 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006Distance Running Is Tied to Skin Cancer Risk - Dougie Freese, what's up with that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=sports In Study, Distance Running Is Tied to Skin Cancer Risk Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save By NICHOLAS BAKALAR Published: November 21, 2006 Marathon runners may have an increased risk for skin cancer, a small study published Monday suggests, and excessive sun exposure and exercise-induced suppression of the body's immune system may be involved. Malignant Melanoma in Marathon Runners (Archives of Dermatology)The lead author of the report, Dr. Christina M. Ambros-Rudolph, said the pilot study had reached no conclusion about the exact increase in risk that marathoners face. But, Dr. Ambros-Rudolph said, "Our results show that there is a difference, in particular in sun exposure and measurable consequences such as increased solar lentigines." Solar lentigines are "age spots" caused by long-term sun exposure. The researchers, from the dermatology department of the Medical University of Graz in Austria, studied 210 marathon runners and a control group of 210 nonmarathoners matched for age and sex. All the subjects, runners and nonrunners, were white, a risk factor for malignant melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Each participant had a total body skin examination, and the scientists recorded information for all participants on eye color, skin shade, history of severe sunburn and family history of skin cancer, all known risk factors for skin malignancies. Even though, by chance, the nonrunners had more benign moles and freckles and significantly higher sun sensitivity as determined by eye color and skin shade, the runners had more solar lentigines and more lesions suggestive of basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, two less aggressive skin cancers. The study appears in the November issue of The Archives of Dermatology. Sun exposure may not be the only risk factor that distance runners face. The authors write that although there is no question that regular exercise is important to good health, there is good evidence that high-intensity training and excessive exercise can lead to suppressed immune function. "This is quite well established," Dr. Ambros-Rudolph said. "Many alterations in immune cell function have been noted at the cellular level in marathon runners. "For example, there is the association between excessive exercise and immunosuppression reflected in the increased incidence and severity of upper respiratory tract infections in marathon runners after races." The exact mechanism is unknown, but there is evidence that trauma sustained during extreme exercise can induce the release of cytokines, proteins that can stimulate the growth and activity of various immune cells and that may limit the ability of the immune system to fight potential cancers. Clinical examination by dermatologists showed that none of the participants had lesions that suggested malignant melanoma. But 24 of the marathon group and 14 of the control group were referred for surgical treatment of lesions that appeared to be basal or squamous cell carcinomas or the precancerous lesions called actinic keratoses. Follow-up reports on these patients were not available because of the limits in Austrian laws on personal privacy. About a third of the marathoners ran up to 25 miles a week, and nearly half ran 25 to 45 miles. Almost 15 percent ran more than 45 miles a week. Those who trained the most intensively had the highest rates of skin lesions. Almost all the runners dressed in clothing that exposed the legs, arms, shoulders and upper back, and only about half used sunscreen regularly. Physical exercise on sunny days can be more harmful to the skin than other kinds of sun exposure, the authors suggest, because sweating may significantly increase the sensitivity of the skin to ultraviolet radiation, making sunburn more likely. Moisture on the skin reduces the UV light to shorter wavelengths that are more easily absorbed and decreases their reflection and dispersion. Dr. Ambros-Rudolph emphasized that the main problem, for both casual runners and extreme exercisers, is sun exposure. "We hear a lot about sun exposure and skin cancer," she said. "But we forget about it when participating in outdoor sports. Sunscreen alone is not the ultimate answer. It's also important to wear reasonable gear that covers the shoulders and upper back, and to avoid training in peak sun hours." ********** Is it the sun or are long distance runners generally not as well nourished as they would think? Is running apt to deplete your vitamin stores? TC > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=sports The answer is right here. "Dr. Ambros-Rudolph emphasized that the main problem, for both casual runners and extreme exercisers, is sun exposure." That's why you wear a loose fitting white t-shirt, use suncreen, wear sunglasses, and do your running in early morning or in the evening. > Sun exposure may not be the only risk factor that distance runners > face. The authors write that although there is no question that regular > exercise is important to good health, there is good evidence that > high-intensity training and excessive exercise can lead to suppressed > immune function. Yes, there's no question a long run/race drains you. You do feel it for the next 24 hours or so. But afterwards you relax, eat lots of fruits veggies, whole grains and some good lean protein and you bounce right back. A