That's not true. Not only do fat cells just grow bigger (a skinny person has just as many as a fat person), you'd expect the increase in cancers to be mostly liposarcomas ("fat cell cancer"), which stay very rare.
Other organs might be distended or enlarged, but they don't contain more cells.
The reason obesity leads to cancer is not very well understood, but it's probably a complicated process involving abnormal hormone levels usual in obese people, and the constant low-grade inflammation their body is usually suffering from
https://news.yale.edu/2015/03/02/new-fat-cells-created-quick...
I'm no longer deeply involved in this area so my information might be dated, though years ago it was pretty well understood based on the evidence that fat cells were created _and_ grew bigger as person got heavier, however, fat cells (once created) were never eliminated from the body, meaning they would shrink though they would be around forever once created.
It was also understood (if I recall correctly) that the faster someone gained fat, the easier it was for fat cells to be created. Meaning rapid weight gain was more likely to create new fat cells. (not sure if I'm remembering that one right)
It was surmised from these that this is why rebound weight gain (aside from rebound lifestyle factors) was quite easy for many, particularly the incredibly obese. It was also why it was strongly recommended to take fat gain incredibly seriously as the creation of fat cells was deemed potentially lifelong damaging.
Do you have a source for that? I find that claim interesting because I'd be surprised if obesity != more cells.
Update: I found this link about a study that found as you gain weight, you grow new fat cells (2010). I can't find the paper though.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/05/gorging-study-shows...
Update 2: I believe this is the paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=20921416%5Buid%5D
Update 3: Another paper that found growth of new fat cells on weight gain (2015): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4380653/
From this article found in this thread: https://news.yale.edu/2015/03/02/new-fat-cells-created-quick...
That doesn't mean they aren't involved, proteins can go wrong, but, that is usually associated with other types of diseases besides cancer.
Someone who is very ectomorphic and "scrawny", will often have severe difficulty gaining a substantial amount of weight.
Citation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovasc...
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.
> Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality...
Which is not to say I don't enjoy a nice juicy cheezburger. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Most of their packages contain multiple servings. Even the smaller packages that you usually see on the shelf are 3 servings, at least in the US.
My point is not that Doritos aren't bad for you but that saturated fat isn't the reason they're bad
Eventually, "you are what you eat" catches up to you.
If we want a food source to blame, look at high sugar content foods like soda or the slew of 'Little Debbie' type snacks (I'm preferential to Nutter Butters) that can be consumed in one or two sittings if you aren't calorie conscious.
But, just to reiterate what's important, if we all just got a solid hour of exercise each day the rate of cancer and heart disease would drop appreciably.
But people really want a magic bullet, "X is bad, Y is good". People generally do not like to exercise so they'll keep looking for something else.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
We really going to worry about a bag of chips when so many people still smoke?
The problem is people aren't interested in health. Oreos are a God given right, evidently. And it's easier to blame the healthcare system than to face the truth. That is, you are what you consume.
*The report is just cancer, but diabetes will be just as happy to kill too.
I've read that constant digesting gets in the way of the body doing nightly internal cleanup processes that detox your system, as energy is diverted to process food instead. That might be another source of problems.
I think you are postulating. There was an article here a week or two ago that showed how bodies frequently in motion tend to live longer and be healthiest. There are different types of effects on the body from activities, and I'd be willing to bet that a body that's constantly in a state of digestion is stressed more than one in natural motion. However, I say this with a disclaimer that I'm guessing based on recent articles posted here. But if you really think otherwise, you should just provide a source.
Also, unless you are training for the Olympics, you do not need to linearly scale your food intake in proportion to your exercise. The average diet for many people does not need to change much after introducing exercise because the average diet already is usually too many calories.
Lets assume that you are. Would that mean you will die earlier? Does that mean that the more exercise you do the earlier you die?
http://observer.com/2017/04/study-finds-running-extends-life...
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20140401/too-much...
[i] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php