Curing cancer leads to 3 more years (1 Viewer)

[IC FBGCav]

On average to live.

I was stunned by this.

 

[rascal]

I'm not for two reasons:

1) the drugs you take for cancer often have significant side effects

2) people who survive cancer are now older and weakened.

 

[GregR]

Was going to make a joke from your title about oncologist life expectancy... but cancer kind of sucks the fun out of everything.  :(     

 

[ShamrockPride]

We don't cure cancer though...Not yet at least

 

[IC FBGCav]

I'm not for two reasons:

1) the drugs you take for cancer often have significant side effects

2) people who survive cancer are now older and weakened.

So you thought more or less?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not for two reasons:

1) the drugs you take for cancer often have significant side effects

2) people who survive cancer are now older and weakened.

There are no drugs or weakening in this hypothetical. If cancer were cured by a magic wand with no side effects, average life expectancy in the U.S. would go up by only three years.

It’s mainly because most people already die without getting cancer, and the people who do die of cancer are often kind of old and often in poor health anyway, even aside from the cancer.

 

[IC FBGCav]

There are no drugs or weakening in this hypothetical. If cancer were cured by a magic wand with no side effects, average life expectancy in the U.S. would go up by only three years.

It’s mainly because most people already die without getting cancer, and the people who do die of cancer are often kind of old and often in poor health anyway, even aside from the cancer.

So how would you spend money to further health? 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So how would you spend money to further health? 

I think research into slowing down the aging process would make a big difference. If you cure cancer, you eliminate deaths from cancer. If you make a dent in aging, you delay deaths from all causes positively corrrelated with aging ... which is pretty much everything. Cancer, heart attacks, strokes, the flu, falling down the stairs, diabetes complications, liver disease ... pretty much everything.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I think research into slowing down the aging process would make a big difference. If you cure cancer, you eliminate deaths from cancer. If you make a dent in aging, you delay deaths from all causes positively corrrelaed with aging ... which is pretty much everything. Cancer, heart attacks, strokes, the flu, falling down the stairs, diabetes complications, liver disease ... pretty much everything.

Stem cell stuff help at all?

 

[huthut]

Is that 3 years for a specific type of cancer? I imagine there is a big difference between some pediatric leukemia and multiple myeloma which trends towards older people.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Stem cell stuff help at all?

Almost certainly. Not just super fancy medical use of stem cells, but also simpler stuff like using dietary interventions to coax the body into producing more stem cells naturally.

 

[kutta]

So curing cancer would result in an average life expectancy of 3 years for the average person?

Thats pretty huge in this day and age. I’m not sure there’s much else we could do to improve they average life expectancy by that much.

 

[IC FBGCav]

What about cancer that affects children or young people?  Maybe I'm not getting the premise of this thread.   

Everything affects the kids.  Not like any well balanced adult would not care for them.

 

[IC FBGCav]

So curing cancer would result in an average life expectancy of 3 years for the average person?

Thats pretty huge in this day and age. I’m not sure there’s much else we could do to improve they average life expectancy by that much.

Heart disease. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What about cancer that affects children or young people?  Maybe I'm not getting the premise of this thread.   

Is that 3 years for a specific type of cancer? I imagine there is a big difference between some pediatric leukemia and multiple myeloma which trends towards older people.

All cancer. We’re not talking about extending any particular individual’s life by three years, but extending average life expectancy overall by three years. So if curing cancer extends 85 people’s lives by zero years (because they weren’t going to get cancer anyway), 10 people’s lives by 10 years each (because they were going to die of a heart attack ten years later anyway) and five people’s lives by 40 years each (because they were young and would have gone on to live several more decades if not for cancer), the average lifespan for that group of 100 people went up by an additional 3 years.

 

[kutta]

Heart disease. 

Kids don’t die of heart disease. I think curing cancer would result in a longer average life expectancy.

 

[dschuler]

So how would you spend money to further health? 

Being able to transplant your brain into a robot. Every other body part can be replaced. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Being able to transplant your brain into a robot.

That would be great for the robot — I’m sure it would love to have a brain — but what’s it going to do for me?

 

[dschuler]

That would be great for the robot — I’m sure it would love to have a brain — but what’s it going to do for me?

You would never have to cook or shave again.

 

[huthut]

All cancer. We’re not talking about extending any particular individual’s life by three years, but extending average life expectancy overall by three years. So if curing cancer extends 85 people’s lives by zero years (because they weren’t going to get cancer anyway), 10 people’s lives by 10 years each (because they were going to die of a heart attack ten years later anyway) and five people’s lives by 40 years each (because they were young and would have gone on to live several more decades if not for cancer), the average lifespan for that group of 100 people went up by an additional 3 years.

