Getting fitter can reduce prostate cancer risk by 35%, study finds | Hacker News Reader

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

theguardian.com

122 pointssandebert137 comments

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.

Social life is good for a healthy brain but there's other ways. The main benefit of "social" is not living alone so someone calls an ambulance for you when you have a stroke or a bad fall at home.

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."

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.

> eating meat's fine... We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.

The behaviour of ancient humans doesn't necessarily indicate what will keep us modern humans healthy into old age, though. Do we even know whether they ate meat everyday?

Personally speaking, I will generally put on too much weight if I follow my appetite and don't count calories or follow some kind of plan. That's true even if I eat "real", home-cooked food.

This is true. The early humans likely just ate one meal a day, and were moving a lot. They also ate when they got hungry and not necessarily when it's time for "lunch".

I'm almost certain that scheduled meals rose to prominence with the industrial revolution (aka, "clocking in and out".)

I’d roll back a bit on meat. It can be very fatty, particularly red meat. And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer. If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.

Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

I'd say this is intentionally missing the point. Where you draw the line between homo sapiens and the previous predecessor is subjective and largely arbitrary. The point is that we and our evolutionary ancestors have been eating most edible things we could get our hands on for as long as we go back.

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.

Oops, replied to the wrong comment.

Think they replied to your comment accidentally

> 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, the evidence, such that it is, is only found in highly confounded epidemiology that does not allow you to make that claim.

> If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.

Fair enough.

> Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

Google "how long have humans been eating meat". Not saying it's right, but it contradicts your point.

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

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.

> What is the causal connection you are talking about?

↑ Saturated fats > ↑ LDL > ↑ Cardiovascular Disease

We have mendelian (genetic) studies that attest the causality of this link, ie. people who are naturally born with low LDL have less CVD. Not sure why you think this is not a compelling narrative.

> 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 etc.). Overall humans are omnivores, as evidenced by tooth layout. Some populations still manage to live on primarily meat-based diets (Inuit), albeit with some difficulties.

The main issue is the amount of meat: Hunting was difficult and dangerous, limiting how much meat we got. Being able to eat meat every day for almost every meal is a recent development and is a major difference to prehistorical diets. Plus, factory-farmed meat is significantly different from free-range animals w.r.t fat, hormone and antibiotics content.

I would assume the early diets would be feast and starve. You kill an animal and the entire tribe gets to feast for a few days, then you don't eat a whole lot until you kill another animal. Salt eventually flattened this out by being a preservative.

I'm sure there were gathering of berries and plants to fill in between the feast. I mean they were called hunter / gatherers.

I always find it baffling appealing to the fact that "eating meat is lindy" - i.e. something stone age humans and us did for hundreds of thousands of years, hence healthy, at least it won't kill you.

Because it ignores the fact that average life expectancy was significantly less than it is today - why would you want to take stone age humans as health role models? In fact average life expectancy almost doubled globally from high 40s to high 70s only very recently - well after we stopped eating meat all the time.

Average life expentancy is influenced by far more factors than just diet, especially in lawless times with minimal creature conforts.

In 1924 the President of the United States’s son died. A man with access to the best medicine and doctors of the time during an insdustrialized age was not able to save his 16 year old son. He died from a bacterial infection…on his toe…that he got from playing on the White House lawn barefoot. In 1924 they were not able to save him from such a “simple” ailment. We underestimate the advancements in modern medicine and how easy it was to die historically. You could be the fittest, strongest vegetarian in 300BC and bad piece of bread could end you. Correlating meat consumption with life expectancy is just foolish.

Life expectancy has historically been skewed downwards by terribly high infant mortality rates, not by masses of folks dying at say 40.

If half your population dies after 60, the lucky ones, and half before 2, your average "around 30 ish" life expectancy isn't particularly predictive.

> 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.

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

> 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.

> Our mouths are too small for the number of teeth we have.

Is that a general thing?

I was under the impression those of us from the British isles had a problem because of mixed heritage due to repeated invasion: we've managed to inherit a tendency for smaller jaws from southern influences and bigger teeth from north/west Europe.

I've not heard of that myself, but it wouldn't take much evidence to convince me as that seems very plausible.

I read somewhere that modern jaws don't stick out enough because we don't chew enough tough stuff growing up. We were evolved to chew roots a fair bit.

