Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Juiceslikewine]

Andre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature.Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

[Johnson1111]

Andre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature.Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

I think anything above 6'5" and you are at higher risk for complications with joints etc.

[ivan]

Being tall is also alsoassociated with increased cancer risk. Read below:

"Specifically, for every extra 5 cm in height the increased risk of the six cancers is as follows:

    Kidney (10% increased risk)
    Pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer (9% and 11% increased risk respectively)
    Ovarian (8% increased risk)
    Pancreatic (7% increased risk)
    Colorectal (5% increased risk)
    Prostate (4% increased risk)"

You can imagine what this mean for a person well above average height.

[myloginacct]

Being tall is also alsoassociated with increased cancer risk. Read below:

"Specifically, for every extra 5 cm in height the increased risk of the six cancers is as follows:

    Kidney (10% increased risk)
    Pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer (9% and 11% increased risk respectively)
    Ovarian (8% increased risk)
    Pancreatic (7% increased risk)
    Colorectal (5% increased risk)
    Prostate (4% increased risk)"

You can imagine what this mean for a person well above average height.

Anecdotal opinion (though a study could easily be done on this subject), but this may be why you hardly ever find tall centanarians. They're mostly female (i.e. shorter than men), or males from shorter ethnic groups (Okinawans, Sardinians, Nicoyan Costa Ricans).

Most of us know about the high correlation between cancer and the older you get (assuming none in infancy/adolescence).

[ZUCC420]

Why not consider the opposite spectrum, being short is associated with increased heart risks:

"Every 2.5 inches (6.35cm) less in height, there is a 13.5% increased risk of coronary heart disease or CHD (also known as coronary artery disease).

People who had the most height-increasing genetic markers were 26 percent less likely to have coronary artery disease than those with the fewest height-increasing genetic markers.

In 2010, a meta-analysis of 52 studies involving more than 3 million men and women found that shorter people had a higher risk of having deadly heart disease than tall people.

Blood pressure showed ‘significant inverse associations with height'

Shorter individuals have higher blood pressure levels than taller individuals

Men who were taller than 5 feet 10 inches had a 59 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease than men who were shorter than 5 feet 6 inches.

Cardiovascular disease, which is more common among shorter people, is also linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Lung transplant: Research suggests people 5 feet 3 inches or shorter wait longer for the organ and are more likely to die in the process than organ recipients with more average heights. "

Now how about mentally?



"A 2007 study, based on women's height and satisfaction, found that taller women were happier with their height compared to shorter women.

To be exact, those who were between 5'7" and 5'11" were the happiest, even though the average height of a woman is 5'4".

And men who 6'3" were also the happiest, but any taller than that and their happiness dipped."

I gotta say the height range between 6'10"-6'11" astonished me, ignoring the disparity the taller ones are still happier than people of average and short height. 

Lol the narrative of that article didn't even say anything about short men and their happiness just how you can boost it with exercises (cope) , how kind (disingenuous) of them.

[myloginacct]

Why not consider the opposite spectrum, being short is associated with increased heart risks:

"Every 2.5 inches (6.35cm) less in height, there is a 13.5% increased risk of coronary heart disease or CHD (also known as coronary artery disease).

People who had the most height-increasing genetic markers were 26 percent less likely to have coronary artery disease than those with the fewest height-increasing genetic markers.

In 2010, a meta-analysis of 52 studies involving more than 3 million men and women found that shorter people had a higher risk of having deadly heart disease than tall people.

Blood pressure showed ‘significant inverse associations with height'

Shorter individuals have higher blood pressure levels than taller individuals

Men who were taller than 5 feet 10 inches had a 59 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's disease than men who were shorter than 5 feet 6 inches.

Cardiovascular disease, which is more common among shorter people, is also linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Lung transplant: Research suggests people 5 feet 3 inches or shorter wait longer for the organ and are more likely to die in the process than organ recipients with more average heights. "

Why do you bother reading that crap when you're short?

