There isn't a single cause for acne. It's super hard to diagnose, and super hard to treat. If only it were as simple as hormones=acne, we would have cured it by now. Plenty of hormonal treatments do exist. Many people have both treated and cured their acne using diet as a tool. Many have also used accutane, antibiotics, hormonal treatments like birth control or herbs, and topicals. It's hard to generalize when it comes to acne.

One has only to look so far as observation to understand that acne isn't something that 'just happens'. Many groups of people all around the world do not suffer from acne at all. Often, immigrants moving from one area to another will gain or lose their acne. Environment has much to do with this malady, and I don't doubt that some sort of diet can (almost) completely prevent it from happening. However, I do doubt that a diet can always cure acne.

Some people believe that they can only believe accepted science. Being a scientist, I would advise others not to do so. Science is wrong many times before it is right. Look at heart disease. We thought it was caused by eating too many eggs, because eggs have cholesterol in them, and atherosclerotic lesions have cholesterol in them. We are now beginning to understand that dietary cholesterol has almost no impact on hard disease, and that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease at all; in fact, it's more likely to be the bread that you eat, which spikes blood sugar, thus damaging blood vessels and allowing oxidized cholesterol to embed itself beneath the tissue. In short, we were wrong, and for such a long time too. We're wrong about dandruff, acid reflux, and a host of other diseases as well. Because if we were right, we would know how to cure instead of simply how to treat.

It's in the hands of people to figure out what's wrong with them when nothing else works. Because until science catches up, that's the best we can do.

As a "scientist" shouldn't you know that there is a strong hereditary component to cystic acne? my father had Acne Conglobata and so did all three of my half brothers (his kids) and I got an aggressive strain of acne as well (though not conglobata, but still very severe). All of us developed this at exactly the same age at 11 years old. Do you really think that's environmental? ha! genetics have the strongest pull on everything.

What's your theory to explain those of us who have NO acne in their family line? Neither my mother or father, nor any of my aunts and uncles or grandparents on either side have acne. None of them had it as teens either. No one else in my family (including all cousins) has it like I do. Not ONE person.

A mutation.

A mutation would certainly be possible, but the chances of the exact mutation occurring in order for acne to go from not happening to happening is incredibly low. Pair this with the observation that acne is ubiquitous across populations (except for a select few areas), and it becomes more likely that other factors are leading to this person's acne. Genes are not the only responsible factor. I'll cite again the idea that someone without acne can move from one culture to another and suddenly experience acne, purely due to environmental factors. Of course, that person would have the genes required for their acne to be triggered, but it is the situation that determines its appearance, not solely genetic makeup, much like almost all human diseases.

I had been to see the European Leading Dermatologist in acne who explained to me how acne is formed and how it ceases. We all know how acne forms, that's simple - it's our sebacious glands reaction to testosterone in the body that causes the gland to produce sticky sebum where skin cells get caught up inside creating a plug, inside that plug p.acnes reproduce , the body creates an immune response - inflammation etc - acne.

The interesting thing is how acne ceases.

He explained that your body eventually produces a T-cell which ceases the bodies inflammatory response to acne. The trouble is no-one knows how or when this will happen. This is why some people grow out of it and some don't. It can be induced with medication/treatment etc.

The thing I don't understand is how some people can go from being in remission to having acne again. Hmm.

I had been to see the European Leading Dermatologist in acne who explained to me how acne is formed and how it ceases. We all know how acne forms, that's simple - it's our sebacious glands reaction to testosterone in the body that causes the gland to produce sticky sebum where skin cells get caught up inside creating a plug, inside that plug p.acnes reproduce , the body creates an immune response - inflammation etc - acne.

The interesting thing is how acne ceases.

He explained that your body eventually produces a T-cell which ceases the bodies inflammatory response to acne. The trouble is no-one knows how or when this will happen. This is why some people grow out of it and some don't. It can be induced with medication/treatment etc.

The thing I don't understand is how some people can go from being in remission to having acne again. Hmm.

Are you suggesting an autoimmune component to acne? That I somewhat agree on.

I suppose to an extent. I don't want to pretend I know everything about acne or anything, that's just what I was told. I suppose it makes sense at least in my case as I have enjoyed remission of my disease and I have never used roaccutane, only antibiotics, gels, peels etc.

