this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
6 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56110 readers
1627 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Jokes on cancer. Im already fat. No weight gain likely.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Jesus Christ Gaurdian please put "an" between as and adult in your headline. I had to read this like way too many times for my brain to understand this.

Or maybe "during adulthood"

I can't believe this is the actual article title. Did anyone understand that on first read.

[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hate these studies. They're always just based on correlations, and ignores the elephant in the room: class. How wealthy you are, how wealthy the area you live in, those factors have the highest impact on health outcomes, but the mainstream media (which is owned by the ruling class) will never be honest about that. So they just find correlations that let them blame poor people for having shitty diets.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You hate these studies because they don't specifically endorse your world view?

Most of the time, these studies are looking for the mechanical causes of the problem, not the socio-economic conditions that led to those mechanisms being present. So if smoking or getting fat increases cancer risk, that will be true regardless of what's in your bank account.

Also, these are cancer researchers. Dealing with the structural poverty that leads to the adverse health outcomes is way outside their expertise.

[–] Footer1998@crazypeople.online 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Without doxing myself, I have expertise in this topic. It's not a matter of my world view, it's a matter of science and communication.

It is very unlikely that human adiposity leads to increased cancer risk directly. It is correlational, not causational. Human adiposity itself, isolated from compounding factors, has a complex relationship with health outcomes, and not at all the linear correlation where more fat = more bad that the mainstream likes to pretend.

We know that certain foods, particularly animal products, especially cheaper animal products, lead to cancers, heart disease, etc. This is most likely explanation for the results in this study. But yet again we have yet another study uselessly pointing out a correlation which is unhelpful for actually solving public health issues and continues to encourage the passing of the blame to those in society who have the least responsibility for their situation.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Does visceral fat not produce inflammatory substances, which might be a cause for some problems - potentially including a higher risk for cancer?
Maybe I've read misleding articles. I hope you have some info about that.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Plus more biomass = more chances of something getting cancer in there somewhere.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That’s way too simplistic. Cancers rarely develop in the actual subcutaneous or intra-abdominal fat tissue which is what obese people have too much of.

Sarcomas comprise a heterogeneous group of rare neoplasms that develop from bone and soft tissue. With an incidence of ~7 per 100,000 people, they account for 1% of adult cancer diagnoses […] Liposarcomas (LSs) are rare mesenchymal soft-tissue sarcomas that are thought to arise from cells in the lipocyte lineages in soft tissues. LSs account for ~13–20% of all soft-tissue sarcomas.

Their organs aren’t any bigger, except for maybe the steatotic liver, so no it is definitively not a case of more tissue to develop cancer in.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Their organs aren’t any bigger, except for maybe the steatotic liver

And the skin

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Yes, but the big difference isn’t in skin cancer either

[–] hcf@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

None 👏 of this 👏 shit matters 👏 if food 👏is unaffordable👏 and healthcare 👏 bankrupts your 👏 household.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Eating less 👏 always costs 👏 less than 👏 eating more.

Does this make the point more clearly? I think it looks pretty dumb, but you do you.

The organic food industry has done great damage to Western society by making people think you need to buy fresh organic food to eat healthy, when canned/jarred/frozen conventional food is absolutely fine as well, for a fraction of the cost.

Yes, you will need to spend some time preparing it, unlike fastfood. But it's MUCH cheaper, less calorie dense and contains more micronutrients.

[–] hcf@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was making a reference to inflation and overall food prices as a result of the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, not the cost of organic vs canned foods.

We're way past that, at this point.

If everything in my nearest grocery store costs $5, and fuel costs $5 a gallon, and the cost of everything else is going up, then I really don't have much of a choice of where I get my calories.

Making ends meet is extremely difficult right now for a lot of people. I don't think it's helpful to have a response like, "but have the poors tried eating less?"

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In the context of the article, I can only assume your point was "healthy food is expensive, that's why people are obese".

I don't think it's helpful to have a response like, "but have the poors tried eating less?"

No, my response was that obese people eating less will leave them with more money and less health issues. Eating canned/frozen vegetables is both less expensive and healthier than premade foods, and lasts longer so you can take fewer trips, saving more money.

Btw, kudos for deleting that other post! I'm glad you decided to actually read my post.