Posted on 07/09/2014 5:09:23 AM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Men who cycle more than nine hours a week are six times more likely to develop prostate cancer, study finds
Middle aged men who spend nine hours a week on their bike are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, new research suggests.
A British study of 5,200 cyclists is the biggest research project ever conducted on the health impact of cycling.
It suggests that cyclists in in their 50s who bicycle for more than nine hours a week may be up to five times as likely to receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer.
The team of scientists at University College London, found there was no link between cycling and infertility or erectile problems - an age-old health myth.
But the statistical link with prostate cancer could create a new, and unexpected, health concern for the millions of men who regularly cycle.
The sport has already been linked with testicular cancer, with repeated impacts raising the chance of being diagnosed with the disease. Former cyclist Lance Armstrong was famously treated for testicular cancer.
But the connection to prostate cancer has not been made before.
The team said the statistical link – tested in the 2,000 participants who were over the age of 50 - did not necessarily prove that cycling directly causes prostate cancer.
They said the results were surprising and suggested that men who cycle frequently may be more health conscious, leading to more chance of being diagnosed.
But their research found that cyclists were no more likely to visit their GPs regularly than anyone else.
And they said they could not rule out that the cancer cases were caused by an increased pressure on the prostate.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I use an elliptical trainer at the gym ... but it doesn't go anywhere.
Oh, good point. Did they control for bicyclists with vasectomies vs. bicyclists without?
This seems like a win-win-win for the government. First, they subsidize bicycling to Save The Earth. Then, they refuse the diagnostic tests for prostate cancer because “they don’t really help,” and that way the cancers aren’t diagnosed until it’s too late to do anything. Sorry, no chemo/radiation, but here’s your triple dose of morphine.
I would think some kind of strong netting instead of a rigid “saddle” would ease the pressure and accommodate a variety of anatomies. Think of it as a butt hammock.
All bikes (except recumbent) can be stood upon.
If you want to ensure that, you just take off any seat and seat bar.
Another idiotic study. Obviously bicycling does not cause cancer. Look elsewhere for the correlation.
Looks like the space shuttle.
Wouldn’t unstrapping it and putting it back in the drawer be easier?
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
 |
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligans |
| Visit the FMH Swag Store & support FR! | |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
| The List of Ping Lists | |
Motorcyclists don't have this problem, of course.
I agree with that. There's got to be a better shape that something that presses where you don't want pressure.
Nice one!
Ha!
Exactly… Here’s another take on this. By the time a teenage male has passed through to be a 20 year old, there is a significant chance they already have cancerous cells in their prostate (it would take some time to find the source but I remember reading a study a few years ago where the cadavers of teens killed in accidents were dissected and the number found with cancerous cells in their prostate was already of the order of 10% as I recollect). If you are a 60 year old male, you may as well accept the fact that the odds are that you have cancerous prostate cells in your body. By the time a man is 80 years old, chances are extremely high that he has cancerous cells in his prostate. However, cancerous cells in a prostate is not the same as cancerous cells elsewhere in your body…. the prostate is no lymph node. Most men who die of natural causes will have prostate cancer when they die….but it is very likely that it’s something else that actually is the cause of death.
What I would like to know is how this study made this determination. Did they actually conduct biopsies of men? Or did they just look at PSA results? I highly doubt that they did biopsies. If only PSA levels were looked at, then the study can be guaranteed to be total nonsense. Dr. Thomas Stamey was the Stanford medical researcher who came up with the idea that PSA levels would be a good marker for prostate cancer and after 20 years(?), his further research refuted his own study. It turns out that PSA levels have absolutely zero to do with prostate cancer (PSA levels are only good for looking at BPH)….. http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/psa-test-prostate-cancer.html The results of Stamey’s study have been out there now for 10 years and yet the inertia of the original concept of using PSA levels still exists….. probably due to the fact that doctors like the idea of a quick and simple cookie cutter style test and can’t live with the idea that the test doesn’t exist.
Yea yea it was strange but did not hurt your tush.
Okay. :)
Get a padded seat not one of those hard leather seats. Padded should at least help you somewhat
79??? looks like the one i had in 1969...
The style lasted a long time. Had one like it in 75.
I remember banana seats and sissy bars. I am in my late 50’s so that 1979 pic is a bit modern for me. I remember getting in trouble cutting the front forks off of my sister’s old Murray and extending my Schwinn Stingray forks with them to make a ‘chopper’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.