It doesn't really make much sense that it can go away and come back again and come back a lot worse. My Derm seemed to think in my case it is linked to the adrenal glands but who knows, sadly whatever the cause of it treatments still remain the same.

Probably off topic somewhat but my Derm also took me off of Yasmin BC as he said that although it might clear me up a bit the problem with birth controls is they influence a certain enzyme expression and once this is taken away it's likely your face will explode. I know Dejaclairevoyant took birthcontrol so I don't know if this is the reason why she is breaking out. No idea. Just throwing in some (I'm sorry) rather vague ideas there. I haven't seen my Derm since Feb but going back in May.

I had been to see the European Leading Dermatologist in acne who explained to me how acne is formed and how it ceases. We all know how acne forms, that's simple - it's our sebacious glands reaction to testosterone in the body that causes the gland to produce sticky sebum where skin cells get caught up inside creating a plug, inside that plug p.acnes reproduce , the body creates an immune response - inflammation etc - acne.

The interesting thing is how acne ceases.

He explained that your body eventually produces a T-cell which ceases the bodies inflammatory response to acne. The trouble is no-one knows how or when this will happen. This is why some people grow out of it and some don't. It can be induced with medication/treatment etc.

The thing I don't understand is how some people can go from being in remission to having acne again. Hmm.

I think we have this mindset of acne being a disease, and not a symptom. It isn't like cancer, which can go into remission. It's a trained response of the body to something that goes wrong. That something can be many things. If that something comes back, the acne can surely follow.

Just like most diseases, acne is mediated by the immune system. All that white pus after all is just a bunch of leukocytes.

I'd have to disagree with you there. I believe acne is a disease. But then regardless of whether it is a symptom of something else or not treatment of it is the same.

There's always a danger that can send people running off trying to find some secret fault in their body but 9 times out of 10 it is genetics. It's just a genetic predisposition to react in a certain way. I accept in some instances it can be a reaction to certain food allergies but for the majority of people it's genes.

*Hugs*

Acne and pimples can be avoided by those who devour greasy pizza daily, rarely wash their face and use make-up with dirty sponges and utensils, yet strike those who follow strict regimes and clean diets and do everything in their power to avoid it. I'm sorry you have to go through this, and it is not your fault.

If you become pregnant (hopefully I don't for another like, 12 years, haha) people suddenly become perinatal and postnatal experts, issuing their two cents about breast feeding and diet and the right and wrong ways to parent as though they were Dr. Phil. My friend, who is healthier and more athletic than anyone else I know, was diagnosed with cancer in her late teens and quickly told people who said if she were vegan, lived a healthy lifestyle free of toxins that this would have never happened - when she was all of those things already. If you develop depression, loved ones may guide you to and far away from therapy and recommend or discourage antidepressants. My point is that, with every medical issue and everything concerning our bodies, there are always going to be uninformed people issuing their two cents. This is only truly detrimental when the information is presented factually and can have dangerous ramifications. You're realising that some of the stuff you are stumbling upon is ignorant, but there are also a lot of golden nuggets of wisdom hidden among the imbeciles. I'm willing to bargain that the golden nuggets outweigh the imbeciles.

Try to take a step back and see if people are really ignorant, or just trying to help, or a mixture of both. Changing your pillow case regularly, and using a shower filter, and switching your cleanser are all things that are going to help someone who's acne is an occasional pimple and isn't intense and persistent. A lot of the things that are being reiterated are wives tales that have plagued peoples minds for centuries before us and centuries to come.

Don't let these comments be taken to heart. Most are well-intentioned, even if admittedly.... ignorant.

A mutation would certainly be possible, but the chances of the exact mutation occurring in order for acne to go from not happening to happening is incredibly low. Pair this with the observation that acne is ubiquitous across populations (except for a select few areas), and it becomes more likely that other factors are leading to this person's acne. Genes are not the only responsible factor. I'll cite again the idea that someone without acne can move from one culture to another and suddenly experience acne, purely due to environmental factors. Of course, that person would have the genes required for their acne to be triggered, but it is the situation that determines its appearance, not solely genetic makeup, much like almost all human diseases.

I agree. I just wanted to see what you guys would say. I think my skin problems are long-term manifestations of the damage that happens to the body from years and years of severe stress and damaging my body by eating foods I was intolerant to. That is where it gets complicated for me because I do have real, legit food intolerances to gluten and soy. But that was one factor in a huge mess of other health problems, severe emotional problems and blockages.

