Rachel Gets Fruity
It's not what you may think, but may not be suited for watching at work or school, at least bosses and teachers won't think it is.. Even though it is 
SABOTAGE!
Unfortunately, the Internet has ruined me. When I saw this (a month ago 
) I was just waiting for the mandatory shock image and accompanying scream to turn up. 
(and in the context of what she's telling you to do, a sudden jerk (no pun intended) could have been... painful )
plays with....checks himself
Yeah, I saw this a while ago, from a friends "clan" (gaming) forum.. Decided to post if it it wasnt posted after a while
I expected a sabotage immediately when it said "turn the volume up." And the whole sexiness aspect led me to believe it was just a "high-budget" sabotage. I just turned my speakers off and waited. 
I was sabotaged by my expectancy of a sabotage!
It made my box freeze.
Get a better box.
There ain't no party like an S Club party! 
Get a better box.
See the appropriate thread. (?)
Then quit complaining
There ain't no party like an S Club party!
"S Club (there ain't no party like an S Club party)
Gonna show you how (everybody get down tonight)
S Club (there ain't no party like an S Club party)
Gonna take you high (shake your body from side to side)"
Wow. That warning will keep me in line and make sure I avoid testicular cancer. I should also avoid breast and buttock cancer while I'm at it! SO MANY CANCERS! THEY EVEN HAVE A ZODIAC FOR THE DISEASE!
Hmm, glad I don't have testicle cancer, gonna have to go check some girls for breast cancer now...
At least wash your hands first
I hope this doesn't keep her away from her day job of triangulating the most profitable burrow between Kylie and Goldfrapp!
There should be more of this IMHO (at least more awareness of testicular cancer). The sexual angle works well.
The whole "Cancer" thing is BS if you ask me - just a generic name for a condition/disease that medical "experts" don't understand.
I really don't know what else to put here really.
- (possible "liver cancer/lung cancer" candidate) - Raen (I've had a few drinks and cigarettes). 
Huh? Cancer is when your own cells start growing out of controll. Thats what it is.
any malignant growth or tumor caused by abnormal and uncontrolled cell division; it may spread to other parts of the body through the lymphatic system or the blood stream
How is that BS? I've had several family members and friends die and or not die from it. Its hardly BS.
Now I will agree that some illnesses are pure BS. Some named illnesses are really many different ones rolled up into one...
The whole "Cancer" thing is BS if you ask me
Er, cancer is a very genuine illness and medical science knows a lot about it; we've even devised several ways to deal with it! Cancer is, in essence, the uncontrolled growth of cells. Quite fatal.
Now, thats not to say we know everything about it, or why just about anything causes it I say any form of poison will... Like one of the hundreds found in cigarettes
The ways we have to deal with cancer sucks alot though, and I don't think any of them guarantee success unless it's at very early stage and a good place.
or why just about anything causes it
Only carcinogens cause cancer.
Proper care of your body will prevent cancer even if you come into contact with carcinogens on a regular basis. Cancer is only a problem for people who are regularly exposed to carcinogens and are of poor physical health.
Excersize, eat your vitamins, and don't live near me. My city is known as the 'Cancer Capital of Canada' (highest cancer rates). Also lucemia and other fatal diseases. Stupid chemical plants... I'm getting outta here by the time I'm 25.
lucemia
Leukaemia is a form of cancer. Blood cancer, to be precise.
Cancer in general, and especially Leukaemia.
(lucemia, Leukaemia.. I like my spelling better, even if both make no phonetical sense )
and are of poor physical health.
That's not true. It's may be true that it helps to be of good health (it won't hurt, anyway), but you don't have to be of poor health to get cancer. I (like most people?) know people who've died in cancer (a friend and a brother) and they both took good care of their bodies.
The line before that was meant to create a proper context for the second line.
Proper care of your body will prevent cancer even if you come into contact with carcinogens on a regular basis.
I should have changed the next part from "Cancer is only a problem ..." to "Cancer is primarily a problem ..."
Cancer is a pretty big topic
I've never known anyone personally to die of cancer who was healthy (non-smoker, little/no alcohol, little/no drugs, healthy diet & regular exercise) but there are a lot of things that make you suceptible to cancer. Such as inherited genes. In general, though, if you are healthy (see previous parenthesis) and avoid carcinogens then you are extremely unlikely to get cancer.
