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

61–70 of 112 posts

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

#61

Post by aynyc »

kritiko wrote: post #48
marricks wrote: post #41

Pretty great thing to read coming back from a tempo run! I just go into it this year, and I'd like to say, it's more fun than I thought. Every aspect. If you get a heart rate monitor and dive into what you're doing even difficult high intensity runs are enjoyable. It's all about expectations and if you go into it thinking - "I'm going to run at 75% of my max heart rate" you know you're going to be winded, but at the…

Have you actually tested your max heart rate? I work out with a HRM for Zone 2, but I'm just going off of Polar's zones. From what I understand going more in depth requires either maxing out your HR (Steve House describes how you can do this in Training for the New Alpinism - basically sprinting uphill until you collapse, seems really unpleasant) or doing lactate testing in a lab.

You can easily test relatively accurate max heart rate just by running a 5K race. Run a slightly slower than race pace, and go as hard as you can at the very end (last 1K) with the goal of sprinting to the finish line and vomit. It's unpleasant, but relatively safe during a race event with medical staff there at the end.

Also, max heart rate is only useful after you've been running for awhile. If your body hasn't started adapting to the change, MHR doesn't do much and often inaccurate. It's like 1RM in lifting, 1RM is meaningless in beginners as their bodies and central nervous systems haven't learned to fire all the muscles yet.

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

#62

Post by sushisource »

rollo wrote: post #47
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.

That doesn't sound right. Even 95% of max heart rate is sustainable for a long, long time. Intervals one can only sustain for 30s are way above VO2max intensity deep in the anaerobic zone. Heart rate pretty much maxes out on those.

This really isn't accurate at all. I'm in very strong aerobic shape and 95% of my max heart rate is not at all sustainable for more than a few minutes, and it is also a deeply anaerobic activity. VO2Max != max heart rate. Your heartrate @ VO2 max is typically much lower than your max heartrate. Max genuinely means max in this case, as in, literally the highest you can get your heartrate up. By definition, you are way above your VO2 max in that situation and it is not going to be sustainable for long at all.

Something like 90% approaches what you're talking about, maybe being sustainable for 15 minutes or so, but that 5% makes an enormous difference.

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

#63

Post by carl_dr »

nradov wrote: post #53
carl_dr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Age based equations for maximum heart rate are mostly bullshit. More recent research has shown that there is much less decline in maximum heart rate with age, at least for athletes with a decent level of fitness. And there is a huge amount of natural variation between individuals which is often more significant than age effects. Maximum heart rate is also sport dependent. For an equivalent level of fitness, maximum c…

Yeah, not saying it’s a perfect rule, just making the point that the parent’s 160-170bpm is lower than what I’d expect his max to be, using the rule of thumb a lot of people know.

(And for what it’s worth, my max heart rate is the same when cycling or running, within a small margin of error. I’ve never thought to ask anyone if it’s the same for them - I will do now!)

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

#64

Post by nradov »

mrleinad wrote: post #11
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.

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.

Swimming can work as well, but only if you have good technique. I'm not a great swimmer so when I'm panting by the poolside it's because I wasn't breathing correctly, not because I was exceeding my aerobic capacity. Highly trained competitive swimmers don't have this problem.

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

#65

Post by gregwebs »

mftb wrote: post #36
boplicity wrote: post #2

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.

I used to tackle this issue by spending more time warming up than actually exercising.

I am now using specific strengthening exercises from the kneesovertoesguy program to make my lower body more robust. I am not spending a lot of time on this but am seeing encouraging signs where I can engage in more vigorous activities with less warmup and less pain. If you have any pain (other than muscle exertion pain) during exercise, or even joint discomfort, etc, that's a potential road to injury that you have to step back and address. I stopped lifting heavy weights for now while I focus instead on improving my weak spots.

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

#66

Post by knicholes »

kritiko wrote: post #48
marricks wrote: post #41

Pretty great thing to read coming back from a tempo run! I just go into it this year, and I'd like to say, it's more fun than I thought. Every aspect. If you get a heart rate monitor and dive into what you're doing even difficult high intensity runs are enjoyable. It's all about expectations and if you go into it thinking - "I'm going to run at 75% of my max heart rate" you know you're going to be winded, but at the…

Have you actually tested your max heart rate? I work out with a HRM for Zone 2, but I'm just going off of Polar's zones. From what I understand going more in depth requires either maxing out your HR (Steve House describes how you can do this in Training for the New Alpinism - basically sprinting uphill until you collapse, seems really unpleasant) or doing lactate testing in a lab.