I didn't have a normal childhood. I was very stressed, every single day. I puked almost every morning before school. I cried myself to sleep every night. I lived in constant stress. If I had to explain a root to all my health problems, I'd sum it up in one word: childhood. I'm sure there is some genetic component to everything, but I know deep down that the stress in my life caused many of my problems. How could a child possibly grow up to be healthy and develop properly when they are living that way? Now add the years of malnutrition that I suffered from my celiac disease and it isn't surprising that I am where I am today.

Having faced food issues in my lifetime I can relate to the post. Although most people come from loving intentions it can certainly have an adverse effect on some people. Especially when people get into analysis paralysis about what you can or can't eat. Before you know it you've analyzed yourself out of the bloody kitchen and I know the extremes it can take you. Keep the faith, keep on keeping on God bless

If diet caused acne, I think 99% of the population would have it severely. Most of my friends eat dreadfully (McDonald's everyday, sometimes twice a day) and they have absolutely flawless skin, not a single blemish. I personally have a well-balanced diet, limited sugar and drink only water - my skin is oily, dry, really sensitive and I break out with disgusting whiteheads.

So no, it's not always diet, but it may be for some. I could eat anything and my acne wouldn't get any better or worse, it's constantly the same regardless of my intake of alcohol or food.

In my case it is genetics.

I'm beginning to see that many people seem to be mistaking a genetic cause for a genetic trigger. What I mean by this is that many assume acne to be a purely genetic condition they can do nothing about except slather on benzoyl peroxide or slay their stem cells with accutane. People observe that others can do whatever they want to their bodies, and suffer no consequences (at least in terms of acne). They conclude that genes must be the sole cause.

It is likely that genes are involved. It is not likely that they are the sole cause (though it is possible, just like most things are when it comes to genes). There is a reason for the consideration of acne as a disease of affluence, and there is a reason that it does not appear in many cultural groups at all. Whereas the incidence of acne in America nears 100% in adolescence, it nears or is equal to 0% in numerous hunter-gatherer tribes.

The ubiquity of acne across cultures that adopt similar lifestyles points to its origin not as an unfortunate mutation that afflicts only a few ethnic groups, but as a beneficial mutation that potentially increased social survival rate, likely occurring before emigration from Africa. One might say that this is contrary to logic. I might say again that acne should not be viewed as a disease, but as a symptom.

Smallpox, for example. Red spots on the body are not directly caused by infection. Red spots are caused by your body in order to warn others to stay away. This is a similar trait shared by many diseases. It makes sense that acne should be more sever shortly before or during menstruation. Why does PMS exist? It makes sense that, if you have some form of dysbiosis, you would have acne. You wouldn't want to spread that to the rest of your tribe, and neither perhaps (depending on severity) are you fit to have intimate social interactions that have further consequences, such as childbearing.

Yes, there is a genetic trigger. There is a genetic reason for everything we observe about the human body, whether it be by genetic regulation or by genetic change. But that is a far cry from a direct genetic cause. It might even be likely that the entire population shares the 'acne' gene, but the ones who eat garbage and have flawless skin have a mutated protein that is upregulated in response to sebaceous androgen binding that inhibits an inflammatory secondary response. Many things could change. But what we can understand should be based on observation, and reasonable extrapolation.

I'm beginning to see that many people seem to be mistaking a genetic cause for a genetic trigger. What I mean by this is that many assume acne to be a purely genetic condition they can do nothing about except slather on benzoyl peroxide or slay their stem cells with accutane. People observe that others can do whatever they want to their bodies, and suffer no consequences (at least in terms of acne). They conclude that genes must be the sole cause.

It is likely that genes are involved. It is not likely that they are the sole cause (though it is possible, just like most things are when it comes to genes). There is a reason for the consideration of acne as a disease of affluence, and there is a reason that it does not appear in many cultural groups at all. Whereas the incidence of acne in America nears 100% in adolescence, it nears or is equal to 0% in numerous hunter-gatherer tribes.

The ubiquity of acne across cultures that adopt similar lifestyles points to its origin not as an unfortunate mutation that afflicts only a few ethnic groups, but as a beneficial mutation that potentially increased social survival rate, likely occurring before emigration from Africa. One might say that this is contrary to logic. I might say again that acne should not be viewed as a disease, but as a symptom.