couple few days later you're chomping at the bit and ready to rip it up again, and do it just a little better. It's a desire any athlete can relate to. Patrick > "This is quite well established," Dr. Ambros-Rudolph said. "Many > alterations in immune cell function have been noted at the cellular [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > TC > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=sports > > The answer is right here. > > "Dr. Ambros-Rudolph emphasized that the main problem, for both casual > runners and extreme exercisers, is sun exposure." If sun exposure is the key, why hasn't there been historically high skin cancer levels in sunnier climates? Why is skin cancer such a concern in northern latitudes? > That's why you wear a loose fitting white t-shirt, use suncreen, wear > sunglasses, and do your running in early morning or in the evening. Did you know that in Australia, skin cancers have increased with the use of sun screen???? > > Sun exposure may not be the only risk factor that distance runners > > face. The authors write that although there is no question that regular [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Patrick And yet, they still get a statisctically significant increased risk in skin cancers. TC > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=sports > > The answer is right here. > > "Dr. Ambros-Rudolph emphasized that the main problem, for both casual > > runners and extreme exercisers, is sun exposure." > If sun exposure is the key, why hasn't there been historically high > skin cancer levels in sunnier climates? Why is skin cancer such a > concern in northern latitudes? Ozone layer, more industry, more vehicles, who knows... > > That's why you wear a loose fitting white t-shirt, use suncreen, wear > > sunglasses, and do your running in early morning or in the evening. > Did you know that in Australia, skin cancers have increased with the > use of sun screen???? And in other parts of the World how have people who use sun screen fared..? IMO, sun screen is good. But it's not the best. The best in order: 1) Try to limit daily sun exposure to about/around 20-30 minutes per day. (Sun shine is good for you, but in moderation.) 2) Try to limit your exposure to early morning and/or late afternoon sun. 3) Stay covered up the best you can the rest of the time. 4) Use sunscreen on the parts you can't protect with clothing, hats and sunglasses. Patrick > > > Sun exposure may not be the only risk factor that distance runners > > > face. The authors write that although there is no question that regular [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > TC >> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=sports > > The answer is right here. > > "Dr. Ambros-Rudolph emphasized that the main problem, for both casual > runners and extreme exercisers, is sun exposure." Exactly. > That's why you wear a loose fitting white t-shirt, use suncreen, wear > sunglasses, and do your running in early morning or in the evening. I opted for trail running and I have even more protection fron the leaves on the trees. >> Sun exposure may not be the only risk factor that distance runners >> face. The authors write that although there is no question that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ready to rip it up again, and do it just a little better. It's a > desire any athlete can relate to. Agree again, ones immune is suppressed. The longer and or faster you race the more adverse effects. >> Is it the sun or are long distance runners generally not as well >> nourished as they would think? Yes and no. If your talking about ultra distances then many of us have problems eating throughout the race. While the race people try to provide a variety, the variety can be just so big. Think about it, even if they served you your most favorite meal at every aid station, how many of those meals before you grow very tired and your stomach rebels. The typical fare is PB&J, cheese sandwiches, and big old disk or bowl of boiled potatoes with a dish of salt nextv to it. By the way, the Sandwiches are usually on good old white porocessed wonder bread. There is also things like fig newtons, M&M's, chips, etc. The food is primarily carbs with some fats and protein. Ya know, the same stuff and proprotions we eat every day and we ain't fat. The classic after race meal is chilli with Vegetarian, i.e. all beans, the preferred dish. beans or barely soups are to die for. The body craves carbs and they go immediately to help you recover. If someone was to suggest low-carb they would laugh their a.s off. >>Is running apt to deplete your vitamin stores? ALmos zip and why those people that load up on vitamins stuffed drinks is useless. Take your multi before the race. > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=sports > > > > The answer is right here. > > "Dr. Ambros-Rudolph emphasized that the main problem, for both casual > > runners and extreme exercisers, is sun exposure." Well here are a couple of questions about that. If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial latitudes throughout recorded history. And conversely, ought we not to see significantly less skin cancers among those living in northern latitudes throughout recorded history? Or even in the 20th or 19th centuries, when we were a tad more medically advanced and aware? But it appears that skin cancers and cancers in general have really only become common in the latter half of the 21st century. Did something change in the sun that it now is causing skin cancers while just a couple of generations