Proper care of your body will prevent cancer even if you come into contact with carcinogens on a regular basis. Cancer is only a problem for people who are regularly exposed to carcinogens and are of poor physical health.
Yeah, like Lance Armstrong or, for the Americans, Brian Piccolo. Or any of these people.
Note at the bottom of that page (outside of the sports category) people such as Skylar Neil, who died of cancer aged 4. Sounds a lot like the lifestyle caused that one.
In general, though, if you are healthy (see previous parenthesis) and avoid carcinogens then you are extremely unlikely to get cancer.
Testicular cancer is 'enjoyed' by about 1 in 450 people here and the doctors that treat it claim there is absolutely no correlation with lifestyle. If I believe my television then 1 in 3 will at some point have some sort of cancer.
Yeah, that 'only' really needs to be cut out if you're going to start offering up 0.000000008% of the population as evidence
Sounds a lot like the lifestyle caused that one.
Cancer can be hereditary. See previous post
[edit]
To clarify my points: People get cancer, but in the vast majority of cases it is mostly due to lifestyle.
If I believe my television then 1 in 3 will at some point have some sort of cancer.
That seems a little ridiculous, but that fails disprove that lifestyle has a dramatic effect on your chances of getting cancer. It just means people lead unhealthy lifestyles. Which we already know from other statistics.
Cancer can be hereditary. See previous post
She's the daughter of Motley Crue drummer Vince Neil, who has never had cancer.
Yeah, that 'only' really needs to be cut out if you're going to start offering up 0.000000008% of the population as evidence
I'm sorry, I'll start editing wikipedia's list of famous people who have had cancer to include all people. If you have a better suggestion than "people famous for being good at sport" to rebut your 'only' then I'd like to hear it. Perhaps you have access to some sort of list of everyone who's ever had cancer? Your entire opinion seems to be based on:
"I've never known anyone personally to die of cancer who was healthy"
Not that I'm suggesting a 20 year old hasn't seen all that life has to see, but you seem to be ignoring all of the facts and statistics.
Shockingly, The American Cancer Society seem to think that 2/3rds of fatal cancer is lifestyle related.
But perhaps when you said "you are extremely unlikely to get cancer" you meant "you have only just over a 1 in 10 chance" (female) or "you have only just under a 1 in 6 chance" (male)? And by "in the vast majority of cases" you meant 66%?
EDIT:
That seems a little ridiculous
The American Cancer Society's statistics (warning: PDF).
Summary:
1 in 2 for males from birth to death, 1 in 3 for females.
She's the daughter of Motley Crue drummer Vince Neil, who has never had cancer.
Unless Vince had no parents and is an asexual being, that means nothing. Genetics do not come from the father alone, or even the parents alone. My father had testicular cancer when he was very young, but that doesn't mean I will, either. It means I have a higher chance, and so do my kids, and so do my grandchildren. Hereditary cancers are 'genetic'.
If you have a better suggestion than "people famous for being good at sport"
People who are famous for being good at sport(s) are often injesting (or injecting) carcinogenic products. So, really, that statistic is not all that relevant to my argument. You need to take into consideration all the people who lead unhealthy lifestyles and their cancer rate against all of the people who lead healthy lifestyles (avoiding carcinogenic material, as well) and their cancer rate.
to rebut your 'only' then I'd like to hear it.
I already retracted the 'only', read back a couple posts. I realized my mistake before you posted a response and have corrected myself a few times
Not that I'm suggesting a 20 year old hasn't seen all that life has to see, but you seem to be ignoring all of the facts and statistics.
Not at all. I said I've never seen it, not that it doesn't happen. There is a big difference. I've never seen a million dollars, but I do know it exists.
But perhaps when you said "you are extremely unlikely to get cancer" you meant "you have only just over a 1 in 10 chance"? And by "in the vast majority of cases" you meant 66%?
Well, I suspect it's even less than that given that my claim is a little more extensive. You need to take into consideration both parts - healthy people avoiding carcinogenic substances. There is a very big difference. Jimmy Joe who works at Rubber Maker Inc. does not count, regardless of how many pushups he can do. Nor do any smokers, heavy drinkers, drug users, people who live very close to chemical plants, etc.
