Colon cancer now leading cause of cancer deaths under 50 in US

2026-03-1215:33143205www.theguardian.com

Experts warn younger people not to dismiss symptoms such as rectal bleeding as diagnoses rise for those under 50

Colorectal cancer is now the leading cause of cancer death in the US for people under 50, according to a new analysis from the American Cancer Society, prompting both experts and those in that age group with the disease to warn others to take certain symptoms seriously.

Becca Lynch, who works in cyber security in Denver, Colorado, was diagnosed with advanced colon cancer last year, when she was just 29. At first, she assumed her symptoms couldn’t be anything serious: “I chalked it up to stress,” she said.

Now, she is careful to describe her symptoms in great detail, not because they’re fun to talk about, but because she doesn’t want other people to miss the signs.

Initially, she was experiencing “pencil thin” bowel movements and having to “go number two much more frequently,” as much as five or six times a day. Eventually, she started seeing thick, dark blood with each movement.

She decided to see a doctor after seeing an Instagram video by Cass Costley, where she talked about how similar symptoms turned out to be colon cancer. Still, Lynch put off a colonoscopy for several months; when she did get it, she was diagnosed with stage 3B colon cancer.

Lynch’s is a “very common story”, says Rebecca Siegel, an epidemiologist and senior director of cancer surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the analysis.

Around 3/4 of people under 50 already have advanced colorectal cancer when they’re diagnosed, “because they haven’t been screened through regular colonoscopies, and they don’t take their symptoms seriously, because they think they’re too young”, Siegel said.

Many people assume they have haemorrhoids, because that’s the first search result that comes up when you look up blood in stool. Costley, the woman who inspired Lynch to get checked out and has since passed away from the cancer, told Today that she too thought she probably had haemorrhoids and “ignored it”.

Siegel urges anyone who is experiencing rectal bleeding for more than a couple weeks to see their doctor immediately. For people without symptoms that want to get screened, stool tests like Cologuard and the FIT test are a good way to rule out potential cancer for people who don’t want to get a colonoscopy right away, she added.

For people over age 65 colorectal cancer is “continuing to decline rapidly by more than two percent a year”, Siegel said, whereas for younger people, it’s jumped from the fifth to the first leading cause of cancer death since the 1990s.

This also means that doctors who treat colorectal cancer need to learn how to address the needs of a younger population.

“Doctors are used to treating people in their 70s who aren’t concerned about fertility. They’re not as concerned about sexual dysfunction,” Siegel explained. “There are so many surveys that report that young survivors find out that they can’t have children after their treatment is already finished.”

Siegel also emphasized that doctors should discuss what options might be possible to preserve fertility and sexual function before treatment begins.

Experts aren’t yet sure why colorectal cancer has risen in younger people, but Siegel said it’s an example of the “birth cohort effect”. That people born after the 1950s face heightened risk “tells us that there was some exposure, some risk factor that was introduced in the middle of the 20th century that’s increasing our risk of this disease”, Siegel said, “and it’s increasing the risk more and more with every subsequent generation.”

Many are looking to changes in the food supply for answers. Increased consumption of processed foods, processed meats and foods packaged in plastic are all possible, not proven, contributors.

“We now know microplastics can cross the blood–brain barrier, so the colon is clearly being exposed,” Siegel said.

Some populations are more at risk than others. Alaska Natives have the highest documented colorectal cancer mortality in the world, but Siegel said that, because the total number of Alaska Natives is so small, it’s hard to get funding to study why.

“Their rates are so extraordinarily high … if there could just be some funding dedicated to that topic, I think it would be pretty easy to figure that one out,” Siegel said, adding that understanding why Alaska Natives are more at risk might also help unlock the reason why young people’s general risk is increasing.

Known lifestyle factors, like inactivity, obesity and alcohol consumption do not fully explain the spike in diagnoses among young people.

Prosanta Chakrabarty, an evolutionary biologist based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, now 47, said he “was living a pretty clean, healthy life” and even getting annual colonoscopies, but was still diagnosed with advanced colon cancer in 2024. After going through 24 total rounds of chemotherapy over two different courses, he still has a floating tumor.

“There are so many things I didn’t realize were options,” Chakrabarty said, including “doing chemo forever.”

