3 ms·
There's an entire Twitter devoted to this, https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice https://twitter.com/justsaysinmice From what I understand after reading the artic
by 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 agoYeah, 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.