Smallpox, for example. Red spots on the body are not directly caused by infection. Red spots are caused by your body in order to warn others to stay away. This is a similar trait shared by many diseases. It makes sense that acne should be more sever shortly before or during menstruation. Why does PMS exist? It makes sense that, if you have some form of dysbiosis, you would have acne. You wouldn't want to spread that to the rest of your tribe, and neither perhaps (depending on severity) are you fit to have intimate social interactions that have further consequences, such as childbearing.

Yes, there is a genetic trigger. There is a genetic reason for everything we observe about the human body, whether it be by genetic regulation or by genetic change. But that is a far cry from a direct genetic cause. It might even be likely that the entire population shares the 'acne' gene, but the ones who eat garbage and have flawless skin have a mutated protein that is upregulated in response to sebaceous androgen binding that inhibits an inflammatory secondary response. Many things could change. But what we can understand should be based on observation, and reasonable extrapolation.

Hmm, with regards to the hunter-gatherer tribes you speak of; they have interbred with no exposure to foreigners meaning no exposure to the disease. In fact, acne does not discriminate and effects all races, rich and poor (bar the odd few tribes who have never been exposed to it). Regardless of genetic trigger or none, symptom of something or not - treatment of the disease is the same. Even if you could pinpoint the exact reason why acne was happening to you (unless you're allergic to a food group) there's nothing you could do anyway.

Once that gene has been triggered there's nothing you can do to stop it. There's just the arsenal of medication that is available to us currently. No-one wants to take roaccutane or slather themselves with BP but what choice do we have? It's not our fault that we suffer with acne. It just happened.

It's more than just hunter-gatherer tribes. A few studies have been done in this regard. Here are links to two of the more well known articles:

http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=479093

http://www.popline.org/node/487887

First: Absence of acne in Kitavan tribespeople (which may be due to inbreeding as you said), and hunter-gatherers of Paraguay (which are likely not due to inbreeding for a number of reasons, partly because of location and radiation out of Africa timeframe). In the introduction, it mentions several studies looking at the people of Okinawa (certainly not genetically isolated), rural Brazilian schoolchildren (2.7% acne, not isolated, but different lifestyle). Acne was obtained by the Zulu in South Africa only when they moved to villages or cities.

Second: Eskimos obtained acne when they moved from their nomadic lifestyle to a western lifestyle.

Treatment of acne is changing, still, as we learn more about its pathology. And we still don't know everything. Once we do, I'm sure acne will become completely curable. Gene expression changes all the time, so there must be ways to undo it. After all, we've cured cancer before, and that's the definition of unstoppable changes in genes. I don't blame anyone for embracing these treatments that we have - I'm using BP right now. I think BP is useful for treating acne, but my opinion doesn't change facts.

i too for many many years believed my acne was related to my diet. i have tried cutting out everything and guess what i still had acne at 35 years old. the last 16 years of not eating this or not eating that has given me a paranoia about food in the sense that i cant go out and eat pizza or have a piece of cake or ice cream for fear that my acne will get really bad. in reality i know its all hormones for me because my skin always breaks out right before my period no matter what i did. so now i am on spironolactone and am finishing off a course of keflex as well as i use benzaclin daily and that has done more for me than changing up my diet ever did. i am 5'5" and used to weight around 132 but i now weigh 116 because i still cant let myself eat dairy or gluten or even eggs for that matter as well as sugar. i kept blaming myself for something that i have no control over and now i know that the only thing i can do is just try to eat healthy and not stress too much about food as well as to take good care of myself by working out and getting enough sleep. i do agree diet can help some people but its definitley not the be all and end all of acne. if it was i would have the best skin thats for sure!

I'm beginning to see that many people seem to be mistaking a genetic cause for a genetic trigger. What I mean by this is that many assume acne to be a purely genetic condition they can do nothing about except slather on benzoyl peroxide or slay their stem cells with accutane. People observe that others can do whatever they want to their bodies, and suffer no consequences (at least in terms of acne). They conclude that genes must be the sole cause.

It is likely that genes are involved. It is not likely that they are the sole cause (though it is possible, just like most things are when it comes to genes). There is a reason for the consideration of acne as a disease of affluence, and there is a reason that it does not appear in many cultural groups at all. Whereas the incidence of acne in America nears 100% in adolescence, it nears or is equal to 0% in numerous hunter-gatherer tribes.