Both Chakrabarty and Lynch are public about their cancer to help get people past the “embarrassment” that hinders diagnosis. Lynch posted an AMA on Reddit about her cancer. Chakrabarty posted a video of himself walking through a giant, inflatable colon on Bluesky.

Lynch, who has been free of symptoms since receiving surgery but is still being closely monitored, said after Costley’s Instagram video helped her get her diagnosis, she feels obligated to do the same for others: “That’s part of why I agreed to an interview about my poop.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By nativeit 2026-03-1216:466 reply

    As a Multiple Sclerosis patient since I was a teenager, let me just say: all you “healthy diet” zealots aren’t helping. Your advice on which blended kale and gogi berry smoothie I should try is cringe and annoying. Normally, the person is right in front of me, and well-intentioned, so I typically smile and politely thank them with a non-committal gesture towards trying it someday.

    But since this is all one-party and relatively anonymous, I’d like to take the opportunity to tell everyone that unless you have a PhD or MD in a relevant field, your thoughts about fiber are irrelevant and unwelcome to anyone actually suffering from the disease(s) in question.

    • By achandra03 2026-03-1216:586 reply

      I think this is probably due to people suffering from the just-world fallacy. Most folks like to believe that if you do the right things and consume the right stuff you'll have a long and healthy life when the fact of the matter is that luck/randomness plays a much larger role in your health than most people would like to admit.

      • By dbspin 2026-03-1217:191 reply

        One hundred percent. I work in film, and recently had an argument with a friend around this point. He's incredibly healthy, and frequently works a large number of unsociable hours. I was pointing out that filmmaking hours make no concession for family or age. He'd convinced himself that he'll have no more difficulty doing 80 hour weeks in his forties and fifties than he does in his mid thirties, because he 'takes care of himself'. The implication being that everyone could work those hours if they just ate better and held multiple martial arts belts as he does. It was no use pointing out that he'd confused cause and effect.

        • By franktankbank 2026-03-1219:112 reply

          Certainly people work their way up and fade into a less strenuous role. Surely they don't just kick people to the curb. That would suck.

          • By dbspin 2026-03-130:02

            For set related jobs, the hours are the shoot. If the shoot runs long, everybody's on set. It's an exploitative - and in my view, completely unnecessary - culture. The marriages, parental relationships and health costs cannot be justified by the supposed necessity of dollar savings. But currently - especially in the US, film sets all to often work sweatshop hours. More enlightened practices, like 'French hours' (a ten hour day), are also possible. The films created under these conditions don't seem any worse, and the people involved are inarguably happier and healthier.

          • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-1221:27

            (Laughs in post 50 year old software developer)

      • By ericmcer 2026-03-1217:41

        You can control your luck a bit though. Granted you could be in perfect health but roll a 1 five times in a row and get a heart attack when you are 40. Or you could be crushing junk food and alcohol but you just keep rolling 6s and make it to 80.

        If you look at the sequence of events that happen to trigger a heart attack, it becomes really clear how big a role luck is, but still you can mitigate each step. Studying this stuff also makes your body seem like a walking time bomb.

      • By furyofantares 2026-03-1221:461 reply

        That plus not realizing that dealing with your chronic illness can be as much or more than a full time job, and the people with them tend to know MOUNTAINS more than you do about it.

        • By swat535 2026-03-1313:36

          Yes, these are true, doing the right thing, eating well and taking caring of yourself is not a magical bullet.

          However it's irrefutable that exercising, sleeping and nutrition improves your health.

          Will it prevent you from ever getting cancer? no, but it sure helps.

          My mother passed away from cancer, she always exercised and took care of herself, it made the quality of her life much better. Looking back, she would have suffered much more had she not done that.

      • By Rebuff5007 2026-03-1217:301 reply

        I dont think this is right... most people I know care more about not doing the "wrong" thing than feeling entitled for doing the "right" thing.

        • By vizzier 2026-03-1217:37

          The issue often manifests in victim blaming. They assume that because something bad has happened to someone then the someone must be guilty of some transgression. Its often done on an unconscious level and we have to check ourselves that we're not doing it.

      • By nuodag 2026-03-1217:20

        You’re probably right but it’s also true that that is a very (probably unintended) cruel worldview that thought to the end claims all those suffering had it coming, and as such deserves to be called out and those having it should reconsider.

