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

Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 145 posts

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#61

Post by drowsspa »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #22
frereubu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine is a cardiac nurse and get massively frustrated by the overly complex regimens that people follow while ignoring the obvious stuff. e.g. going for low-gluten diets while drinking too much alcohol and not exercising enough. In terms of food I've always loved Michael Pollen's description of healthy eating as opposed to fad diets: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Except that everyone's body is different, and sometimes you really should be on a particular diet of some kind. Ask your doctor what to eat, eat that. When they say "stop drinking", "cut back the salt", "eat more fiber", etc, do it.

Honestly, our bodies are different but not that different. Barring digestive issues like celiac disease and allergies, the basic guidelines are pretty much the same for all of us.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#62

Post by ben_w »

pauln99 wrote: post #18
frereubu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine is a cardiac nurse and get massively frustrated by the overly complex regimens that people follow while ignoring the obvious stuff. e.g. going for low-gluten diets while drinking too much alcohol and not exercising enough. In terms of food I've always loved Michael Pollen's description of healthy eating as opposed to fad diets: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I think Pollen should have said "Eat real food", and stopped there. Then our appetite will take care of itself, and won't require conscious - and ultimately - futile endeavour. And eating meat's fine (from a health perspective, if not ethical necessarily). We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.

> And eating meat's fine (from a health perspective, if not ethical necessarily). We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.

Our mouths are too small for the number of teeth we have. A few million years is a lot of time in evolution, but it's still catching up with the invention of cooking.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#63

Post by joncrocks »

saiya-jin wrote: post #31
sundvor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peter Attia's OUTLIVE is massively interesting. Two key indicators he tracks are grip strength and VO² max. They are the product of (most typically) structured weights and cardio training respectively. Another key thing he addresses is to actually plan for old age, i.e. to factor in how the body will lose muscle mass/ conditioning as we get older - and set eg strength targets for activities to do later in life (i.e.…

That grip strength falls apart when you meet climbers. I know we are outliers in general population but it overall seems like a poor measure with tons of corner cases which invalidate it. Older marathon runner can have a baby pinch due to not using his/her hands for any sport, yet somehow I doubt they fall into same category as some morbidly obese 250kg ball of fat who didn't move from the bed in past few years.

It's used as a proxy for overall strength, as it's very easy to measure in a clinical setting and there is a good amount of data floating about with it.

A bit like BMI, it could be useful for looking at in overall populations even if there are pockets where it doesn't measure overall strength in an accurate manner.

It's not saying if you train your grip strength you will live longer, but _generally_ those that live longer have greater grip strength than those that don't.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#64

Post by damontal »

sundvor wrote: post #17
shrimp-chimp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As in improving cardiorespiratory fitness. According to the article, a Swedish study suggests that, for men, an improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness of 3% annually may reduce risk of prostate cancer by as much as 35%. From how I understand the statements made in the article, they (the researchers) seem to emphasize regularity and intensity; that is, regularity is key, and higher intensity as substitute for durati…

Peter Attia's OUTLIVE is massively interesting. Two key indicators he tracks are grip strength and VO² max. They are the product of (most typically) structured weights and cardio training respectively. Another key thing he addresses is to actually plan for old age, i.e. to factor in how the body will lose muscle mass/ conditioning as we get older - and set eg strength targets for activities to do later in life (i.e.…

Great book. But his recommendations are hard to follow.

40 minutes of zone 2 cardio at least 4 times a week plus zone 5 training once a week plus a strength training regimen plus mobility work.

I exercise about an hour 5-6 days a week and that isn’t enough to cover this regimen.

His recommendations make sense given that his most important indicator for longevity is exercise. But it’s a lot of time per day. Two hours some days if you really follow it.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#65

Post by ak_111 »

frereubu wrote: post #12
jgrahamc wrote: post #8

Here's what seems blindingly obvious to me from everything I've read: eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life, are vital for staying healthy as you age.

