How Height Is Connected to Cancer

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Jealous of your long-legged peers? Turns out they may not have won the gene pool after all.

New research published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention found a surprising correlation between height and cancer risk among postmenopausal women; the taller the woman, the greater her risk for the disease.

The researchers studied more than 20,900 women ages 50 to 79 who participated in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)  study, an on-going analysis of post menopausal women and the factors that contribute to their health. They separated the women into five groups based on their height, starting with women shorter than 5 feet 1 inch, and matched them to data on their cancer rates.

(MORE: Mapping Cancer: Largest Set of Tumor Genomes Could Lead to Better Anticancer Drugs)

They discovered that for every 10 centimeters of height, a woman’s risk of developing a range of different cancers increased by 13%. When they looked at all the cancers together, they found that taller women had a 13% to 17% greater risk of developing melanoma, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and colon cancer. They also had a 23% to 29% greater risk of developing kidney, rectum, thyroid and blood cancers.  All of the cancers showed a positive association with height; none of the taller women showed a lower risk of cancer compared to their shorter counterparts.

While the connection seems odd, previous studies have exposed the same association;  it’s possible, for example, that on the most basic level, the greater number of cells and tissues that taller people possess simply increases the odds that some of those cells will develop abnormally and become malignant. Alternatively, some of the same processes that fuel the growth that contributes to height may also feed tumors.

“Ultimately, cancer is a result of processes having to do with growth, so it makes sense that hormones or other growth factors that influence height may also influence cancer risk, said Geoffrey Kabat, a senior epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in a statement.

(MORE: Another Case of Brain Cancer In Baseball. What’s Going On?)

Some of those common factors may be genetic, while others could be linked to environmental exposures or nutrition early in life.  As the authors write:

Adult height is determined both by genetics and by early life exposures, and environmental circumstances influence the attainment of one’s genetic potential. The influence of environmental exposures on height is evidenced by the secular increase in the height of populations in many countries beginning in the 19th century, probably reflecting improvements in hygiene and nutrition. Height should thus be thought of as a marker for one or more exposures that influence cancer risk rather than a risk factor itself.

Women raised in higher socioeconomic households, for example, tended to be taller than those raised in lower income settings, reflecting the fact that different nutritional exposures may have played a role in both their height and cancer risk. Height may simply be a marker for factors such as nutrition, and identifying them may yield new understanding of about how to prevent and treat tumors more effectively, “[The association between height and cancer] raises some interesting biological questions, and investigators can come up with [new] explanations,” says the study’s senior author, Dr. Thomas Rohan, the chair and professor of epidemiology and population health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

In the meantime, Rohan and his colleagues say the study doesn’t imply that cancer is inevitable for every tall woman. The study found an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship. And it’s unlikely that diseases as complex as cancer can be traced to just one developmental process such as growth.

34 comments
AluxianCancun
AluxianCancun

Is there anything NOT related to cancer?

Yawn!

"Time would like to access your public profile, friend list and email address."

¨Yeah, you TIME peeps are leeches!

SamanthaBernard
SamanthaBernard

Mapping cancer is a really hard task. It should need international collaboration in the same way the GENOME project had it before. There is another international project that has an application online called ESAGIL (  http://esagil.org ) that matches symptoms with diseases. It is useful for people to find out possible diseases. Doctors use it as a remainder tool.

TobyKinnear
TobyKinnear

Since I started with my online business I earn $62 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don't check it out w­w­w.W­O­R­K­7­0.ℂ­o­m

tim.j.benham
tim.j.benham

"Women’s Health Initiative"? why do we have these sexist programs for the healthier sex?

Hue-Man
Hue-Man

I wouldn't worry about this as there are already about a dozen cures for cancer, and I'm not talking about that disgusting radioactive poisoning rubbish people get at hospitals.

A few of these proven cures are, B17, Mistletoe, Highly concentrated Cannabis(Delta9Tetrohydrocannabinol), bi-carbonate of Soda(baking powder).  Do some research and see what's been kept hidden from you.

AluxianCancun
AluxianCancun

@Hue-Man  

Also the best cure for cancer is ignorance.... just avoid reading all this crap and live your life and die when you have to... that is all we need to know!

sincero
sincero like.author.displayName 1 Like

The conclusion reached in this study is ridiculous. How can height be related to cancer. Using the philosophy of this kind of correlation study, one can also show that the number of car accidents in a certain intersection can increase the risk of a driver getting cancer. Or, it can show that having more car accidents can cure cancer.

How is this done? Just pick an intersection and observe the number of accidents in that intersection. Record whether the driver has cancer or not. Continue this study for ten years. At the end of this study, I assure you there will be found a correlation, either positive or negative between car accidents and cancer.

The researchers in this study should first have studied, by scientific means, the cause and effect between height and cancer. I mean by scientific means. If they found one, then they can verify it by epidemiological study, the same that they are doing now.