Maybe I am blind, but I am not seeing the article that is being discussed, and I am curious to see the methodology. Does this include any treatment, or any response such as a PR in some clinical trial, or only fully cured patients? 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maybe I am blind, but I am not seeing the article that is being discussed, and I am curious to see the methodology. Does this include any treatment, or any response such as a PR in some clinical trial, or only fully cured patients? 

It’s a thought experiment based on a magic wand that fully cures patients. The numbers come from the percentage of people who get cancer, their life expectancy just before diagnosis, and their life expectancy just after diagnosis.

I don’t know where to find the precise methodology of the thought experiment with all actuarial work shown. I saw the claim made in a book.

 

[bucksoh]

There will never be a cure in the U.S.. Pharmaceuticals make more money treating the disease than by giving out a cure.  

 

[Megaton]

I think research into slowing down the aging process would make a big difference. If you cure cancer, you eliminate deaths from cancer. If you make a dent in aging, you delay deaths from all causes positively corrrelated with aging ... which is pretty much everything. Cancer, heart attacks, strokes, the flu, falling down the stairs, diabetes complications, liver disease ... pretty much everything.

There is a way to slow aging..... by severely cutting your calorie in take.  People love eating to really do this as no one really wants to live on a sub-1000 calorie diet.  But it is the most effective way to extend life. 

 

[Bojang0301]

Let’s get this done so we can collapse social security once and for all.

 

[Galileo]

That would be great for the robot — I’m sure it would love to have a brain — but what’s it going to do for me?

Abs of steel?

 

[Galileo]

There is a way to slow aging..... by severely cutting your calorie in take.  People love eating to really do this as no one really wants to live on a sub-1000 calorie diet.  But it is the most effective way to extend life. 

Do you have evidence to back the claim that a sub-1000 calorie diet will extend human life?

 

[James Daulton]

This is an interesting conversation.  If you could choose to have a family history of cancer or heart disease, which would you choose?  

With cancer once you get it, it may be treatable or it may not be.  With heart disease, if caught before it kills you, it can largely be treated and lived with, but if it strikes before you know it's there, there's a good chance it kills you or causes you to have a stroke that makes life suck.

Tough call. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

Do you have evidence to back the claim that a sub-1000 calorie diet will extend human life?

I was thinking the same thing. If you are getting the exercise that basically everyone says the body needs, sub-1000 doesn’t seem to make sense.

 

[Cjw_55106]

On average to live.

I was stunned by this.

Do you have a link to this? It seems most threads you start contain half thoughts and incomplete information. 

 

[Thorpe]

This is an interesting conversation.  If you could choose to have a family history of cancer or heart disease, which would you choose?  

With cancer once you get it, it may be treatable or it may not be.  With heart disease, if caught before it kills you, it can largely be treated and lived with, but if it strikes before you know it's there, there's a good chance it kills you or causes you to have a stroke that makes life suck.

Tough call. 

That's an easy one for me.  There is nothing you can do to prevent a lot of cancers, but if you eat healthy, exercise, and don't smoke, even with a family history of heart disease you won't run much of a risk (at least accoridng to my doctor)

Also, family history doesn't always mean genetic predisposition.  If you live to be 100, colon cancer is not uncommon.  If you are obese and smoke, heart disease is not uncommon.  Doesn't mean there are genetics involved.

 

[mr roboto]

I think research into slowing down the aging process would make a big difference. If you cure cancer, you eliminate deaths from cancer. If you make a dent in aging, you delay deaths from all causes positively corrrelated with aging ... which is pretty much everything. Cancer, heart attacks, strokes, the flu, falling down the stairs, diabetes complications, liver disease ... pretty much everything.

This. Find a way to slow down cellular aging. 

 

[NutterButter]

heart disease

 

[huthut]

There will never be a cure in the U.S.. Pharmaceuticals make more money treating the disease than by giving out a cure.  

This is the dumbest cancer take. Whoever discovers a cure for cancer would be rich beyond belief, and it takes a large team to actually do that, so you would need a lot of people who do not want to be rich just for the benefit of other companies they do not work at? Plus there will never be a single cure for cancer just due to how different various cancers are from each other. Many cancers already have cures now, dependent on what mutations they have.

 

[Brony]

how much would live increase for ball cancer?  

I was told that a ball cancer post is required in any health related thread

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I was thinking the same thing. If you are getting the exercise that basically everyone says the body needs, sub-1000 doesn’t seem to make sense.

