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

Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

well.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#21

Post by wehadfun »

azdle wrote: post #14

I don't have access to the actual paper, but my first thought on this is to wonder if they factored in the idea that people who specifically exercise are obviously interested in being healthy and may be doing other things that are "healthy" that would affect whether they get cancer or not. I wonder if it'd be possible to get data on people who are active, but not for the reason of being healthy, things like working c…

I think the only problem is the careers that have the most physical activity seem to be the most dangerous or prone to drug use.

Firemen, military, police, construction have high death rates. Atheletes have drug problems.

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#22

Post by tryitnow »

jimrandomh wrote: post #2

No. This study is confounded and provides no evidence of anything. The problem is that people's willingness to exercise depends on their health as much as or more than their health is affected by exercise. Because this study did not involve an intervention (it just pooled a bunch of surveys), it can't distinguish between exercise causing reduced cancer risk, or a third variable affecting both.

An interventional study is ideal, but unlikely to happen.

I would have been happy if the authors just tried to factor in other characteristics like socioeconomic status, education level, etc. It looks like they didn't do that but instead just observed an "association" which isn't terribly interesting or informative.

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#23

Post by joss82 »

methodover wrote: post #16
seizethecheese wrote: post #13

Results from the source study abstract[1]: " A total of 1.44 million participants (median [range] age, 59 [19-98] years; 57% female) and 186 932 cancers were included. High vs low levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with lower risks of 13 cancers: esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.89), liver (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98), lung (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77), kidney (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.7…

Phew, 186 thousand cancers included out of 1.4 million participants? I knew cancer was not entirely uncommon but... man. That's a lot of unhappy news. Feels bad to think about. If it is true that exercising regularly reduces the risk of cancer, I wonder what the mechanism is? Exercise builds muscle mass, improves lung capacity... Why would that have anything to do with cancer?

Doesn't that just mean that people who have cancer (and maybe don't know it) don't really feel like exercising?

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#24

Post by ludamad »

mrfusion wrote: post #18
azdle wrote: post #14

I don't have access to the actual paper, but my first thought on this is to wonder if they factored in the idea that people who specifically exercise are obviously interested in being healthy and may be doing other things that are "healthy" that would affect whether they get cancer or not. I wonder if it'd be possible to get data on people who are active, but not for the reason of being healthy, things like working c…

Here's the problem with your idea though http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1779251... It suggests people get more benefits from exercise when they expect it. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

It's an interesting idea, but it would really need to be explored further. There's many things I see as variables that could cause the effect with the house maids, like an overly broad definition of house maids, or wrong assumptions about the type of exercise they get.

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#25

Post by azdle »

mrfusion wrote: post #18
azdle wrote: post #14

I don't have access to the actual paper, but my first thought on this is to wonder if they factored in the idea that people who specifically exercise are obviously interested in being healthy and may be doing other things that are "healthy" that would affect whether they get cancer or not. I wonder if it'd be possible to get data on people who are active, but not for the reason of being healthy, things like working c…

Here's the problem with your idea though http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1779251... It suggests people get more benefits from exercise when they expect it. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

That's a very interesting experiment, however, at least from how it's described in that article, I don't think it's anywhere rigiorus enough to draw any conclusions from.

> One possible explanation is that the process of learning about the amount of exercise they were already getting somehow changed the maids' behavior. But Langer says that her team surveyed both the women and their managers and found no indication that the maids had altered their routines in any way. She believes that the change can be explained only by the change in the women's mindset.

I think that they're too quick to dismiss a change in behavior. Simply asking someone (and their managers‽) if they did anything different this month than they did last month isn't a very reliable way to figure out if there were any subtle changes in behavior.

I don't know if they were expecting massive conscious changes, but I would be shocked if suddenly knowing that their daily routine is good for them didn't change some of the subconscious decisions they were making. Even just simple things like taking the stairs 10% more than they did before or how they decide when and how much to eat based on a certain level of hunger. You're still going to think "I took the stairs sometimes, but took the elevator when I needed it." or "I ate the same foods that I did before." but maybe you were taking smaller portions.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that it's very hard to draw hard quantitative conclusions from vague qualitative assessments.

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#26

Post by jghn »

azdle wrote: post #14

I don't have access to the actual paper, but my first thought on this is to wonder if they factored in the idea that people who specifically exercise are obviously interested in being healthy and may be doing other things that are "healthy" that would affect whether they get cancer or not. I wonder if it'd be possible to get data on people who are active, but not for the reason of being healthy, things like working c…

What about people who exercise because they want to look ripped? I've known all sorts of people who exercise but live otherwise unhealthy lifestyles. They're not doing it for their health, but for appearance.

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#28

Post by wapapaloobop »

aortega wrote: post #8

I think it's pretty obvious. I believe that it is not that exercise helps, but sedentarism is poisonous. A sedentary 40 year old looks and feels 20 years older than a 40 year old athlete.

Agreed, but it can't be as simple as merely sitting down. For example, sitting down for meditation is considered healthy, and may in fact be so.

Re: Exercise Tied to Lower Risk for Some Types of Cancer

#30

Post by enraged_camel »

ekianjo wrote: post #29

20 percent less between super active folks and non active ones is not super convincing. If it diminished the risk by 80 percent instead it would make for a much better story

>>20 percent less between super active folks and non active ones is not super convincing.

Do you mean "compelling"? Because it should definitely be convincing: it's well outside the margin of error.

Post reply on HN