220 minus your age, right? :D. (From the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartr...)

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

#67

Post by jfoutz »

marricks wrote: post #41

Pretty great thing to read coming back from a tempo run! I just go into it this year, and I'd like to say, it's more fun than I thought. Every aspect. If you get a heart rate monitor and dive into what you're doing even difficult high intensity runs are enjoyable. It's all about expectations and if you go into it thinking - "I'm going to run at 75% of my max heart rate" you know you're going to be winded, but at the…

I have a few opinions about distance running. A coworker explained it has a way of turning down the volume on the rest of your perception. Something about running 10 miles makes other problems less anxiety inducing. They're still important, they're just not, like, scary.

If you consider distance running, get good shoes. go to the kind of place that puts you in shoes, and videos you running on a treadmill. Some people are biomechanically sound. I'm not. I need a lot of support to keep my ankle in line with the rest of my leg. Get good shoes and replace them when needed.

You can run anywhere, but pay close attention to the surface you're running on. It's very subtle, but running on a concrete sidewalk is different than running on asphalt right next to the sidewalk. try to run on dirt if you can, it's easier on your body. It also takes a while to really get a good sense of what is normal and what is excessive.

Pay attention to your muscles joints and tendons, take rest days, and cut runs short when you need to. I've called to have someone pick me up, because my legs were done. It can take a while to figure out when you're just dealing with normal "running sucks" and when you're actually pushing the red line where you're damaging things.

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

#69

Post by canucker2016 »

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

those researchers from the YouTube video have amended their suggestions.

from https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20806916/excessive-exerci... :

“First, low exercise is a much more prevalent problem for our society than is excessive exercise. Second, the maximal health benefits of exercise typically occur at quite low levels. More exercise may burn more calories and improve athletic performance, but probably does not lead to better health outcomes.

“Three, in keeping with what Ben Levine said in his Circulation Commentary in 2014, I do not believe that we should go overboard to frighten athletes who want to compete in vigorous endurance sports like marathons and triathlons.”

Lavie also pointed out two new exercise studies in JAMA Internal Medicine....

When mortality rates were adjusted for exercise levels, the researchers found the lowest rate among those who exercised about three to five times the amount recommended by federal guidelines (i.e., 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise like running). However, the increased benefit of working out three to five times more than the guidelines was modest, the researchers wrote.

More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum.

Another JAMA Internal Medicine paper looked at mortality rates in relation to moderate vs. vigorous exercise. In other words, what’s the proof for the federal government’s guideline showing vigorous exercise is roughly twice as good per minute as moderate exercise (75 minutes vs. 150 minutes)?

The conclusion, based on an analysis of 204,000 Australians aged 45 to 75: The current federal guidelines likely underestimate the value of vigorous exercise. The Australian results showed an inverse relationship between vigorous exercise and mortality rates.

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

#70

Post by jcims »

nradov wrote: post #46
canucker2016 wrote: post #38

This method is attacking the Warburg effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26778478/ 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…

Low carbohydrate diets may be a good option to improve general health for many people, however they haven't generally proven effective as cancer treatments. The clinical trials have been disappointing.

>proven effective as cancer treatments

When you're in the midst of trying to find your way through a cancer diagnosis, this statement can be incredibly frustrating. It basically turns into a cop out that medical providers use to wave off any discussion or exploration of a topic. And even if it's been proven to be effective, there's some way to slice your specific case such that it wasn't tested in the trial. Oh, you're BRCA positive? Somatic? Platinum resistant? Recurrent? Have or have not undergone this very specific therapy? Well, the trial didn't cover you so its not proven.

I totally understand why, few doctors would likely want to talk about phase of the moon or rubbing crystals...but in the context of cancer treatment, the lack of any clear guidance or recommendation about diet beyond basic USDA recommendations is maddening.

Post reply on HN