GUARDIAN Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:00:03 GMT
Male self-objectification has perhaps gone too far – but the compulsory self-loathing that came before was worse
Back in the early 90s, when Loaded magazine and footie were conquering the culture, making it untuck its shirt, admire its beer belly and leer at "babes", I foolishly predicted the future of men was metrosexual.
No one believed me, of course. Everyone was in New Lad denial. It wasn't until the noughties that the world was ready to discuss what was happening to men and why they were spending so long in the bathroom. And of course the footie that New Lad fetishised for its manly "authenticity" went most flamingly metrosexual of all.
But for all my Cassandrine prophecies, no one is more surprised than me by just how tarty men in the post-metrosexual teenies have turned out. Or to put it in more "sociological" language: how readily they objectify and commodify themselves and one another.
In the last few months the newspapers have told us that men now take longer getting ready than women, and are more likely to take travel irons, hairdryers and straighteners on holiday. And this month a widely reported "Body Talk" survey by the YMCA and Bristol University claimed that men were now more body-conscious than women.
A third of those surveyed said they thought about their appearance more than five times a day, 18% were on a high-protein diet to increase muscle mass, and 16% on a calorie-controlled diet to slim down. A Faustian 35% claimed they would happily trade a year of their life if they could have their ideal body weight and shape. Probably because they hoped the years would be sliced off the end of their lives – when they're old and crumbly and not very likely to appear in a spray-on vest on the "straight" dating show Take Me Out anyway.
Some were reportedly undertaking "compulsive" exercise, strict diets, using laxatives or making themselves sick in an attempt to lose weight or achieve a more toned physique. And although the survey didn't cover this, other reports suggest a surprisingly large number of males are also taking steroids, growth hormones and other prescription drugs to achieve a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. To be "hot".
Which generally means tits and abs. Men's main preoccupation, the YMCA survey suggested, was their "beer belly" and lack of muscles, with a whopping 63% saying they thought their arms or chests were not muscular enough. And people never believe me when I tell them that while some women are size queens, all men are.
All surveys should be taken with a shovel of salt, of course – particularly the YMCA study which seems to have had a rather higher ratio of gym-goers than the general male population. Perhaps the most reliable source of information on the rise of male tartiness is the evidence of your own eyes.
A glance at the newstand, the billboard, the telly and the queue at the bus stop will tell you that with many young men the desire to be desired, the driving force of the metrosexual revolution of the last decade or so, has taken an increasingly physical, sensual form. Lovingly, painstakingly sculpted, shaved muscles decorated with those elaborate designer tattoos. OK, I admit it, I've done a bit more than glance.
It's clear those Men's Health front covers promising bigger arms, pumped pecs and ripped abs by teatime tomorrow, laughable and repetitive as they are, must be tapping into 21st-century man's deepest, darkest and beefiest desires. A couple of years ago Men's Health replaced FHM as the best-selling men's magazine. Men have become their own "high street honeys".
Turn on the telly this week and you'll see the return of the shameless, busty male hussies of Geordie Shore and the preening boys of The Only Way is Essex. And also the launch of an ad campaign by the sporno star who has taught this new generation of metrosexy males everything they know about self-objectification and commodification. David Beckham's H&M commercials will feature him shoving his.......
| | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:00:08 GMT
The question of moral courage – and whether you can get better at it – has stayed with me ever since I was shot at by Israelis
OK, we all get it. Captain Francesco Schettino was a coward. Sinking the Costa Concordia was one thing – a mistake, even. The running away bit, though: that's a different order of moral failure. But how do we know what sort of person we would turn out to be in such circumstances? Hero or villain?
Years ago I was shot at by Israeli soldiers on the Gaza/Egypt border. Bullets kicked up a line of dust a few feet to my right. Despite being in the company of a dozen Palestinian children, I ran and hid. Sick with adrenaline, I cowered behind a block of flats for a good 10 minutes. To be fair on myself, we all did, and that may well have been the only thing to do. Nobody got hurt. But the question of moral courage has remained with me ever since: in particular, the question of how those who do this sort of thing, day in day out, build up the emotional resources to confront danger with bravery. Is courage something you are born with; or can you get better at it?