A cancer foundation isn't exactly unbiased, either. They have a marketing team that is trying to get donations.
How can people argue about this, unless they really are saying the same things in different words?
Lots of people get cancer, including those who live the "proper" way. Those who do things that are known to cause cancer (smoking) get it more. Seems pretty obvious to me...
The sad thing is that the way people figure out that something causes cancer is to notice 40 years later that everyone who does X ends up with cancer. 
I suspect TH is just being nit picky over that 'only' part
I've been slightly more aggressive than I actually intended. I should have stuck to my first quote: "Proper care of your body will prevent cancer."
A lot more basic. Nothing to nit pick there.
The sad thing is that the way people figure out that something causes cancer is to notice 40 years later that everyone who does X ends up with cancer.
..but they continue to do it anyway 
A cancer foundation isn't exactly unbiased, either. They have a marketing team that is trying to get donations.
The bottom of their cancer statistics PDF to which I linked says this:
Source: DEVCAN ... http://srab.cancer.gov/devcan/
The source is the government, not the cancer foundation - they are merely republishing the statistic for press purposes.
I already retracted the 'only', read back a couple posts. I realized my mistake before you posted a response and have corrected myself a few times
Your statement that causes so much offence was:
"Proper care of your body will prevent cancer even if you come into contact with carcinogens on a regular basis. Cancer is only a problem for people who are regularly exposed to carcinogens and are of poor physical health."
"back a couple of posts" you clarified:
"People get cancer, but in the vast majority of cases it is mostly due to lifestyle."
Obviously this disregards your original claim that the combination of both carcinogen exposure and poor physical health is to blame for all problematic cancers and is therefore to be applauded as a correction.
Given that you're now saying "you are extremely unlikely to get cancer" means "you have a more than 1 in 10 (female) / 1 in 6 (male) chance" then I don't think we disagree any longer.
That said, perhaps you'd like to explain how your statement fits with males being about 50% more likely to develop cancer than females?
I should have stuck to my first quote: "Proper care of your body will prevent cancer."
A lot more basic. Nothing to nit pick there.
No. It can be dismissed immediately as untrue. Recap the statistics quoted and sourced to date:
A healthy lifestyle can help prevent around 2/3rds of fatal cancers.
1 in 2 males will experience cancer.
1 in 3 females will experience cancer.
Assume that prevention of fatal cancers is equivalent to prevention of non-fatal cancers, due to lack of statistical sources.
So, 1/3 of 1/2 of males will experience cancer despite taking "proper care". I would not say that 1 in 6 (almost 17%) getting cancer meets your claim of "will prevent cancer". Similarly 1 in 9 (about 11%) for females.
Of course, you may attack my slightly lose statistical basis to reach this conclusion. In which case you must accept either:
(1) that statistics are not available
(2) that better statistics are available (and you have them)
(3) that better statistics are available (but you cannot find them)
In which case:
(1) you must accept you are speculating wildly
(2) your statistics will reveal the true picture
(3) your statement rests purely upon your own credibility on those statistics
EDIT:
The quote you should have used and stuck with was sure not "[p]roper care of your body will prevent cancer" but "proper care of your body will significantly reduce the risk of cancer".
No. It can be dismissed immediately as untrue.
By proxy are you saying improper care of your body does not lead to an increased chance of developing cancer? That would be like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer.
That said, perhaps you'd like to explain how your statement fits with males being about 50% more likely to develop cancer than females?
Radiation. This forum is the best example. More than 90% male. Many sitting in front of high radiation CRT monitors while all the girls are out at the gym. As technology improves and more people move to LCD monitors, I'm sure the statistics will follow and even out!
Just kidding, I'm not sure. It's likely genetic, but I'm finding it difficult to find sources on this topic either way.
[edit]
So, 1/3 of 1/2 of males will experience cancer despite taking "proper care". I would not say that 1 in 6 (almost 17%) getting cancer meets your claim of "will prevent cancer".
You're bending definitions.
Prevent: To keep from happening: took steps to prevent the strike.
If statistics show, as you've pointed out, that maintaining a healthier lifestyle lowers the risk of cancer (and it does), then preventative steps would be to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
By proxy are you saying improper care of your body does not lead to an increased chance of developing cancer?
