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

71–80 of 145 posts

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

#71

Post by Clubber »

mglz wrote: post #58
pauln99 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The current theory is that we developed sweating and bipedal walking to be endurance hunters, i.e. running after a prey animal until it is too exhausted to run any further. Tool use and development were also driven in part by hunting (spears, atlatl, bow and arrow, skinning knives…

I would assume the early diets would be feast and starve. You kill an animal and the entire tribe gets to feast for a few days, then you don't eat a whole lot until you kill another animal. Salt eventually flattened this out by being a preservative.

I'm sure there were gathering of berries and plants to fill in between the feast. I mean they were called hunter / gatherers.

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

#72

Post by pauln99 »

eggdaft wrote: post #44
pauln99 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’d roll back a bit on meat. It can be very fatty, particularly red meat. And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer. If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume. Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

> I’d roll back a bit on meat. It can be very fatty, particularly red meat.

Fat is not bad. We decided it was on the flimsiest of evidence and suspect "plausbility" arguments (eating fat makes you fat, obvs) and the subsequent attempts to prove the hypothesis in large scales studies have come up empty-handed.

> And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer.

I significantly doubt that, the evidence, such that it is, is only found in highly confounded epidemiology that does not allow you to make that claim.

> If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.

Fair enough.

> Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

Google "how long have humans been eating meat". Not saying it's right, but it contradicts your point.

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

#73

Post by ivandenysov »

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.

Totally agree. Also Peter Attia in his “Outlive” book insists that staying fit is more important than a balanced diet.

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

#74

Post by brodouevencode »

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?

> hide all the complexities

Does it? There are some things that are obvious to anyone paying attention. We can tease out details ad nauseum but what is the point in that if you can get 95% of the way there just by being sensible.

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

#75

Post by pauln99 »

koonsolo wrote: post #67
pauln99 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The premises of your argument, i.e. what your grandparent's did and animals dietary changes, are insufficient to justify your firm conclusion.

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

#76

Post by ak_111 »

mglz wrote: post #58
pauln99 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The current theory is that we developed sweating and bipedal walking to be endurance hunters, i.e. running after a prey animal until it is too exhausted to run any further. Tool use and development were also driven in part by hunting (spears, atlatl, bow and arrow, skinning knives…

I always find it baffling appealing to the fact that "eating meat is lindy" - i.e. something stone age humans and us did for hundreds of thousands of years, hence healthy, at least it won't kill you.

Because it ignores the fact that average life expectancy was significantly less than it is today - why would you want to take stone age humans as health role models? In fact average life expectancy almost doubled globally from high 40s to high 70s only very recently - well after we stopped eating meat all the time.

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

#77

Post by brodouevencode »

ulfw wrote: post #51
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."

What does gluten have to do with heart health?

Minimal, but that was not what OP said.

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

#78

Post by Attummm »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #54
Attummm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement, although true, is missing nuance. For example, a balanced diet is ambiguous. Does a balanced diet include fast food? How much ultra-processed food? How many carbs? Do we need to change the above answers with age or when someone is diabetic or has high blood pressure? Thus, even though almost everyone will agree with the balanced diet statement from the outset, what constitutes a balanced diet will yiel…

>Does a balanced diet include fast food? How much ultra-processed food? There seems to be some confusion here. "Balanced" means balanced in terms of micro and macro-nutrients that the body needs. Not balanced in the ratios of ultra-processed junk food and healthy food.

That was my point on ambiguity, leads to confusion.

Your interpretation is yours but how would your interpretation account for research on ultra processed food.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...

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

#79

Post by hgomersall »

LoveMortuus wrote: post #43
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 do think that people underestimate the dangers of prolonged stress. My hypothesis is that stress is the real killed. This might be survivorship bias, but I often see people that are above average old, smoking. That's why I think that perhaps the reduction of stress that smoking provides, could be more beneficial than the negative side. We do know that nicotine does have a neuroprotective effect and smoking does inc…

Weird, I often comment how rarely I see old people smoking. I assumed the smokers had all died early.

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

#80

Post by karolist »

ak_111 wrote: post #76
mglz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The current theory is that we developed sweating and bipedal walking to be endurance hunters, i.e. running after a prey animal until it is too exhausted to run any further. Tool use and development were also driven in part by hunting (spears, atlatl, bow and arrow, skinning knives…

I always find it baffling appealing to the fact that "eating meat is lindy" - i.e. something stone age humans and us did for hundreds of thousands of years, hence healthy, at least it won't kill you. Because it ignores the fact that average life expectancy was significantly less than it is today - why would you want to take stone age humans as health role models? In fact average life expectancy almost doubled globall…

Average life expentancy is influenced by far more factors than just diet, especially in lawless times with minimal creature conforts.
Post reply on HN