"Each of us has a bank of courage," explains Peter de la Billière, a former commander of the SAS. "Some have a significant credit balance, others little or nothing; but in war we are all able to make the balance last longer if we have training, discipline, patriotism and faith." This feels so much like the advice of a bygone age. For these are values whose stock has not fared well in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond. Indeed, those of us who at school learned by heart the war poem Dulce et Decorum Est have come to associate a whole cluster of courage-based values – valour, sacrifice, etc – with what Wilfred Owen called "The old Lie". For these were values so soaked in blood, so purloined for the purposes of militaristic propaganda, that their rehabilitation remains problematic, even now.
But the idea that courage requires discipline and training needs a fairer hearing. For at least since Aristotle there has been an important strain of moral thought that has recognised human virtue not as some innate given, but rather as something that one can prepare for, and indeed get better at. The reason the soldier strips and re-strips his weapon a thousand tedious times on the parade ground is so that he can do it, without thought, when he hasn't slept for days and the bullets are pinging about his ears. Over time, it becomes a matter of instinct. And the advice of the modern army is that the same is true of courage. If you rehearse "doing the right thing" enough, you are much more likely to do the right thing when terrified or confused.
This sort of advice is not peculiar to the army. Alcoholics Anonymous has the phrase: "Fake it till you make it." If you want to become a different sort of person, first act like you are, and the acting will eventually transform you. Pretend to be the person you want to be and you will end up becoming more like that person. This cuts right against the grain of familiar assumptions that moral change comes from within, that the most important thing is expressing who you really are – "To thine own self be true", as Polonius puts it in Hamlet. From this perspective, an honest confession of our own weakness – our lack of courage, for instance – becomes the only real expression of virtue. In other words, an emphasis on authenticity can easily become an alibi for a refusal of character development.
While awaiting execution in Flossenburg concentration camp for his part in a plot to assassinate Hitler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote an extraordinary poem entitled Who Am I? that dramatised the gap between his outward display of courage and his inner fear. "I stepped from my cell's confinement … like a squire from his country house"; and yet inwardly he was "faint and ready to say farewell to it all". Which is the real me, he ponders. "Am I both at once?"
Courage isn't about not being afraid. Indeed, not being afraid in...
|
GUARDIAN Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:12:38 GMT
Ninety years after the first use of insulin to treat diabetes, preventable complications and early deaths are a scandal
Imagine a medical condition with no known cause that mostly affects children and young adults. The only treatment is a starvation diet, but the disease will eventually kill everyone it touches, often within weeks or months of diagnosis.
This was the situation for people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in the early part of the 20th century. Today we celebrate the 90th anniversary of the scientific breakthrough that changed all that: on this day in 1922, insulin was first used to treat a patient with type 1 diabetes. This medical landmark has helped lift the death sentence that type 1 diabetes used to mean. Most people with the condition now live long and healthy lives.
On this anniversary, we at Diabetes UK will be remembering Frederick Banting, the great scientist responsible for this breakthrough. His work has saved countless lives across the world and today there are half a million people in the UK alone who would not be here were it not for insulin treatments.
But while it is right that we celebrate Banting's work, when I hear people talking about the advancement in our understanding of diabetes it can often sound as though they are talking about a problem that has now been solved.
Sadly, this is not the case.
It is true that we have come a long way since the first injection of insulin in 1922 and the lot of someone with type 1 diabetes today is immeasurably better than it would have been 90 years ago. Much of this is because of research and campaigning by Diabetes UK.
However, this success can sometimes obscure the fact that we still have a long way to go to give the 3.7m people with diabetes in the UK – both type 1 and type 2 – the healthcare and information they need to manage their condition and to raise awareness among the further 7m people who are at high risk of developing type 2.
Diabetes remains the leading cause of blindness in people of working age and is the cause of thousands of amputations a year. About 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes and 850,000 people have type 2 diabetes but do not know it.
But perhaps the starkest statistic is that while most people with diabetes do have long and healthy lives, type 1 diabetes reduces life expectancy by an average of 20 years, while type 2 reduces it by an average of 10 years. This does not sound to me like a problem that has been solved.
So yes, let's use today's anniversary to remember the remarkable work of Banting and to celebrate the positive impact scientific research can have on people's lives.
But let's also use it to raise awareness of the fact that diabetes remains one of the biggest health challenges we face today, and to express outrage that every week there are 70 diabetes-related amputations that could have been prevented through earlier diagnosis and better management of the condition.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that this is happening despite there being broad agreement about what effective risk assessment and diagnosis, care and support look like – our 15 healthcare essentials that we are promoting to everyone with diabetes, their healthcare providers and those who make decisions about healthcare.