And heart disease is the #1 killer in the US, but its future (to just cite one route) as the killer is a joke compared to cancers. Alzheimer's also finally in the works.

[ivan]

Hearth problems are >90% associated with lifestyle choices, while a good portion of cancers are not. Shorter people seem to be just more prone to them. Cancer on the other hand is a disease that is harder to treat and cure rates are very low.

[short2tall]

Interesting that the height satisfaction chart is a direct correlation, almost a mirror image, to the height percentile chart. For example 25% of 5'7 men are satisfied with their height and they are basically in the 25th percentile height group. 75% of 5'11 men are happy with their height, and that is also more or less where the 75th percentile height range falls.

[ZUCC420]

Why do you bother reading that crap when you're short?

So that I can avoid biases, there are lots of articles about tall height causing cancer, transport vehicles being incommodious, mortality ,etc.

What about the Opposite?

Besides knowing more about myself, the discernment might probably save my life in the future while reducing the chances of getting these diseases.

The same can be said to our counterparts, but I doubt they search any of these, I speculate that short people are more likely to search about the disease and health complications involving tall people rather the contrary.

[IwannaBeTaller]

I would estimate that short peope having more risks for certain diseases is correlation without causation. People who grow up very unhealthy are more likely not to become tall and people in poorer families also tend to be shorter. Growing up in bad health as well as poor economic status increase the chance for these diseases and illnesses. Otherwise, I don't see how having shorter limbs and bones would make it more likely for your heart to fail - that wouldn't make sense.

The survey is pretty interesting though. Amazing that even at 5'10'', only 50% of the men questioned seem satisfied with their height. Does it have to do with societal expectations on masculinity, with our shallow society, heightism, women's preferences, or a combination? It's also a morbid fact that this tendency will hardly be covered by any large media outlet, while women being unsatisfied with their appearance will get massive attention in mass media.

I gotta say the height range between 6'10"-6'11" astonished me, ignoring the disparity the taller ones are still happier than people of average and short height.

That might just be sample bias. Perhaps the number of very tall men who were questioned was rather small.

[ivan]

Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

The survey is pretty interesting though. Amazing that even at 5'10'', only 50% of the men questioned seem satisfied with their height. Does it have to do with societal expectations on masculinity, with our shallow society, heightism, women's preferences, or a combination? It's also a morbid fact that this tendency will hardly be covered by any large media outlet, while women being unsatisfied with their appearance will get massive attention in mass media.

It's human nature to always want more.

[ZUCC420]

Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Mind citing the study you are referencing? https://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7525-12-58 This one seems to state the opposite of what you are saying,

"Among adults with a chronic disease, most ‘moderate or severe problems’ are reported more often in the low (compared with the high) educational group."

"Low SES groups seem to be faced with a double burden: first, increased levels of health impairments and, second, lower levels of valuated HRQL(health-related quality of life) once health is impaired."

Relating to ethnically homogeneous groups, do you mean hypertension in China ? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043951X11000848

"Correlations between SES and various measures of hypertension are examined. ► We find no significant wealth and education gradients in hypertension prevalence."

"Wealth plays some roles in improving the treatment and control of hypertension."

Instead it seems being affluent improves your health conditions, which might seem dubious to you. Btw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer, your schadenfreude against tall people is apparent from your posts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hxc06/do_taller_people_die_younger/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

"There probably is an association between being tall and earlier death. One recent paper found a relative risk of 1.006 per cm of height, which is a very small though statistically significant effect.

Note, though, that other studies have found the reverse, and hypothesized that being tall is an indicator of having better nutrition and better health during childhood, which in turn should lead to longer lifespan. This paper argues that studies that did find that had various statistical issues, particularly that they didn't track the same group of people over very long periods but used different age cohorts instead. They argue that you need to track thousands of people, preferably a fairly homogenous group (in this case, men of Japanese ancestry) for many decades to pick up on the statistical signature.