No, as I edited to my previous post - probably after your new one had appeared, I agree with this statement:
"proper care of your body will significantly reduce the risk of cancer"
But not this one:
"[p]roper care of your body will prevent cancer"
I do not agree with your claim that there is a direct connection but I accept a strong correlation.
EDIT:
I'm not sure. It's likely genetic, but I'm finding it difficult to find sources on this topic either way.
if you can make sense of it, http://srab.cancer.gov/devcan/ is probably quite helpful!
Yeah, I didn't catch your edit when I posted. See edit above.
There seems to be a small difference between those statements, to me. Reducing risk is what preventative measures are all about.
It's preventative, it doesn't prevent. If I sold mud guards for bikes with the following advertisement:
"mud guards will prevent mud from hitting your bike"
What do you think might happen to me?
Well, technically, they do prevent it from hitting your bike. It hits the guard instead.
Right?
[edit]
Ok, I guess I'm the one slightly bending definitions My thinking machine is broken.
Though, in the cases where the mud did hit the guard the mud was prevented from hitting the bike. Same with cancer. In the cases where healthy lifestyles are chosen and cancer never develops cancer has been prevented.
Males may be more likely to develop cancer because our reproductive organs continue to function more or less until death, whereas females undergo menopause; all that rapid cell division and hormone transfer is probably prone to causing a few mistakes once in a while, especially as a person ages. Hence cancers of the prostate (but not testicular cancer, which rarely occurs in males over 40, apparently) may be more likely for an older man than cervical or breast cancer would be for older women.
Well, technically, they do prevent it from hitting your bike. It hits the guard instead.
Not all of it. Some of it goes on the pedals. And if your bike falls into a muddy puddle then the mud guards aren't going to achieve very much at all.
Proper care of your body will prevent cancer even if you come into contact with carcinogens on a regular basis.
Speaking from my own experience, that's pretty much bull.
I was competing on international level, the guy in the bed next to me was playing handball in the the 2nd league. I really doubt that your physical fitness really is an factor for many of the different types of cancer.
I don't know if you realize this, but "competing" puts enormous stress on the body. Now just staying fit is a good thing, but actively pushing your system to the limit isn't exactly a good thing.
Well, that's how you get fit. You put more stain on your body than it expects, and it adapts.
Duh. To a point. Now keep doing it constanty. For years. Push your system to its breaking point. It will indeed break.
Leukaemia is a form of cancer. Blood cancer, to be precise.
Leukemia, silly UK-man.
Haha, TF has been getting in lots of arguments lately. Something bothering you TF?
UPDATE: Wait, disregard this. I thought it was TF through this whole thing. Not Derezo and TF.
<quote>I don't know if you realize this, but "competing" puts enormous stress on the body. Now just staying fit is a good thing, but actively pushing your system to the limit isn't exactly a good thing.[/quoe]
Well, since I was doing platform diving at that time (me being 15) I doubt that I pushed my "system to the limit" for years. Platform diving is 80$ mental and 20% physical (Give or take 10% )
But I'm sure you have something to back your opinion? Like .. well.. numbers?
If I had numbers, It wouldn't just be an oppion now would it
I'm sure I could come up with some after some research, but I don't feel like it
Sorry, since you were presenting your opinion as a fact, I thought you might have some numbers.
But if it's just an opinion...
It is however something I considder to be fact. The human body is just a machine, and like any machine, it'll break down prematurely if overworked.
You seem to have no definition of when the body is overworked, though. You have no definition of how exactly it will "break down". You admitted yourself that you have no numbers, no observations to back up your "opinion". You are not citing any studies or giving any significant examples. You have no medical training or any experience in the field. How, then, is your opinion any different from pure fantasy?
Thats because the deffinition varys for every person.
[edit]Think about it for a second though. Take a computer and overclock it till after its reached its limit, what happens?
No ones tried to prove my oppinion false...
[/edit]
How, then, is your opinion any different from pure fantasy?
Thats something you need to seriously ask yourself more often
Take a computer and overclock it till after its reached its limit, what happens?
It gets cancer?
Humans are not like computers, Mr Moose. There is absolutely no comparison, especially not the way you make it. So far you've offered no explanation or any kind of verifiable observations to support your notion! As such we can only treat it as malarkey — interesting malarkey, perhaps, but unfounded nevertheless.
