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

2024-01-315:03122137www.theguardian.com

Increase in cardiorespiratory levels of 3% annually found to be beneficial, Swedish research suggests

Men can reduce their risk of prostate cancer by as much as 35% by doing a little more jogging, cycling or swimming, a study suggests.

Boosting cardiorespiratory fitness by only 3% over the course of a year was linked to a much lower chance of developing the disease. The findings prompted the researchers to encourage men to boost their fitness levels to help cut their prostate cancer risk.

“The more intensive activity, the lower the requirement for duration and frequency,” said the study’s co-author Dr Kate Bolam, of the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm. “Also, getting more muscles involved will have greater aerobic challenge on the cardiovascular system.

“Hence, activities that involve the lower body … brisk walking or jogging, hiking, activities that you are barely not able to keep up a conversation while doing … or that preferably also include both arms and legs are recommended for more significant effect.

“The trick is to challenge your cardiovascular system on a regular basis so it improves to match the requirements placed on it. It could even be line dancing if that gets your heart rate up and you have fun.”

The study did not set out how someone might accomplish a 3% increase in cardiorespiratory fitness. But Bolam said her advice would be “to think about activities that you think are enjoyable that raise your heart rate that you could add to your weekly routine”.

The Swedish study analysed data on the physical activity levels, height and body mass index (BMI) of 57,652 men, along with information on lifestyle and perceived health, and the results of at least two cardiorespiratory fitness tests.

Annual cardiorespiratory fitness measurements were expressed by the amount of oxygen the body uses while exercising as hard as possible. The men were divided into groups depending on this increasing by 3%, remaining stable, or falling by 3% each year.

During an average follow-up period of seven years, researchers found 592 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Those whose fitness had improved by 3% annually were 35% less likely to develop cancer compared with those whose fitness had declined.

The findings were published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Simon Grieveson, assistant director of research at Prostate Cancer UK, who was not involved in the study, said: “This is an interesting piece of research that adds to previous studies showing possible links between exercise and a lower likelihood of getting prostate cancer.

“Regularly keeping fit and eating a balanced diet are good for every man’s general health and wellbeing – however, we don’t know definitively whether physical activity can lower a man’s risk of getting, or dying from, prostate cancer.”

Matt Lambert, the health information and promotion manager at World Cancer Research Fund, said: “It is widely known that having a higher level of cardiorespiratory fitness is important for our health and longevity, but it can also be protective against certain diseases.

“This insightful study adds to the evidence around how risk factors such as fitness may play a role in reducing men’s risk of prostate cancer.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By jgrahamc 2024-01-318:1312 reply

    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.

    • By frereubu 2024-01-318:366 reply

      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."

      • By pauln99 2024-01-319:355 reply

        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.

        • By mglz 2024-01-3111:564 reply

          > 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.

          • By ak_111 2024-01-3112:383 reply

            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.

            • By lazypenguin 2024-01-3113:31

              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.

            • By brianmcc 2024-01-3113:55

              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.

            • By karolist 2024-01-3112:43

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

          • By Clubber 2024-01-3112:27

            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.

          • By herculity275 2024-01-3114:241 reply

            > 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.

            • By hgomersall 2024-01-3117:15

              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.

          • By pi-e-sigma 2024-01-3115:57

            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

        • By n4r9 2024-01-3111:171 reply

          > 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.

          • By darkstar_16 2024-01-3111:421 reply

            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".

            • By vidanay 2024-01-3112:43

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

        • By koonsolo 2024-01-3112:191 reply

          > 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.

          • By pauln99 2024-01-3112:381 reply

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

            • By koonsolo 2024-02-016:31

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

        • By eggdaft 2024-01-3111:302 reply

          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…

          • By Etheryte 2024-01-3111:452 reply

            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.

            • By rafaelero 2024-01-3114:122 reply

              EDIT

              • By Etheryte 2024-01-3114:302 reply

                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.

                • By rafaelero 2024-01-3114:34

                  Oops, replied to the wrong comment.

                • By eggdaft 2024-01-3115:25

                  Think they replied to your comment accidentally

              • By eggdaft 2024-01-3114:25

                [dead]

            • By eggdaft 2024-01-3114:23

              [dead]

          • By pauln99 2024-01-3112:342 reply

            > 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.

            • By rafaelero 2024-01-3114:352 reply

              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.

              • By pauln99 2024-01-3117:001 reply

                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.

                • By rafaelero 2024-02-0114:29

                  > 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.

              • By pi-e-sigma 2024-01-3116:01

                Saturated fat in excess. The dose makes the poison

            • By eggdaft 2024-01-3114:26

              [dead]

        • By ben_w 2024-01-3112:072 reply

          > 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.

          • By dspillett 2024-01-3112:481 reply

            > 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.

