Oh please! Increased skirt size:increased chance or breast cancer

Confused. Didn't the OP say skirt size - as in size 10, 12, 14, etc.? So that means an overall increase in size and weight, not just waists.

As women go through their middle years, their proportion of fat to body weight tends to increase — more than it does in men. Especially at menopause, extra pounds tend to park themselves around the midsection, as the ratio of fat to lean tissue shifts and fat storage begins favoring the upper body over the hips and thighs. Even women who don’t actually gain weight may still gain inches at the waist.

Where a woman’s fat ends up is influenced by several factors. Heredity is one: Scientists have identified a number of genes that help determine how many fat cells an individual develops and where these cells are stored (which explains why some people put weight on very quickly and others can seem to eat what they like without gaining an ounce) (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, April 25, 2006). Hormones are also involved. At menopause, estrogen production decreases and the ratio of androgen (male hormones present in small amounts in women) to estrogen increases — a shift that’s been linked in some studies to increased abdominal fat after menopause. Some researchers suspect that the drop in estrogen levels at menopause is also linked to increased levels of cortisol, a stress hormone that promotes the accumulation of abdominal fat. (Cortisol is a hormone that is released during times of stress and axiety.)

Abdominal, or visceral, fat is of particular concern because it’s a key player in a variety of health problems — much more so than subcutaneous fat, the kind you can grasp with your hand. Visceral fat, on the other hand, lies out of reach, deep within the abdominal cavity, where it pads the spaces between our abdominal organs.

For now, experts stress that lifestyle, especially exercise, is the very best way to fight visceral fat.

www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Abdominal-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it.htm

Interesting link HD though I notice they are saying saturated fats should be reduced, and some scientists now dispute this.
Also the levels of exercise recommended are quite high - The starting point for bringing weight under control, in general, and combating abdominal fat, in particular, is regular moderate-intensity physical activity — at least 30 minutes per day (and perhaps up to 60 minutes per day) to control weight

Not sure how many of us could cope with that recommendation - I think targets have to be achievable to avoid people becoming completely demotivated.

It's difficult to find up-to-date information janeainsworth as my search skills are not brilliant but I do remember a fair bit from a physiologist I worked for for many years but trying to see if that information is still current is another matter. Maybe any movement (even chairbound) is better than little or no movement at all and bear in mind that it doesn't have to be a straight run of 30 - 60 minutes, that can be broken down into 5 or 10 minutes stints.

I would add, however, the purpose of the link is as much about other things that affect fat accumulation and losing it - it's no wonder people feel demoralised when their efforts seem to achieve small results (especially when movement becomes restricted as I have found out); it's rarely, as ever, as simple and straightforward as many would have everyone believe. I just don't like people to be made to feel bad about themselves when there could well be other mitigating factors in their case.

Its always popular for cancer to be the fault of the person suffering.I think this is cruel. Cancer can hit anyone anytime no matter what kind of lifestyle you have lead.
There are non smokers who die of lung cancer.

The day is long in a newspaper office and sometimes the journalist or columnist has to get something out before they go home.

NHS advice on how to read articles about health and healthcare.

On another thread we're finding it takes approx 90 minutes to walk the recommended 10,000 daily steps.

Just to confuse things a bit, I don't think that skirt sizes are the same now as they were in the 60s and 70s. I used to be a size 12, with the occasional 10, when I was at my slimmest, and now I am certainly not so slim but can still get into some manufacturers' 12s quite comfortably.

Wheniwasyourage Skirt sizes vary from brand to brand as well.

My TCC Kidney Cancer is normally caused by working with chemicals or smoking (according to my consultant) I have done neither in my life (not sure where I am going with this)

Cancer can hit anyone anytime no matter what kind of lifestyle you have lead.

It certainly can. My brother was born with a tumour in his stomach and underwent surgery before he was two months old - quite pioneering surgery in its day (he's now 64).

'Cancer can hit anyone anytime no matter what kind of lifestyle you have lead'

Yes, it can but it is much less likely to if you have a healthy lifestyle

I have only known one person who was a non-smoker and had lung cancer. Far outnumbered by people I have known with lung cancer who were smokers.

What do you think of this?

sumofus.org/campaigns/myriad-a-us-biotech-company-just-faced-off-against-an-australian-woman-with-breast-cancer-and-won/

Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad

The above is the background and rulings. Makes heavy reading though.

So I do not understand how America can say they cannot patent the gene, but Australia says they can, with the same information.
I agree with America; they should not be able to patent anything natural.
Where to next, if this is allowed?

About 15% of people who get lung cancer are non- smokers.

Flickety, we ate organic vegetarian food for years, did not smoke, did not drink much.Our diet consisted of mainly fruit and veg. My husband died of brain cancer when he was 65. So it is not true to say it is much less likely to if you have a healthy lifestyle.

It really doesn't help Flick to make comments like you did - it can sound a bit smug and unfeeling - of course there are links in some cases between some cancers and life styles but not all cancers. My husband survived but had a very rare cancer that none knows of any cause for it - absolutely no link with a healthy life style of otherwise

Grannytwice I think all that FlicketyB was saying is that it is possible to manage (reduce) one's risk of developing some, by no means all, cancers by adopting certain lifestyles or making changes.
There's plenty of evidence for that - I don't thing it's smug or unfeeling to say so.
it's also accepted that cancer is many different diseases, not one, and some are developmental in origin and unaffected by lifestyle or environmental factors.

Yes, it can but it is much less likely to if you have a healthy lifestyle

'In Britain, childhood cancer incidence rates have increased by over 40% since the late 1960s.'

I would imagine it unlikely that children having an unhealthy lifestyle would be affected quickly enough to develop cancer so, something else is coming into play with a 40% increase - that is worrying.

(I have opted not to put the link as I don't want to be responsible for causing worry about any of the details on the links.)

My email is factually accurate. I write as someone who has a cousin who three weeks ago collapsed a died from a major stroke. She was in her mid 50s, slim and healthy. Had she been overweight, a heavy smoker, heavy drinker and inactive the probability of her having the stroke she had when she had it would have been far higher.

I am talking statistics not personal experience. Tragically, Durhamjen cases like your husbands - or my cousins - will occur but it does not invalidate the statistics.

Hollydaze Please don't post stuff containing statements like 'In Britain, childhood cancer incidence rates have increased by over 40% since the late 1960s.' if you're not prepared to back them up with your sources.

Fair comment Jane and Flick. You just touched a nerve - the problem so often these days is that people sometimes seem to be looking to blame the person with the illness as the default position. I know the statistics are correct but I think on a forum there is the personal to consider as well. In the past I have jumped in hard when people made sweeping generalisations about diabetes without saying which type they are talking about. I think you could have said things in a slightly softer way though Flick

I have Googled the reference, as it is more worrying to have an bald statement than to have one in context.

The next sentence after the one that Hollydaze quotes is "The reasons for this are poorly understood, though improvements in diagnosis and registration are likely to have played a part." (My blackened text)

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/keyfacts/Childhoodcancers/uk-childhood-cancer-statistics