4 ms·

IN MICE link to full paper: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/22/4164/710131/An-Exercise-Induced-Metabolic-Shield-in-Distant https://aacrjournals.o

IN MICE link to full paper: https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/22/4164/710131/An-Exercise-Induced-Metabolic-Shield-in-Distant https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/82/22/4164/710131...

clusterhacks 4y ago
From the abstract: Epidemiologic data from a 20-year prospective study of a large human cohort of initially cancer-free participants revealed that exercise prior to cancer initiation had a modest impact on cancer incidence in low metastatic stages but significantly reduced the likelihood of highly metastatic cancer. Data was gathered from a large cohort via questionnaire. Looks like the study then used responses to classify high vs low intensity. From the article: The total study population included 2,734 participants; 243 new cancer cases were recorded during the 20-year follow-up period. It reads as if the study then had to reject data from 95 of the 243 patients due to not having a SEER score. From skimming the article, I can't find any analysis of metastatic disease incidence in the remaining patients? Am I just missing it?
- idlewords 4y ago
  The chief result being reported here is in the mouse model, it's not 100-some people filling out a questionnaire that got them on the cover of the journal.
  - pimterry 4y ago
    Is that true? The headline here comes straight from the human study. From the article: > The human data, obtained from an epidemiological study that monitored 3,000 individuals for about 20 years, indicated 72% less metastatic cancer in participants who reported regular aerobic activity at high intensity, compared to those who did not engage in physical exercise.
    - idlewords 4y ago
      That figure comes from examining 148 people in that cohort who got cancer. The authors don't state what proportion of that number is metastatic cancer. They also state: "As our focus was on the relationship between exercise and cancer, we used a propensity score of multinomial logistic regression to control for key variables in the diet assessed using a validated questionnaire." So the 73% figure is drawn from a small number of cases that were significantly weighted. I'd be interested to hear what people who know this field think about this result separate from the mouse/human exercise stuff.
  - clusterhacks 4y ago
    Totally agree. I am extremely annoyed at the general article submitted versus the actual paper focus. While I respect the need for these longterm survey data collection efforts, I am not sure I would frankly trust that survey to even accurately be able to tease out high-intensity vs low-intensity efforts from people participating in the study. And the tie-in from the cohort survey results back into the motivation for the mouse study just isn't done at all. I mean out of their 148 patients with SEER scores, they make no mention at all at metastatic disease occurence or even attempt to tie that figure back to exercise intensity . . .
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
frereubu 4y ago
I've seen this bait-and-switch so much that my brain often appends "in mice" automatically. But this study looks at cancer in both humans and mice.
- idlewords 4y ago
  There's an entire Twitter devoted to this, https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice From what I understand after reading the article, it reports three things: * big fancy result in mice * measurements of biochemical changes due to exercise in a few humans * self-reported questionnaire from a population of ~3000 tracked over 20 years, some of whom got cancer
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Yeah, this stuff has always felt like the least interesting part of science. Guessing at mechanisms for stuff we already know. We know exercise is good for you, we know it reduces the risk of cancer and death from cancer. Let's throw a dart at a board full of its good-sounding effects and all nod our heads at the idea it probably contributes. My eyes glazed over but they seemingly only found a result in high Vs low metastatic activity? Not even metastatic Vs not metastatic.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
isn't the point that mice and humans implement many of the same (pertinent) traits, in programming language terms, with regard to this topic, though?
b800h 4y ago
Hilarious. Yesterday it was "in fish", today it's "in mice".
dang 4y ago
Title inmiced and bestudied. First time I got to do both! Edit: oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30456358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30456358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21605643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21605643 etc.

clusterhacks 4y ago

From the abstract: Epidemiologic data from a 20-year prospective study of a large human cohort of initially cancer-free participants revealed that exercise prior to cancer initiation had a modest impact on cancer incidence in low metastatic stages but significantly reduced the likelihood of highly metastatic cancer. Data was gathered from a large cohort via questionnaire. Looks like the study then used responses to classify high vs low intensity. From the article: The total study population included 2,734 participants; 243 new cancer cases were recorded during the 20-year follow-up period. It reads as if the study then had to reject data from 95 of the 243 patients due to not having a SEER score. From skimming the article, I can't find any analysis of metastatic disease incidence in the remaining patients? Am I just missing it?

idlewords 4y ago
The chief result being reported here is in the mouse model, it's not 100-some people filling out a questionnaire that got them on the cover of the journal.
- pimterry 4y ago
  Is that true? The headline here comes straight from the human study. From the article: > The human data, obtained from an epidemiological study that monitored 3,000 individuals for about 20 years, indicated 72% less metastatic cancer in participants who reported regular aerobic activity at high intensity, compared to those who did not engage in physical exercise.
  - idlewords 4y ago
    That figure comes from examining 148 people in that cohort who got cancer. The authors don't state what proportion of that number is metastatic cancer. They also state: "As our focus was on the relationship between exercise and cancer, we used a propensity score of multinomial logistic regression to control for key variables in the diet assessed using a validated questionnaire." So the 73% figure is drawn from a small number of cases that were significantly weighted. I'd be interested to hear what people who know this field think about this result separate from the mouse/human exercise stuff.
- clusterhacks 4y ago
  Totally agree. I am extremely annoyed at the general article submitted versus the actual paper focus. While I respect the need for these longterm survey data collection efforts, I am not sure I would frankly trust that survey to even accurately be able to tease out high-intensity vs low-intensity efforts from people participating in the study. And the tie-in from the cohort survey results back into the motivation for the mouse study just isn't done at all. I mean out of their 148 patients with SEER scores, they make no mention at all at metastatic disease occurence or even attempt to tie that figure back to exercise intensity . . .

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

frereubu 4y ago

I've seen this bait-and-switch so much that my brain often appends "in mice" automatically. But this study looks at cancer in both humans and mice.

idlewords 4y ago
There's an entire Twitter devoted to this, https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice From what I understand after reading the article, it reports three things: * big fancy result in mice * measurements of biochemical changes due to exercise in a few humans * self-reported questionnaire from a population of ~3000 tracked over 20 years, some of whom got cancer
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Yeah, this stuff has always felt like the least interesting part of science. Guessing at mechanisms for stuff we already know. We know exercise is good for you, we know it reduces the risk of cancer and death from cancer. Let's throw a dart at a board full of its good-sounding effects and all nod our heads at the idea it probably contributes. My eyes glazed over but they seemingly only found a result in high Vs low metastatic activity? Not even metastatic Vs not metastatic.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

isn't the point that mice and humans implement many of the same (pertinent) traits, in programming language terms, with regard to this topic, though?

b800h 4y ago

Hilarious. Yesterday it was "in fish", today it's "in mice".

dang 4y ago

Title inmiced and bestudied. First time I got to do both! Edit: oops https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30456358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30456358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27756721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21605643 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21605643 etc.