Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

english.tau.ac.il

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#11

Post by mrleinad »

imnotlost wrote: post #6
zagrebian wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a daily 7-minute workout enough? I perform it at a very high intensity (40 jumping jacks, 16 push ups). https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/0...

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.

Would swimming work as well? I can see myself doing some laps really fast that will leave me panting by the poolside after 50 mts.

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#13

Post by twawaaay »

imnotlost wrote: post #6
zagrebian wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a daily 7-minute workout enough? I perform it at a very high intensity (40 jumping jacks, 16 push ups). https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/0...

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.

I believe running your heart at such high intensity every day isn't particularly healthy. It causes scarring of the heart tissue and possible problems as you age.

I think watching this Ted might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#14

Post by richiebful1 »

pedrosorio wrote: post #9
imnotlost wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.

How does one determine maximum pulse rate? I do workouts where I'm constantly at 160-170 bpm for 15 minutes and my lungs aren't burning nor am I about to collapse (aged mid-30s, if that matters)

CDC says 220 beats per minute, minus your age in years:

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartr...

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#15

Post by sometimeshuman »

imnotlost wrote: post #6
zagrebian wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a daily 7-minute workout enough? I perform it at a very high intensity (40 jumping jacks, 16 push ups). https://archive.nytimes.com/well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/0...

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.

Or buy one 30lb kettle bell. No running shoes, low cost, no finding space in your home, no buyer's remorse.

A swing with good form works your entire body. 100 reps once or twice a day literally takes 2-4 minutes. Do it after hitting start on the microwave.

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#16

Post by pedrosorio »

richiebful1 wrote: post #14
pedrosorio wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one determine maximum pulse rate? I do workouts where I'm constantly at 160-170 bpm for 15 minutes and my lungs aren't burning nor am I about to collapse (aged mid-30s, if that matters)

CDC says 220 beats per minute, minus your age in years: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartr...

I've heard that estimate before (80% would be ~150bpm for me). But then the physiological effects described by the GP don't seem right as I need to go much higher to feel anything like "my lungs burning" (maybe 190+?)

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#17

Post by clusterhacks »

idlewords wrote: post #5

IN MICE link to full paper: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/22/4164/710131...

From the abstract:

  Epidemiologic data from a 20-year prospective study of a large human cohort of 
  initially cancer-free participants revealed that exercise prior to cancer 
  initiation had a modest impact on cancer incidence in low metastatic stages 
  but significantly reduced the likelihood of highly metastatic cancer.
Data was gathered from a large cohort via questionnaire. Looks like the study then used responses to classify high vs low intensity.

From the article:

  The total study population included 2,734 participants; 243 new cancer cases 
  were recorded during the 20-year follow-up period.
It reads as if the study then had to reject data from 95 of the 243 patients due to not having a SEER score.

From skimming the article, I can't find any analysis of metastatic disease incidence in the remaining patients? Am I just missing it?

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#18

Post by carl_dr »

pedrosorio wrote: post #9
imnotlost wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.

How does one determine maximum pulse rate? I do workouts where I'm constantly at 160-170 bpm for 15 minutes and my lungs aren't burning nor am I about to collapse (aged mid-30s, if that matters)

It might sound stupid but work as hard as you can and note your maximum.

I’m 180bpm-ish as a 45 year old male, I get that trying to cycle uphill as hard as I can and can sustain it for some minutes.

They say the equation is 220bpm minus your age, so you should be able to go a bit higher.

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#19

Post by Retric »

twawaaay wrote: post #13
imnotlost wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate... If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right. Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times. Rowing and sprinting works really well.

I believe running your heart at such high intensity every day isn't particularly healthy. It causes scarring of the heart tissue and possible problems as you age. I think watching this Ted might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0

5-10 minutes of high intensity exercise daily is well outside what that Ted talk was describing.

With up to 45 minutes of daily exercise you see an improvement. After that there is a period where more exercise has negligible impact and only at the extreme upper end to you see a decline. But even people running regular marathons have lower risks than couch potatoes, you need to get really extreme before it’s an issue.

Re: Aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer in mice: study

#20

Post by hallway_monitor »

twawaaay wrote: post #8

I am layman but can somebody explain this? Even if blood sugar level dips during the exercise it comes right back immediately after. Even if you exercise a lot, for majority of the day your blood sugar level should be nominal because nobody can exercise at the effort needed to dip your sugar for very long. So does this mean cancer cells are so hungry for sugar that they can't survive even a short term dip in sugar av…

Surely there have been studies on simple carbohydrate intake correlated with cancer incidence? I suppose it's hard to do a multi-decade study on something like this but it may be possible to gain evidence.
Post reply on HN