The ubiquity of acne across cultures that adopt similar lifestyles points to its origin not as an unfortunate mutation that afflicts only a few ethnic groups, but as a beneficial mutation that potentially increased social survival rate, likely occurring before emigration from Africa. One might say that this is contrary to logic. I might say again that acne should not be viewed as a disease, but as a symptom.

Smallpox, for example. Red spots on the body are not directly caused by infection. Red spots are caused by your body in order to warn others to stay away. This is a similar trait shared by many diseases. It makes sense that acne should be more sever shortly before or during menstruation. Why does PMS exist? It makes sense that, if you have some form of dysbiosis, you would have acne. You wouldn't want to spread that to the rest of your tribe, and neither perhaps (depending on severity) are you fit to have intimate social interactions that have further consequences, such as childbearing.

Yes, there is a genetic trigger. There is a genetic reason for everything we observe about the human body, whether it be by genetic regulation or by genetic change. But that is a far cry from a direct genetic cause. It might even be likely that the entire population shares the 'acne' gene, but the ones who eat garbage and have flawless skin have a mutated protein that is upregulated in response to sebaceous androgen binding that inhibits an inflammatory secondary response. Many things could change. But what we can understand should be based on observation, and reasonable extrapolation.

I think most of us would rather opt for the hollistic route as opposed to slathering on chemicals that burn our skin or intaking Isotretinoin and dealing with the harsh side effects - the problem is that hollistics don't always work for treating aggressive acne unfortunately. Aggressive disorders require aggressive treatment. What I'm saying is it's not as simple "as an apple a day" ... otherwise Acne.org wouldn't exist.

I understand your reasoning behind your belief that acne is an inflammatory response to some other problem in the body, but this isn't always the case. Very rarely it can be, but not for me and most of the people here. Sometimes it's idiopathic without a trigger.

As far as tribes that don't have acne, etc. It could very much be that they are free of the stress of Western lifestyle versus the Western diet (or both).

I'm beginning to see that many people seem to be mistaking a genetic cause for a genetic trigger. What I mean by this is that many assume acne to be a purely genetic condition they can do nothing about except slather on benzoyl peroxide or slay their stem cells with accutane. People observe that others can do whatever they want to their bodies, and suffer no consequences (at least in terms of acne). They conclude that genes must be the sole cause.

It is likely that genes are involved. It is not likely that they are the sole cause (though it is possible, just like most things are when it comes to genes). There is a reason for the consideration of acne as a disease of affluence, and there is a reason that it does not appear in many cultural groups at all. Whereas the incidence of acne in America nears 100% in adolescence, it nears or is equal to 0% in numerous hunter-gatherer tribes.

The ubiquity of acne across cultures that adopt similar lifestyles points to its origin not as an unfortunate mutation that afflicts only a few ethnic groups, but as a beneficial mutation that potentially increased social survival rate, likely occurring before emigration from Africa. One might say that this is contrary to logic. I might say again that acne should not be viewed as a disease, but as a symptom.

Smallpox, for example. Red spots on the body are not directly caused by infection. Red spots are caused by your body in order to warn others to stay away. This is a similar trait shared by many diseases. It makes sense that acne should be more sever shortly before or during menstruation. Why does PMS exist? It makes sense that, if you have some form of dysbiosis, you would have acne. You wouldn't want to spread that to the rest of your tribe, and neither perhaps (depending on severity) are you fit to have intimate social interactions that have further consequences, such as childbearing.

Yes, there is a genetic trigger. There is a genetic reason for everything we observe about the human body, whether it be by genetic regulation or by genetic change. But that is a far cry from a direct genetic cause. It might even be likely that the entire population shares the 'acne' gene, but the ones who eat garbage and have flawless skin have a mutated protein that is upregulated in response to sebaceous androgen binding that inhibits an inflammatory secondary response. Many things could change. But what we can understand should be based on observation, and reasonable extrapolation.

Hmm, with regards to the hunter-gatherer tribes you speak of; they have interbred with no exposure to foreigners meaning no exposure to the disease. In fact, acne does not discriminate and effects all races, rich and poor (bar the odd few tribes who have never been exposed to it). Regardless of genetic trigger or none, symptom of something or not - treatment of the disease is the same. Even if you could pinpoint the exact reason why acne was happening to you (unless you're allergic to a food group) there's nothing you could do anyway.

