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

101–110 of 145 posts

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

#101

Post by medo-bear »

eurekin wrote: post #83
medo-bear wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Inst…

> Walk for 5km without issue. Do 10 pushups. Do 20 situps. Do 20 squats. Squats are often considered one of the most challenging exercises, as my physiotherapist points out. It's easy to underestimate them – I did 70 squats once and ended up straining my back. The key to a proper squat is maintaining stable back support throughout the entire movement. This principle isn't just crucial for squats; it's fundamental for…

Sorry I meant weight-free squats. In fact I think you do not need a gym or any equipment in order to do basic exercises. If you get too consumed by the details you will never start. I think what I wrote is a good baseline to start from. Sure I get that there is no such thing as one-size-fits all, but same applies to anything we call 'common sense'. However common sense is usually practical for most people. Adjust as you go along.

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

#102

Post by bhpm »

xyst wrote: post #90

I lost 30+ lbs recently. Feeling great. More energetic and focused. My journey involved: - opting to exercise more. I adopted a dog to help motivate to go on daily walks. No gym membership required. - opting to use public transportation where necessary and use a car when only necessary (prefer biking or walking now). Helps me stay fit and active without having to go to a gym. - significant changes in diet. Reduced co…

> Maybe 2-3 months to begin to reap the fruits of my labor but it was definitely worth it.

I’m glad you wrote this part. I think many people get discouraged because they see ads where people lose x lbs in y days. But, it’s important to remember that change is hard. You didn’t get to where you are in a few days and you won’t change yourself sustainably in a few days.

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

#103

Post by rafaelero »

ivandenysov wrote: post #73
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.

That doesn't sound correct. I don't think that athletes live longer than generally health conscious people.

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

#104

Post by matsemann »

brodouevencode wrote: post #74
matsemann wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Paying attention to who? Instagram influencers? Podcast hosts?

What's sensible? How many workouts per week? What kind? What food to eat? How much of each?

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

#105

Post by eggdaft »

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.

[dead]

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

#106

Post by herculity275 »

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…

> Plus, factory-farmed meat is significantly different from free-range animals w.r.t fat, hormone and antibiotics content.

A version of that argument applies to most things you would buy at a grocery store, e.g. modern apples are a lot sweeter than what our ancestors would've been accustomed to.

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

#107

Post by eggdaft »

rafaelero wrote: post #100
Etheryte wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[dead]

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

#108

Post by chii »

zeteo wrote: post #60
chii wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> often see people that are above average old, smoking. it's quite a sample bias, because those who you see smoking are likely quite healthy and thus is _able_ to smoke to old age (or won a genetic lottery to be able to withstand smoking). What you need to count is how many people smoke, and then the % of them dying earlier than those who don't. Otherwise, sample bias will give you the wrong conclusions, esp. if this…

Isn't it the same with exercise, though? > Those who you see exercising are likely quite healthy and thus _able_ to exercise to old age (or won a genetic lottery to be able to withstand a lot of exercising). > What you need to count is how many people try to exercise, and then the % of them dying earlier than those who don't

It's not exactly the same, because there's actually studies that tries to answer this exact question - https://youtu.be/-3dt7rpvz4g?t=294

TLDW; the curve of risk/mortality vs amount of exercise is a u-shaped curve, which means if you _don't_ exercise, you also die earlier, and if exercised _too much_ , you also die earlier.

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

#109

Post by eggdaft »

pauln99 wrote: post #72
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 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, th…

[dead]

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

MattGaiser wrote: post #37
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 don't think there is much disagreement on how to be healthier. The problem is how to be healthier without it costing too much in terms of effort, pain, sacrifice, etc.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN