I dont think this is right... most people I know care more about not doing the "wrong" thing than feeling entitled for doing the "right" thing.

One hundred percent. I work in film, and recently had an argument with a friend around this point. He's incredibly healthy, and frequently works a large number of unsociable hours. I was pointing out that filmmaking hours make no concession for family or age. He'd convinced himself that he'll have no more difficulty doing 80 hour weeks in his forties and fifties than he does in his mid thirties, because he 'takes care of himself'. The implication being that everyone could work those hours if they just ate better and held multiple martial arts belts as he does. It was no use pointing out that he'd confused cause and effect.

You’re probably right but it’s also true that that is a very (probably unintended) cruel worldview that thought to the end claims all those suffering had it coming, and as such deserves to be called out and those having it should reconsider.

One should acknowledge the role genes/luck play in disease, while also admitting that there are a few foods about which there is more or less consensus they are very bad for your health. So you can roll your eyes if someone suggests eating kale sprouts will cure all your problems but don't just keep eating junk food as if the opposite of their take must be good.

My first colonoscopy was without anesthesia, and it was as described above. A little uncomfortable on the one bend, but I don't even think I would put it at 7/10 (perhaps a 4 or 5—but not a sharp pain, mind you).

Definitely enjoyed the following times with anesthesia because, of course 0/10 as far as I know. Also, anesthesia just trips my mind—how seemingly time travel (going forward in time) seems to be involved.

I had a colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (thankfully not in that order) without sedation. Had it done in D.C.

My doc looked at me like I was crazy when I asked if it could be done without sedation, and reminded me that it would be uncomfortable, but otherwise didn't have any problem with it. I've endured 50k runs, brutal workouts, and traumatizing childhood neglect - I really can't see what the fuss is with mild discomfort that, by comparison, barely registers, and for such a short amount of time at that.

North Carolina. And I wasn't actually aware that some doctors wouldn't do until after I had it done (reading about it online). I just called before my appointment to say I didn't need sedation. They said ok and wrote it down. They weren't really pushy during the appointment other than asking me why I didn't want sedation.

I thought it was going to be awkward but wasn't at all. We just chatted. It was him and an assistant. I was able to watch the TV of my colon while he was doing it.

There's an option which doesn't involve drinking any yucky fluids, just water. SuTab. You have two rounds of twelve pills that you drink with three cups of water at various intervals.

I've done it enough times that I'm totally fine with it: the electrolyte drink tastes like slightly bad-tasting Gatorade, which is hardly worth caring about.

And you get diarrhea-like bathroom runs half a dozen times maybe.

Yes it was annoying to get the runs and gross to drink the stuff the first few times, but people eat things like cow tongue or live octopus or whatever... I can handle some bad-tasting Gatorade and some diarrhea just fine, especially given the 5 years of peace-of-mind it buys me afterward.

I had a colonoscopy + upper endocoscopy a few months ago, age 29.

The prep was horrible, particularly the electrolyte drink they make you take the night before. I almost puked several times trying to get that stuff down.

Actual procedure was a breeze. I was sedated, and then I woke up and it was over.

I can’t take hyperbolic appeals to the authority of chemical names = bad seriously. Let’s at least get specific and name a molecule with a known mechanism of action.

This just in, chemicals = bad

The diet of most people in the US is pretty horrific. Absurd amounts of sugar, little to no vegetables, little fiber, lots of heavily processed foods.

That certainly does not help the situation. Whether it's correlational or causal I'd leave up to people more knowledgeable in the subject.

No health issue is so easily reducible, but the impact of eating a diet of "actual food" and moving around even a little bit daily cannot be overstated.

The odds ratios for nearly all diseases and all-cause mortality shift so far from those two interventions it's almost unbelievable.

We really don't know the reasons well. Food... some kind of bacteria or virus... 5 random things stuck together... it's silly to guess.

Let's keep in mind that this is the recommendation from the same government that recently declined to regulate dangerous pesticides [1] and relaxed regulations on additives [2].

The current US administration is not at all interesting in addressing America's unhealthy food.

