Comments
Valianne11111 t1_iwfhy6d wrote
and staying away from sugar
itriedidied t1_iwhetr5 wrote
And staying uninjured doing that high cardio
pab_guy t1_iwhgl0u wrote
This. I've recently gotten a lot more fit and found health benefits all around.
I think it's more than just strength too... profusion of more blood through your system should enable your organs to function better.
qawsedrf12 t1_iwd3n1x wrote
me: exercising intensely
"Running away from my cancer"
Most-Hawk-4175 t1_iwd0hpm wrote
Good news. I'm a long distance runner but from age 18 to 28 I was drinking alcohol hard like almost every day, doing drugs and smoking cigarettes as well as a unhealthy diet. Pretty sure I messed some DNA up. Been pretty clean and sober except occasional alcohol for the last 10 years and got into running and hiking. I hope my exercise gives me more time cause I straight up put my body through hell when I was younger.
mello151 t1_iwd5jha wrote
You’re an inspiration. I smoked for more than 20 years and picked up running last year. Last time i ran was in the army and I’m pleasantly surprised at how at 40 running is easier than when i was in my twenties but smoked. I really want to get into running long distance like half-marathons and up but sometimes i wonder if i missed my chance to build a base and/or just fucked my body up too much.
Most-Hawk-4175 t1_iwd7ui1 wrote
Homie, running saved my life. It replaced all my bad and dangerous habits. In my late 20s I was skinny and kind of malnourished because of drinking but had a pretty big beer belly. I smoked cigarettes and weed and would get tired just walking to the bathroom. I occasionally used harder drugs but luckily still had the sense to stay away from that mostly. I was so sick and out of shape.
My mom got sick and almost died and that scared me. It got me to quit because she was asking me to for a long time. I quit everything and started walking on trails then jogging some. In a year I was easily running 10k, lost my beer belly and put on healthy weight. I was running half marathons within a couple years but that training can be tough and I enjoy running and hiking 20 to 30 miles a week.
You would be amazed at what the human body can accomplish. And how your body can heal. I guarantee you can run a half probably a marathon with proper training.
TheHermitofHuron t1_iwde5ru wrote
I have been an off/on runner for years. I used to be a heavy drinker, cigarette/weed smoker, and random drug consumer(cocaine, pills, hallucinogens, mdma, etc., etc.. Which after bad benders or long stretches of debauchery, running was my "I am gonna get it together" activity.
I quit everything except for weed almost ten years ago. I have been building up my running for the last few years. Which I mainly use edibles with cannabis anymore as it interferes with my running.
It has become such an important part of my daily routine, I would be lost without it. It is no longer something I am trying to get through, as much as something I genuinely want to be doing.
It is amazing how the body can recover from years and years of abuse.
orangutanoz t1_iwdkr4u wrote
I’ve been unable to run or bike since 2017 and I’m a heavy drinker. I stopped drinking for my most recent surgery so I wouldn’t become a huge fat ass again. Three more weeks until I can put weight on the fused ankle since nothing else has worked so far. Looking forward to cycling and possibly running on the treadmill at least very soon.
TheHermitofHuron t1_iwdn3c8 wrote
it took me a long time to build up.
Atm my daily runs are about 7-8 miles. I dont really have ambitions beyond half marathons or 10k s.
I listen to audio books and plotted out a nice course, it is really pleasant.
Good luck, also, a huge part of my working up was walking parts of distance. Even if you walk 95 percent of it, get the distance that you plan for. If 2 miles is it, and you half to walk mile and a half, you are still making progress.
orangutanoz t1_iwe6xun wrote
Yeah, I used to run 3 or more hours steady no problem but I’m not sure about doing it with a fused ankle. Anything has got to be better than what I had. At the very least I’ll now be able to walk on hills and loose terrain like beaches and I’ll be able to balance on one foot again. Even weight training was heavily curtailed and any household chores were pretty much out of the question. Worst six years of my life.
mello151 t1_iwdsy0s wrote
On the flip-side, i know folks that overdid it with physical activity over the years, especially retired military, and now have fucked knees or backs. I guess there are some benefits to being a late-bloomer after all.