            • By ben_w 2024-01-3113:301 reply

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

              • By tim333 2024-01-3121:26

                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.

      • By MattGaiser 2024-01-3111:071 reply

        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.

      • By throwawaaarrgh 2024-01-319:534 reply

        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.

        • By MrVandemar 2024-01-3110:051 reply

          > 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.

          • By Celmfire 2024-01-3111:36

            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.

        • By kvgr 2024-01-3110:37

          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.

        • By drowsspa 2024-01-3112:07

          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.

        • By oldpersonintx 2024-01-3110:011 reply

          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.

          • By saiya-jin 2024-01-3110:22

            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.

      • By ulfw 2024-01-3111:421 reply

        What does gluten have to do with heart health?

      • By infecto 2024-01-3115:211 reply

        How is low gluten obvious?

        • By cuchoi 2024-01-3118:49

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

      • By ak_111 2024-01-3112:171 reply

        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.

        • By blitzar 2024-01-3113:09

          > 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.

    • By matsemann 2024-01-3111:503 reply

      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?

      • By medo-bear 2024-01-3112:211 reply

        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.

        • By eurekin 2024-01-3112:441 reply

          > 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.

          • By medo-bear 2024-01-3114:15

            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.

      • By ctrw 2024-01-3112:211 reply

        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.

        • By marcus0x62 2024-01-3112:522 reply

          Able to pass a combat fitness test != "moderately fit"

          • By brodouevencode 2024-01-3114:11

            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/

          • By ctrw 2024-01-3116:141 reply

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

            • By marcus0x62 2024-01-3117:38

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

      • By brodouevencode 2024-01-3112:361 reply

        > 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.

        • By matsemann 2024-01-3114:231 reply

          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?

          • By brodouevencode 2024-01-3114:371 reply

            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.

            • By matsemann 2024-01-3115:011 reply

              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?

              • By brodouevencode 2024-02-0121:34

                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.

    • By philshem 2024-01-319:351 reply

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

      and sleep

      • By throwawaaarrgh 2024-01-319:562 reply

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

        • By going_north 2024-01-3110:55

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

        • By LoveMortuus 2024-01-3111:22

          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).

    • By vasco 2024-01-318:32

      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.

    • By blitzar 2024-01-319:03

      > 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%

    • By ivandenysov 2024-01-3112:351 reply

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

      • By rafaelero 2024-01-3114:19

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

    • By upofadown 2024-01-3112:171 reply

      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.

      • By _dark_matter_ 2024-01-3113:44

        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!

    • By ddalex 2024-01-319:064 reply

      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 ?

    • By kerrsclyde 2024-01-3112:04

      > 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!

    • By Attummm 2024-01-3111:374 reply

      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.

      • By wazoox 2024-01-3111:53

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

      • By sod 2024-01-3111:542 reply

        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.

        • By Attummm 2024-01-3113:21

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

        • By greenie_beans 2024-01-3114:35

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

          i thought you want to eat nuts and fruits daily?

      • By sigmoid10 2024-01-3111:471 reply

        >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.

        • By Attummm 2024-01-3112:421 reply

          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...

          • By sigmoid10 2024-01-3118:412 reply

            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...

            • By Attummm 2024-02-0117:281 reply

              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.

              • By sigmoid10 2024-02-0521:36

                >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.

            • By DanBC 2024-02-0222:221 reply

              > 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.

              • By sigmoid10 2024-02-0521:33

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

      • By greenie_beans 2024-01-3114:381 reply

        > 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.

        • By Attummm 2024-01-3114:581 reply

          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.

          • By greenie_beans 2024-01-3115:07

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

    • By bregma 2024-01-3111:152 reply

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

      • By hgomersall 2024-01-3111:43

        Not doing exercise makes living worthwhile?

      • By simmerup 2024-01-3111:171 reply

        There’s more to life than processed food and sitting on a couch

        • By blitzar 2024-01-3113:121 reply

          Hookers and blow.

          • By simmerup 2024-01-3115:32

            Some habits are best not to start so you don’t know what you’re missing out on haha

    • By LoveMortuus 2024-01-3111:293 reply

      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.

      • By chii 2024-01-3111:331 reply

        > 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.

        • By zeteo 2024-01-3112:061 reply

          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

          • By chii 2024-01-3114:26

            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.

      • By danjc 2024-01-3111:35

        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.

      • By hgomersall 2024-01-3112:42

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

  • By xyst 2024-01-3113:002 reply

    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.

    • By bhpm 2024-01-3114:17

      > 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.

    • By sandebert 2024-01-3116:58

      30 lbs = 13.6 kg

  • By isaacfrond 2024-01-3111:112 reply

    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...

    • By benmmurphy 2024-01-3111:37

      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.

    • By yread 2024-01-3112:59

      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

HackerNews