> We've been eating it for a couple of millions of years.

My grandparents were farmers before farming became industrialized. If you look at how much meat they ate, it's very little compared to current generations.

Plus, what the cows and pigs ate in those days was very different than what they feed them today. I know of a farmer that raises a cow for his own consumption, and that one gets different food than all the rest. That should tell you enough already.

So the 'eat mostly plants' is very relevant for todays generation, even more so than before.

The premises of your argument, i.e. what your grandparent's did and animals dietary changes, are insufficient to justify your firm conclusion.

I was responding to another comment, so my conclusion was not fully stated in my comment alone.

Except that everyone's body is different, and sometimes you really should be on a particular diet of some kind. Ask your doctor what to eat, eat that. When they say "stop drinking", "cut back the salt", "eat more fiber", etc, do it.

The idea that you need a highly personalized custom diet is a lie peddled by everyone who profits from this

You do not need to see a doctor prior to eating kale

Your doctor is a person who uses WebMD to determine what prescription to write you as quickly as possible. Your doctor is probably unhealthy also.

My wife is a doctor, most of of our friends have at least one, often both as doctors. Most of them are living healthily, but that may be also due to location - Geneva, Switzerland which has strong French influence. Meaning good high quality food is default, portions smaller than US, tons of physical exercise is a default here, we have beautiful nature and mountains at our doorsteps so that helps. My banking IT colleagues fall into exactly same category.

But then there are the rest, which have various issues like eating crap, overweight, no sports etc. Yet they know fully darn well where it leads to. Either they make some mental bypass like smokers 'it won't happen to me', or they are at peace and enjoy themselves.

Proper knowledge of consequences is not enough to persuade everybody, regardless of their IQ. Also, even healthily folks that are say anxious go sometimes on regretful binging spree when things get tougher.

> Ask your doctor what to eat, eat that.

Ummmm ... maybe. I work in a medical practice, and I don't think the doctor's really have that great an understanding of nutrition. I'm not sure it's even something they study at med-school.

Med school gives you maybe a couple of lectures on nutrition specifically, and it's mentioned as a major risk factor when discussing many diseases. A doctor should be able to tell you the basics, but if you want detailed info you should really be speaking to a registered dietitian instead.

But that shouldn't be handled by jumping into random diets. Better approach is people think there is something wrong, is to start strict elimination diet and gradually add different food groups.

Honestly, our bodies are different but not that different. Barring digestive issues like celiac disease and allergies, the basic guidelines are pretty much the same for all of us.

I don't think there is much disagreement on how to be healthier.

The problem is how to be healthier without it costing too much in terms of effort, pain, sacrifice, etc.

What does gluten have to do with heart health?

Minimal, but that was not what OP said.

The extreme all meat diet have only started gaining wide mainstream traction (as far as I can tell) only over the last 6-8 years (and for some reason seems to overlap strongly with certain segment of crypto and MAGA population).

So it will be interesting to track progress in the population who committed to it in the next few years since I think it takes a decade or so for a diet to start exhibiting long-term health effects in a significant sample.

Anecdotally from my small group of 10 friends that I know who committed to it, 3 quit it after a few months because they couldn't give up carbs, 4 still swear by it after a few years, and 3 said that it was causing them health problems around the year mark so they gave it up.

> The extreme all meat diet have only started gaining wide mainstream traction (as far as I can tell) only over the last 6-8 years

The extreme all meat diet was called "The Atkins Diet" 20 years ago, you might have seen it mentioned on a retro rerun of a tv show.

As with most things, and certainly everything to do with diet, excercise and fashion - there is nothing actually new.

How is low gluten obvious?

The author was giving that as an example of a complicated diet that might not help as much as "the obvious".

> eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life

can reduce cancer / heart disease / stroke / lung disease / early death / every other known ailment risk by X0%

I've read that regular ejaculations reduce prostate cancer risk.

Perhaps getting fit and eating right lead to more regular ejaculations by more easily encountering sexual partners ?

You assume a partner is needed.

That risk of prostate cancer was reduced by 20 percent for men who ejaculated 21 times a month, compared to men who ejaculated four to seven times a month [0], A similar Australian study found the risk was reduced by 36 percent when men ejaculated seven times a week [1].

You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket.

[0] https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.104...

