Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

121–130 of 145 posts

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

#121
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."

How is low gluten obvious?

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

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT

You're fighting some pretty hard core straw men here. I haven't mentioned cardiovascular disease nor actually anything related to the good or the bad of consuming meat anywhere in my comment. HN is not the right place for flamebait.

Think they replied to your comment accidentally

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

#123
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s more to life than processed food and sitting on a couch

Hookers and blow.

Some habits are best not to start so you don’t know what you’re missing out on haha

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

#124
post #58
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…

Monkeys and apes also have sweat glands all over their bodies and none of them engage in endurance hunting so that theory is very unconvincing

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

#125
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Saturated fat (the most prevalent fat in meat) is causally connected to cardiovascular disease. This is based on a huge amount of evidence and, if you are going to discount it, I suggest you also should discount the whole field of nutrition, because this is the close to a scientific fact as we can get.

Saturated fat in excess. The dose makes the poison

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

#126
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"

Apparently 6 pull ups are now a super human feat who no one is expected to manage.

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

#127
post #62
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. 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.

[deleted]

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

#128
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…

30 lbs = 13.6 kg

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

#129
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Saturated fat (the most prevalent fat in meat) is causally connected to cardiovascular disease. This is based on a huge amount of evidence and, if you are going to discount it, I suggest you also should discount the whole field of nutrition, because this is the close to a scientific fact as we can get.

For the record, I _do_ think that the whole field of nutrition should be discounted.

In the popular imagination we to tend blame journalism for the "one minute x causes cancer, the next minute x cures cancer" style flip-flopping, and I don't doubt some blame is due. However, the underlying science is hopelessly confounded and generates spurious small effects that are probably artefacts of the data than real effects. If this wasn't the case, how do you explain the constant self-contradiction and almost complete equivocality on every issue on these matters.

What is the causal connection you are talking about? I hope not the saturated fat, clogs the arteries, etc, etc. Everyone believed that 50 years ago, no one will in another 100 years. But persuade me; show me the unequivocal science and I'll change my mind. My understanding is that the efforts to show this effect have not worked.

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

#130
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…

> 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.

Yes. Curiously, it seems the Mediterranean diet helps you live longer, unless you are poor. The hypothesis is that poor people just eat a shitty version of the Mediterranean diet (think cheap fruit and veg, with less fresh) because they can't afford the decent one and so don't get the benefits. I think many of the studies are but sufficiently fine grained to pick out the nuances.
Post reply on HN