      • By imjonse 2026-03-1217:081 reply

        One should acknowledge the role genes/luck play in disease, while also admitting that there are a few foods about which there is more or less consensus they are very bad for your health. So you can roll your eyes if someone suggests eating kale sprouts will cure all your problems but don't just keep eating junk food as if the opposite of their take must be good.

        • By secstate 2026-03-1219:011 reply

          This. I'm as exhausted as anyone about the latest macro/micro nutrient diet. But also, when I binge on a bag of potato chips, I assume (correctly) that I'll feel like shit later. Calorie dense food that's easily procured and eaten to excess was not part of our evolutionary path up to now. Every individual person is a cornucopia of variables though too, and one persons perfect diet would kill someone else. So advice is hard to give out, but there are clearly some broad guidelines to eating and health that help you mitigate bad dice rolls.

          • By akramachamarei 2026-03-1219:301 reply

            > one persons perfect diet would kill someone else Besides allergies, that's not literally true, is it? Or would you say that allergies or severe intolerances are common enough that such dramatic diet fitness differences exist?

            • By secstate 2026-03-1221:30

              I think we're only beginning to appreciate just how sensitive our guts are to the abuse modern high-calorie food can dish out.

              Honestly, given the extent to which many people's diets consist primarily of bleached and re-enriched wheat separated from the germ or simply refined corn, I think there are many more people who are slowly poisoned by their diet than realize it.

              Yet there's plenty of hyperbole in my statement too. I don't think you could murder someone by making them eat your diet, unless it consisted of bags of broken glass.

    • By staticassertion 2026-03-1217:202 reply

      You're on a discussion forum where the topic is colon cancer. Surely you understand that people are going to discuss it?

      It's a bit hard to tell from your post what you're saying. Certainly I can imagine being annoyed by constantly being given health advice from layman. But this is... a forum.

      • By pdpi 2026-03-1218:032 reply

        There's a bazillion ways to discuss a topic that don't involve giving advice with unearned confidence. Even just saying "My experience is that doing X helped" instead of "You should do X" is a massive massive difference.

        • By Freedom2 2026-03-1218:251 reply

          One thing I've noticed is that Americans typically use the latter while conversing.

          • By pdpi 2026-03-1218:581 reply

            (Nearly) everybody does, it's not an American thing. It takes a bit of personal discipline to avoid it.

            • By Freedom2 2026-03-1220:58

              As someone who has worked in three different countries in a variety of positions, Americans conversed in that way in proportions far larger than other countries.

              Now this may be due to sampling on my end, but I did find the difference extraordinary when asking the same questions to different people.

        • By staticassertion 2026-03-1218:08

          That's fine. It's just unclear to me if the parent poster is being critical exclusively of people "irl" giving unsolicited advice or if they're speaking to the forum of users who come here explicitly to discuss topics like these.

          If it's the former, I'm ambivalent. I don't give advice as a general rule. If it's the latter, I find that totally silly.

    • By jancsika 2026-03-1217:291 reply

      > As a Multiple Sclerosis patient since I was a teenager, let me just say: all you “healthy diet” zealots aren’t helping.

      I don't understand the relevance to the article. Does Multiple Sclerosis come with a higher risk of colon cancer?

      • By Pxtl 2026-03-1221:24

        It's not about the article, its' about the flotilla of comments in this thread with unfounded layman "theories" about dietary changes that are the root cause rising colon cancer rates.

    • By logannyeMD 2026-03-1217:18

      I'll echo this by saying that, as someone who has their MD, there is much we simply do not know. We're always updating our priors and have much to base our decisions off of, but we simply do not understand many things. Medicine is out here winging it with the best of intentions, but there are no "experts" in the grand scheme of things.

    • By VladVladikoff 2026-03-1217:14

      But have you tried Kaleidoscopic Perennial Kale?? Not saying it will help at all but it sure looks cool! https://cicadaseeds.ca/products/perennial-kale-seeds-homeste...