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15069045/

> eating a balanced diet, staying fit (strength and cardio), having a healthy social life ...

and sleep

Adults need less sleep as they age. Still useful to have it, of course...

If you exercise more in order to get fit, sleep becomes more important.

Could you please point me towards some papers, where I could learn more about this, because I was under the impression that the amount of required sleep doesn't really change throughout the life (excluding the baby faze).

You want to live forever? Don't do any of the things that make living worthwhile.

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

Not doing exercise makes living worthwhile?

I do think that people underestimate the dangers of prolonged stress.

My hypothesis is that stress is the real killed. This might be survivorship bias, but I often see people that are above average old, smoking. That's why I think that perhaps the reduction of stress that smoking provides, could be more beneficial than the negative side. We do know that nicotine does have a neuroprotective effect and smoking does include a specific way of breathing.

I'm not saying smoking is good or that anyone should smoke. But I do think it's worth investigating.

I personally try to avoid stress whenever possible, of course, within reason.

> often see people that are above average old, smoking.

it's quite a sample bias, because those who you see smoking are likely quite healthy and thus is _able_ to smoke to old age (or won a genetic lottery to be able to withstand smoking).

What you need to count is how many people smoke, and then the % of them dying earlier than those who don't. Otherwise, sample bias will give you the wrong conclusions, esp. if this bias is affirming your own world view.

Isn't it the same with exercise, though?

> Those who you see exercising are likely quite healthy and thus _able_ to exercise to old age (or won a genetic lottery to be able to withstand a lot of exercising).

> What you need to count is how many people try to exercise, and then the % of them dying earlier than those who don't

It's not exactly the same, because there's actually studies that tries to answer this exact question - https://youtu.be/-3dt7rpvz4g?t=294

TLDW; the curve of risk/mortality vs amount of exercise is a u-shaped curve, which means if you _don't_ exercise, you also die earlier, and if exercised _too much_ , you also die earlier.

Might be helpful to think of stress as a response as opposed to a stressor which is an input.

The more control you can exert over your response, the better.

Weird, I often comment how rarely I see old people smoking. I assumed the smokers had all died early.

The statement, although true, is missing nuance. For example, a balanced diet is ambiguous.

Does a balanced diet include fast food? How much ultra-processed food? How many carbs? Do we need to change the above answers with age or when someone is diabetic or has high blood pressure?

Thus, even though almost everyone will agree with the balanced diet statement from the outset, what constitutes a balanced diet will yield a diversity of answers.

>Does a balanced diet include fast food? How much ultra-processed food?

There seems to be some confusion here. "Balanced" means balanced in terms of micro and macro-nutrients that the body needs. Not balanced in the ratios of ultra-processed junk food and healthy food.

That was my point on ambiguity, leads to confusion.

Your interpretation is yours but how would your interpretation account for research on ultra processed food.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...

That was not the question. Your question was: "Does a balanced diet include fast food?"

The answer to that is simple: No.

A balanced diet is a healthy mix of essential nutrients. Highly processes foods rich in fat or sugar are not part of it [1]. Most advisories merely acknowledge that a large part of the population doesn't want to stop eating this stuff completely. But the real goal should always be zero.

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-guidelines-and-fo...

Your link doesnt have any mention of processed food. Also it starts with that it's not to goal to adhere 100% and its not needed. As such it does contain fastfood and ultra processed food. As being part of healthy diet.

Thus leading to my initial point, a balanced and healthy diet are too ambiguous.

> The Eatwell Guide shows how much of what we eat overall should come from each food group to achieve a healthy, balanced diet.

> You do not need to achieve this balance with every meal, but try to get the balance right over a day or even a week.

>Your link doesnt have any mention of processed food.

It does if you know what you are looking for. "Highly processed" is not strictly well defined, but commonly understood as foods with large amounts of added salt, fat and sugar. That's exactly the category of food they talk about in the article as unnecessary for our diet and which should be consumed as little as possible.

> Your question was: "Does a balanced diet include fast food?"

> The answer to that is simple: No

Registered healthcare professionals - dietitians - disagree with you, and do so pretty strongly.

What are you talking about? The literal NHS disagrees with your statement.

A sane diet includes exactly zero ultra processed food, I think the data is pretty clear now.