What they are doing is that they just plow through without thinking just like the study between cancer and car accidents. Epidemiological study of height and cancer will always yield and a correlation just as epidemiological of car accidents and cancer will yield a correlation. Their study just have happen to have a positive correlation between height and cancer. But is there a rational thinking behing this? Definitely none. They just use statistical analysis without thinking.

Dr. Arcadio P. Sincero

JasonSplinter
JasonSplinter

@sincero I think what you're missing is statistical significance and sample size.  I'm sure it seems easy to you to simply create a hypothesis such as height and cancer may have a cause-effect relationship and figure out through "scientific means" why that is but you probably have not consider the time/money/resources as part of the equation.  That's like saying it would be better to cure cancer first then do a statically analysis to see how great the cure is working.  Better -- yes -- reasonable, practical, or useful -- no.  Why would anyone commit those resources without attempting to see if there is statistical evidence to support the conclusion?  They wouldn't.  Furthermore, your comment in the beginning that height and cancer cannot be related is very narrow minded.  The article pinpointed several theories why it could be true but there are infinite number of reasons why it could be related.  Is it really that far fetched?  More far fetched than say being overweight put one at higher risk for cancer?       

SmoothEdward1
SmoothEdward1 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Dopey study designed to get some ink. Doesn't even begin to account for so many other factors involved in getting cancer.

Dasha
Dasha like.author.displayName 1 Like

Honestly, not convinced. I think this study is inconclusive.

mikeylikeychiptole
mikeylikeychiptole like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

how backwards is that?  families that are able to provide for and nourish their children, are in a way, increasing their probability of getting cancer?  Guess I should be feeding my 3 year old girl nothing but french fries and apple juice so she cant grow tall and get cancer?

ShawnArscott
ShawnArscott like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

How about an article on how the 60,00 plus allowed toxins in our food water and air are causing cancers? GMO's? Excessive radiation and chemically toxic daughters or uranium released by nuclear energy. DU weapons and bomb testing?

captainhurt
captainhurt like.author.displayName 1 Like

@ShawnArscott 

here here! 

and not just allowed toxins...purposely ADDED toxins. 

Nuclear power and testing YES... is pretty evil because it is invisible and it is non-extractable once its in the environment. You get one little hot-particle of dust in your lungs your fate is sealed. Once radioactive particles are floating around the entire animal world is  stuck with an essentially polluted environment forever.

LizWatts
LizWatts like.author.displayName 1 Like

A superfluous factor... Google the correlation between ice cream sales and murder rates,

teledude87
teledude87

Correlation is not causation......

ZimBob
ZimBob like.author.displayName 1 Like

So, midgets don't get cancer?

fadingaura999
fadingaura999

@ZimBob I know you're being sarcastic, ;), but that's not quiet what they said.  The hypothesis would be less cells, less chance so they might have some advantage.  Anyone can get cancer.

ZimBob
ZimBob like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@fadingaura999 @ZimBob lighten up dude. Only posted for the humor of it.  Think of the cancer probability chart progressing from midgets, dwarfs, Danny DeVito, short people,  average people, ,basketball players, etc. Could develop into some pretty funny stuff. Lighten up Dude.

captainhurt
captainhurt

@fadingaura999 @ZimBob

actually, this crap old regurgitated "science" has been known for decades, and yes, midgets get fewer cancers...and large people get more cancers. The relationship is to growth hormones(GH). Its well known GH causes cancer and less GH is less cancer. People are begging for cancer by injecting themselves  via dangerous quacks with GH,  trying to get upper body musculature, upper body musculature which is unusual and unnatural for humans,

captainhurt
captainhurt like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Our medical research programs are getting pretty pathetic, doing studies and experiments on stuff already known where the factors are already known.

In the old days, they were inventing cures for polio, cures for infections (antibiotics), anti-inflammatories, allergy fixes, etc

now research is outputting junk for $$

eximedo
eximedo

@captainhurt not true at all.  antibiotics and anti-inflammatories have been around since the dawn of time.  found in nature.  rainydayinterns is right.. you should do more research

JamesTillingcocke
JamesTillingcocke like.author.displayName 1 Like

This is a load of barnacllllles 

JamesTillingcocke
JamesTillingcocke

To elaborate- taller people tend to have a higher diagnosis.  It's a statistical error, they are looking in the wrong places, not intentionally cherry picking data, but it has a similar effect.  Tall people just take better care of themselves ( and their lower backs, legs, and breasts) that's why they aren't bow-legged, and it's why instead of toughing out back pain, they treat it and stop the suffering.  If everyone did this they would be tall.

TomLegime
TomLegime

All I can say is taller women are better with sex. Multiple orgasm machines are they. 

cjh2nd
cjh2nd like.author.displayName 1 Like

@TomLegime 

yeah, because shorter women are totally incapable of doing the same thing. height has no bearing on being good at sex. maybe in your case tall women have been better, but i'm sure i could find you just as many people who swear by shorter women. and being "good" at sex is completely subjective, so it's impossible to determine who's "better." nice try though

benyaminshaker
benyaminshaker

haha, the asian is the shortest, the black one is the tallest. So racist, love it