In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

We 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 ...

(My emphasis)

Consistent with the taller-people-had-healthier childhoods hypothesis, they found that even though taller men tended to die younger, they also tended to be healthier in old age - less risk of dementia, stronger grip strength, etc.

The mortality effect was driven mainly by cancer, and one hypothesis is that because taller people have more growth factors they may be more prone to cancer. Another is that it's linked, at the genetic level, to the calorie reduction model of longevity.

The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually -- that is, your observation that old people seem to be smaller is almost certainly due to confirmation bias and confounding effects (for example, on average people are getting taller, so older people were smaller on average)."

Seems isn't that big of a deal after all, only when you factor in the population and statistics. Besides I would rather live 50 years being happy and tall (Height and satisfaction) rather than with diminutive stature and bittersweet transient contentment.

[myloginacct]

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hxc06/do_taller_people_die_younger/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa

"There probably is an association between being tall and earlier death. One recent paper found a relative risk of 1.006 per cm of height, which is a very small though statistically significant effect.

Note, though, that other studies have found the reverse, and hypothesized that being tall is an indicator of having better nutrition and better health during childhood, which in turn should lead to longer lifespan. This paper argues that studies that did find that had various statistical issues, particularly that they didn't track the same group of people over very long periods but used different age cohorts instead. They argue that you need to track thousands of people, preferably a fairly homogenous group (in this case, men of Japanese ancestry) for many decades to pick up on the statistical signature.

In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

Consistent with the taller-people-had-healthier childhoods hypothesis, they found that even though taller men tended to die younger, they also tended to be healthier in old age - less risk of dementia, stronger grip strength, etc.

The mortality effect was driven mainly by cancer, and one hypothesis is that because taller people have more growth factors they may be more prone to cancer. Another is that it's linked, at the genetic level, to the calorie reduction model of longevity.

The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually -- that is, your observation that old people seem to be smaller is almost certainly due to confirmation bias and confounding effects (for example, on average people are getting taller, so older people were smaller on average)."

So you said a whole lot of nothing.

The data Ivan presented is still standing.

[ZUCC420]

Which one the richer and taller people are getting sick of chronic disease and cancer or just only the tall people are getting cancer?

Regarding the latter I just copied a reddit post that explained that its actually a small increase and only when factoring the population it seems statistically likely of getting cancer, referring the study http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094385

A Cox regression model with time-dependent covariates showed that relative risk for baseline height on mortality increased as the population aged

"In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old"  I suggest you read my post again since I never refuted or disregarded that tall height causes cancer I was stating that the effects aren't as significant, it seems you misapprehended my comment.

[myloginacct]

I never refuted or disregarded that tall height causes cancer

Cool.

So it seems you do get why:

Btw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer

Thread title.

Thread message:

Andre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature. Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

[ZUCC420]

Again you seem to misinterpret my comment that was personally redirected at ivan's post not about the title of the post

Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status. When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Seems I have walk you through my post, at first I wanted the citation of the claim "Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status."

Second the statement of homogeneous nations and chronic illness (nothing relating to height and SES was found)

Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

also nothing, but since he was so adamant about cancer/height/affluence I tried searching for studies but instead found that reddit post which was more substantial than ivan's claims (SES/height/ethnicity) and thought to share it here.

Now we've gained some insight about cancer and height other than Ivan's specs of percentage of diseases associated with tall stature, It seems that you are bothered by my post for some reason.

Btw why are you regurgitating the fact that tall people are prone to cancer

Thread title.

Thread message:

Quote
Andre the giant died of a heart attack due to his enormous stature. Whats the maximum height you can achieve without an increased mortality rate?

What does this even imply exactly? I know what the thread is about, he was reiterating the same thing coupled with a claim that wealth somehow relates to it.