After all, anniversaries are about looking to the future as well as remembering the past. And just as the challenge for Banting and his colleagues was to keep people with type 1 diabetes alive, our challenge today is to bring an end to the scandal of preventable complications and early death in these patients.
Doing this does not mean spending lots of extra money. It simply needs more political will and better, joined-up working in preventative and care services. This is the only way we can make sure it doesn't take a further 90 years before we can celebrate another radical improvement in the lives of people with diabetes.
Barbara Young is the chief executive of Diabetes UK
Medical research
History of......
| |
GUARDIAN Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:10:00 GMT
Alan Connor finds cleavages both political and physical in his pick of the week's best - and most sporting - cryptic clues
Thanks for your clues for CATHERINE. There were two excellent hidden answers: JollySwagman's "A bit of a tomcat, her inextinguishable lust was renowned" and chastelordarcher's "Girl's souvenir, eh? Tack some brought back". Baerchen summed up Mrs Dickens poignantly in "Girl - extraordinarily nice - nursing broken heart" and the winner is a cryptic definition from machiajelly with an allusion to Bob Dylan and/or Absolutely Fabulous: "This wheel's on fire". Your suggestions for another clue are sought below.The news in clues
A deceptively straight definition in Friday's Times...
26ac Revolutionary act, harbouring dutiable goods? (6,3,5)
...for the BOSTON TEA PARTY. Not topical in itself, but the movement counterintuitively inspired by that protest couldn't be more so, as the gangs within the US Republican Party have been contemplating which of Sleazy, Divorcey, Gropey, Conspiracy, Starey, Forgetful and/or Romney has the best chance of supplanting Obama.
And so in Monday's Guardian, Brendan announced his theme with a clue for CIRCUS CLOWNS, a teasing reference to the Iowa caucus candidates: Michelle BACHMANN was split into a German composer and a German novelist and two of the pairs of down clues - CAMPOSANTO and RUMP; AGING and RICH - hid politicians as you read downwards.
The sharpest reference in this delightful puzzle was to the front-runnner...
24d Republican with wealth, primarily flip-flopping (6)
...recalling as it does Mitt ROMNEY's claim that he used a bucket as a loo when he did missionary work in France, in a humble home of which the son of the mission president remarked: "I would describe it as a palace".Themes and tricks
Thursday morning saw Guardian solvers leaf to the penultimate page, clock the setter's name and coo: "ooh, it's a new one" before wondering about their first-time foe: would he or she prove to be difficult? Mischievous? Amusing?
One thing we learned about Qaos, perhaps unsurprising for a newer setter, is that we can probably expect themes. Thursday's puzzle certainly ticked the Amusing and Inventive boxes, and its topic was summed up in this clue...
22d Fruit drink, swallowed very quietly (5)
...for APPLE, the grid also featuring MACINTOSH, Steve JOBS and in one down clue above another, the company's '90s slogan THINK DIFFERENT.
That this prompted me to recall advertising posters which began...
Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules.
...and so meant that I was suppressing righteous bile and appalled vomit for the rest of the puzzle is, honestly, my only quibble, and a minor one. Roll on the next Qaos!
Incidentally, the annotated solution to Araucaria's recent prize puzzle is now available. Music, TV and film
Maybe it's how the A and the Es fall: there's something setters like about Adele. This week, Nimrod - known locally as Enigmatist - used the singer...
8d Young singer needing assistance to enter Commonwealth city (8)
...to indicate ADELAIDE, while Aardvark had the poor woman on a crash diet caused by an accident...
7d Adele, with arm broken, loses a stone (7)
...just to clue EMERALD. Let's keep an eye or two open for whether the disappearing Adele or Charles Dickens gets more cryptic cameos in 2012.Cluing coincidence
The same kind of answer in two of Tuesday's puzzles, clued with two surface meanings that each snappily depicted a scene. The Times's resembled the advice of Britain's tersest, bleakest agony aunt...
16ac Is love dead? Then split up (7)
...for ISOLATE, while Gordius in the Guardian sounded more like a cautionary tale about the importance of backing up your documents...
17ac New idea lost as disconnected (8)
...for ISOLATED.Blue clues
Happily for those of us who have been held at gunpoint in a........
| | |
GUARDIAN Sat, 07 Jan 2012 00:06:20 GMT
The Dukan diet has been tried by millions and now its creator aims to tackle France's overweight students. But are the scales beginning to tip against the protein-loving doctor?
