play a more significant role in affecting a man’s risk."

"Testicular cancer is relatively rare. Fewer than 2000 cases are diagnosed each year in the UK, which accounts for just over one per cent of all male cancers.

If there were a league table showing which cancers had the best outcomes then testicular would be right up there at the top. Not only is it a relatively rare form of the disease it has one of the best cure rates for all cancers."

You seem to exaggerate anything related to cancer, High SES and height. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean causation, I think you don't get what it even means.

Your only point that is standing is there is a correlation between height and cancer, well in my opinion majority of cancers are a hereditary disease and it doesn't matter if you are 4'11 or 6'9 if your family has cancer you will get it too.

Like (0)

I

ivan

Member

Posts: 45

Joined: Mar 2018

Posted on May 19, 2018, 12:29 pm

#23

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AMAll you have is a hypothesis, so it doesn't count. I never said anything regarding what is preventable or not but cancers related to breast and prostate which are pretty common have the greatest survival rate, and the other cancers that you mentioned are pretty rare, just as rare as getting skin cancer.

Of course they count. Regardless of survival rate, the emotional and financial burden are enormous.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AMOkay you must be a statistician, so what sample size do you think they should've used in your opinion? Did you even read half of the study? The mortality seems to be seen in people that are 80 years old, its in the study
Previous study wasn't linked to cancer but mortality, the stats are from there which you deemed invalid, because it didn't agree with your narrative.

Tens of hundreds at least. The people in your study were living way healthier than generations born after 1960s and were not raised on typical standart American diet. So the risk of getting cancer earlier is way lower and if any they will be diagnosed later in life.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AM"A new study from Cancer, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, finds that cancer afflicts wealthy and poor areas at about the same rate. But the study also found that they suffer from different kinds of cancer—and the cancers that strike the poor are more often deadly."

I don't see the rates. Please quote them.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AM
Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AM
The compete opposite to what you are saying related to SES is in this study, again your strawmans doesn't refute or disregards what I have said previously. Again I never disregarded the correlation between height and cancer you buffoon.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/27/do-taller-men-need-to-be-more-aware-of-testicular-cancer/

You seem to exaggerate anything related to cancer, High SES and height. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean causation, I think you don't get what it even means.

Take it easy. You don't disregard it but in the same time you are quick to conclude that correlation doesn't mean causation.

The study you've linked actually proves my point. Areas with higher poverty have lower cancer incidence than areas with lower poverty. And they are caused by infections
* Kaposi sarcoma - (Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is caused by infection with a virus called the Kaposi sarcoma associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8).
* larynx - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* penis - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* liver - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AMYour only point that is standing is there is a correlation between height and cancer, well in my opinion cancer is a hereditary disease and it doesn't matter if you are 4'11 or 6'9 if your family has cancer you will get it too.

What a bunch of nonsense. Please, provide sources for your statement. Hereditary cancer syndromes account to about 5 to 10 percent of all cancers. The rest are result from the environment.

Edit Post

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AMAll you have is a hypothesis, so it doesn't count. I never said anything regarding what is preventable or not but cancers related to breast and prostate which are pretty common have the greatest survival rate, and the other cancers that you mentioned are pretty rare, just as rare as getting skin cancer.

Of course they count. Regardless of survival rate, the emotional and financial burden are enormous.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AMOkay you must be a statistician, so what sample size do you think they should've used in your opinion? Did you even read half of the study? The mortality seems to be seen in people that are 80 years old, its in the study
Previous study wasn't linked to cancer but mortality, the stats are from there which you deemed invalid, because it didn't agree with your narrative.

Tens of hundreds at least. The people in your study were living way healthier than generations born after 1960s and were not raised on typical standart American diet. So the risk of getting cancer earlier is way lower and if any they will be diagnosed later in life.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AM"A new study from Cancer, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, finds that cancer afflicts wealthy and poor areas at about the same rate. But the study also found that they suffer from different kinds of cancer—and the cancers that strike the poor are more often deadly."

I don't see the rates. Please quote them.