ago, skin cancers were rare. Like lung cancer was extremely rare up to the time of WW1. And if sun exposure is the main factor, and thus sunblockers ought to resolve at least some of the skin cancers, how do we reconcile that with the fact that in Australia, as the use of sun blockers went up, so did skin cancers? If sun is the problem then why do sunblockers appear to be useless to protect from the sun? Is it the sunblocker product that is flawed in its design or manufacture or application or is it the "sun exposure = cancer" concept that is flawed? Methinks that sun exposure is only a small part, if a part at all, of the causation of skin cancers. TC > Exactly. > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > ALmos zip and why those people that load up on vitamins stuffed drinks > is useless. Take your multi before the race. > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial > latitudes throughout recorded history. Darker skins? Different genetics? > And conversely, ought we not to > see significantly less skin cancers among those living in northern > latitudes throughout recorded history? Lighter skins? Different genetics? > > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see > > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Lighter skins? > Different genetics? Ans what has changed in the last 50 years? Before that skin was rare. TC > > > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see > > > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > TC skin cancer was rare..... >> > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see >> > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Ans what has changed in the last 50 years? Before that skin was rare. Sun Tan lotions and hydrogenated oils. > >> > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see > >> > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > Sun Tan lotions and hydrogenated oils. and the govt pushing more grains and refined grains and the advent of high fructose corn syrup. anything else different in the last 50 years or so? TC > > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see > > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial > > latitudes throughout recorded history. > > Darker skins? Playing the race card are we? What about white south afrikaners, they should have been riddled with skin cancers since they went there in the 17th century. And the Aussies who were shipped out to the penal colony starting in the late 18th century. No significant history of skin cancers until the last 50 years. And here is a neat fact, skin cancers in australia have increased with sunscreen use. > Different genetics? Interesting concept there, but it will only prove my point. If, for arguments sake, 10% of population are genetically more succeptible to skin cancers or any other ailment. How does this 10% grow larger if the remaining 90% aren't genetically pre-disposed to increased succeptibility to the condition? Unless they 10% procreate at a significantly higher rate than the 90% norm group, 50 years later they will still only be about 10% of the population. It could be argued that if they are at a genetic disadvantage, their population ought to decrease from die-off from skin cancers. Genetics implies that the percentage of the population with the condition will at best remain steady, unless the condition is deadly, then their percentage will eventually decrease. Not increase. And again, why is this only a factor now and not in past centuries? > > And conversely, ought we not to > > see significantly less skin cancers among those living in northern > > latitudes throughout recorded history? > > Lighter skins? > Different genetics? see above TC http://www.aad.org/aad/Newsroom/2005+Skin+Cancer+Fact+Sheet.htm quote *** The incidence of melanoma has increased 690 percent from 1950 to 2001, and the overall mortality rate increased 165 percent during this same period.6 *** What has happened since 1950 that would account for this? TC > > > If sun exposure is the main problem, then ought we not to see > > > significantly more occurrences of skin cancers in the equatorial [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > TC > http://www.aad.org/aad/Newsroom/2005+Skin+Cancer+Fact+Sheet.htm > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What has happened since 1950 that would account for this? It must be those damned carbs, especially the whole grains. -DF > > http://www.aad.org/aad/Newsroom/2005+Skin+Cancer+Fact+Sheet.htm > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -DF Close. It's the damned carbs alright, the hfcs and sugars, but it is also the fake fats with the trans-fats and the additives, preservatives, hormones in beef, colorants, chemical flavourings, etc., and the lack of general nourishment in these highly manufactured foods. Fake food equals fake health. Real foods equals real health. get it? TC [...] > And here is a neat fact, skin cancers in australia have increased with > sunscreen use. Hmmm... Just a thought: When you use a sun lotion, then you'll be more likely to expose your bare skin to the sun... If you DON'T use sun lotion, you'll protect yourself by wearing clothes and a hat. > [...] > > And here is a neat fact, skin cancers in australia have increased with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > likely to expose your bare skin to the sun... If you DON'T use sun lotion, > you'll protect yourself by wearing clothes and a hat. More reverse nonsensical logic like the "base tan" crap. TC |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.