SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-another-reason-to-not-be-obese dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Obesity leads to the release of cytokines into the bloodstream which impact the metabolism of breast cancer cells, making them more aggressive as a result. Scientists from Helmholtz Zentrum München, Technical University of Munich (TUM), and Heidelberg University Hospital report on this in 'Cell Metabolism'. The team has already been able to halt this mechanism with an antibody treatment.
The number of people with obesity is increasing rapidly worldwide. The German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) recently reported that according to the WHO the number of children and adolescents with obesity increased tenfold between 1975 and 2016. Severe overweight can lead to various health impairments. Besides inducing cardiovascular diseases, obesity for example also promotes the development of cancer and metastases.
The current study elucidates an as yet unknown mechanism making breast cancer more aggressive. The enzyme ACC1* plays a central role in this process," said Dr. Mauricio Berriel Diaz, deputy director of the Institute for Diabetes and Cancer (IDC) at Helmholtz Zentrum München. He led the study together with Stephan Herzig, director of the IDC and professor for Molecular Metabolic Control at TUM and Heidelberg University Hospital. "ACC1 is a key component of fatty acid synthesis," said Berriel Diaz. "However, its function is impaired by the cytokines leptin and TGF-β." The levels of these cytokines are increased particularly in the blood of severely overweight subjects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @08:38PM (7 children)
Before the costs of health care were hidden by the ever-creeping collusion between Big Government regulators and Big Business health insurance companies, people who were fat had to deal with their health issues out of pocket to a much more devastating degree than their slimmer, healthier compatriots.
They also had to deal with fat shaming—staring, comments, jokes, etc. The pool of fat people was smaller, too, so that meant less romantic opportunity, which is a humongous factor in most people's lives.
It's amazing to see pictures of fat people back in the day; they would be considered mildly overweight next to today's sentient blimps.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 24 2017, @09:25PM (6 children)
Seems a reasonable assumption... but you'll have to admit it is not a citation.
Even if adopting your reductionist point of view (the only thing that matters is the heath care cost): while they may "consume" more health care per year, if they die earlier the total cost of their health care may be actually lesser than for a normal person. (I reckon it happens for smokers already).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @09:51PM (5 children)
The reason longer-lived people would cost more in the end is not because they're healthy, but rather because they're old and sick at the end of life.
If you spend $200,000 trying to keep an 95 year old, bed-ridden father alive, you're wasting society's resources. It's the same issue as obese people.
An individual or his family should pay to extend life, unnaturally, at that point.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday October 24 2017, @10:11PM (4 children)
Yes, right... how could I be so naive?
It isn't that life is the goal and the money a mean, it's the other way around: money are the ultimate end, life is only a mean to achieve it.
Once no longer productive, the end dictates the best course of action for people is Soylent Green. It is long due an entrepreneur to actually create this societal function already - the family will pay for the cost of the procedure (and save the cost of care) and the enterprise will sell the product for profit; this is how you achieve the ultimate goal with capitalistic efficiency - socialize cost, privatize profits - whoever doesn't agree will be soylented-green earlier as a preventative measure against higher costs later.
(if it's not already evident, here's the explicit marker: </sarcasm>)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:19PM (3 children)
It doesn't matter how much you don't like it; that's the way this Universe is. Work with it, or forever be dismayed.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 24 2017, @11:32PM (2 children)
For now, neither, thank you.
I'm quite relaxed, doing something I like and I'm paid for it.
But... by all means, go ahead, if this is the idea that you like and keeps you alive...
Just take care to stay out of my personal space, please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)
Now I have to rethink everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @03:30PM
Yes, you should. Your narrow minded view if the universe is very damaging to your psyche. It won't overly affect others unless you go full psycho, try applying your worldview and see how quickly you're smacked down. You can blame human psychology as being totally wrong, but how can that be if it is a universal law?
Oh why am I trying, you're wrong get over it.