[ivan]

Which one the richer and taller people are getting sick of chronic disease and cancer or just only the tall people are getting cancer?

Tallness is associated with higher economic status. Both are related.

Take a look at this study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148429/

"Epidemiological studies have shown that taller people are at increased risk of cancer, but it is unclear if height-associated risks vary by cancer site, or by other factors such as smoking and socioeconomic status. Our aim was to investigate these associations in a large UK prospective cohort with sufficient information on incident cancer to allow direct comparison of height-associated risk across cancer sites and in relation to major potential confounding and modifying factors."

Findings

1 297 124 women included in our analysis were followed up for a total of 11·7 million person-years (median 9·4 years per woman, IQR 8·4–10·2), during which time 97 376 incident cancers occurred. The RR for total cancer was of 1·16 (95% CI 1·14–1·17; p<0·0001) for every 10 cm increase in height. Risk increased for 15 of the 17 cancer sites we assessed, and was statistically significant for ten sites: colon (RR per 10 cm increase in height 1·25, 95% CI 1·19–1·30), rectum (1·14, 1·07–1·22), malignant melanoma (1·32, 1·24–1·40), breast (1·17, 1·15–1·19), endometrium (1·19, 1·13–1·24), ovary (1·17, 1·11–1·23), kidney (1·29, 1·19–1·41), CNS (1·20, 1·12–1·29), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1·21, 1·14–1·29), and leukaemia (1·26, 1·15–1·38). The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed, but was significantly lower in current than in never smokers (p<0·0001). In current smokers, smoking-related cancers were not as strongly related to height as were other cancers (RR per 10 cm increase in height 1·05, 95% CI 1·01–1·09, and 1·17, 1·13–1·22, respectively; p=0·0004). In a meta-analysis of our study and ten other prospective studies, height-associated RRs for total cancer showed little variation across Europe, North America, Australasia, and Asia.

We identified a clear and highly significant trend of increasing cancer risk with increasing height in this large prospective study of UK women, with RR for total incident cancer of 1·16 (99% CI 1·14–1·17) for every 10 cm greater height. The magnitude of the height-associated increase in cancer risk was similar for women with different years of birth, from different socioeconomic groups, and across subgroups defined by alcohol intake, body-mass index, physical activity, age at menarche, parity, age at first birth, menopausal status, and use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy. By contrast, current smokers had a lower RR for total cancer incidence per 10 cm increase in height than never smokers, and this was largely because the height-associated cancer RRs in smokers were lower for smoking-related than for other cancers. In never smokers, there was only weak variation in height-related risk across 17 cancer sites.

Women in higher socioeconomic groups are on average taller (table 1), and socioeconomic status is related to total cancer incidence (figure 4),29 yet the association between height and risk of cancer was similar for women of low, medium, and high socioeconomic status. As in other studies that could adjust for a range of potential confounding factors, our results suggest that the relation between height and cancer risk is not due to other known risk factors for cancer.

I'll try to give more comprehensive arguments when I'm available.

[ZUCC420]

Many medical experts are saying that when people get richer (and taller) they are getting sicker and by that suffering from more chonic diseases than people with lower socioeconomic status.

The quotes you mentioned ironically disagrees with your point about socioeconomic status "The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed"

"Women in higher socioeconomic groups are on average taller (table 1), and socioeconomic status is related to total cancer incidence (figure 4),29 yet the association between height and risk of cancer was similar for women of low, medium, and high socioeconomic status."

Why didn't you cite the sources for the claim that people with low SES are less likely to get chronic illnesses, where is your citation for tall affluent people suffering from chronic diseases other than the study you linked which involved tall women smoking are susceptible to cancer.

When you look at ethnically homogeneous nations and then compare them to each other this is quite obvious. Poor people are generally suffering from infections and rich people - cancer and hearh disease. Also, controling for socioeconomic status, taller people are still more prone to cancer.