IMHO the base framework can and must be simple and unnuanced and easy to remember:

* eat as little and never drink: sugar, alcohol

* seek: stuff that feeds you and your gut biome and doesn't cause diarrhea (aka avoid ultra-processed food)

* bonus: at least once a week: fish, salad, nuts, fruits

Sure, thats not nuanced. But the message is simple: If you eat/drink sugar, alcohol or processed foods, then your body will degrade faster and your biological organism will run on pain, inflammation and fatigue.

Those points you have made are according to the latest science. But is that knowledge available for everyone?

> bonus: at least once a week: fish, salad, nuts, fruits

i thought you want to eat nuts and fruits daily?

> Does a balanced diet include fast food? How much ultra-processed food?

omg shut up, this sort of contrarian semantic shit doesn't make you look smart like you intend. everybody knows that fast food isn't a good component of diet. everybody knows how they can improve their very unique and individualized diet. it's like telling a smoker that cigarettes are bad for you.

Lets keep it civil, food and nutrition are one of my hobbies next to software. As such I'm quite interested in what you would describe as balanced diet.

Some call a balanced diet 80% healthy and 20% unhealthy.

For example the link below is saying that fastfood could be part of a healthy diet.

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/fast_food_can_be_healthy

Edit: Healthy/balanced those terms are quite loaded are not specified as such we could both agree that healthy and balanced diet is good. Yet both us could have a wildy different interpretations on what that would entail.

The goal was to start a discussion and get different viewpoints. And they could all be true.

i encourage you to read that article with a more critical mindset.

The problem with that statement is that it's basically a tautology, since the words "balanced", "healthy" etc. hide all the complexities. What is a "balanced" diet? What is moderately fit? What is the definition of a healthy social life?

Here is my 'common sense' attempt:

> What is a "balanced" diet?

Eating all the necessary macro and micro nutrients in bounds of callorie requirements.

> What is moderately fit?

Walk for 5km without issue. Do 10 pushups. Do 20 situps. Do 20 squats.

> What is the definition of a healthy social life?

Dont let work be your whole life. To many people free time pretty much boils down to having dinner and going to bed. Instead engage more in socializing outdoors.

> Walk for 5km without issue. Do 10 pushups. Do 20 situps. Do 20 squats.

Squats are often considered one of the most challenging exercises, as my physiotherapist points out. It's easy to underestimate them – I did 70 squats once and ended up straining my back.

The key to a proper squat is maintaining stable back support throughout the entire movement. This principle isn't just crucial for squats; it's fundamental for all heavy weightlifting exercises. It's also incredibly relevant to everyday tasks like doing laundry or cleaning, as these activities often involve similar lifting motions.

This concept is known as maintaining stability in the sagittal plane. However, it's equally important to focus on coronal and axial support, strength, and pain-free movement.

It's worth noting that exercises like situps and pushups, often seen as simpler, can also be performed incorrectly by beginners.

Regarding diet, it's an even more complex topic. Nutrition needs can vary greatly from person to person, and a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely effective. It's essential to consider individual differences and specific circumstances when discussing dietary advice.

Sorry I meant weight-free squats. In fact I think you do not need a gym or any equipment in order to do basic exercises. If you get too consumed by the details you will never start. I think what I wrote is a good baseline to start from. Sure I get that there is no such thing as one-size-fits all, but same applies to anything we call 'common sense'. However common sense is usually practical for most people. Adjust as you go along.

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"

The 1940s combat fitness test is fairly different than the modern combat fitness test. Now it's all about power generation and less about endurance (save for the 2 mile run).

https://www.army.mil/acft/

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

Even more apparently, that wasn’t the entire test.

> hide all the complexities

Does it? There are some things that are obvious to anyone paying attention. We can tease out details ad nauseum but what is the point in that if you can get 95% of the way there just by being sensible.

Paying attention to who? Instagram influencers? Podcast hosts?

What's sensible? How many workouts per week? What kind? What food to eat? How much of each?

There is a standard of reasonableness - i.e. if the diet and exercise program results are reasonably good.

Good health doesn't have to be an exact science. Forgoing processed foods, forgoing too many calories, and taking a daily walk is sufficient for the average person. The questions you are asking here only matter at the extremes (professional athletes, et. al.), not to the average person.

No, that's my point. You're projecting your definitions of "sane", when there are thousands of choices to make. Avoiding processed foods isn't "simple", and who has decided a daily walk is sufficient?

