IN MICE
link to full paper: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/22/4164/710131...
link to full paper: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/22/4164/710131...
Epidemiologic data from a 20-year prospective study of a large human cohort of
initially cancer-free participants revealed that exercise prior to cancer
initiation had a modest impact on cancer incidence in low metastatic stages
but significantly reduced the likelihood of highly metastatic cancer.
From the article:
The total study population included 2,734 participants; 243 new cancer cases
were recorded during the 20-year follow-up period.
From skimming the article, I can't find any analysis of metastatic disease incidence in the remaining patients? Am I just missing it?
While I respect the need for these longterm survey data collection efforts, I am not sure I would frankly trust that survey to even accurately be able to tease out high-intensity vs low-intensity efforts from people participating in the study.
And the tie-in from the cohort survey results back into the motivation for the mouse study just isn't done at all. I mean out of their 148 patients with SEER scores, they make no mention at all at metastatic disease occurence or even attempt to tie that figure back to exercise intensity . . .
> The human data, obtained from an epidemiological study that monitored 3,000 individuals for about 20 years, indicated 72% less metastatic cancer in participants who reported regular aerobic activity at high intensity, compared to those who did not engage in physical exercise.
"As our focus was on the relationship between exercise and cancer, we used a propensity score of multinomial logistic regression to control for key variables in the diet assessed using a validated questionnaire."
So the 73% figure is drawn from a small number of cases that were significantly weighted. I'd be interested to hear what people who know this field think about this result separate from the mouse/human exercise stuff.
From what I understand after reading the article, it reports three things:
* big fancy result in mice
* measurements of biochemical changes due to exercise in a few humans
* self-reported questionnaire from a population of ~3000 tracked over 20 years, some of whom got cancer
Guessing at mechanisms for stuff we already know.
We know exercise is good for you, we know it reduces the risk of cancer and death from cancer.
Let's throw a dart at a board full of its good-sounding effects and all nod our heads at the idea it probably contributes.
My eyes glazed over but they seemingly only found a result in high Vs low metastatic activity? Not even metastatic Vs not metastatic.
Edit: oops
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30456358
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756721
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21605643
etc.