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AM
Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AM
The compete opposite to what you are saying related to SES is in this study, again your strawmans doesn't refute or disregards what I have said previously. Again I never disregarded the correlation between height and cancer you buffoon.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/27/do-taller-men-need-to-be-more-aware-of-testicular-cancer/

You seem to exaggerate anything related to cancer, High SES and height. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean causation, I think you don't get what it even means.

Take it easy. You don't disregard it but in the same time you are quick to conclude that correlation doesn't mean causation.

The study you've linked actually proves my point. Areas with higher poverty have lower cancer incidence than areas with lower poverty. And they are caused by infections
* Kaposi sarcoma - (Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is caused by infection with a virus called the Kaposi sarcoma associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8).
* larynx - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* penis - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* liver - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)

Quote from: ZUCC420 on May 19, 2018, 11:47:22 AMYour only point that is standing is there is a correlation between height and cancer, well in my opinion cancer is a hereditary disease and it doesn't matter if you are 4'11 or 6'9 if your family has cancer you will get it too.

What a bunch of nonsense. Please, provide sources for your statement. Hereditary cancer syndromes account to about 5 to 10 percent of all cancers. The rest are result from the environment.

Like (0)

Z

ZUCC420

Member

Posts: 218

Joined: Feb 2018

Posted on May 19, 2018, 3:33 pm

#24

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMOf course they count. Regardless of survival rate, the emotional and financial burden are enormous.

No they don't, they would count if the researchers account for Cancer+height+socioeconomic status. Otherwise its just confirmation bias. I don't doubt the enormous emotional and financial burden but that statement is irrelevant.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PM Tens of hundreds at least. The people in your study were living way healthier than generations born after 1960s and were not raised on typical standart American diet. So the risk of getting cancer earlier is way lower and if any they will be diagnosed later in life.

These men were American with Japanese ancestry, I don't think they had have Japanese diet. I don't know what else you are trying to say? What is the typical american diet and does it causes cancer?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4148275/ a nice article about sample size, explaining that a large sample size adds complexity to the study, is exorbitant hence unfeasible.

QuoteUsing the Cox regression model with age as the time scale, stratified by year of birth, effectively reduced bias, and allowed the true relation (estimated RR) of the effect of baseline height on mortality to become apparent. Since our study utilized a genetically homogenous population American men of Japanese ancestry [19], possible confounding from cultural differences were substantially ameliorated, thus reducing bias and strengthening the reliability of the findings.

I think the researchers have eliminated most biases, they even say this is amongst the largest and most detailed study covering height and mortality.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMI don't see the rates. Please quote them.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/27/do-taller-men-need-to-be-more-aware-of-testicular-cancer/

You seem to exaggerate anything related to cancer, High SES and height. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean causation, I think you don't get what it even means.

Take it easy. You don't disregard it but in the same time you are quick to conclude that correlation doesn't mean causation.

Homeless population and crime rate might be correlated, in that both tend to be high or low in the same locations. It is equally valid to say that homeless population is correlated with crime rate, or crime rate is correlated with homeless population. To say that crime causes homelessness, or homeless populations cause crime are different statements. And correlation does not imply that either is true, this is why correlation !=causation.

QuoteThe study looked at the incidence rates of 39 kinds of cancer in different census tracts. Researchers found that poorer areas have higher rates of lung, colorectal, cervical, oral and liver cancer, while wealthier areas have higher rates of breast, prostate, thyroid and skin cancer. The 14 cancers associated with poverty have a mortality rate of 107.7 per 100,000, while the 18 cancers associated with wealth have a mortality rate of 68.9.

Here is the mortality rate, High SES has a reduced mortality rate while the converse is higher rate in low SES.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMThe study you've linked actually proves my point. Areas with higher poverty have lower cancer incidence than areas with lower poverty. And they are caused by infections
* Kaposi sarcoma - (Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is caused by infection with a virus called the Kaposi sarcoma associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8).
* larynx - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* penis - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* liver - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633807/

QuoteClear evidence from industrialized and less developed societies demonstrates that both cancer incidence and cancer survival are related to socioeconomic circumstances. Lower social classes tend to have a higher cancer incidence and poorer cancer survival overall rates than higher social classes

This study one seems to portray the opposite, i don't have anything to add further.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMWhat a bunch of nonsense. Please, provide sources for your statement. Hereditary cancer syndromes account to about 5 to 10 percent of all cancers. The rest are result from the environment.