The entire basis for western criminal law is a reasonableness standard. This seems to work pretty well. I figured out how to not feed processed foods to my family pretty easily, I take daily walks with my family, etc. and went from not great shape to pretty decent shape. I must be a genius.

But have it your way in the mire of pedantry you've carved out for yourself.

> having a healthy social life

This is almost always omitted when it comes to health advice I feel it is one of the most important factors. Loneliness kills!

The study only considered cardiorespiratory fitness. So from what we know from the study, eating a balanced diet, being strong, and having a healthy social life might all cause prostate cancer.

Anyone who regularly lifts weights enough to "be strong" will have far above average cardiorespitory fitness. For example, cardio became my limiting factor deadlifting, and I had to start incorporating more running in order to lift more. Heavy weights can work out your cardio system to a surprising degree!

Totally agree. Also Peter Attia in his “Outlive” book insists that staying fit is more important than a balanced diet.

That doesn't sound correct. I don't think that athletes live longer than generally health conscious people.

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 consumption of meat. Reduced consumption of sugar and artificially sweetened foods and replacing with fruits. Increased consumption of more leafy vegetables and opting for more healthier options such as salmon (omega-3s, ”healthy fats”).

- intermittent fasting. Very difficult at first but was able to find my groove after a couple of weeks

- added a few OTC supplements as part of routine as recommended by doc (vitamin d3 , fish oil)

I am fortunate enough to have been able to do this without any supplemental Rx medications like off label usage of “ozempic”.

I will admit it did take some time. Maybe 2-3 months to begin to reap the fruits of my labor but it was definitely worth it.

> Maybe 2-3 months to begin to reap the fruits of my labor but it was definitely worth it.

I’m glad you wrote this part. I think many people get discouraged because they see ads where people lose x lbs in y days. But, it’s important to remember that change is hard. You didn’t get to where you are in a few days and you won’t change yourself sustainably in a few days.

30 lbs = 13.6 kg

The absolute first thing you should think with articles like this: is the journalist confusing correlation and causation???

And sure enough, the main finding according the scientific paper [1]

In this cohort of 177 709 men followed up for a mean of 9.6 years, higher cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a lower risk of colon cancer incidence. A lower risk of death from lung and prostate cancer was also noted.

Keyword being associated. So one needs to wonder, could the causation run the other way? Perhaps, people with cancer are apt to exercise less. In fact you only need to exercise a little bit less to get to a level of 3% less fitness. Seems an entirely reasonable explanation. If so, this means that exercising more would not reduce the chance of getting cancer. Since cancer is a bit of a dice gamble, that does not seem impossible to me.

Yet a further alternative, maybe exercise and lower cancer risk are both caused by something else. Some adjustments were made for various factors, but maybe if you are well-off, you tend to live better, leading to higher fitness and to lower cancer.

So, good to know, but the Guardian article reads way to much in this.

[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

I think a lot of 'good' habits are often correlated together so it's always suspect when there is a claim that a 'good' habit has some positive health outcome. it could even be worse where the 'good' habits have no effect and the 'good' habits are just a side effect of a 'good' package of genes which is what really produces the positive health outcome.

Especially for prostate cancer which has relatively low death rate. It's not the prostate cancer that kills old men, it's the complications around it

I would guess that getting fitter can reduce pretty much all health risks by similar percentages.

Getting fitter as in working out, or losing weight...?

"Boosting cardiorespiratory fitness by only 3%"

So, 45 minutes per day?

As in improving cardiorespiratory fitness. According to the article, a Swedish study suggests that, for men, an improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness of 3% annually may reduce risk of prostate cancer by as much as 35%. From how I understand the statements made in the article, they (the researchers) seem to emphasize regularity and intensity; that is, regularity is key, and higher intensity as substitute for duration. They also seem to primarily focus on lower-body activity (i.e. use your legs) while making it clear that activities that involve movement of both legs and arms are preferable.

So it's the act of getting fitter, i.e. there must be a constant improvement of 3% a year, it's not good enough to get "fit" and then maintain it? Doesn't that take a huge amount of effort after the first few years?

Yeah, I thought of the same, a 3% year-on-year improvement must necessarily hit some ceiling at some point. The study didn't get into _how_ to achieve a 3% improvement, but from how I understand it, looked at the average year-on-year decline, stability, or improvement, over a period of 7 years.