fungussa t1_iwdwzmc wrote
Running is the simplest of exercises, it can be done any time of day or year and it can be quite social too. I really miss it, and had serious withdrawals for a good part of a year, after the sports specialist said that my ankle injury would end my running career.
newtoon t1_iwgs4m2 wrote
Running is far from ideal. Knees are the weak point in that activity.
itriedidied t1_iwhfssm wrote
Anecdotal but ... running is far better for my knees than sitting behind a keyboard all day ever was. I had had knee problems since my 20s. Took up running midlife and all the knee problems went away.
newtoon t1_iwkiv6v wrote
Well, I understand, but knees are nevertheless neither made for sitting all day nor running (especially on hard roads), but for walking (a lot). If knees hurt after running one day later with age, it's cartilage that went away. Then, stop immediately this activity and walk (or swim too) instead. My parents are therapists and were very happy that running became a standard sport : it put food on the table...
bagofbuttholes t1_iwfdw1z wrote
Hey I just responded to the same comment. I totally know what you mean about feeling like you missed out or screwed up too much to do long distance. I don't have any advice but I totally know how you feel. Feels bad man
Aleblanco1987 t1_iwgaq7m wrote
>but sometimes i wonder if i missed my chance to build a base and/or just fucked my body up too much.
I worked with a dude in his early 60's that runs cross country ultra marathons. I don't know when he started running, but your goal it's definitely possible at 40!
[deleted] t1_iwhd22i wrote
[removed]
bagofbuttholes t1_iwfdmtz wrote
Hello older me. Good job!
I too drank (and drugged and smoked and got to 350lbs) from about 18 to 28 and have since gotten into semi long distance running and hiking. Would like to run longer but a binge led to a pulmonary embolism that started in my leg and destroyed the veins in aforementioned leg.
I too do it to try to fix what I broke. I don't have the memory I used to, either from the concussion (dui, rolled car) or drinking dxm like everyday for a couple years. It also helps keep me from going back to the bottle.
Anyway keep it up!
On a serious note though. Do you ever get upset you screwed up the 'best years'? Sometimes it's hard to be ok with what happened. Like especially with my pulmonary embolism and messed up leg. I just want to run further but my younger self screwed that up for life (at least it feels that way) unless they come up with a better treatment for varicose veins. Thinking that I have to live with this now and I can't go back now that I learned my lesson is crappy. But I digress...
Most-Hawk-4175 t1_iwfgnmx wrote
Alcoholism is a terrible addiction. I would party binge hard in my teens early 20s then it moved to drinking by myself mid 20s. And I lost a few years to heavy drinking. Lost my friends, job, girlfriend and moved in with my mom and dad cause I wasn't functional.
My greatest regret is not spending time with my father who passed away during my alcoholism. He would often reach out and want to spend time with me or just chat but I would blow him off because I was always drunk and wanted to be left alone. It breaks my heart thinking about it because he was such a kind man. I will never get that time back I could've had with my dad.
But when my mom got sick I finally snapped out of it. Exercising, jogging, hiking and trying to be healthy and productive was my new addiction. I didn't have any major health problems once I sobered up. Luckily my mom got to see me sober up get better and I made sure we had good quality time. She and my dad didn't give up on me. She passed away a few years ago.
Now, I have a girlfriend and 2 kids of my own with a decent job. I think you and I are both lucky we survived and are alive. Many people don't survive drug and alcohol addiction. We got a second chance even though we messed up parts of our lives. I am thankful for that.
Good luck to you.
Wagamaga OP t1_iwcywwj wrote
A new study at Tel Aviv University found that aerobic exercise can reduce the risk of metastatic cancer by 72%. According to the researchers, intensity aerobic exercise increases the glucose (sugar) consumption of internal organs, thereby reducing the availability of energy to the tumor. The study was led by two researchers from TAU's Sackler Faculty of Medicine: Prof. Carmit Levy from the Department of Human Genetics and Biochemistry and Dr. Yftach Gepner from the School of Public Health and the Sylvan Adams Sports Institute. Prof. Levy emphasizes that by combining scientific knowhow from different schools at TAU, the new study has led to a very important discovery which may help prevent metastatic cancer - the leading cause of death in Israel. The paper was published in the prestigious journal Cancer Research and chosen for the cover of the November 2022 issue.