Once that gene has been triggered there's nothing you can do to stop it. There's just the arsenal of medication that is available to us currently. No-one wants to take roaccutane or slather themselves with BP but what choice do we have? It's not our fault that we suffer with acne. It just happened.

Agreed. Acne does not discriminate just as Cancer does not discriminate; it can occur in anyone regardless of race, bodyweight, location, diet ect.

I think what that other poster is trying to bring to the table is that the reason why we're experiencing acne as opposed to the nomadic tribesmen (or whatever) is because of our "unnatural western diet" and how that triggers us to break out. Sigh.. I've said this before - not everyone on this site is from "America" or the "West" and many, many posters here have exceptionally healthy eating habits and eat all around clean and natural.

I understand what he's trying to "dig at" but it just doesn't fly as we were all raised in different environments yet all of us here are regardless experiencing acne. It's unlikely that it's environmental.

Cancer does discriminate, mostly. The majority (90%) of cancers occur because of environmental influences. Unlike what I propose for acne pathogenesis, this is accepted by the scientific community.

I think cancer is actually a really good example of what I'm talking about. Many think it's purely genetic and there isn't anything we can do about it. There are cases where genetics play a large role (BRCA mutants have between a 75 and 90% chance of getting breast cancer). But even these cases are not absolute. If you have a BRCA mutation, you are not bound to get cancer. In the 90% of cancer cases that occur in the absence of mutations like BRCA, environmental factors like smoking, drinking, and diet are the driving causes of cancer.

I think you're 100% right to say that acne is much more complicated than eating an apple a day. And I think you're 100% right to say that changing diet will not help everyone. I've done diet changes. They did NOT help me. I'm using benzoyl peroxide. It IS helping me. Be we have to be careful when we look at these observations not to draw erroneous conclusions.

(Just going to add in here that the concept of healthy varies dramatically from person to person. For some it could be whole grains. For others, whole grains are equivalent to unimaginable pain. I have yet to see an example of hunter gatherers suffering from acne. If someone could find one for me, I would gladly take it into consideration. I build my opinions on observations, and freely let them go when the facts are found to be contrary. Also, someone mentioned stress, and I have no doubt that stress is a factor in acne. The eskimo example, though, did not seem to show a significant increase in stress, while a drastic change in diet was induced).

Acne is a highly complicated disorder. There is no single cause. At the moment, there is no single cure. But by considering all angles, we come to a greater understanding of our affliction.

Cancer does discriminate, mostly. The majority (90%) of cancers occur because of environmental influences. Unlike what I propose for acne pathogenesis, this is accepted by the scientific community.

I think cancer is actually a really good example of what I'm talking about. Many think it's purely genetic and there isn't anything we can do about it. There are cases where genetics play a large role (BRCA mutants have between a 75 and 90% chance of getting breast cancer). But even these cases are not absolute. If you have a BRCA mutation, you are not bound to get cancer. In the 90% of cancer cases that occur in the absence of mutations like BRCA, environmental factors like smoking, drinking, and diet are the driving causes of cancer.

I think you're 100% right to say that acne is much more complicated than eating an apple a day. And I think you're 100% right to say that changing diet will not help everyone. I've done diet changes. They did NOT help me. I'm using benzoyl peroxide. It IS helping me. Be we have to be careful when we look at these observations not to draw erroneous conclusions.

(Just going to add in here that the concept of healthy varies dramatically from person to person. For some it could be whole grains. For others, whole grains are equivalent to unimaginable pain. I have yet to see an example of hunter gatherers suffering from acne. If someone could find one for me, I would gladly take it into consideration. I build my opinions on observations, and freely let them go when the facts are found to be contrary. Also, someone mentioned stress, and I have no doubt that stress is a factor in acne. The eskimo example, though, did not seem to show a significant increase in stress, while a drastic change in diet was induced).

Acne is a highly complicated disorder. There is no single cause. At the moment, there is no single cure. But by considering all angles, we come to a greater understanding of our affliction.

Cancer hits pretty random actually. It is not a preventable disease at all. The majority of cancers are idiopathic actually and have no known origin. You obviously have never personally been affected by it. The cancer wards are full of non-smokers and people that never have done a single damaging thing to their bodies in their life.

I myself have never had cancer. I watched my father died of lung cancer. He did not smoke. I don't mean to sound angry when I say this, but: please, be careful what you assume about people.

