Jump to content


Running Counters Cancerstudy findings


9 replies to this topic

#1 bones

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 507 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 08
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Perth

Posted 25 August 2009 - 01:54 PM

There has been some very interesting research on the long-term benefits of running and it's ability to lower the risk of cancer. These studies follow people over many years and take into account all other control factors, so are probably about as close to sound insights as we're likely to get.

I'd be interested to hear what others reckon about the findings. Can we now tell our non-running friends they'll live longer, more healthy lives if they start running :D I'm particularly interested in the reasons why - various scientists are posing their thoughts though no one is entirely certain. A lot of their suggestions make sense to me.

A link to an article that discusses the various studies can be found at : http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/p...?%20&st=cse

or just type in the title: Does Exercise Reduce Your Cancer Risk? on the New York Times website

Support our Australian advertisers:

#2 chilliman

    Hot eater, Cool Trail Runner.

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,165 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vic....

Posted 25 August 2009 - 02:11 PM

I thought from the title of this thread that there was a risk of cancer from devices such as Garmins.

Glad to see that was not the case.

#3 bones

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 507 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 08
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Perth

Posted 25 August 2009 - 02:40 PM

View Postchilliman, on Aug 25 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

I thought from the title of this thread that there was a risk of cancer from devices such as Garmins.

Glad to see that was not the case.
No, to counter, the verb, meaning to act in opposition. A verb-free title would be most confusing. Sorry, the editor/writer pedant in me.

#4 chilliman

    Hot eater, Cool Trail Runner.

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,165 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vic....

Posted 25 August 2009 - 03:25 PM

View Postbones, on Aug 25 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

No, to counter, the verb, meaning to act in opposition.

I think it is the forced "title" case that caused the confusion, not the first time. :D

#5 vat

    Easing back

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,937 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:03 PM

View Postbones, on Aug 25 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

There has been some very interesting research on the long-term benefits of running and it's ability to lower the risk of cancer. These studies follow people over many years and take into account all other control factors, so are probably about as close to sound insights as we're likely to get.

I'd be interested to hear what others reckon about the findings. Can we now tell our non-running friends they'll live longer, more healthy lives if they start running :D I'm particularly interested in the reasons why - various scientists are posing their thoughts though no one is entirely certain. A lot of their suggestions make sense to me.

A link to an article that discusses the various studies can be found at : http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/p...?%20&st=cse

or just type in the title: Does Exercise Reduce Your Cancer Risk? on the New York Times website

It is always difficult to pinpoint exact reasons, as indeed the article itself attests:

Quote

Although the Finnish study controlled for diet, the scientists write that other, unspecified “lifestyle factors” and the luck (good and bad) of genetics may well have affected their results.

It's a key question - is it running that helps prevent cancer, or is it the behaviours that go with running helping?

Another of those awkward holistic things, I think.

#6 Gronk

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens Park

Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:16 PM

View Postvat, on Aug 25 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

It's a key question - is it running that helps prevent cancer, or is it the behaviours that go with running helping?

Bingo.

#7 bones

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 507 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 08
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Perth

Posted 25 August 2009 - 10:46 PM

View Postchilliman, on Aug 25 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

I think it is the forced "title" case that caused the confusion, not the first time. :D
A lifetime in journalism will do that.

#8 sunny1

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 07
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Adelaide

Posted 26 August 2009 - 12:06 AM

View Postvat, on Aug 25 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

It is always difficult to pinpoint exact reasons, as indeed the article itself attests:


It's a key question - is it running that helps prevent cancer, or is it the behaviours that go with running helping?

Another of those awkward holistic things, I think.

... like spending lots of time on CR, reading maps, buying shoes? :D

#9 chilliman

    Hot eater, Cool Trail Runner.

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,165 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vic....

Posted 26 August 2009 - 09:27 AM

View Postbones, on Aug 25 2009, 10:46 PM, said:

A lifetime in journalism will do that.

I meant when you create a new thread the forum forces title case on the thread name, it has frustrated me to no end in the past, and you have to get creative with spaces, but sometimes it is just impossible to have a clear thread title that you are after based on some event name etc. It would be nice to be able to turn it off if required.


View Postsunny1, on Aug 26 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

... like spending lots of time on CR, reading maps, buying shoes? :D

.... I put it down to the mud baths I receive every day on local trail. :LOL:

#10 foxen

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Narre Warren North

Posted 26 August 2009 - 04:26 PM

View Postbones, on Aug 25 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

I'd be interested to hear what others reckon about the findings. Can we now tell our non-running friends they'll live longer, more healthy lives if they start running :D I'm particularly interested in the reasons why - various scientists are posing their thoughts though no one is entirely certain. A lot of their suggestions make sense to me.

I too like to arm myself with such information when occasionally someone who doesn't exercise questions why I do. Unfortunately I have found that for most part, the evidence is clear but it goes against their current behaviour and as such they can't accept it within themselves, otherwise they would have to change how they are. So if you present all the facts and prove the benefits without doubt, then most of the time you may just create one more person who resents you and thinks that you feel yourself more superior. Unfortunately this is most likely not the case. I know from experience you can have the best intentions to convince people of the benefits of exercise but they can still take it the wrong way because in reality you are challenging their lifestyle and possibly self affirmed delusions about why no exercise is the best way for them.

In the end exercise is almost like a belief system. One has to change their belief structure to become a regular exerciser. I think that some people have a no-exercise belief system. The process of conversion to an exercise belief system is just as complicated and difficult as a religious conversion.

I am sure many coolrunners, totally convinced in their own experience of the benefits of regular strenous exercise have tried to convert someone they know or love without success. While I love to have facts for myself, to support my belief system, so far I have not had much success using it to bring others the joys and benefits of running or any other regular vigorous exercise.

Despite what science says, I look at it this way. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, humankind has had to work hard throughout history. Work hard pretty much every day, to survive. So either by design or by natural selection, our bodies are made to move and to work hard. The harder it can work, the better its chance to survive and thrive. Fast forward to today. Technology does all the hard work. So it is logical to me that if we don't do regular physical work in our jobs day to day, then our bodies are missing a critical element of what they are made to do. This void must be filled by exercise where you work up a sweat. If this balance is not maintained, then we will see evidence of it in many ways. Obesity, cancers, depression etc.

Cancers could come because of inherited DNA or immune system which is already corrupted before our lifetime (thanks to your ancestors). Not sure how much we can do about that, but there are factors which cause our immune system to change during our lifetime. The belief is that moderate exercise boosts the immune system, thus improving our own bodies chance that foreign cells could be eliminated. Exercising too hard can dampen or redirect the immune system eg. repairing all those broken muscle fibers etc rather than cleaning up foreign cells. So those who push it too hard, too often actually in my opinion may increase their risk of illness and cancer. So more is not always better. The immune system is so complicated, I think even most immunologists don't agree about a lot of things. I know I am simplifying it a bit here and I am certainly not qualified or an expert in the area. These are just my thoughts based on my own readings and learning in the area.

Anyway, since you asked, that's what I reckon :LOL:

Cheers!