The first thing I notice, on stepping into Dr Pierre Dukan's consulting room in a beautiful old building in an expensive part of Paris is the huge painting of a naked woman, spread-eagled with everything on show, on one of the walls. This is the sight that greets the people he treats for obesity and I wonder what they must make of being confronted by this slim, sexy woman. Is it the fine art equivalent of the picture of the supermodel taped to the fridge? It seems so absurdly out of place that every time I catch sight of it I have to try to stifle childish giggles.
If your only reminder of Christmas is a tightened waistband, you may be considering starting the Dukan diet. Devised by this French doctor and nutritionist, it took off in the UK last year, popularised by the news that Carole Middleton had used it to lose a few pounds before her daughter's wedding. Gisele Bündchen, Jennifer Lopez and Penelope Cruz are all said to use Dukan's method. So far, so faddy, but even eminently sensible people, such as the broadcaster Jenni Murray, have raved about it, having started it after Dukan appeared on Woman's Hour.
He published his first book in France in 2000, and in the UK in 2010. It has sold 7.5m copies worldwide, and he estimates around 12 million people have tried the diet. But despite ongoing sales, the scales may be beginning to tip against him.
In July, Dukan lost a slander case against Jean-Michel Cohen, a nutritionist who told a French magazine the diet could cause "serious health problems among certain patients, such as a strong rise in cholesterol, cardiovascular problems and breast cancer". A survey of 5,000 people in France who had followed the diet found 35% regained the weight they lost within a year and 80% regained it more than four years later. In November in the UK, the British Dietetic Association named the Dukan diet as one of the worst "celebrity diets" of the year.
The nutritionist also faced criticism this week when he published his latest book, An Open Letter to the Future President, which included 120 proposals to tackle obesity in France, one of which was to award extra marks to baccalaureate students who either remained within a normal body mass index (BMI) weight, or lost weight over the course. The French health ministry issued a statement saying it was "astonished at Dr Dukan's strange proposal that is unknowingly physically discriminatory".
"Ah, this one!" he says, leaning across the antique desk in his office. "People say 'this is discrimination!'" He laughs, and I think he seems to be enjoying his moment of notoriety. Isn't it discriminatory? "Do you see it as discrimination?" It encourages people to judge others on how much they weigh. "I don't judge," he says. "It's not a diet. It is saying 'I am with you'. The discrimination is already at school – if you are overweight, everyone looks at you and you feel it." He says he would only ask overweight students to "slowly" lose 2kg during the two years, and it would include a practical programme about cooking and preparing food, and reading nutritional labels. It is just one of his ideas; the others include more food education and getting food companies to change their recipes to become low-fat and no-sugar (he's a big fan of artificial sweeteners).
He wrote the book, which he sent to this year's presidential election candidates, because he calls obesity this century's "biggest serial killer". "I have 42 years of experience, and I have travelled a lot, and I discovered that my diet makes a lot of people happy – but I think it's not enough," he says. "In France we have 22 million [overweight people] and the economic model of the west is built on a lot of obesity – food production companies, and pharmaceutical companies who treat people for diabetes and heart........
| | | | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:44:27 GMT
The clutch of new year diet programmes now dominating the schedules are enough to put you off healthy eating and exercise for good
The first week of January is traditionally the time when the nation looks down at its bulging post-Christmas belly and groans. It's when the nation feels its arteries furring, its pores clogging and its eyes yellowing. And it's also when the nation decides to do something about it.
Obviously the second week of January is when the nation forgets all that and returns to chainsmoking, binge-drinking and wolfing down a never-ending torrent of pizzas, but that's less important. This week is the week that we all resolve to do better and that's why television has been going out of its way to help us along.
After the glut of indulgent food programmes that littered the schedules in the run up to Christmas, television now turns to diet-based fitness shows – Sky1 has Obese: A Year To Save My Life, Channel 4 has The Fat Fighters and ITV has the return of The Biggest Loser. Arriving on screen when we're all at our podgiest and most guilt-stricken, they're here to shock us into transforming into bikini-ready micro-nymphs or, at the very least, slightly dislodging a couple of our numerous undetected embolisms.
Interestingly, the way each of these shows goes about doing this varies drastically. Obese: A Year To Save My Life follows the adventures of the superhumanly sympathetic personal trainer Jessie Pavelka as he tries to help nine morbidly obese people lose up to half their body weight in a year. The Biggest Loser is a reality show, which automatically makes it slightly more dubious. Instead of Pavelka's understanding and bespoke dieting solutions, the contestants are basically chased around a field for a couple of months, and the person who manages to cry himself/herself the thinnest gets £25,000.
