The title is misleading. I know young people who had cancer, and who were exercising 10 times more than average person. Use your own judgement while reading.
This publication is only PR from a university and as usual what the real scientific publication tells is very different:
- This univ PR seems to tell that even terminal stage patients may benefit from strong exercise: "Importantly, this exercise induced medicine occurs in patients with incurable, advanced cancer".
Nothing in the Nature article tells something remotely close to that.
- The scientific article [0] only tells that serum collected on those patients, when mixed *in vitro" with commercial cancerous cell lines, showed a reduction in cell growth. It's something that can be observed with a variety of means and it is certainly not a breakthrough.
For example with propolis from honey bees [1], or Astralagus [2]. Yet nobody claims that propolis or astralagus cure cancer.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41391-022-00624-4
That said, the article seems to be more about people with incurable, advanced cancer, which is good news for those people.
No, if you read the scientific publication, no one was treated. It's just a quick and inexpensive in vitro experiment, not even done with multiple commercial cell lines to confirm or refute the results.
Similarly it could have been tested in living organisms (although most findings in mice don't translate to humans).
That said, yes you're right that it's not a in vivo level finding yet.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03044...
Consider that too much of anything is bad. If I understand correctly cancer has to do with cell reproduction rate.
So you can imagine then, that there could be an optimal rate of cell regeneration for longest life/cancer avoidance. Too low a cell regeneration rate(no exercise) and maybe, too fats a cell regeneration(10 times more exercise) both lead to cancer.
The point I am trying to elaborate is that a piece of information, even if they do not match all the cases they still are "significant".