31–40 of 112 posts
Wouldn't be much easier just restrict sugar/glucose consumption, so you don't need to burn it by exercise? I feel this is trying to solve consequences instead of the cause, if I read the article correctly.
Not all cancers are glucose-sensitive though.
See the Warburg effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology)
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 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…
It's not a short-term dip, according to the article:
> "Examining the cells of these organs, we found a rise in the number of glucose receptors during high-intensity aerobic activity - increasing glucose intake and turning the organs into effective energy-consumption machines, very much like the muscles. We assume that this happens because the organs must compete for sugar resources with the muscles, known to burn large quantities of glucose during physical exercise. Consequently, if cancer develops, the fierce competition over glucose reduces the availability of energy that is critical to metastasis."
> "Moreover," she offers, "when a person exercises regularly, this condition becomes permanent: the tissues of internal organs change and become similar to muscle tissue."
I.e. exercising lots appears to change the makeup of your organs, so they absorb sugar more aggressively _all the time_ and so cancer cells have to develop in a far more sugar-competitive environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
The chief result being reported here is in the mouse model, it's not 100-some people filling out a questionnaire that got them on the cover of the journal.
> The human data, obtained from an epidemiological study that monitored 3,000 individuals for about 20 years, indicated 72% less metastatic cancer in participants who reported regular aerobic activity at high intensity, compared to those who did not engage in physical exercise.
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.
Note, this isn't for all types of aerobic activity. They're specifically saying that high-intensity aerobics, such as sprinting, are beneficial. > "Our results indicate that unlike fat-burning exercise, which is relatively moderate, it is a high-intensity aerobic activity that helps in cancer prevention," adds Dr. Gepner. "If the optimal intensity range for burning fat is 65-70% of the maximum pulse rate, sugar burni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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+?)
Some cancers are glucose-sensitive which use glucose to grow.
Some cancer patients go on a keto diet instead of/as well as aerobic activity (a keto diet is probably better tolerated than lots of aerobic activity for many cancer patients).
from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180126095312.h...
This dependency on sugar distinguishes cancer cells from normal cells and is often used as a treatment option to kill cancer cells. In reality, the results have not been encouraging. Not all cancer cell types are sensitive to the removal of sugar, and even for the cancers that are sensitive, sugar depletion only slows down the rate of cancer progression. The pathways that sensitise cancer cells to sugar deprivation remains poorly understood.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)
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.
Note, this isn't for all types of aerobic activity. They're specifically saying that high-intensity aerobics, such as sprinting, are beneficial. > "Our results indicate that unlike fat-burning exercise, which is relatively moderate, it is a high-intensity aerobic activity that helps in cancer prevention," adds Dr. Gepner. "If the optimal intensity range for burning fat is 65-70% of the maximum pulse rate, sugar burni…
One issue with the intensity thing. In my experience, as you age, it gets harder, and harder to up the intensity without incurring injury, and if you're injured it's harder to exercise at all.
And I don't think you need a 40 minute zone 4 workout. You can probably do intervals in zone 4 with as much recovery as you need over 20 minutes and induce a lot of (beneficial) stress. Interval training is the key to really good fitness, especially on limited time budgets.