My own take-away is that there's even more data that confirms "being fit" is about a continuous effort, and that putting in an effort (even quite minimal) to stay fit comes with a whole range of positive health benefits.

I wouldn't extrapolate too far like that.

If you start from next to nothing, you can sustain 3% growth per year for 33 years until you reach 100% growth. That is 33 years to go from lifting 50lbs to lifting 100lbs. You'd actually probably have to work hard to improve that slowly. For cardio that's going from a 20 to a 10 minute mile over 33 years. After a plateau, you generally need to train smarter rather than harder, and then you can keep gaining.

Even if you can't sustain it forever, you're getting fitter than if you weren't doing anything, so your life expectancy is still getting longer.

I don’t think the 3% was an annual metric; instead they simply looked retrospectively at cohorts of subjects whose VO2 max was down by 3% or worse, stable, or increased by 3% or better. The outcome measure over a mean of 6.7 years was incident prostate Ca.

Importantly, the study says nothing about how the subjects achieved this result or whether it was an active process at all. The author’s comments and the first sentence in The Guardian overstate the actual findings. It’s reasonable to assume that purposefully pursuing a cardiovascular fitness regimen aimed at improving VO2max will reduce your prostate Ca risk but the study doesn’t address that.

Peter Attia's OUTLIVE is massively interesting.

Two key indicators he tracks are grip strength and VO² max. They are the product of (most typically) structured weights and cardio training respectively.

Another key thing he addresses is to actually plan for old age, i.e. to factor in how the body will lose muscle mass/ conditioning as we get older - and set eg strength targets for activities to do later in life (i.e. be able to lift grandson) and work back from there.

In other words, this means that building a solid reserve in younger years and then maintaining as well as possible is the way to go.

(To lift grandson at 85, need to be able to lift a helluva lot more at 50).

Read the book/get his audiobook would be my recommendation; I'm listening to his Audible and finding it kind of life changing.

Has anyone ever interviewed people who are still active at 85 and asked what they did when younger?

That grip strength falls apart when you meet climbers. I know we are outliers in general population but it overall seems like a poor measure with tons of corner cases which invalidate it.

Older marathon runner can have a baby pinch due to not using his/her hands for any sport, yet somehow I doubt they fall into same category as some morbidly obese 250kg ball of fat who didn't move from the bed in past few years.

I'm not convinced climbers ruin the grip strength metric that much. Yes, as a climber your grip strength will be proportionally stronger when compared to other metrics. However, this also means that you climb regularly, which involves a lot of other muscles, balance, and lots of hiking if you do it outdoors.

It's used as a proxy for overall strength, as it's very easy to measure in a clinical setting and there is a good amount of data floating about with it.

A bit like BMI, it could be useful for looking at in overall populations even if there are pockets where it doesn't measure overall strength in an accurate manner.

It's not saying if you train your grip strength you will live longer, but _generally_ those that live longer have greater grip strength than those that don't.

Great book. But his recommendations are hard to follow.

40 minutes of zone 2 cardio at least 4 times a week plus zone 5 training once a week plus a strength training regimen plus mobility work.

I exercise about an hour 5-6 days a week and that isn’t enough to cover this regimen.

His recommendations make sense given that his most important indicator for longevity is exercise. But it’s a lot of time per day. Two hours some days if you really follow it.

Original study: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/early/2024/01/03/bjspo...

Huh, so going indoor climbing 2-3x a week has not only boosted my strength and endurance, but is also apparently reducing my chance of prostate cancer?? Sweeeeet.

What is it with this obnoxious 'alternative' frat bro attitude among indoor climbers?

Chillax bruh, homie was just asking for beta.

En anglais, s'il vous plait?

For most folks who are longer in sport, it is by far the best activity that can be done. I do in some form: hiking/camping in wilderness, swimming, biking, paragliding, climbing, via ferratas, alpinism, diving, skiing, ski touring/alpinism and few other things, on top just training with weights and running. Kids cut it significantly but I am still there.

Climbing in non-winter conditions (or indoor) and ski touring are by far the best things for me. I come happy like a toddler after a session / trip on skis. I just don't get this from typical old school team sports, or even single/duo ones.

