Good to hear mainstream news picking up on the fact that steady state running isn't the only way to be healthy.
Interesting that strength here is correlated with cancer risk, rather than the usual obesity/heart disease risks. As I understand it, essentially 100% of dead bodies have cancerous cells if you look closely enough, it's just a matter of whether the body can keep them in check that determines whether or not you "get" cancer. I wonder if the tissue repair and cellular upkeep promoted by weight training likewise works to keep cells with damaged DNA in check.
On the other hand, it could be a case of correlation is not causation. Maybe strong people just pay more attention to other factors like their diet..
Have you heard about that guy who has ran like 100, 000 miles or something?? He can barely get out of bed, he's skinny fat and when he runs he looks like he's shuffling or something....not running. I think it was on NBC or something.
It sounds like a good endorsement for weightlifting until you get to the last section of the article which seems to contradict everything else that was written.
"A spokesman for Cancer Research UK said resistance exercise might have some benefit but it was more important to regularly do some cardiac exercise.
Health information officer Jessica Harris said: "There's no need to become a body builder. Just 30 minutes of moderate exercise five times a week that leaves you warm and slightly out of breath can have a positive effect.""
I see what kind of body moderate exercise five times a week gets you and it doesn't look all that healthy to me. I guess weight lifting has completely screwed up my concept of what a healthy person should look like.
Yeah, I think I saw a movie about him. He was mildly retarded and used to wear leg braces. Lived quite a life: played football for Alabama, went and served in Vietnam, became a ping-pong champion, met a bunch of presidents, owned a shrimping business and ran across America a couple times. Said he loved Dr. Peppers.
Yous see? These scientists have pretty much correlated everything with cancer. That's why I never take these studies at face value. Besides, they are only correlations anyway. It's impossible to control all variables in these studies so cause and effect can never truly be established.
That's why they always use words like 'may' or 'reduce risk' because they can never be certain themselves. No one knows for sure what triggers cancer, if anyone is predisposed to develop such a condition there currently isn't much they can do to prevent it. So just live life the way you want to.
I should have qualified my statement- I am not saying that this was necessarily the case, I was just stating it as an example for the statement "any one of the many characteristics of weight lifters can lead to the lower risk of fatal tumors." I should have said that in my original post.
Now, to your contention on the rats of nimb, pics/links or it didn't happen.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We scientists know an awful lot about what triggers cancer! Some cancers are not connected with given causes, but so many (so many many many) carcinogens have been recognized. Such a douche thing to say! I mean, technically speaking we haven't actually proven smoking causes cancer, it's just correlated.
By the way, correlated means there's a proven connection. If you take two hundred guys and get half of them to smoke a pack a day for twenty years which group is going to have a higher incidence of lung and mouth cancers!
YOU ARE SUCH A DOUCHE! You're saying we don't know how to prevent cancer or what causes it! There is a genetic element and molecular element that basically acts like luck, but WE DO WAYS to prevent/reduce risk, and we know many causes, we know how cancer is caused on the level of molecules!
I'd say stick a rod of uranium down your pants and see if you get testicular cancer, but you'd need nads for that to happen!
for real though, I saw the other day on 60 mins or something, maybe it was E:60 on ESPN...i don't know saw it somewhere. The guy lives in Miami, he broke the 100, 000 mile barrier a few months back or something. He can barely get out of bed though. His knees are fucked, back is fucked...I stopped following after that, he had a bunch of other problems too
Summary Despite all the rumor and speculation that we all have heard over the past few years, I find no credible evidence that creatine supplementation is harmful in anyway to our health. On the contrary, an ample amount of creatine is absolutely necessary for healthy muscle and other cellular function.
I fully appreciate your aggressive stance towards yolked: hes a tool.
But it is true that many conclusions can be drawn from many subpar studies. That is not to say that scientists do not understand what causes cancer at the molecular level. It is just to say that someone could draw that "chocolate is healthy for you" simply from a study that suggests that it has a lot of antioxidants that would reduce the chance of cancer (and ignore the fact that the sugar content could give you diabetes).
Also, I take issue with your statement that "correlation means that there is a proven connection." Correlation actually means that two numbers covary very well (they increase at the same rates and decrease at the same rate). It does not mean causation.
For example: Imagine that a study states that there is a correlation between playing soccer and skin cancer. Does playing soccer CAUSE skin cancer? I think not. The true CAUSATION would be molecular damage due to exposure to UV rays.
I can't see how eating meat or creatine could induce or promote cancer. Both occur in nature and we have anzymes to manage them within our bodies. There needs to be more control on outside factors before you can make such claims. Rarely have I seen foods of the Earth to create problems for anyone.
Hey man- the agression might be overstated as it's directed towards Yolked!
I'll concede slightly to what you've said - I like your example about the soccer and skin cancer. I don't make reference to poorly conducted studies with poor or limited controls and parameters, and especially those that have been wildly extrapolated. When I say that correlation is basically a proven connection I mean that in a well conducted, properly controlled study, with reasonable extrapolation of data.
For example:In releation to you skin cancer/soccer experiment. Any scientist worth the air he breeds inserts proper controls. In this study we would have a group of people playing soccer and a group under the exact same conditions not playing soccer (so they're outside, exposed to UV and all other factors). Under these conditions we compare both groups and voila, there is no difference (maybe the soccer players even have a reduced skin cancer incidence, but that's just speculation).
I will concede on the point that there are poorly conducted studies and experiments (studies that survey people who are overweight and show that they are more likely to suffer from certain cancers when there are no controls to indicate whether or not it is being overweight that causes these cancers or if it is, for example, a dietary factor that most fat people have in common). But there are still many, many studies - good pieces of work - that show correlations that can then be taken as proven connections.
I have to say, regardless of anything else, we agree on one point! Yolked up = tool
Sorry if that was an essay BTW. The point I'm making there is subpar studies aside, real work, by real studies mean an awful lot, prove a lot about cancer and in such a study a correlation, correctly interpreted, is pretty much a statement of fact. We have to learn to identify and ignore the subpar.