No ones tried to prove my oppinion false...
We don't need to, because you haven't tried to prove it true.
Why should I have to prove my belife?
And The human body IS a machine. wether you aggree with me or not. It runs on fuel, is powered by electricity, creates waste...
How can you not belive that? Those are facts.
ma·chine Audio pronunciation of "machine" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-shn)
n.
*** SNIP ***
4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.
*** SNIP ***
[url http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=machine]
Read it for yourself, the human body is a machine, by definition!
Why should I have to prove my belife?
Everyone has to. Things are not true simply because you choose to believe in them, you know! If that were the case, this planet would be swarming with leprechauns, unicorns, and pink elephants... all the imaginary things humans have ever claimed existed.
And The human body IS a machine. wether you aggree with me or not. It runs on fuel, is powered by electricity, creates waste...
So? That doesn't mean that we can get cancer by exerting ourselves too hard. Face it, you are no doctor, and neither am I, and we cannot possibly know precisely how a human works. It's easy to see, however, that it works fundamentally different from a computer, and stresses itself and fails in different ways. Computers don't get cancer, and we don't rust or short-circuit.
And at any rate, now you're just trying to distract everyone from the topic (probably because you know you can't substantiate your claims). Either give sufficient evidence to support your claims, or give up — because if you can't, then your claims have no merit.
When did I say you could get cancer directly from working to hard? I think youre making things up. Cancer was your idea.
Now, after the body weakens, cancer would be harder for the body to fight off.
You really should take your own advice.
I didn't realise this until I saw it on a documentary, but with one of the medical scanners available you can now see visually the concentrations of bloodflow in the body. Because of this you can also see to some extent where tumours are, since the multiplying cells normaly require more of a blood flow than the surrounding tissue.
So? That doesn't mean that we can get cancer by exerting ourselves too hard.
Oh that's the stupidest arugment ever X-G, you're just trying to discredit him by putting words into his mouth. What he's saying is pretty obvious "pushing a machine too hard will break it, but exercising it is good for it.", which is obvious, and some how loosely related to the argument that cancer may be caused by life-style choices..
Face it, you are no doctor, and neither am I,
Smartest thing I've heard all thread...
we cannot possibly know precisely how a human works.
One can have a fair understanding... or what one may consider fair.
It's easy to see, however, that it works fundamentally different from a computer, and stresses itself and fails in different ways. Computers don't get cancer, and we don't rust or short-circuit.
It was obviously only an analogy; the body is a machine, but a completly different machine than a computer.
edit: Cancer Question: I was under the impression that cancer wasn't just uncontrolled growth, but uncontrolled growth of cells with the wrong DNA/RNA or something in them, so they would build strange things that your body didn't need (usually lumps, etc?) could someone explain more on this? or shed some light on my (possibly false) understanding?
Duh. To a point. Now keep doing it constanty. For years. Push your system to its breaking point. It will indeed break.
If I run so much that I'm out-of-breath (which is practically running up the stairs these days), I'm physically exerting myself. I'm doing more than my body expected me to do over a period of time. My muscles may be fatigued, but eventually they'll recover. Once that occurs, my body is more adapted to that kind of thing. The more I do it, the more it adapts, the stronger I become (and the less out-of-breath I'll be).
Now obviously, pushing myself too hard for too long without enough rest would be damaging my health. My body has to recover. But I'm not so sure that periodicly pushing yourself beyond your limitations will harm you, as long as you're not pushing yourself too far.
I think most of this whole argument is out of a misunderstanding. Mr. Moose, you're not saying pushing myself beyond my current abilities will harm me; but rather pushing myself too far beyond my abilities will harm me, right?
Now, after the body weakens, cancer would be harder for the body to fight off.
True! There are people who stay sick simply because they don't take time to rest. Though from my understanding, cancer is more of a problem of getting the body to attack it.
I was under the impression that cancer wasn't just uncontrolled growth, but uncontrolled growth of cells with the wrong DNA/RNA or something in them, so they would build strange things that your body didn't need (usually lumps, etc?) could someone explain more on this? or shed some light on my (possibly false) understanding?
Wikipedia: "This unregulated growth is caused by a series of acquired or inherited mutations to DNA within cells, damaging genetic information that define the cell functions and removing normal control of cell division."
