Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Recommendation #1 for Cancer Prevention
saintor1
Posts: 376 Member
in Debate Club
1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
0
Replies
-
Given that so many people these days are not even within the normal BMI range, I don't see that as a vast misrepresentation by newspapers. Personally, as a cancer survivor, one of my reasons for choosing to lose to the lower end of the BMI range was exactly this recommendation. (One of my reasons . . . !)
Clearly, BMI is a blunt instrument when applied to individuals. "At the lower end" is not synonymous with "exactly at the bottom" either. One has to apply a little common sense, I think - otherwise, anyone who writes any recommendation is going to have to put in so many exceptions and caveats that the text becomes unreadable.
3 -
As a healthcare worker who at one time worked at a cancer research facility, I can share with you that cancer is so difficult to pinpoint prevention for because there are at least 27 different things that contribute to the risk of it being triggered in a person's body. I am personally more concerned with the direct link between BMI and diabetes as well as cardiovascular disease, silent enemies that have huge effects on the rest of the body. Keeping lean but also agile, flexible, mobile and (VERY IMPORTANT) connected to community seems to be a common thread I have seen in the geriatric population, especially those over 80.7
-
As a healthcare worker who at one time worked at a cancer research facility, I can share with you that cancer is so difficult to pinpoint prevention for because there are at least 27 different things that contribute to the risk of it being triggered in a person's body. I am personally more concerned with the direct link between BMI and diabetes as well as cardiovascular disease, silent enemies that have huge effects on the rest of the body. Keeping lean but also agile, flexible, mobile and (VERY IMPORTANT) connected to community seems to be a common thread I have seen in the geriatric population, especially those over 80.
According to some publications, permanent calories restriction (especially carbohydrates) is a tool to 'starve cancer'.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/778613The hypothesis that suppressing carbohydrates could suppress or slow cancer growth is supported by a lot of laboratory science.
...
Extensive research suggests that restricting calories will improve cancer outcomes, according to Dr. Simone and colleagues. More than 100 years ago, lab research first indicated that mice fed a calorie-restricted diet had "significantly slower" tumor growth than those fed their regular diet, they write.0 -
This is basic risk mitigation and correlation, but not causation. This article is a result of population studies and severely biased by patient population with a preexisting condition. For any accuracy an equal population would have to be surveyed.
Do not take this as any advocacy of health and overweight - there are no health benefits to being overweight.2 -
1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
Being as lean as possible doesn't mean being as lite as possible. I'm 5'10"..."lean as possible" for me would probably be in the neighborhood of 165 Lbs...beyond that and I'd likely be under-fat. At 180 Lbs I'm in the neighborhood of 12-15% BF which is a totally acceptable and healthy level of body fat. It's not like I have body builder muscles either.
I was 130 Lbs my Junior year in high school...I was rail thin with very low fat, and basically no muscle to speak of.0 -
Cancer has so many causes. For one, you can be a lean machine but if you have the BRAC gene...you don't reduce your chances of breast cancer. You can be a lean sun browned tanned machine, but that won't reduce your chances of skin cancer. You can be a lean nicotine stained smoker but that won't reduce your chances of lung cancer. Not sure really what cancers attack overweight people more than normal weight people? Any studies?0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
Being as lean as possible doesn't mean being as lite as possible. I'm 5'10"..."lean as possible" for me would probably be in the neighborhood of 165 Lbs...beyond that and I'd likely be under-fat. At 180 Lbs I'm in the neighborhood of 12-15% BF which is a totally acceptable and healthy level of body fat. It's not like I have body builder muscles either.
I was 130 Lbs my Junior year in high school...I was rail thin with very low fat, and basically no muscle to speak of.
This is why I wrote "(again for most with regular size/muscles)". It is NOT about the raison d'etre of BMI and I think we all know what lean means
0 -
Not sure really what cancers attack overweight people more than normal weight people? Any studies?
Tons of them.
http://www.aicr.org/research/research_science_expert_report.htmlIn November 2007, AICR and the World Cancer Research Fund published Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, the most comprehensive report on diet and cancer ever completed.
The Report took six years to produce, and the process was transparent, objective and comprehensive. First, the global scientific literature was searched for relevant studies. Initial searches found some half a million studies, which were soon culled to 22,000. Ultimately, over 7,000 scientific studies were deemed relevant and met the report’s rigorous criteria.
These studies were independently reviewed, compiled and presented to an Expert Panelexternal site of 21 world-renowned scientists, who judged the accumulated evidence and developed 10 Recommendations for Cancer Prevention.