    • By Jerrrrrrrry 2026-03-1217:11

      Lol your PhD got you this far, keep appealing to your PhD gods

  • By dham 2026-03-1216:054 reply

    They need to lower the screening to 40. I just had mine at 40, turned out fine luckily. Did it without sedation which my doctor said was rare in US, but common outside of US. I found surprising, wasn't that big of a deal. Pain was probably at a 7/10 during the turns (like 3 times) but ok the rest of the time. A little uncomfortable. Some new sensations, some familiar (feeling like you are crapping your pants).

    I walked in and walked out no issue and went on about my day. Prep was fine but would be hard if I didn't work at home.

    • By rootusrootus 2026-03-1216:231 reply

      With old school sedation I think it might be worth avoiding it. But with propofol you are out like a light, and then wake back up just as fast when they turn it off -- and it feels like you just had a nice nap. Aside from feeling a bit groggy for a few minutes, you just get up and walk out the door and go about your day. Personally, I do not think I'd volunteer for 7/10 pain just to avoid that.

      • By JKCalhoun 2026-03-1217:201 reply

        My first colonoscopy was without anesthesia, and it was as described above. A little uncomfortable on the one bend, but I don't even think I would put it at 7/10 (perhaps a 4 or 5—but not a sharp pain, mind you).

        Definitely enjoyed the following times with anesthesia because, of course 0/10 as far as I know. Also, anesthesia just trips my mind—how seemingly time travel (going forward in time) seems to be involved.

        • By archagon 2026-03-1220:341 reply

          Sounds a bit like the transnasal esophagoscopy I opted for recently in lieu of an upper endoscopy. Thin tube through nose, then down into the esophagus. Uncomfortable while threading it through (chest pain, like swallowing a sharp tortilla chip), but ultimately not a big deal, and done in-office in about 15 minutes.

          • By rootusrootus 2026-03-1318:29

            I may be getting one of those in the next few months. Just had a regular upper endoscopy for dysphagia, and they were unable to solve it or even conclusively identify a cause. They warned me that this transnasal procedure would be next. Sounds like fun...

    • By y-c-o-m-b 2026-03-1216:102 reply

      Which state did you have it done in if I may ask? I'm in Oregon and haven't been able to find a doc that does it without sedation. I can't be put under sedation for medical reasons, but I definitely need this procedure done sooner than later due to new GI problems.

      • By cstrahan 2026-03-1216:183 reply

        I had a colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (thankfully not in that order) without sedation. Had it done in D.C.

        My doc looked at me like I was crazy when I asked if it could be done without sedation, and reminded me that it would be uncomfortable, but otherwise didn't have any problem with it. I've endured 50k runs, brutal workouts, and traumatizing childhood neglect - I really can't see what the fuss is with mild discomfort that, by comparison, barely registers, and for such a short amount of time at that.

        • By nick__m 2026-03-1216:481 reply

          I too had esophagogastroduodenoscopy and the "sedation" I received as a barely noticeable dose of fentanyl. It was unpleasant to feel like I was drowning in saliva but it was quite bearable.

          If I ever receive that procedure again, I will ask to skip the fentanyl microdose. The anesthesia and the buzz were not only underwhelming but for some reasons I started to feel the typical opioid warmth when the procedure was almost completed. Had they waited a few minutes after the IM injection I might have had another opinion on the usefulness on fentanyl during endoscopie because the last 30s were almost pleasant!

        • By anonnon 2026-03-1222:01

          > I've endured 50k runs

          Did you see this? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/19/health/running-colon-canc...

          But I agree with you, I would only want this done if I could get it without sedation.

        • By dham 2026-03-1216:211 reply

          Yea most of the time it was discomfort but the turns were pretty high up there in pain. But that was only 3 times.

          • By rudhdb773b 2026-03-1216:55

            I don't really mind the pain itself, but I could see myself thinking the worst in that situation and imagining the strong pain meant the probe had punctured my colon.

            I assume that's not actually a realistic risk, right?

      • By dham 2026-03-1216:162 reply

        North Carolina. And I wasn't actually aware that some doctors wouldn't do until after I had it done (reading about it online). I just called before my appointment to say I didn't need sedation. They said ok and wrote it down. They weren't really pushy during the appointment other than asking me why I didn't want sedation.

        I thought it was going to be awkward but wasn't at all. We just chatted. It was him and an assistant. I was able to watch the TV of my colon while he was doing it.