Sir10e t1_iwdf3j7 wrote
I think the correct interpretation of this would be if you have a tumor that is caught early: If you then exercise regularly or calorie restrict it reduces the risk of metastasis. This was somewhat known in the medical community but always love validation
newtoon t1_iwgsdmq wrote
It is the same principle at play with fasting, I guess. It is known that normal cells can go into temporary "sleep mode" while cancer cells can't wait for having their glucose fix or the immune system find them and kill them.
mcdamon13 t1_iwd0dj0 wrote
So in turn wouldn't fasting and a ketogenic diet work as well?
qawsedrf12 t1_iwd3ps1 wrote
depends on the type of cancer, some get worse with keto
Cleistheknees t1_iwdbgpi wrote
Citation for this?
L7Death t1_iwetmpk wrote
Sure.
> For example, 10 of the 24 (42%) clinical studies included in a recent review [1] provide evidence for the anti-tumor effect of KDs, whereas seven (29%) showed no effect and only one study reported a pro-tumor effect of the KD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842847/
42 percent sounds better than 1 out of 24.
[deleted] t1_iwdd6kr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwdgfjv wrote
[removed]
Sweet_Musician4586 t1_iwdvmip wrote
Then wouldnt some get worse with exercise if it's a similar mechanism?
qawsedrf12 t1_iwdw9yo wrote
two different things going on
- burning off circulation of sugars available
vs 2. the creation of ketones, instead of sugars, by relying on fat for energy
BafangFan t1_iwfl1qh wrote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no cancer cells use ketones for energy:
ginrumryeale t1_iwh86pl wrote
It is known that cancer cells can survive on other fuels and substrates available to it in the cell. Cancer growth might slow down with less glucose available (and there's always glucose available-- your body strictly enforces an available level in the bloodstream at all times), but that's often not enough to stop cancer.
BafangFan t1_iwhtvmb wrote
The two primary fuels, from what I've learned, are glucose and glutamate. You can lower glucose significantly with low carb diets and fasting (I can get my glucose down to the high 30s on a 5 day fast, and feel fine doing it. I get orthostatic hypotension on a fast that long, but it's not a big deal).
And the drug DON can lower or block glutamate.
These aren't things you have to do forever, either - just long enough to starve to death the cancer cells.
ginrumryeale t1_iwhxep7 wrote
I'm moderately familiar with this area of research.
You understand that if it is as simple as this (e.g., as simple as quack researcher Thomas Seyfried posits) then cancer mortality is a solved problem.
Respectfully note that cancer mortality is not solved, and deduce that the problem is significantly more complex than "starve the tumor of sugar, pulse glutamate blockers".
BafangFan t1_iwhydv8 wrote
Look up the story of Pablo Kelly. 8 years ago he was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma - and given a terminal diagnosis with 6-9 months to live.
He refused the Standard of Care, and started a therapeutic ketogenic diet. Today he is still alive and well. That is unheard of.
As far as cancer mortality being solved - the question is "how many people who died of cancer attempted a therapeutic ketogenic diet after diagnosis?". The answer is "close to zero".
It's a practically unheard of treatment outside of a small sliver of the population.
The genetic mutation theory of cancer doesn't make sense. Why were people relatively free of cancer until just the past few decades. And since then cancer has absolutely exploded (as has obesity and type 2 diabetes - and the thing they share in common is their impact on/from metabolism)
ginrumryeale t1_iwi266x wrote
Thanks, but if you're familiar with this topic, it is heard of. 6.8% of glioblastoma patients survive 5 years, 1% survive 8+ years. Living 8 years is far from the norm, but it is "heard of".
Here's a survey of 108 glioblastoma patients.*
Thanks for the conversation.
From: Long-term survivors of glioblastoma are a unique group of patients lacking universal characteristic features, Neuro-Oncology Advances, Vol 2, Issue 1, January-December 2020, vdz056, https://doi.org/10.1093/noajnl/vdz056 , 23 December 2019
drmike0099 t1_iwe3yom wrote
This study is talking about exercise and not about diet, so that would be a pretty tenuous connection.
mcdamon13 t1_iweeppq wrote
Right, the idea remains the same of removing the sugar that feeds the cancer no? All just theoretical obviously.