The report itself (PDF file)
http://wcrf.org/sites/default/files/english.pdf
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
Being as lean as possible doesn't mean being as lite as possible. I'm 5'10"..."lean as possible" for me would probably be in the neighborhood of 165 Lbs...beyond that and I'd likely be under-fat. At 180 Lbs I'm in the neighborhood of 12-15% BF which is a totally acceptable and healthy level of body fat. It's not like I have body builder muscles either.
I was 130 Lbs my Junior year in high school...I was rail thin with very low fat, and basically no muscle to speak of.
This is why I wrote "(again for most with regular size/muscles)". It is NOT about the raison d'etre of BMI and I think we all know what lean means
What does regular size muscles mean? Any man who is 5'10" and 130 Lbs is going to basically have no muscle mass at all. My best friend is 5'10" and a skinny guy with little fat and not much in the way of muscle mass...even he's like 150.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
What does regular size muscles mean? Any man who is 5'10" and 130 Lbs is going to basically have no muscle mass at all. My best friend is 5'10" and a skinny guy with little fat and not much in the way of muscle mass...even he's like 150.
Why the constant exaggeration? Of course the 130lbs 5'10" man will have muscle, like teenagers or asian men do. Fat, he won't have much. Anyway it is NOT about BMI vs % of fat. Lean says enough.0 -
1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
I find it really helps when we don't misrepresent the information.
Your 5'10' ave person would be between 130-170lbs. If we assumed a normal dist, that might be 145 for a woman and 155 for a man. Doesn't sound that bad to me for someone of medium build.
Only the slight of build would be closer to 130.1 -
1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
I find it really helps when we don't misrepresent the information.
Your 5'10' ave person would be between 130-170lbs. If we assumed a normal dist, that might be 145 for a woman and 155 for a man. Doesn't sound that bad to me for someone of medium build.
Only the slight of build would be closer to 130.
Not a misrep, it is what it is. There are zillions of Asians with a BMI of 18.5 or equivalent % fat/weight adjusted as you wish. As per their recommendation #1, this means the closest to 130 for both 5'10" genders (the same for men/women).
0 -
1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
I find it really helps when we don't misrepresent the information.
Your 5'10' ave person would be between 130-170lbs. If we assumed a normal dist, that might be 145 for a woman and 155 for a man. Doesn't sound that bad to me for someone of medium build.
Only the slight of build would be closer to 130.
Not a misrep, it is what it is. There are zillions of Asians with a BMI of 18.5 or equivalent % fat/weight adjusted as you wish. As per their recommendation #1, this means the closest to 130 for both 5'10" genders (the same for men/women).
I disagree with your reading of it. The major heading says "Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight" (emphasis mine) and in the detail text adds "Aim to be at the lower end of the healthy body mass index (BMI) range".
Yes, on the BMI calculator, BMI = 18.4 is "underweight", and 18.5 isn't. But BMI is a statistical tool. "Underweight," as a health matter, differs for individuals, and is something you assess in consultation with your doctor. This sort of idea is a routine part of BMI documentation, accepted mainstream medical guidance, etc. The NIH's BMI calculator documentation, for example, says "Talk to your doctor to see whether you are at an increased risk and whether you should lose weight."
I'm fairly certain that if you asked AICR whether a medium-frame male bodybuilder/weightlifter of 5'10" with 5-10% body fat should have an BMI of 18.5 (i.e., should weigh 130), they'd say "No, because he's obviously lean, and not underweight".
Saying "be at the lower end . . . of the range" is not "lowest point". This part ought, IMO, to be read as guidance for people roughly in the middle of the frame-size/BF% bell curve, who probably don't know whether they're "lean" in body fat terms or not. Those folks are better off at the lower end of the range, rather than the higher end of the range.
To put it another way, I think they expect us to use common sense.
Basically, as I read it, they're saying "Be lean, but don't be stupid enough to take unreasonable risks by pushing yourself to an unhealthily low weight, simply with the idea of minimizing cancer risk".
So, we differ in our interpretation. Sail on! 2 -
Thanks for the link. I read the original report. I think that they are saying an overweight/obese person has higher risk for some cancers because they are more likely to be eating higher doses of cancer causing foods...like salt preserved meats. But really it's diet causing the cancer, not simply being overweight/obese because theoretically one could be overweight/obese and have a very healthy diet with the exception that they are simply eating too much of a good thing.0
-
Oops never mind. I mismatched the body fatness row because my pad can't show page 1 and 2 at once. Yep...body and abdominal fatnes does increase risk of cancers. Thank you again for posting.
0 -
But then there is the trend that shows being under 20 BMI is associated with higher risk of all cause mortality even in healthy nonsmokers who have been specifically selected not to have pre-existing conditions that may skew the BMI results. It appears the best zone is somewhere between 20 and 22 BMI which agrees with the link above for being towards the lower end of BMI but the not the absolute lowest.