I linked to a book earlier in this thread by Valter Longo. It goes nicely with this thread because (a) it contains the same claim that curing cancer would add about three years to average life expectancy in the United States, (b) it argues that slowing down cellular aging would be more effective in increasing longevity than curing cancer (though obviously we should keep trying to cure cancer as well), (c) it argues in favor of calorie restriction (slightly under 1,000 calories a day with specific macronutrient ratios and micronutrients) for five days at a time a few times a year, (d) he argues that one of the reasons temporary calorie-restriction is helpful is that it promotes the generation of stem cells (which improve immune function after the calorie-restricted period ends), and (e) in addition to studying longevity generally, he also studies cancer treatment specifically (and the beneficial effects of using calorie-restriction in conjunction with chemotherapy).

So the book hits a lot of the same points that have been touched on in this thread. It’s a good book, IMO, and he’s also got some worthwhile lectures on YouTube.

 

[Reg Lllama of Brixton]

I linked to a book earlier in this thread by Valter Longo. It goes nicely with this thread because (a) it contains the same claim that curing cancer would add about three years to average life expectancy in the United States, (b) it argues that slowing down cellular aging would be more effective in increasing longevity than curing cancer (though obviously we should keep trying to cure cancer as well), (c) it argues in favor of calorie restriction (slightly under 1,000 calories a day) for five days at a time a few times a year, (d) he argues that one of the reasons temporary calorie-restriction is helpful is that it promotes the generation of stem cells (which improve immune function after the calorie-restricted period ends), and (e) in addition to studying longevity generally, he also studies cancer treatment specifically (and the beneficial effects of using calorie-restriction in conjunction with chemotherapy).

So the book hits a lot of the same points that have been touched on in this thread. It’s a good book, IMO, and he’s also got some worthwhile lectures on YouTube.

Doesn't that guy own a company that sells "fasting products" or whatever?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Doesn't that guy own a company that sells "fasting products" or whatever?

Yes, but he doesn't profit from the company (though outside investors do). His share of any profits goes to his charity. I think the same is true of his book sales.

I've bought and used the product. It is way overpriced, IMO. It's easy to do a much cheaper homemade version. Avocados have about the same macronutrient ratios as his fast-mimicking diet, so you could just have 800 calories worth of avocados for five days and probably get roughly the same benefits. Moreover, water-only fasting is even cheaper, and is what his diet is supposed to mimic.

The book is quite good, though, and he's a legitimate researcher in the longevity field.

 

[Galileo]

I linked to a book earlier in this thread by Valter Longo. It goes nicely with this thread because (a) it contains the same claim that curing cancer would add about three years to average life expectancy in the United States, (b) it argues that slowing down cellular aging would be more effective in increasing longevity than curing cancer (though obviously we should keep trying to cure cancer as well), (c) it argues in favor of calorie restriction (slightly under 1,000 calories a day with specific macronutrient ratios and micronutrients) for five days at a time a few times a year, (d) he argues that one of the reasons temporary calorie-restriction is helpful is that it promotes the generation of stem cells (which improve immune function after the calorie-restricted period ends), and (e) in addition to studying longevity generally, he also studies cancer treatment specifically (and the beneficial effects of using calorie-restriction in conjunction with chemotherapy).

So the book hits a lot of the same points that have been touched on in this thread. It’s a good book, IMO, and he’s also got some worthwhile lectures on YouTube.

OK...but Megaton did not state or imply the sub-1000 intake was intended as a limited experience a couple times per year as you are describing here.  Have you read the book?  Does it provide evidence for even this limited fasting or is it more of a hypothesis?  A quick search shows that Longo's credentials put this in this topic right in his wheelhouse, but I have never heard of this guy nor am I familiar with his work.  I will need to look further into it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Have you read the book?  Does it provide evidence for even this limited fasting or is it more of a hypothesis?  A quick search shows that Longo's credentials put this in this topic right in his wheelhouse, but I have never heard of this guy nor am I familiar with his work.  I will need to look further into it.

I've read it. Most of Longo's research over the past few decades has been on non-human animals. Only recently have some trials on humans been done. The human studies aren't about longevity per se, IIRC, but about contributory factors like blood pressure. (I could be remembering the details wrong.)

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I think it's pretty awesome that a cure for a disease could actually increase the average life expectancy in the US by 3 years (which would translate to about a 4% increase in life expectancy).   That's a pretty big damn increase if you think about it.   I hope and pray that they continue to make strides to find a cure for this disease.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's a paper by Longo (et al.) that is relevant to calorie-restriction in humans: https://createcures.org//wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-02-Wei-Fasting-mimicking-diet-markers.pdf

 

[Da Guru]

This what 1000 calories a day look like.    

