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

91–100 of 145 posts

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

#91

Post by blitzar »

ak_111 wrote: post #65
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."

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 e…

> 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

The extreme all meat diet was called "The Atkins Diet" 20 years ago, you might have seen it mentioned on a retro rerun of a tv show.

As with most things, and certainly everything to do with diet, excercise and fashion - there is nothing actually new.

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

#93

Post by blitzar »

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 ?

That risk of prostate cancer was reduced by 20 percent for men who ejaculated 21 times a month, compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a month [0], A similar Australian study found the risk was reduced by 36 percent when men ejaculated seven times a week [1].

You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.

[0] https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.104...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15069045/

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

#94

Post by Attummm »

sod wrote: post #57
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…

IMHO the base framework can and must be simple and unnuanced and easy to remember: * eat as little and never drink: sugar, alcohol * seek: stuff that feeds you and your gut biome and doesn't cause diarrhea (aka avoid ultra-processed food) * bonus: at least once a week: fish, salad, nuts, fruits Sure, thats not nuanced. But the message is simple: If you eat/drink sugar, alcohol or processed foods, then your body will…

Those points you have made are according to the latest science. But is that knowledge available for everyone?

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

#95

Post by ben_w »

dspillett wrote: post #87
ben_w wrote: post #62

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. 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.

> Our mouths are too small for the number of teeth we have. Is that a general thing? I was under the impression those of us from the British isles had a problem because of mixed heritage due to repeated invasion: we've managed to inherit a tendency for smaller jaws from southern influences and bigger teeth from north/west Europe.

I've not heard of that myself, but it wouldn't take much evidence to convince me as that seems very plausible.

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

#96

Post by lazypenguin »

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…

In 1924 the President of the United States’s son died. A man with access to the best medicine and doctors of the time during an insdustrialized age was not able to save his 16 year old son. He died from a bacterial infection…on his toe…that he got from playing on the White House lawn barefoot. In 1924 they were not able to save him from such a “simple” ailment. We underestimate the advancements in modern medicine and how easy it was to die historically. You could be the fittest, strongest vegetarian in 300BC and bad piece of bread could end you. Correlating meat consumption with life expectancy is just foolish.

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

#97

Post by _dark_matter_ »

upofadown wrote: post #66
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.

Anyone who regularly lifts weights enough to "be strong" will have far above average cardiorespitory fitness. For example, cardio became my limiting factor deadlifting, and I had to start incorporating more running in order to lift more. Heavy weights can work out your cardio system to a surprising degree!

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

#98

Post by brianmcc »

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…

Life expectancy has historically been skewed downwards by terribly high infant mortality rates, not by masses of folks dying at say 40.

If half your population dies after 60, the lucky ones, and half before 2, your average "around 30 ish" life expectancy isn't particularly predictive.

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

#99

Post by brodouevencode »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #88
ctrw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Able to pass a combat fitness test != "moderately fit"

The 1940s combat fitness test is fairly different than the modern combat fitness test. Now it's all about power generation and less about endurance (save for the 2 mile run).

https://www.army.mil/acft/

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

#100

Post by rafaelero »

Etheryte wrote: post #53
eggdaft wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 say this is intentionally missing the point. Where you draw the line between homo sapiens and the previous predecessor is subjective and largely arbitrary. The point is that we and our evolutionary ancestors have been eating most edible things we could get our hands on for as long as we go back.

EDIT
Post reply on HN