And then there's last night's The Fat Fighters, which was less of a diet show and more of a desperate attempt at remaking Pineapple Dance Studios. It follows four cartoonishly obnoxious personal trainers – a meathead, a swearer, a kind of boa-wielding death-wraith and a woman with a whip – as they ostensibly try to help the overweight pull themselves into an acceptable shape. In reality, though, it's just an excuse for some vain trainers to pose and pout and, confusingly, have a bit of a disco at the end. It's not really a very instructional programme, to be honest.
Whether or not these shows actually help the viewers to lose weight is another thing. There are lots of onscreen links to advice websites and the like, but all three shows generally show diet and exercise to be simultaneously harrowing and terrifying. There's some joy to be had from watching them – Lord knows it's always fun to watch other people suffer – but I'd be surprised if anyone found the shows to be a useful motivational aid.
Meanwhile, there's The Fabulous Baker Brothers on Channel 4 tonight. If I'm going to lose weight this year, I may as well watch a load of load of cakes that I can't eat. Rather that than The Fat Fighters anyway.
Diets and dieting
Television
Stuart Heritage
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:00:15 GMT
Your report (Lifestyle could prevent 40% of cancers, 7 December) identifies smoking, intake of certain foods and alcohol as major preventable causes of cancers, and Cancer Research UK stresses that individuals need to address lifestyles. This seriously de-contextualises the problem and seems to take us yet again down a victim-blaming route. Income and social class connect directly, for example, to the poor diet imposed by Britain's OECD-documented widening income inequalities. It also produces poor housing near busy, polluting roads and explains dusty, dirty, chemical-laden jobs and long hours. These social, political and physical environmental factors all play into cancer incidence and prevalence, and should form part of a coherent cancer prevention strategy, which the UK lacks.
In Scotland, consecutive governments have looked at life circumstances as factors in creating ill-health and developed policies accordingly. This includes looking at and controlling the role of manufacturers and retailers of carcinogens in an effort to reduce exposures. In the UK we have industries that produce and governments that happily allow the production of carcinogens for consumption. What are cancer charities doing to prevent this and ensure upstream prevention of availability of and exposure to such substances? It seems many do little or nothing.
If social, economic and environmental deprivation is considered, another range of cancer prevention interventions – likely to be easier and cheaper to implement than lifestyle and behavioural programmes – would have a bigger impact. But that would of course mean taking on industry and challenging government. An illustration of the skewing of responsibilities comes, for instance, with failure to recognise that the report's estimated one in 25 cancers due to the workplace will include few middle and upper managers but will hit many manual workers in manufacturing and service industries disproportionately and they do not choose to be exposed to the carcinogens they have to work with. And where is the response to the 2011 Asturias declaration, following a WHO/International Agency on Cancer conference? These events included environmental and occupational exposures as preventable causes of a significant number of cancers and outlined prevention strategies that did not blame the consumer or individual, who comes at the end of a long line of agencies and bodies that produced, marketed and profited from the carcinogen industries.
Professor Andrew Watterson, Professor Rory O'Neill and Jawad Qasrawi
Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling
• Can someone explain to me why it is still legal for companies (tobacco manufacturers) to sell an addictive drug (nicotine) which causes the premature deaths of half its users? Their products impoverish users, cause much suffering and cost the rest of us millions in healthcare. It doesn't make sense!
Michael Miller
Sheffield
• I am disappointed by the Guardian's coverage of proposals to improve the way individuals with cancer are handled by the benefits system ('Back to work' test plan for cancer patients, 7 December). This issue is an incredibly important and sensitive one for many people. Contrary to your article, I believe the government's proposals would significantly improve on the current system and would be of considerable benefit to those who face the real personal challenge of a cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment.
The government's proposals have been developed as a result of evidence submitted to me by Macmillan and discussions with cancer specialists. The proposals would considerably increase the number of people who receive unconditional support in the benefits system. They would also reduce, not increase, the number of face-to-face assessments that individuals suffering from cancer would undergo.
The proposals are underpinned by a presumption that people undergoing cancer treatment will be entitled to the.....
| |
GUARDIAN Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:47:00 GMT
New research details what causes cancer and how likely it is
• Get the data
What causes cancer? New research from Cancer Research UK shows that 40% of cancers in women and 45% in men could be prevented by a healthier lifestyle.