Breakfast

Apple Oatmeal

1/2 cup water (0)

3/4 cup skimmed milk (68)

2 oz. (1/3 cup) oatmeal (rolled oats) (93)

1/2 an apple (grated) (47)

1/4 tsp cinnamon (0)

Bring the water, oats, and half the milk to the boil. Continue to boil whilst stirring (for 5 minutes), and add grated apple. Add further milk to cool.

Snack

22 almonds (168)

Lunch

1 Scrambled Egg on Toast

1 large egg (72)

1 tbsp fat-free milk (11)

1 slice whole wheat bread (70)

1/2 oz. low-fat shredded cheddar cheese (25)

Beat egg with the milk and scramble in a non-stick pan or microwave, Toast the bread, top with scrambled eggs and cheese.

Dinner

1/2 avocado, sliced (161)

3 oz. cooked chicken breast, chopped (142)

2 cups shredded lettuce (10)

6 cherry tomatoes (30)

1/2 cup sliced red pepper (12)

1 thinly sliced red onion (48)

2 tbsp low-fat Italian dressing (48)

 

[trident]

Curing cancer leads to 3 more years

Probably because you can't "cure" cancer.

 

[bucksoh]

This is the dumbest cancer take. Whoever discovers a cure for cancer would be rich beyond belief, and it takes a large team to actually do that, so you would need a lot of people who do not want to be rich just for the benefit of other companies they do not work at? Plus there will never be a single cure for cancer just due to how different various cancers are from each other. Many cancers already have cures now, dependent on what mutations they have.

You are a freaking idiot it you actually believe what you wrote.  Cancer is a billion dollar industry, health care makes more money by treating a patient than curing them.  If there is a cure for pennies on the dollar you really believe big pharma will put it out there.  LOL!

 

[Megaton]

Do you have evidence to back the claim that a sub-1000 calorie diet will extend human life?

www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hunger-gains-extreme-calorie-restriction-diet-shows-anti-aging-results/

 

[bigbottom]

There will never be a cure in the U.S.. Pharmaceuticals make more money treating the disease than by giving out a cure.  

If you believe that pharameceutical companies are affirmatively not wanting to find a cure for cancer, the key is supporting non-pharmaceutical funding of cancer research. I have a way for you to get involved if you’re interested. 

 

[Dan Lambskin]

This what 1000 calories a day look like.    

Breakfast

Apple Oatmeal

1/2 cup water (0)

3/4 cup skimmed milk (68)

2 oz. (1/3 cup) oatmeal (rolled oats) (93)

1/2 an apple (grated) (47)

1/4 tsp cinnamon (0)

Bring the water, oats, and half the milk to the boil. Continue to boil whilst stirring (for 5 minutes), and add grated apple. Add further milk to cool.

Snack

22 almonds (168)

Lunch

1 Scrambled Egg on Toast

1 large egg (72)

1 tbsp fat-free milk (11)

1 slice whole wheat bread (70)

1/2 oz. low-fat shredded cheddar cheese (25)

Beat egg with the milk and scramble in a non-stick pan or microwave, Toast the bread, top with scrambled eggs and cheese.

Dinner

1/2 avocado, sliced (161)

3 oz. cooked chicken breast, chopped (142)

2 cups shredded lettuce (10)

6 cherry tomatoes (30)

1/2 cup sliced red pepper (12)

1 thinly sliced red onion (48)

2 tbsp low-fat Italian dressing (48)

Sounds awful

 

[CurlyNight]

Probably because you can't "cure" cancer.

Cancer is very smart. It can mutate making a med that's been working well to stop working. That's why stage IV people are likely to die from this disease. People go through their arsenol of meds until that's it.

I know breast cancer well as I live having gone through strong chemo and meds for stage III bc. I'm high risk so I follow the stage IV forums just to keep informed. It truly is a crapshoot. I've read some stage IV de neuvo people were vegetarians/vegans doing things seemingly by the book in great shape get bc. Then there are some who get low stage bc and have unhealthy lifestyle not to recur or mets.

 

[skol asylum]

Cancer sucks. Luckily, science is awesome. Can't come soon enough but the tech keeps coming...

https://www.inverse.com/article/41881-can-nanobots-treat-tumors

 

[bigbottom]

By the way, I personally know four cancer researchers, two of whom are at the number one cancer hospital in the country.  I can tell you unequivocally that they are actually trying to cure cancer, not preserve the status quo. So much so that they’ve forgone far more lucrative jobs in the medical profession to dedicate their lives and careers to this goal.