        • By rootusrootus 2026-03-1216:251 reply

          For people who might be interested in following your advice, the conventional wisdom is that you should definitely look around when choosing the doctor. I.e. do not use a regular gastroenterologist who primarily does sedated colonoscopies, you want one who has experience with non-sedated ones. They have a better idea of what hurts and how to mitigate that.

          • By dham 2026-03-1222:00

            Yea good point. My doctor said he would see a non sedated like once every 2 weeks or so. Would be better to go to one that does it more frequently.

        • By ceedan 2026-03-1217:161 reply

          "They weren't really pushy during the appointment" (:

          • By dham 2026-03-1221:59

            haha, didn't catch that

    • By phainopepla2 2026-03-1216:351 reply

      Do you have specific risk factors that caused your doctor to recommend getting it at 40, or did you have to convince them? My understanding is that if the doctor doesn't order it, many insurance companies won't cover it.

      • By dham 2026-03-1222:02

        I had bleeding, light red, most likely from hemorrhoids (it was), but had a few other factors that the doctor took it seriously. The insurance didn't cover much as far as I know (or any?). Owed like $1800.

    • By gniv 2026-03-1216:273 reply

      The prep is by far the worst of it. I wish they could do it differently.

      • By geoffeg 2026-03-1216:36

        There's an option which doesn't involve drinking any yucky fluids, just water. SuTab. You have two rounds of twelve pills that you drink with three cups of water at various intervals.

      • By unsupp0rted 2026-03-1216:531 reply

        I've done it enough times that I'm totally fine with it: the electrolyte drink tastes like slightly bad-tasting Gatorade, which is hardly worth caring about.

        And you get diarrhea-like bathroom runs half a dozen times maybe.

        Yes it was annoying to get the runs and gross to drink the stuff the first few times, but people eat things like cow tongue or live octopus or whatever... I can handle some bad-tasting Gatorade and some diarrhea just fine, especially given the 5 years of peace-of-mind it buys me afterward.

        • By kimos 2026-03-1514:23

          People react differently. I took the same prep but the waves of nausea and cramping were so intensely painful I sweat through all my clothes and passed out on the toilet. It was some of the worst hours of my life. I’m just over 40 and have some symptoms to check which turned out to be benign, but it was such a harrowing experience I will be doing this as infrequently as possible.

      • By gavinray 2026-03-1216:33

        I had a colonoscopy + upper endocoscopy a few months ago, age 29.

        The prep was horrible, particularly the electrolyte drink they make you take the night before. I almost puked several times trying to get that stuff down.

        Actual procedure was a breeze. I was sedated, and then I woke up and it was over.

  • By kvgr 2026-03-1215:536 reply

    There is going to be some big AHA moment tied so couple food practices. Like washing chicken in chlorine or something. I wonder how are the stats in other developed countries. The title says US.

    • By imglorp 2026-03-1216:084 reply

      My money is on massive overexposure to high fructose corn syrup in the Western diet.

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9170474/

      • By normie3000 2026-03-1216:27

        > high fructose corn syrup in the Western diet

        US diet? Is corn syrup common elsewhere?

      • By freshpots 2026-03-1216:322 reply

        Sugar is 50:50 fructose:sugar and "high"-fructose sugar is 55:45. The slight difference in fructose:sugar between the two is not significant in terms of health outcomes, unless you mean sugar in general.

        • By luhn 2026-03-1217:241 reply

          I can't make sense of your comment, but whatever you're trying to get at is wrong: Table sugar is sucrose. Corn syrup is mostly glucose and contains no fructose. HFCS is commonly produced at 42% and 55% fructose formulations. I don't think HFCS is meaningfully more or less harmful than any other sugar, but chemically there's a significant difference.

          • By wpm 2026-03-1217:54

            Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of 1 glucose and 1 fructose molecule, so the GP comment is correct, sugar is 50:50 glucose and fructose.

        • By imglorp 2026-03-1216:541 reply

          It's partly the pervasiveness of that product because it's in fking everything in the US at least. Why is it in BREAD? https://www.thedailymeal.com/1306301/unhealthiest-store-boug...

          It's also the crazy amounts: we're accustomed to high levels of sweetness. Like 40g sugar in a can of soda.