Where is the study about homogeneous group and the disparity of SES and chronic diseases pertaining to it? Yes I know tall people are more prone to cancer but where did you find that poor people are susceptible to infections while rich are to heart disease and cancer? And where does the height come in?

The subjects of the study you linked were very old,

The 1 297 124 women included in our analysis had a mean age at recruitment of 56·1 years (SD 4·9) and an average year of birth of 1942. The median length of follow-up was 9·4 years per woman (IQR 8·4–10·2 years), for a total of 11·7 million person-years, during which 97 376 incident cancers were notified.

See my prior post about age and cancer, I briefly stated that tall old people are prone to cancer but the likelihood of getting it is insignificant, only when you factor in the population and statistics it seems significant.

"The mortality effect is so small, and there are so many complicating effects, that it's not something any one person will be able to notice individually"

"In particular, the effect doesn't kick in until people are already quite old:

We 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"

You didn't give any comprehensive or coherent study now, and I doubt you will later.

[ivan]

The quotes you mentioned ironically disagrees with your point about socioeconomic status "The increase in total cancer RR per 10 cm increase in height did not vary significantly by socioeconomic status or by ten other personal characteristics we assessed"

So the conclusion is being tall is still a risk factor and again tallness is corrlated with socioeconomic status. There are still tall people from lower socioeconomic status and they are still at higher risk just because of the fact that they are taller.

Why didn't you cite the sources for the claim that people with low SES are less likely to get chronic illnesses, where is your citation for tall affluent people suffering from chronic diseases other than the study you linked which involved tall women smoking are susceptible to cancer.

Where is the study about homogeneous group and the disparity of SES and chronic diseases pertaining to it? Yes I know tall people are more prone to cancer but where did you find that poor people are susceptible to infections while rich are to heart disease and cancer? And where does the height come in?

The China Study is a good example for the prevalence of cancer in rich people and infectious diseases in poor people. China is a good example of homogenous nation. How height and affluance are related? Rich people are spending more and more for animal food rich in protein and this may have role in cancer later in life due to IGF-1, other growth hormones etc. So height here is a indicator of the process of conception to adulthood. For example dairy (considered important for growing tall according to science) consumption earlier in life is a risk factor for cancer: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/6/1722/4649776

The subjects of the study you linked were very old,
See my prior post about age and cancer, I briefly stated that tall old people are prone to cancer but the likelihood of getting it is insignificant, only when you factor in the population and statistics it seems significant.

Average of 56 is not very old. I appreciate you understand statistics but this is still significant.

[ZUCC420]

So the conclusion is being tall is still a risk factor and again tallness is corrlated with socioeconomic status. There are still tall people from lower socioeconomic status and they are still at higher risk just because of the fact that they are taller.

Why 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?

Just because of correlation of short height and low SES doesn't mean they are susceptible to infections and diseases, the same goes for high SES and tall people.

The china study is a good example for the prevalence of cancer in rich peopleand infections in poor people. China is a good example of homogenous nation. How height and affluance are related. Richer people are spending more and more for animal food rich in protein rich and this may have role in cancer later in life due to insulin, IGF-1, other growth hormones etc. So height here is a indicator of the process of conception to adulthood. For example dairy (important for growing tall according to science) consumption earlier in life is a risk factor for cancer: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/6/1722/4649776

Where 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.

Again 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/

We 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"

There is a correlation between height and mortality but it's less likely to be seen until you become 80 years old or more.
 
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

"The overall cancer death rate fell by 25% in the United States since 1990s"

"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."

There 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.

[ivan]

Why 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.

Where 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.

Again 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.

There 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

"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.

"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.

There 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

[ZUCC420]

"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.

The 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

We 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Btw, 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/
 

"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.

[ivan]

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.

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

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
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.

"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.

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)

Your 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.

[ZUCC420]

Of 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.

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.

Using 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.

I 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.

The 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.

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)

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

Clear 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.

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.

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