Every single statistic shows a U shaped curve with increased death risk at under 20 BMI similar to people who are overweight, and in some curves, even similar to the obese.1 -
Ok since so many people can't understand the concept of BMI, ban this word from this thread as it diverts its essential part.
Lean, lean LEAN is the keyword.
So the recommendation #1 of the immense studies compilation is to be with the least fat possible without being underweight. Probably about 9-10% body fat for men and significantly more for women. More info HERE.0 -
1. Be as lean as possible without becoming underweight.
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_01_weight.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
When we read about it in the newspaper, it magically becomes being within the healthy range of BMI (for most with regular size/muscles)
If we take that recommendation to the letter, that would mean that for a man or woman at 5'10", the best weight (again for most with regular size/muscles) to optimally prevent cancer with appropriate nutrition would be 130lbs.
Is this a debate? lol.
I find it really helps when we don't misrepresent the information.
Your 5'10' ave person would be between 130-170lbs. If we assumed a normal dist, that might be 145 for a woman and 155 for a man. Doesn't sound that bad to me for someone of medium build.
Only the slight of build would be closer to 130.
Not a misrep, it is what it is. There are zillions of Asians with a BMI of 18.5 or equivalent % fat/weight adjusted as you wish. As per their recommendation #1, this means the closest to 130 for both 5'10" genders (the same for men/women).
By the very definition, someone representing the average will not be at the lower extreme of 130 when the range is 130-170. What you excluded created a logical fallacy.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
What does regular size muscles mean? Any man who is 5'10" and 130 Lbs is going to basically have no muscle mass at all. My best friend is 5'10" and a skinny guy with little fat and not much in the way of muscle mass...even he's like 150.
Why the constant exaggeration? Of course the 130lbs 5'10" man will have muscle, like teenagers or asian men do. Fat, he won't have much. Anyway it is NOT about BMI vs % of fat. Lean says enough.
what exactly am I exaggerating. A 5'10" male who is 130 Lbs is going to be tiny and doesn't represent any kind of averageOk since so many people can't understand the concept of BMI, ban this word from this thread as it diverts its essential part.
Lean, lean LEAN is the keyword.
So the recommendation #1 of the immense studies compilation is to be with the least fat possible without being underweight. Probably about 9-10% body fat for men and significantly more for women. More info HERE.
We understand...you seemingly do not...you said the best weight would be 130 Lbs...and then you just go on about Asians as if that is representative of the population as a whole.
The "average" 5'10" male can be very lean and isn't going to be on the bottom end of the BMI scale.
1 -
By the very definition, someone representing the average will not be at the lower extreme of 130 when the range is 130-170. What you excluded created a logical fallacy.
You assume it but it is not true at all. People confuses built stature with fat all the time. Myself I am medium built, fairly active and at near 150lbs, I was far from being thin at 5'10", with a waist of 31-32". At 238.5lbs I was sure that I had an heavy frame - it wasn't so, Same for women. Plenty of medium built 5'10" and 130lbs. Again there is no difference between genders.
Here is an example of a 5'10" 130 man, medium build (right...). Of course if this guy would be in regular but not extreme resistance training kind of activity, he could be 150-160 easily.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
The "average" 5'10" male can be very lean and isn't going to be on the bottom end of the BMI scale.
Why are we repeating this again? My very 1st post addressed it.0 -
By the very definition, someone representing the average will not be at the lower extreme of 130 when the range is 130-170. What you excluded created a logical fallacy.
You assume it but it is not true at all. People confuses built stature with fat all the time. Myself I am medium built, fairly active and at near 150lbs, I was far from being thin at 5'10", with a waist of 31-32". At 238.5lbs I was sure that I had an heavy frame - it wasn't so, Same for women. Plenty of medium built 5'10" and 130lbs. Again there is no difference between genders.
Here is an example of a 5'10" 130 man, medium build (right...)
No...not really. Maybe if they're like 17 years old and still developing. I have a 32" waste at around 175 Lbs and I'm a cycling enthusiast...not a particularly big guy here.
Dude in the picture is scrawny as hell...probably around 7-8% BF with very little muscle mass. Anyone I know who works out at all is going to have more muscle mass than that. I don't think that represents anything "average"...he's just really "skinny"...I wouldn't say he has "regular size" muscles.1 -
Right. And that picture is of a guy who is absolutely not "regular size/muscles."
Heck, even in your post, you say, "Of course if this guy would be in regular but not extreme resistance training kind of activity, he could be 150-160 easily."
That pretty much negates your previous argument.3 -
Heck, even in your post, you say, "Of course if this guy would be in regular but not extreme resistance training kind of activity, he could be 150-160 easily."
That pretty much negates your previous argument.