          • By John23832 2026-03-1217:13

            It’s a humectant. And it subconsciously tastes good (yay capitalism).

      • By Anonasty 2026-03-1216:341 reply

        Western means the US in your context. Western europe does not have that or whatever we consider not "easter diet".

        • By OJFord 2026-03-1216:46

          Not Easter diet is also known as a low-cacoa diet.

      • By damnesian 2026-03-1216:094 reply

        lack of fiber is a biggie too. Foods too highly processed. too many oils.

        • By kvgr 2026-03-1222:151 reply

          I don’t know. Something about eating a lot of fiber. I cant do it for example. I eat some veggies, but probably not “enough” fiber compared to modern recommendations and i cant process it. I am doing OK without it from subjective perspective. Also i am interested how much nonsoluble fiber did regular people eat before modern vegetable and fruits. Potatoes and cabbage, wheat and some roots and max some berries max.

          Like where would the need for the fiber come from evolutionary.

          • By array_key_first 2026-03-133:57

            For most of humanity, humans are mostly plants and seeds. Meat was rare, because hunting is hard, and domesticated crops like grain are a new invention. Like, very new - 10,000 years.

            All those were very high in fiber. I believe it's estimated paleolithic humans are over 100 grams of fiber a day, whereas I believe the recommended intake today is 35 grams, which less than 2% of Americans meet.

            So yes, the Paleo diet is largely bullshit. No, humans did not eat fatty farmed meats. They barely ate meat at all.

        • By jabroni_salad 2026-03-1216:50

          I usually stay out of health convos because it's just not my wheelhouse, but I think most people would benefit from extra fiber. It has an obvious direct benefit to your life the very next time you use the bathroom. I don't know if it is the answer to the rise of colon cancer; this is well studied and seems really easy to work with? We would surely know already. But I do know it's worth doing irrespective of that.

        • By pibaker 2026-03-1219:40

          Maybe instead of processing food to add more protein into it — even Starbucks sells "protein drinks" now — they should process food to have more fiber instead.

        • By staticassertion 2026-03-1216:111 reply

          This is my personal bet. It's just low fiber diets.

          • By boringg 2026-03-1216:352 reply

            It can't just be low fiber diets - there has to be some other exposures involved.

            • By volkl48 2026-03-1217:57

              I mean, there's a well-documented link between colon cancer and inadequate fiber intake.

              And it's also well-documented that the average Western diet is highly deficient in fiber and that this is a thing which has gotten much worse in the last 75 years.

              There also seems to be at least some light evidence that there may be generational effects - that the starting point of your gut is already bad if your mother's was.

            • By staticassertion 2026-03-1216:421 reply

              Why?

              • By Jerrrrrrrry 2026-03-1217:092 reply

                Apt username from a person suggesting that non edible fiber is the nutrient causing illness and thats the presupposition we should argue against.

                Why would more fiber help?

                • By h4kr1 2026-03-1217:37

                  The mechanism behind why more fiber helps is pretty straightforward:

                  Insoluble fiber speeds up gut motility. Faster gut motility means less time for toxins to sit and absorb in your gut.

                  Also, fermentable fibers serve as substrate for gut microbes, producing short-chain fatty acids (butyrate is one - a primary fuel source for colonocytes - the cells that line your colon).

                  It also lowers colonic pH, inhibiting pathogenic bacteria.

                  Lastly, (although there are tons more benefits I'm not listing), soluble fiber is incredible for people trying to lose weight, as highly fibrous foods increase satiety, keeping you fuller for longer.

                • By staticassertion 2026-03-1217:131 reply

                  Uh, what? I have not made a presuppositional argument (I made no argument at all...). I made a statement about my epistemic state - ie: that I would "bet" on low fiber being the major contributor to colon cancer rates. Someone then asserted that it can't be that, and I asked "why?".

                  > Why would more fiber help?

                  Because there is an incredible amount of research into high fiber diets being good for your gut, including reduced colon cancer rates. This is the consensus of various organizations such as WHO - high fiber diets have lower risks of colon cancer.

                  • By boringg 2026-03-1217:361 reply

                    My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets. There are a lot of other risk factors involved. Will high fiber help - absolutely. Is it the be all end all - no I doubt it.