[deleted] t1_iwd4gwi wrote
[removed]
redduif t1_iwd4mie wrote
Yes. This is well known. Often done in Germany and I believe Russia and Canada, but Germany for sure.
[deleted] t1_iwe9svf wrote
[removed]
Smooth_Imagination t1_iwdjt24 wrote
Remember this recentlly on Science?
A bioluminescent-based probe for in vivo non-invasive monitoring of nicotinamide riboside uptake reveals a link between metastasis and NAD+ metabolism
If NAD+ status is improved systemically and produces an antiaging effect on the metabolism and brain, it ought to enhance inclination towards aerobic exercise. This isn't far-fetched as oxidative stress and energy status in neurons in the nucleus accumbens and pons at the top of the spinal cord mediate perceptions of pain and thereby inclination to move, as well as the reward circuitry of the brain. This is why analysis of specific systems can lead to conclusions that may be wrong because these things aren't happening just to the particular thing examined. Such a large protective effect from aerobic exercise may in theory eliminate any risks overall in the case of the claimed risk of nicotinamide riboside. It might also not show up in all cancer types.
We do know that metabolic nutrient cocktails, such as R-Lipoic Acid and AL-Car, PQQ, have rejuvinating effects in aged animals , and that was observed by the researchers to be reflected in increased movement and more youthful behaviours.
Pooty_Tang1594 t1_iwf91kh wrote
Wow that’s really interesting to think about (and hopefully this is true) thanks for sharing!
[deleted] t1_iwefx1k wrote
I don't want to jinx anything but I think this means Richard Simmons is immune to many forms of cancer.
wecomeinpeacedoyou t1_iwfb1j8 wrote
where did he go?!
[deleted] t1_iwgtp84 wrote
You know I too just noticed his absence when my post popped into my head...wiki says he's still alive so perhaps just kicking back to the oldies?
Puzzleheaded_Runner t1_iwfq0jf wrote
Oddly enough I got thyroid cancer when I was 27 and running 20 miles a week… sometimes just bad luck. I would never give up exercise though. It is my antidepressant.
ginrumryeale t1_iwh7ovq wrote
Yes, a friend of mine was a phenomenal athlete, he won his age-group at the Iron-Man in Kona Hawaii, but died just a few years later of a brain tumor.
Sometimes even if the odds are in your favor, your luck runs out.
SerialStateLineXer t1_iwkqdlr wrote
The article says that it needs to be very intense exercise, around 85% of max heart rate.
sekai_no_kami t1_iwd6mmk wrote
It's not all roses, there is this to consider as well
1119king t1_iwdnle8 wrote
Yes, but hitting that end of the spectrum is something that only a very small portion of people will do, and even those negative health outcomes are minor compared to those from living a sedentary lifestyle. Unless you're training for extreme distances, there's practically only benefits for aerobic exercise.
andonemoreagain t1_iwdia3l wrote
That’s a really interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
ginrumryeale t1_iwh9gae wrote
Good point. We have a tendency to believe that if some is good, more must be better, but the body (and biological systems in general) often do not work that way.
There's often a dose-dependent response, where a low level (or zero) is harmful/deficient, some moderate value is increasingly optimal until a point is reached where additional produces no effect and eventually becomes harmful.
A lot of people who live to be 100 merely had active lifestyles, but weren't athletes or preoccupied with fitness.
EuphoricEnthusiasm59 t1_iwexxs4 wrote
Wow, never knew being active was good for you
lastrice t1_iwe19nd wrote
I thought the idea that sugar causes cancer is a myth?
fizzaz t1_iwerg0f wrote
I think it's not that sugar causes cancer, it's that an overabundance of organ glucose does. It's not a 1:1 sugar = glucose.
Elphya t1_iwfd8b4 wrote
Sugar = 1glucose + 1 fructose, but the fructose molecule passes through the intestine as glucose.
Glucose is transformed into energy for cells; cancer cells need energy to grow and metastasize.
So we could sum it up for laypeople as "blood sugar helps cancer". However, lack of sugar is detrimental for the healthy tissues and cells, as they can't produce as much energy as needed to function correctly on the long term.