I should have reworded my sentence, what I meant to say is that hereditary cancer inflicts any individual regardless of height. But you are mistaken when you say the rest are environmental, there's more to it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/bad-luck-genes-environment-cause-many-cancers-researchers-find

Edit Post

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMOf course they count. Regardless of survival rate, the emotional and financial burden are enormous.

No they don't, they would count if the researchers account for Cancer+height+socioeconomic status. Otherwise its just confirmation bias. I don't doubt the enormous emotional and financial burden but that statement is irrelevant.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PM Tens of hundreds at least. The people in your study were living way healthier than generations born after 1960s and were not raised on typical standart American diet. So the risk of getting cancer earlier is way lower and if any they will be diagnosed later in life.

These men were American with Japanese ancestry, I don't think they had have Japanese diet. I don't know what else you are trying to say? What is the typical american diet and does it causes cancer?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4148275/ a nice article about sample size, explaining that a large sample size adds complexity to the study, is exorbitant hence unfeasible.

QuoteUsing the Cox regression model with age as the time scale, stratified by year of birth, effectively reduced bias, and allowed the true relation (estimated RR) of the effect of baseline height on mortality to become apparent. Since our study utilized a genetically homogenous population American men of Japanese ancestry [19], possible confounding from cultural differences were substantially ameliorated, thus reducing bias and strengthening the reliability of the findings.

I think the researchers have eliminated most biases, they even say this is amongst the largest and most detailed study covering height and mortality.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMI don't see the rates. Please quote them.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/27/do-taller-men-need-to-be-more-aware-of-testicular-cancer/

You seem to exaggerate anything related to cancer, High SES and height. Just because there is a correlation doesn't mean causation, I think you don't get what it even means.

Take it easy. You don't disregard it but in the same time you are quick to conclude that correlation doesn't mean causation.

Homeless population and crime rate might be correlated, in that both tend to be high or low in the same locations. It is equally valid to say that homeless population is correlated with crime rate, or crime rate is correlated with homeless population. To say that crime causes homelessness, or homeless populations cause crime are different statements. And correlation does not imply that either is true, this is why correlation !=causation.

QuoteThe study looked at the incidence rates of 39 kinds of cancer in different census tracts. Researchers found that poorer areas have higher rates of lung, colorectal, cervical, oral and liver cancer, while wealthier areas have higher rates of breast, prostate, thyroid and skin cancer. The 14 cancers associated with poverty have a mortality rate of 107.7 per 100,000, while the 18 cancers associated with wealth have a mortality rate of 68.9.

Here is the mortality rate, High SES has a reduced mortality rate while the converse is higher rate in low SES.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMThe study you've linked actually proves my point. Areas with higher poverty have lower cancer incidence than areas with lower poverty. And they are caused by infections
* Kaposi sarcoma - (Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is caused by infection with a virus called the Kaposi sarcoma associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8).
* larynx - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* penis - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)
* liver - Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), the virus that causes infectious mononucleosis (mono)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3633807/

QuoteClear evidence from industrialized and less developed societies demonstrates that both cancer incidence and cancer survival are related to socioeconomic circumstances. Lower social classes tend to have a higher cancer incidence and poorer cancer survival overall rates than higher social classes

This study one seems to portray the opposite, i don't have anything to add further.

Quote from: ivan on May 19, 2018, 12:29:38 PMWhat a bunch of nonsense. Please, provide sources for your statement. Hereditary cancer syndromes account to about 5 to 10 percent of all cancers. The rest are result from the environment.

I should have reworded my sentence, what I meant to say is that hereditary cancer inflicts any individual regardless of height. But you are mistaken when you say the rest are environmental, there's more to it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/bad-luck-genes-environment-cause-many-cancers-researchers-find

Like (0)

When does height start causing health issues?

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Edit Post

Related Topics