                    Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.

                    • By staticassertion 2026-03-1217:432 reply

                      > My comment is that it is not ONLY low fiber diets.

                      Well, you said "can't" and I asked "why", which feels very reasonable to me. Your argument seems to be that it wouldn't account properly for the data - specifically, you're saying we would have seen colon cancer rates rise earlier.

                      > Western diet collapsed its fiber intake well over 80 years ago - it would have shown up already.

                      I don't really buy this for a lot of reasons. Probably the two most important are (a) ability to screen historically and (b) the timing isn't particularly "off" for the fiber argument. We did see it already, we've been seeing increases in color cancer risks for decades.

                      Now, I'm not married to it "just" being fiber whatsoever, but if I were to "bet" on the major contributing factor, naively, that's where my money would go. I think it's very reasonable to not place your bet there.

                      • By kvgr 2026-03-1222:202 reply

                        Yeah, i wonder what was the fiber i take for someone from egypt or hunter gatherers. I get it that in our modern diet, fiber is better than sugar and plastic stuff made in factories combining oils and sugar into something that looks like food. But if a person is regular and does not have any gut issues, how would more fiber help?

                        • By staticassertion 2026-03-132:34

                          > Yeah, i wonder what was the fiber i take for someone from egypt or hunter gatherers.

                          Very high.

                          > But if a person is regular and does not have any gut issues, how would more fiber help?

                          There is a ton of research about this and it's why WHO and other orgs state explicitly that fiber reduces rates of colon cancer.

                        • By Jerrrrrrrry 2026-03-1311:501 reply

                          99% of humans ate meat, amd fruits occasionally.

                          Fiber does nothing.

                          • By staticassertion 2026-03-1312:561 reply

                            lol this is such utter bullshit? I'm blown away by how confidently stated and how utterly incorrect this is.

                            1. Ancient egyptians ate fucktons of wheat and barley, lentils, chickpeas, etc. They ate massive amounts of fiber lol I mean holy fuck I just can't believe how wrong you are?

                            2. Fiber is very, very well understood by ALL health organizations to be preventative for colon cancer.

                            • By boringg 2026-03-1313:371 reply

                              You shouldn't feed the trolls.

                              • By staticassertion 2026-03-1314:34

                                Maybe, but the person they're responding to seemed to be genuine in their question, and I worry that they'll read a statement like "they mostly ate meat" and think it's plausible when it's insanely incorrect.

                      • By boringg 2026-03-1218:061 reply

                        Should be a betting service for this kind of thing instead of sports betting. Maybe all the men betting sports might read and change their habits based on the betting outcomes (and improve their health).

                        I would also bet top reason is fiber but it isn't the only reason - multiple factors at play.

    • By taeric 2026-03-1216:132 reply

      The trend has been down, even for this cancer. Such that I agree there were probably some big AHA moments. But I assert they almost certainly happened 50 years ago.

      My expectation is that it is less that there has been a growing trend of this cancer getting worse, and far more that we have gotten better at many other cancers. That is, overall, this is good news on progress. Not a scare headline.

      • By doubled112 2026-03-1216:53

        I grew up in a fairly industrial area with lots of trades people around me. From my anecdata, I'd suspect you're right. We know more about some cancers and the causes and they are easier to prevent.

        The choices, personal or otherwise, I have seen can't be good for your body, and some you're simply not allowed to make anymore.

        Ironically, sitting on this laptop typing this might be as bad, but win some/lose some.

        But some obvious examples?

        Ever dip a shirt in benzene because it cools you down? Apparently it feels like Vicks, but doesn't leave that sticky feeling behind.

        A good portion drank 6+ beers a day. I know they must have eaten, but some I never saw consume food. At all.

        Some smoked a pack or two of cigarettes a day. Asbestos was in everything.

        There was no ventilation/filtration for welders, painters, woodworkers, etc. If you could open the shop door it was a good day.

      • By vharuck 2026-03-1217:041 reply

        The trend has been upwards for invasive colorectal cancer among US residents under 50:

        https://seer.cancer.gov/statistics-network/explorer/applicat...

        • By taeric 2026-03-1217:131 reply

          It has ticked up 1-2 per 100k over the past few decades for that group. Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise.