[1] https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/glyphosate-roundu...

[2] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-take...

Sugar is 50:50 fructose:sugar and "high"-fructose sugar is 55:45. The slight difference in fructose:sugar between the two is not significant in terms of health outcomes, unless you mean sugar in general.

> high fructose corn syrup in the Western diet

US diet? Is corn syrup common elsewhere?

Western means the US in your context. Western europe does not have that or whatever we consider not "easter diet".

lack of fiber is a biggie too. Foods too highly processed. too many oils.

I grew up in a fairly industrial area with lots of trades people around me. From my anecdata, I'd suspect you're right. We know more about some cancers and the causes and they are easier to prevent.

The choices, personal or otherwise, I have seen can't be good for your body, and some you're simply not allowed to make anymore.

Ironically, sitting on this laptop typing this might be as bad, but win some/lose some.

But some obvious examples?

Ever dip a shirt in benzene because it cools you down? Apparently it feels like Vicks, but doesn't leave that sticky feeling behind.

A good portion drank 6+ beers a day. I know they must have eaten, but some I never saw consume food. At all.

Some smoked a pack or two of cigarettes a day. Asbestos was in everything.

There was no ventilation/filtration for welders, painters, woodworkers, etc. If you could open the shop door it was a good day.

The trend has been upwards for invasive colorectal cancer among US residents under 50:

https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/applicat...

Why would me sitting down cause colon cancer?

Focusing on fiber while leaving out glyphosate, sugar etc... is myopic.

I lean toward "people got better at not dying from everything else." It's plausible to me that it just enabled existing factors to unfold on the time scales they unfold on for more people.

My handy heuristic for headlines like this: Is it a scary new trend that means something or did other factors suppressing its natural emergence decline? Or is it a matter of observation?

A recent real-world example was the detection of two different objects entering the solar system. The naive speculation was "they came on the same plane, so they must be alien!" But the reality is more mundane: the new detection method that found them, while flexible, started by looking at that plane. So of course both objects it detected were on that plane.

Claiming that distance running is unhealthy is wild. It can lead to injury, and there's such thing as overtraining. But to claim that it's broadly unhealthy is just wrong

I have two SNP's for Lynch syndrome, is that enough to warrant concern?

https://i.imgur.com/DZiJhGJ.png

https://i.imgur.com/PKF2QDr.png

Gut cleanses are probably stupid but I wonder if people would benefit from taking antiparasitics prophylactically. It's not something I've ever done, but I eat sashimi pretty regularly and wonder if I should take something like praziquantel because I'm probably at risk for Japanese broad tapeworm, and the symptoms are mild enough I can't really tell without testing, but the price of actually testing is much higher than just taking a drug with a great safety profile.

For similar reasons, I also wonder about people who consume raw milk. These people are more likely to endorse ivermectin for e.g. covid, because it made them feel much better. Maybe it's possible these people aren't lying about that, but not because it cured their covid.

Well for me it killed the parasites I had plaguing me and cured a lot of sickness I was experiencing. To each his own.

These sacrificial two-days-on-the-toilet offerings are like giving confessions to the priest to get back on the good side so you don't have to change your behavior.

Yes I can eat this 4200cal Costco pizza, I did my cleanse last month.

From the company that brought you the Lung Brush.

fenben, ivermect. herbs like blackseed oil, blac walnut, even organic cloves

Call it: RTO causes colon cancer, or WFH causes colon cancer?

"Fiber from food" seems good enough. It's hard not to fibermax without incidentally improving your diet substantially. For example, beans are one of the best and easiest sources of it.

Splitting hairs beyond that, like insoluble and soluble, is the kind of thing that just confuses and intimidates people about nutrition advice.

It's a bridge you can cross once everyone is eating 50g+ of fiber per day, has chiseled physiques, and are looking to min/max.

>I'm guessing the colon cancer thing is probably due to pollutants

> You don't actually need fiber

Hey, you know what fiber is good for? Speeding up gut motility! You know what a faster gut motility is good for! Getting toxins out of our body quicker!