My muscles may be fatigued, but eventually they'll recover.
But then you're obviously not constantly pushing it beyond its limit If you take time to rest, and enough time for your system to recover enough, thats a good thing
Pushing yourself to your limit isn't a bad thing, its constantly pushing your body with no time to rest that can/will cause problems
And The human body IS a machine. wether you aggree with me or not. It runs on fuel, is powered by electricity, creates waste...
Ok.
Now please show the connection between physical stress and the devlopment of cancer. We have relativly few athletes. If their workout would be a cancer risk, shouldn't the percentage of athletes with cancer be higher than the percentage of cancer within a "normal" group of people?
Also, I'm not sure how physical exercise could lead to uncontrolled cell grow? Do you think that only certain forms of cancer will occur more often, or will athletes get all sorts of cancer more often?
Could you tell me what type of cancers these athletes risk getting:
- football players
- swimmer
- tennis players
- gymnasts
- weight lifters
- boxers
But then you're obviously not constantly pushing it beyond its limit
When was the last time you were exercising regulary?
Don't get me wrong, but right now I really think that you don't know at all what you're talking about. If you compete, your resting cycle is more important than your stress cycle.
No athlete is pushing himself to the limits all the time. That would be stupid and within months he'd suffer some injury.
If you're competing, you know when to train, when to relax, you're normally watching your weight and diet, you do additional sports to balance your normal kind of activity, etc.
Pushing yourself too hard to long is something that happens mostly to wanna-be sportsmen. Those who want to get results too fast - and those people aren't normaly active very long.
I must admit that it seems to me, as if you don't know much about regular and exercise and training plans. Which makes the base of your assumption kinda weak. I'm also not sure how physical stress and unctrolled cell growth are connected - butu I'm pretty sure you're going to tell us.
Though from my understanding, cancer is more of a problem of getting the body to attack it.
This is true. Cancer itself (in its various incarnations) is well understood; the trouble is in coming up with a way to quickly remove all malignant cells without taking out any healthy tissue. Then there is also the issue of early detection. We've made great strides with equipment such as the Gamma Knife, and chemotherapy, but ultimately what we desire is a way for the body to remove malignant cells by itself -- and thus far we're not seeing much success.
Now please show the connection between physical stress and the devlopment of cancer.
Whats it with you people an putting words in my mouth? When did I say You can GET cancer from over exerting yourself?
Really now, as I mentioned before, overexerting yourself can leave your body more prone to illness. I'm pretty sure thats a well known fact.
Really now, as I mentioned before, overexerting yourself can leave your body more prone to illness. I'm pretty sure thats a well known fact
Ok, and now show the connection between competing athletes and "overexerting yourself".
I mean, every not-quite-slim person wouold be a possible cancer candidate after using some stairs then - esp. if you take the other risk factors into account...
You must have missed my other messages, go back and read them.
Actually I read them. I guess you missed the fact that athlets don't constantly overexert themselfs. Please follow your own advise and read the other posts
I asked you to show the connection again - after your knowledge about training cycles, resting periods, etc has been increased slightly
TF: Just give up and say steroids, like I did.
I agree with you both to a point. Pushing your limits too far leaves your body weak, and athletes generally don't push themselves over the limit on a regular basis.
However, some athletes do put far too much stress on their bodies. Not all, but certainly some.
Actually I read them.
Doubtfull.
I asked you to show the connection again
I never said exercise causes cancer.
However, some athletes do put far too much stress on their bodies. Not all, but certainly some.
Bingo.
Ok, and now show the connection between competing athletes and "overexerting yourself".
I mean, every not-quite-slim person wouold be a possible cancer candidate after using some stairs then - esp. if you take the other risk factors into account...
Normally I regard SC, and X-G as fairly knowledgable people, but what's gotten into them with this thread I don't know -- Go back and read it again guys, you're putting words into the moose's mouth and meese can't talk so you're all @#^&(@#ing crazy...
Two consecutive posts:
Proper care of your body will prevent cancer even if you come into contact with carcinogens on a regular basis.
Speaking from my own experience, that's pretty much bull.
I was competing on international level, the guy in the bed next to me was playing handball in the the 2nd league. I really doubt that your physical fitness really is an factor for many of the different types of cancer.