          By all means, we should study this more. But the way folks are talking about this is a touch nuts.

          • By vharuck 2026-03-1219:011 reply

            It went up by 4 per 100k. And, since it was at 6 in 2000, that's a large increase.

            >Zoom the chart out, and you would probably be excused for assuming it is flat with some noise.

            That's true of all cancers, if not all statistics.

            The concern here is two-fold:

            (1) The people under 50 now will be over 50 in a decade or so. We can already see that the trend of colorectal cancer among those aged 50 to 64 was decreasing until 2012, but had since gone up. This will likely get worse. Early onset colorectal cancer is a canary in the coalmine.

            (2) Unless this trend is caused by a specific chemical exposure or a purely dietary reason, the behavior/lifestyle/health conditions behind it are likely to lead to other types of cancers. Obesity and lack of exercise have been linked to a lot of cancers. I'm worried about losing progress across the board when these young people reach their 60s.

            • By taeric 2026-03-1219:42

              It was not true of all cancers two decades ago. Which is largely my point. Things are better than they were 50 years ago. Including this. Should we try and make sure we don't reverse that progress? Absolutely.

              And it is notable that this research largely pointed to genetics as being ~20% of the cases of early onset results. That combined with how it presents in a very different way from older patients seems to point to us also getting better at spotting it.

              All of which is good! It is progress. And I hope we get even better at it.

              If you are merely noting it as a concern for "things to continue to watch," I'm fully with you. Read the rest of the comments on this post, though. Tons of people pointing at things that just don't present in the evidence. Fear that we will find that one killer ingredient/process to explain the uptick here; all while failing to acknowledge that we did find many such problems in the past and have made quite astounding progress on it.

    • By toraway 2026-03-1219:15

      That seems like wishful thinking, IMO. Seems more likely we will find it’s due a complex constellation of genetics, diet, lifestyle factors like exercise, environmental exposure, etc associated eith a modern sedentary lifestyle with no clear smoking gun or single preventative intervention.

      It sort of reminds me of when Lesswrong was fixated on a hypothesis that lithium levels in the water supply was the cause of the obesity epidemic. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the idea at the time, and somewhat understandably as it would have been a single variable that could be tweaked for massive societal benefits.

      But there wasn’t really any credible evidence to support it. Trying to reduce the complexity of human biology and lifestyle to single cause/effect relationship is an easy and tempting trap to fall into to explain unknowns in medicine.

    • By leetrout 2026-03-1216:05

      I had no clue this was a thing. Thanks for sharing your thought...

      I think it's a combination of our pesticide usage and general food processing but like a sibling said these are educated guesses.

    • By zvqcMMV6Zcr 2026-03-1216:121 reply

      My bet is on low-fiber diet and people spending half hour playing with phone instead of getting up from toilet.

      • By askonomm 2026-03-1216:312 reply

        Why would me sitting down cause colon cancer?

        • By toraway 2026-03-1219:24

          Not saying it’s actually linked to cancer but it definitely does increase the risk of hemorrhoids, rectal prolapse and bleeding from straining. Which could mean chronic stress at a cellular level repairing damage over the long term.

        • By nativeit 2026-03-1216:42

          Because anything that allows another person to look down on you and feel superior must therefore be true and moral.

    • By hombre_fatal 2026-03-1216:171 reply

      > An estimated 95% of American adults and children fail to meet daily fiber recommendations, with intake often falling below 10 grams per 1,000 calories consumed

      It's tempting to focus on some magic bad ingredient/practice to explain our bad health (like seed oils), but we don't exercise, we eat directly against dietary guidelines, and we eat foods that we know are bad for us.

      Now add on to that the social media grifters and industry advocates who tell you that eating poorly is good for you.

      I don't blame individuals just trying to live their life though. This is how we've let our whole food environment set up shop.

      • By NotGMan 2026-03-1216:201 reply

        Focusing on fiber while leaving out glyphosate, sugar etc... is myopic.

        • By hombre_fatal 2026-03-1216:23

          I don't think I need to enumerate every way our diets are bad in an HN comment, do I? You didn't even want to do it and you're the one gunning for it.

          But processed meat consumption would be another good example of where we happily eat against dietary guidelines despite its link with colorectal cancer.

HackerNews