The Cancer Research UK report found more than 100,000 cancers each year in the UK are caused by four lifestyle factors - smoking, unhealthy diets, alcohol and people being too fat.
This rises to around 134,000 cases a year when 14 lifestyle and environmental factors are taken into account.
The key facts are:
• Smoking accounts for 23% of all cancers in men and 15.6% in women.
As well as lung cancer, it is implicated in other forms of the disease including bladder, kidney, pancreatic and cervical cancer
• One in 25 cancers is linked to a person's job, such as being exposed to chemicals or asbestos, while one in 33 is linked to infections, such as the human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer
• 34% of cancers in 2010 (106,845) were linked to smoking, diet, drinking alcohol and excess weight
• In men, 6.1% (9,600) of cancer cases were linked to a lack of fruit and vegetables, 4.9% (7,800) to occupation, 4.6% (7,300) to alcohol, 4.1% (6,500) to overweight and obesity and 3.5% (5,500) to excessive sun exposure and sunbeds
• In women, 6.9% (10,800) were linked to overweight and obesity, 3.7% (5,800) to infections such as HPV, 3.6% (5,600) to excessive sun exposure and sunbeds, 3.4% (5,300) to lack of fruit and vegetables and 3.3% (5,100) to alcohol
It is interesting, of course, to compare this with what the Daily Mail says causes cancer. The data from Cancer Research UK is below. What can you do with it?Data summary
Download the data
• DATA: download the full spreadsheetMore open data
Data journalism and data visualisations from the GuardianWorld government data
• Search the world's government data with our gatewayDevelopment and aid data
• Search the world's global development data with our gatewayCan you do something with this data?
• Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk
• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
• Like us on Facebook
Cancer
Cancer
Health & wellbeing
Health policy
Health
Simon Rogers
guardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
| | | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:01:01 GMT
Cancer charity attributes Britain's poor global placing – equal with Rwanda – to high alcohol intake and growing obesity
Heavy drinking and growing obesity are contributing to an increase in oesophageal cancer, a new analysis has claimed, as the UK topped a European survey of the disease.
Cutting back on smoking and alcohol and eating healthier would help Britons reduce their risk of contracting the cancer, according to the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF). It rates the UK as joint 31st-worst in the world, alongside some of Africa and Asia's poorest countries.
The figures, based on World Health Organisation estimates and adjusting them to take into account differing proportions of people in diferent age groups between countries, show 6.4 people per 100,000 in the UK developed oesophageal cancer in 2008, nearly double the European average (3.3). The charity said lifestyle changes could prevent most of the 7,600 deaths – more than 5,000 of them men.
Rachel Thompson, deputy head..
|
| Full List of Diet articles |
|
|
HealthPop video: Long hours are depressing, scientists zap rats
"Yo-Yo Diet" Not Tied to Early Death
According to Recent Studies 26 Million Americans are Living with...
The chemistry of love — Rev up the romance with a sweet, spicy meal
DayOne Health Announces Changes in Diet Requirements for...
Lost weekend: Know where your diet went?
Dieter's weight, blood pressure are both lower
We've been far too polite to these snake-oil diet sellers | Jackie Ashley
Paula Deen and the mañana diet
Chat with registered dietitian Bonnie Taub-Dix Monday at 1 p.m. ET
FTC pulls plug on fake news sites pushing acai berry diet pills
Dietary supplements' safety regulation: too much or not enough?
More Fruits, Veggies in U.S. School Lunch Rules
Heart Attack Death Numbers Halve in England
New Weight Loss Solutions Website Offers Diet, Detox and Weight Loss...
Fibromyalgia-Fitness.com Releases a New Book Promoting Exercises for...
Muffin Makeover: Harvard Attacks Myth that 'Low Fat' Diet is Best
The Perils of ‘Metabolic Chauvinism’
Eat less, drink up: 6 diets that let you booze
Wife Alleges She Was Human Slave
The Last Call Program Unveils Sobrexa, a Natural Remedy for Alcohol...
The Olympic Diet - in pictures
Low-fat does not necessarily mean good fat
Erectile dysfunction, edible microchips, headphone dangers: HealthPop Video
Renal Diet: What 'America's Got Talent' host Nick Cannon Should Know
Slimming clubs lock members into 'straitjackets' of false hope, says Orbach
U.S. Obesity Rates Remain Stubbornly High