A friend of mine is a cardiac nurse and get massively frustrated by the overly complex regimens that people follow while ignoring the obvious stuff. e.g. going for low-gluten diets while drinking too much alcohol and not exercising enough. In terms of food I've always loved Michael Pollen's description of healthy eating as opposed to fad diets: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

The extreme all meat diet have only started gaining wide mainstream traction (as far as I can tell) only over the last 6-8 years (and for some reason seems to overlap strongly with certain segment of crypto and MAGA population).

So it will be interesting to track progress in the population who committed to it in the next few years since I think it takes a decade or so for a diet to start exhibiting long-term health effects in a significant sample.

Anecdotally from my small group of 10 friends that I know who committed to it, 3 quit it after a few months because they couldn't give up carbs, 4 still swear by it after a few years, and 3 said that it was causing them health problems around the year mark so they gave it up.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#66

Post by upofadown »

jgrahamc wrote: post #8

Here's what seems blindingly obvious to me from everything I've read: eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life, are vital for staying healthy as you age.

The study only considered cardiorespiratory fitness. So from what we know from the study, eating a balanced diet, being strong, and having a healthy social life might all cause prostate cancer.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#67

Post by koonsolo »

pauln99 wrote: post #18
frereubu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine is a cardiac nurse and get massively frustrated by the overly complex regimens that people follow while ignoring the obvious stuff. e.g. going for low-gluten diets while drinking too much alcohol and not exercising enough. In terms of food I've always loved Michael Pollen's description of healthy eating as opposed to fad diets: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I think Pollen should have said "Eat real food", and stopped there. Then our appetite will take care of itself, and won't require conscious - and ultimately - futile endeavour. And eating meat's fine (from a health perspective, if not ethical necessarily). We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.

> We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.

My grandparents were farmers before farming became industrialized. If you look at how much meat they ate, it's very little compared to current generations.

Plus, what the cows and pigs ate in those days was very different than what they feed them today. I know of a farmer that raises a cow for his own consumption, and that one gets different food than all the rest. That should tell you enough already.

So the 'eat mostly plants' is very relevant for todays generation, even more so than before.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#68

Post by manfre »

ddalex wrote: post #16
jgrahamc wrote: post #8

Here's what seems blindingly obvious to me from everything I've read: eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life, are vital for staying healthy as you age.

I've read that regular ejaculations reduce prostate cancer risk. Perhaps getting fit and eating right lead to more regular ejaculations by more easily encountering sexual partners ?

You assume a partner is needed.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#69

Post by medo-bear »

matsemann wrote: post #55
jgrahamc wrote: post #8

Here's what seems blindingly obvious to me from everything I've read: eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life, are vital for staying healthy as you age.

The problem with that statement is that it's basically a tautology, since the words "balanced", "healthy" etc. hide all the complexities. What is a "balanced" diet? What is moderately fit? What is the definition of a healthy social life?

Here is my 'common sense' attempt:

> What is a "balanced" diet?

Eating all the necessary macro and micro nutrients in bounds of callorie requirements.

> What is moderately fit?

Walk for 5km without issue. Do 10 pushups. Do 20 situps. Do 20 squats.

> What is the definition of a healthy social life?

Dont let work be your whole life. To many people free time pretty much boils down to having dinner and going to bed. Instead engage more in socializing outdoors.

Re: Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds

#70

Post by ctrw »

matsemann wrote: post #55
jgrahamc wrote: post #8

Here's what seems blindingly obvious to me from everything I've read: eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life, are vital for staying healthy as you age.

The problem with that statement is that it's basically a tautology, since the words "balanced", "healthy" etc. hide all the complexities. What is a "balanced" diet? What is moderately fit? What is the definition of a healthy social life?

The fit question is pretty easy: able to pass the 1940 army fitness test: https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/fitness/are-yo...

The others aren't and are person dependent.

Post reply on HN