Drink hot water and go for one hour early morning walk;
why hot water, I read that cold water burns some calories as well?
Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
41–50 of 55 posts
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#42I don't have access to the actual paper, but my first thought on this is to wonder if they factored in the idea that people who specifically exercise are obviously interested in being healthy and may be doing other things that are "healthy" that would affect whether they get cancer or not. I wonder if it'd be possible to get data on people who are active, but not for the reason of being healthy, things like working c…
From the article: Encouragingly, the associations between exercise and reduced cancer risks held true even when the researchers factored in body mass. People who were overweight or obese but exercised had a much lower risk of developing most cancers than overweight people who did not move much.
This is directly related to a comment I posted on another article two days ago[0].
This may seem more surprising than it actually is, because by "overweight" and "obese" they are referring to BMI categories, according to the abstract. The overweight BMI category contains people who range from healthy, lean and muscular (think muscular gym goer) to people who have little muscle mass and high body fat percentage (think large beer belly). The fact that you can decrease cancer risk by gaining muscle (usually from increased exercise, precisely the thing being studied) and losing fat while maintaining the same physical mass and thus the same BMI, is not shocking.
Once you control for body fat, having additional muscle mass (thus higher BMI) probably decreases all-cause mortality.[1]
Unfortunately, I don't think this has much bearing on azdle's questions, since people can be fit for many reasons, either by intent or by necessity.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11714249 1: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2499472
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#43Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#44I think it's pretty obvious. I believe that it is not that exercise helps, but sedentarism is poisonous. A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete.
>A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete.
This is a completely unsubstantiated claim.
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#45I think it's pretty obvious. I believe that it is not that exercise helps, but sedentarism is poisonous. A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete.
actually a 40yr old athlete that has already more than 20 year of athlete life behind will have a body in a much more bad shape than a guy who had regular walks and healthy diet.
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#46Results from the source study abstract[1]: " A total of 1.44 million participants (median [range] age, 59 [19-98] years; 57% female) and 186 932 cancers were included. High vs low levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with lower risks of 13 cancers: esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89), liver (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98), lung (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77), kidney (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.7…
>> (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89)
Can someone explain the numbers? I read it as risk, sub-population, error margins. Is that right?
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#47I think it's pretty obvious. I believe that it is not that exercise helps, but sedentarism is poisonous. A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete.
>A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete. This is a completely unsubstantiated claim.
you want a randomized study? :D
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#48I don't have access to the actual paper, but my first thought on this is to wonder if they factored in the idea that people who specifically exercise are obviously interested in being healthy and may be doing other things that are "healthy" that would affect whether they get cancer or not. I wonder if it'd be possible to get data on people who are active, but not for the reason of being healthy, things like working c…
I think the only problem is the careers that have the most physical activity seem to be the most dangerous or prone to drug use. Firemen, military, police, construction have high death rates. Atheletes have drug problems.
Not all physically active careers are dangerous. Off the top of my head I can think of mail carrier, garbage collector, movers.
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#49I think it's pretty obvious. I believe that it is not that exercise helps, but sedentarism is poisonous. A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete.
actually a 40yr old athlete that has already more than 20 year of athlete life behind will have a body in a much more bad shape than a guy who had regular walks and healthy diet.
This depends greatly on what type of sport was practiced for 20 years.
Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer
#50Results from the source study abstract[1]: " A total of 1.44 million participants (median [range] age, 59 [19-98] years; 57% female) and 186 932 cancers were included. High vs low levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with lower risks of 13 cancers: esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89), liver (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98), lung (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77), kidney (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.7…
>> (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89) Can someone explain the numbers? I read it as risk, sub-population, error margins. Is that right?
HR stands for Hazard Ratio. 0.5 would mean something is half as likely as for the control group, while 2 would mean twice as likely.
0.37-0.89 is the confidence interval at 95% confidence. So it's expected that if the study were repeated many times, the HR would appear to be within that (rather wide) range 95% of the time. This time it's 0.58.
The main thing is that the upper bound 0.89 is quite a bit less than 1, so you could pretty confidently say there's a reduced risk, even if the amount is uncertain.