Like I said, I am just repeating scientific consensus. Wikipedia's article on cancer:

"Determining what causes cancer is complex. Many things are known to increase the risk of cancer, including tobacco use, certain infections, radiation, lack of physical activity, obesity, and environmental pollutants.^[2] These can directly damage genes or combine with existing genetic faults within cells to cause the disease.^[3] Approximately five to ten percent of cancers are entirely hereditary."

5-10%. My estimate of 90% being due to environmental factors was on the low end. Idiopathic cancer largely does not exist. I've extensively researched several types of cancer and will be moving into the field of cancer research.

I myself have never had cancer. I watched my father died of lung cancer. He did not smoke. I don't mean to sound angry when I say this, but: please, be careful what you assume about people.

Like I said, I am just repeating scientific consensus. Wikipedia's article on cancer:

"Determining what causes cancer is complex. Many things are known to increase the risk of cancer, including tobacco use, certain infections, radiation, lack of physical activity, obesity, and environmental pollutants.^[2] These can directly damage genes or combine with existing genetic faults within cells to cause the disease.^[3] Approximately five to ten percent of cancers are entirely hereditary."

5-10%. My estimate of 90% being due to environmental factors was on the low end. Idiopathic cancer largely does not exist. I've extensively researched several types of cancer and will be moving into the field of cancer research.

Wikipedia? are you kidding me, anyone can edit that sh*t. Lots of cancers occur for no reason at all as in the person had no risk factors or family history. Cancer is very, very, very random.

Obesity, smoking and radiation exposure are only heightening risk factors for *certain types* of cancer - not definite 100% causes. Also don't forget things like radiation and smoking are gradually cumulative meaning the person has to be exposed to the carcinogen for a long time to develop any type of gene mutation resulting in cancer (if they do at all) it doesn't happen over night.

Like I said before, you can only influence your health for the better - but you can't entirely control it. You yourself could be diagnosed with a brain tumor in a few months regardless of your knowledge on genetics and health. Cancer really doesn't discriminate.

Wikipedia has good standards. Saying anyone can edit it doesn't change the references is provides. You can look at the papers it cites if you wish.

Cancer can seem random, just like many things do on a macro scale, but it really isn't. It's perfectly calculated. If all the unknowns could be known, you would be able to predict the exact occurrence of cancer in an individual.

Things like obesity, smoking, etc increase the occurrence of many types of cancer. For example:

"Smoking also increases the risk of over a dozen other cancers including cancers of the mouth, larynx(voice box), pharynx (upper throat), nose and sinuses, oesophagus (food pipe), liver, pancreas,stomach, kidney, bladder, cervix and bowel, as well as one type of ovarian cancer and some types of leukaemia. There is also some evidence that smoking could increase the risk of breast cancer."

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/smoking-and-cancer

One should keep in mind that the body has ways of preventing mutations. Many, many ways. We can easily prevent our bodies from doing the job of fixing DNA or neutralizing free radicals by having poor lifestyles. Also, it's important to realize that we haven't defined all the risk factors of cancer. And those we have defined still exist around all of us in minute concentrations.

Wikipedia has good standards. Saying anyone can edit it doesn't change the references is provides. You can look at the papers it cites if you wish.

Cancer can seem random, just like many things do on a macro scale, but it really isn't. It's perfectly calculated. If all the unknowns could be known, you would be able to predict the exact occurrence of cancer in an individual.

Things like obesity, smoking, etc increase the occurrence of many types of cancer. For example:

"Smoking also increases the risk of over a dozen other cancers including cancers of the mouth, larynx(voice box), pharynx (upper throat), nose and sinuses, oesophagus (food pipe), liver, pancreas,stomach, kidney, bladder, cervix and bowel, as well as one type of ovarian cancer and some types of leukaemia. There is also some evidence that smoking could increase the risk of breast cancer."

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/smoking-and-cancer

One should keep in mind that the body has ways of preventing mutations. Many, many ways. We can easily prevent our bodies from doing the job of fixing DNA or neutralizing free radicals by having poor lifestyles. Also, it's important to realize that we haven't defined all the risk factors of cancer. And those we have defined still exist around all of us in minute concentrations.

No....

I'm not denying living a healthy lifestyle promotes good health but that doesn't make you immune from developing cancer. To pin the general majority of Cancers on bad habits is down right disgusting.