SerialStateLineXer t1_iwkqnl3 wrote
>the fructose molecule passes through the intestine as glucose.
That's not right. Fructose is converted to glucose in the liver, not in the intestines. That's why eating too much can impair hepatic insulin resistance andn ultimately give you fatty liver disease.
Feburabyborn t1_iwfoxvc wrote
This study was done in mice. Let's not gloss over that
AutoModerator t1_iwcyryz wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_iwdf061 wrote
[deleted]
CALsHero09 t1_iwd225i wrote
Would artifical sweetners do anything? I know theyre bad for you, but the body reads it as sugar. So could non sugar sugars be used at a point in time to also slow the growth since its not real sugar?
redduif t1_iwd40ym wrote
Just stop eating both. Both have their issues with cancer.
Stop for two weeks straight including tomatoes, fruits , carbs and the addiction, because that's what it is for the human body, will get over it.
From then on the cravings or general need for sugar will drastically lessen all while being able to enjoy something sugary from time to time.
If not wanting to sacrifice sweetness right now, at least keep this in the back of the head if diagnosed with cancer.
If not wanting to believe cutting out all sugar drastically helps kill the cancer, consider chemo will be much easier on the digestive system in any case. Extreme nausea often causes people wanting to quit treatment...
They've gone so far as to propose diabetics medication in addition to chemo, while the easiest and safest way is to simply cut all sugar and everything that impacts insulin. Artificial sweetners will impact insuline, but that's not the only problem. But that doesn't make anybody rich...
Eta: You prefer to die of cancer then to all downvoters? .You have a powerful opportunity in hand, which is well known and old science, but obscured, because of lack of profit.
Suite yourselves.
This is meant for those who don't have any choice left when getting a cancer diagnosis, and are willing to make a change or two to give themselves the best chance, especially when they receive a non-treatable diagnosis.
I couldn't care less how much sugar or carbs anyone consumes otherwise.
Otherwise-Way-1176 t1_iwem4bj wrote
Just stop eating tomatoes due to their sugar??
When you get to this level of obsession with sugar and carbs, you’ve left reality far, far behind.
redduif t1_iwepeo6 wrote
Jeez. For two weeks I wrote. If you get diagnosed with cancer, tomatoes aren't exactly essential.
If you can't leave tomatoes aside, you are the one obsessed with sugar. Not the one trying to combat cancer. Get a grip yourself.
[deleted] t1_iwdo544 wrote
[removed]
sweerek1 t1_iwd45fj wrote
Hmmm, but what about the times when yer not running?
Is this due to some sorta cyclical effect?
[deleted] t1_iwd4pbz wrote
[deleted]
the_dead_meme_lord t1_iwdm084 wrote
Another one to the board of why you should work out
[deleted] t1_iweg56j wrote
[removed]
bluenami2018 t1_iwetdpr wrote
Jane Fonda would disagree.
Sweet_Musician4586 t1_iwdvhk1 wrote
Does this mean if you did keto you could achieve the same thing?
fizzaz t1_iwerc2c wrote
Not necessarily. You can still produce glucose on keto.
ginrumryeale t1_iwiy8da wrote
Not only can you still produce glucose, your body will automatically manufacture it whenever it needs.
Your body keeps a tightly controlled range of glucose in the blood at all times. If that glucose is not from coming from food, your body will easily manufacture the glucose from whatever macronutrients it has available.
Unfortunately even a basal level of glucose is enough for cancer to use as fuel. But even if glucose production could be magically shut down entirely, cancer would be able to use other fuel sources available in the cell. This is why keto alone has not been shown to halt or cure cancer.
OnIySmeIIz t1_iwea63s wrote
So in theory it is as effective as fasting?
goldustiger t1_iwetlbb wrote
Another reason to exercise and yet I still won’t do it. Do I have a death wish?
Upsidedownworld4me t1_iwernxq wrote
So a keto diet would also be beneficial then.
[deleted] t1_iwgql7r wrote
[removed]
uninstallIE t1_iwdco75 wrote
Nearly all medical conditions are reduced in risk, slowed in progression, or improved in severity if you exercise regularly. Specifically cardio, but also do strength training as that helps ensure systemic strength and is important to maintaining muscle mass and bone density in old age.