I don't know if you realize this, but "competing" puts enormous stress on the body. Now just staying fit is a good thing, but actively pushing your system to the limit isn't exactly a good thing.
This is what I understood from the above exchange:
spellcaster says that he was competing in some sport at an international level, and got cancer. Then TF says "I don't know if you realize this, but "competing" puts enormous stress on the body." He is clearly referring to spellcaster's post because he quoted the word "competing."
This suggests to me that TF was more or less attributing spellcaster's cancer to his being an athlete. True, he was being a little vague, but this certainly seems to be a reasonable assumption regarding to the meaning of his comment: that he was saying, in essence, "The stresses you put on your body by competing probably contributed to your cancer, and you shouldn't be surprised."
The alternative is that TF meant to say "Well spellcaster, cancer aside, competing in sports is not good for your body," which would have been a silly thing to say given what spellcaster had just contributed to the discussion, as well as being completely off-topic -- we were discussing cancer, not wear and tear on the body.
That was the way I saw it, anyway, and so to me it doesn't seem as though there were any words put into Thomas's mouth.
If you can shed some light on what you actually meant by that post, Thomas, please do.
Ouch. If thats how it came accross, I appologise
I just meant that overworking your system like (truely) competing requires, will leave your system vulnerable.
It was meant to be just a little "Tid bit"... Just a semi random bit of trivia.
I didn't take it that way at all; Simply, I think what he said was true: if you're competeing you do put stress on your body (even if it's not athletic sometimes! -- Mental stress affects your body too) and I took that as true; He never said that it caused his cancer, but I did feel that he implied that there could be a link, but we don't know that for sure.
The way I took it was someone implied that cancer could be related to poor health, someone said that American DRs said about 2/3 of it was probably realted to life style choices (poor health...) SC goes, well I was competeting when I got cancer, and moose says well that could stress your body out too ya know -- not "well that could have caused your cancer too ya know..."
Sorry, the thing that disturbs me is that "opinion" seems to have become a synonym for "I can make up all the crap I want and I don't even have to back it up".
In this thread one group says "sport helps" the other group says "sport hurts". Neither group seems to be able to back up their arguments.
If one is aksing for some facts, it's called an opinion - which autmatically renders all requests for proofs, theories and cause-and-effect chains invalid.
If one tries to ask for more information, the "arguments" get more and more vague. The fun thing is, that the same arguments that are ok if used for one side are considered invalid when used for the other side.
Practicing isn't more stressful to a trained body than walking stairs for an out of shape body. In fact, the opposite is true.
Asking how sports could affect cancer the argument of "stress" is used. There's no actual connection given, just the vague "the body is stressed" - and that's it.
At the moment, there's no proof, facts or even theories that sports helps or hinders the development of cancer in any way.
It's as easy as that.
And IIRC, TF isn't actually an experct when it comes to sport or sport theory. But I might be wrong here. I just wanted to point out that both his arguments regarding sports and the connection of sports with cancer seem to lack a reasonal base.
I just wanted to point out that both his arguments regarding sports and the connection of sports with cancer seem to lack a reasonal base.
I never directly connected the two.
All I ever said was overworking without rest is bad.
edit: you don't need to be an expert to know that.
You don't get cancer from overworking yourself. Cancer generally happens as a result of mutation, whether by chance or by radiation. Last time I checked, work doesn't alter your genes. I don't see people with a third arm being born because their parents over-exerted themselves. It just happens. Nature is chaotic.
Both of you guys are right, but neither one of you have even presented a challenge to the other's argument. You two are just talking about two very distinct things. Must you soil this thread with this meaningless bickering?
In this thread one group says "sport helps" the other group says "sport hurts". Neither group seems to be able to back up their arguments.
I don't think anyone said exactly either of those two things more like both groups say that too little exercise is bad, and too much can be bad too... that's all I ever got.
At the moment, there's no proof, facts or even theories that sports helps or hinders the development of cancer in any way.
I don't think anyone in this thread was stating that sports had anything to do with cancer...
There was someone who said that DRs think that a percentage of cancer might be lifestyle related, and that lifestyle could be effected by exercise, sports, competion, etc, but the moose is right no one ever stated "sports cause cancer"
I agree with Soga and I really don't understand where X-G and SC are comming from in this thread...