The biggest thing isn't the physical effort part, not for me. Its exposition to your fear of death, fear of injury which are very strong emotions. You have to repeatedly overcome your biggest fear in whole life and push through, maybe 10x maybe 50x per evening. Do it for 1 or 2 decades at least 1x a week and your personality will change for the better. Also helps with various milder mental issues, not fixing them but improving (this can be said about every sport but its way more intense here).

There are other sports where you expose yourself to similar fears, but in climbing its very easy in afterwork session, without the actual risk (valid for sport climbing).

Does climbing really expose you to your fear of death? You're strapped in, and possibly wearing a helmet if outside, while either top roped or clipped in metal anchors. I can see that fear if you're free climbing, though.

I've gone dozens of times, mostly because friends can't get enough of it, but I find it slow, boring and expensive. I've done mostly outdoor, but some indoor, and while sometimes I enjoy the technical aspect of it. Solo back country trekking and camping seems "scarier" to me.

Personally, after work, the last thing I want is intense stimulation, or to be around a bunch of people pulling on plastic. I'd prefer a nice ride or to get outside, away from everything.

> Does climbing really expose you to your fear of death?

It depends how (de)sensitised your flinch/fear/other responses are to various things. I practice martial arts (swords, wrestling) and even when I know I can parry a hit, or that it'll be pulled before doing me any real damage if I don't (or the weapon is a light synthetic that I'll barely feel through the PPE), I sometimes find the natural “pointy thing heading towards my cranium” oh-shit reaction cannot be resisted. Same for a throw that I know I will land safely from. There are those who have less efficient self-preservation reactions, or more control to resist them as needed, or both, and there are those who are far more reactive, sometimes significantly overly so, than I.

I assume⁰ climbing is the same: some don't get the natural fear response because their rational thinking combined with all the PPE damps it down, some very much do despite all that.

[0] assuming as I've not done any myself so don't have a first-hand point of reference

There's definitely a primal fear when you're 15-20m up on a rock where you feel like you have nothing to grip onto (or you're losing your strength) and you're going to fall -- even if you rationally know you'll be 100% fine, there's something you have to battle where it just "feels wrong" and you feel some kind of fundamental risk. The feeling tends to vary though, but it's quite common.

Also, yeah, it's definitely not for everyone. I only tried it out at 39 and am finding it super fun and satisfying/rewarding, so I'm all-in, but a lot of people "nope out" due to total disinterest after trying it!

Yes it does, definitely for me, depending on the route. But I have great imagination, my internal renderer can project a new house construction in 2 seconds but can also in 0.1s project gnarly consequences of the fall right here right now. With experience you get better but I've never lost it, just became better at managing it (this is the growth part I mentioned).

Indoor routes are generally very safe due to frequent bolts, outdoor it depends, with bolts easily 4-5m apart, not so much. I still talk purely about sport climbing with drilled bolts, not trad climbing where you put expansion devices into cracks yourself or wedge tiny metal bits and pray intensely you won't actually fall on them.

I don't want to go into detailed climbing & fall physics but if in such a route you fall just before next bolt (or during an attempt to clip into it), you can easily swing up to 8m down, hit a ledge, part of rock with serious force, or just be smashed against rock face hard (if you are in overhang then all is fine obviously, just belayer will fly hard). Broken/twisted ankles, wrists etc are not that uncommon in such situation, or worse depending on position, usage of helmet etc.

idk maybe you fall in that category too. if you're a climber i'm sure a stranger has looked at you with disgust and thought, "i can't believe that alternative frat bro climber exists."

Umm, what? I was just being a bit funny with my positive realization that my recent undertaking of a new sport has more benefits than I was previously aware. Why are you insulting me?

I didn't mean to insult you personally. It's this braggadocious attitude that I've encountered in a lot of bouldering gyms that I've visited, so often that I assume it must part of the subculture mentality.

I love the sport and the physical challenge but I don't buy into the whole weed-smoking "I'm so counter-culture, bro" self-image. It's like Crossfit but for hipsters with shitty tattoos.

More than once, it seems, I (as a noobie) have been in the way of some "bro", who took a date to the bouldering gym in order to show off in front of the woman and (pretending to assist) to feel her up.

Maybe it's different where you train. Is it?

Having a healthy lifestyle reduces the risk of diseases. Who knew!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com