No, absolutely not. Both pics are the SAME GUY, so same constitution, medium build. He didn't change magically. Probably that he got more active to get that thin and it is not obvious that he had significantly more muscles in the left pic, but a lot more fat.
0 -
By the very definition, someone representing the average will not be at the lower extreme of 130 when the range is 130-170. What you excluded created a logical fallacy.
You assume it but it is not true at all. People confuses built stature with fat all the time. Myself I am medium built, fairly active and at near 150lbs, I was far from being thin at 5'10", with a waist of 31-32". At 238.5lbs I was sure that I had an heavy frame - it wasn't so, Same for women. Plenty of medium built 5'10" and 130lbs. Again there is no difference between genders.
Here is an example of a 5'10" 130 man, medium build (right...). Of course if this guy would be in regular but not extreme resistance training kind of activity, he could be 150-160 easily.
(Image snipped by reply-er; you can still see it up-thread).
That people confuse built stature with fat does not make stature and fat identical things.
And any reading about the BMI concept and its history will clarify how it's intended to be applied, and why it has ranges, and any intelligent medical professional educated in weight and nutrition knows this. I'd bet the people who develop AICR recommendations are among those knowledgeable medical professionals.
Even "lean" is not an absolute, but a range. What you're saying is just not how language works, or language would have no need for adjectives and adverbs of qualication/degree, let alone superlatives. Further, what you're saying is just not how reality works.
P.S. As a 183 pound obese woman at 5'5", I always told people who said "you're not obese!" that underneath the fat, I had, skeletally, basically no hips. I didn't tell myself I had "a large frame" or even a medium one, despite wide shoulders and big hands/feet. We don't all delude ourselves. Now that I'm a 120-something pound li'l ol' lady, emphasis on the "li'l", that lack of hips is one of the reasons I should be toward the lower end of the BMI range in order to be lean. But that doesn't make it true for everyone. Even a woman with my exact frame size and musculature, but much larger breasts, would be exactly as lean as I am in the common meaning of the term, despite being 10 pounds heavier.
Afterthought: I'm starting to feel as if either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or because you think the recommendation is too absolute (?); or that you're looking for a justification to be ultra-lean even if not muscular; or that you're one of those people who seeks some magic talisman/formula (behavior, supplement, whatever) that will guarantee they won't get cancer (there isn't one). If that's a misperception, I apologize for considering an inaccurate conclusion.
2 -
By the very definition, someone representing the average will not be at the lower extreme of 130 when the range is 130-170. What you excluded created a logical fallacy.
You assume it but it is not true at all. People confuses built stature with fat all the time. Myself I am medium built, fairly active and at near 150lbs, I was far from being thin at 5'10", with a waist of 31-32". At 238.5lbs I was sure that I had an heavy frame - it wasn't so, Same for women. Plenty of medium built 5'10" and 130lbs. Again there is no difference between genders.
Here is an example of a 5'10" 130 man, medium build (right...). Of course if this guy would be in regular but not extreme resistance training kind of activity, he could be 150-160 easily.
He looks underweight, scrawny and just plain unhealthy. Not a good role model at all.1 -
Afterthought: I'm starting to feel as if either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or because you think the recommendation is too absolute (?); or that you're looking for a justification to be ultra-lean even if not muscular; or that you're one of those people who seeks some magic talisman/formula (behavior, supplement, whatever) that will guarantee they won't get cancer (there isn't one). If that's a misperception, I apologize for considering an inaccurate conclusion.
Correct, you are very confused. .
0 -
Afterthought: I'm starting to feel as if either you're arguing for the sake of argument, or because you think the recommendation is too absolute (?); or that you're looking for a justification to be ultra-lean even if not muscular; or that you're one of those people who seeks some magic talisman/formula (behavior, supplement, whatever) that will guarantee they won't get cancer (there isn't one). If that's a misperception, I apologize for considering an inaccurate conclusion.
Correct, you are very confused. .
OK, I can accept that.
So, what *is* your main point here (on this thread)? It isn't at all clear.
Do you think the recommendation is right? Do you think we should ideally each weigh the lowest weight in the BMI that applies to our height?
Do you think the recommendation is wrong? If so, in what way?
What do you think we should do, for best health, with respect to goal weight? Why?0 -
I agree with AICR. I started at the upper end of BMI 25.7, overweight at 152 lbs. Currently 120 lbs, 20.3 BMI and after losing my holiday wt, go back to 115 lbs, 19.4 BMI. Definitely lower end of BMI feels the healthiest.0
-
"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." - Chuck Palahniuk
Personally, I'm just trying to get to a comfortable weight for my height and be in good running shape. Spending mental energy stewing on whatever X/Y/Z cancer prevention trick is The Big Shizz(R) this week is just stressful to me. And stress is a leading factor of many diseases, so there's that.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions