Prostate cancer from cycling? Is this complete BS?

[EPOJoe]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2684947/Men-cycling-nine-hours-week-six-times-likely-develop-prostate-cancer-study-finds.html#ixzz36zknNp7K

[StephenBoynton]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2684947/Men-cycling-nine-hours-week-six-times-likely-develop-prostate-cancer-study-finds.html#ixzz36zknNp7K

I always believed that regular exercise (bike riding) increased your overall health and decreased your chances of more serious illnesses.

BS on that one - but who knows

[rnhood]

Agree, its BS.

[LouDeeter]

I would think there might be a correlation with BPH (enlarged prostage), but not cancer. When I turned 50, I noticed a discomfort that I had not had before. I tried some new saddles and that helped for short rides. Then, a friend got me started on Saw Palmetto as an over-the-counter product and my discomfort and frequent urination went away. My PSA numbers are still low--knock wood. I know that PSA has taken some hits as a good indicator, but I think any male should get one done at about 45, no later than 50 and then monitor any changes from that early baseline. I'm not a doc, so your doc may have something more to say.

[MattTuck]

Well, the debunked the erectile dysfunction link to cycling, so I guess Specialized Body Geometry needs a new bogeyman to scare people into using their saddles.

Use body geometry saddles or you'll get prostate cancer.


The bigger issue that this article does not deal with is whether these prostate cancers are actually dangerous. From what I understand, most prostate cancers are not dangerous... "watchful waiting" is the term I've heard. You just monitor it and make sure it isn't becoming a problem. Doing surgery on it is dangerous and has lots of risk, that may prove unnecessary if it is not a dangerous cancer.

[LouDeeter]

I think whether it is "dangerous" has a lot to do with your age. If you are 85 and just diagnosed, it probably isn't what will kill you. If you are 50, I would take any cancer seriously.

[CunegoFan]

Judging by the amount of testosterone used in Masters and age group triathlon, I am betting that prostrate cancer a real possibility--not just from riding though.

[tuscanyswe]

I dont think its bull···· i just think its statistics.

Riding a bike can increase your psa. Psa is considered a less than perfect evalution tool for prostate cancer but a high or elevated test merits further investigation and as such these cyclist are more likely than non cyclists to discover their prostate cancer early on before symptoms.

Just speculating but that sounds plausible to me.
Perhaps a better phrase would be "cyclists are more likely to catch prostate cancer early on" :)

[torquer]

I always believed that regular exercise (bike riding) increased your overall health and decreased your chances of more serious illnesses

The authors added: ‘Increased physical activity and cycling in the population may herald radical improvements in the mortality and morbidity burden.’

In other words, we've eliminated a bunch of other stuff that could kill us, so we'll have a higher incidence of whatever's left.

[gasman]

Probably BS
I'd have to see the study but it seems to just be an observational study that found a statistically significant association. The authors say that were a small number of cyclists and that more study is needed. I other words "We found this result but others might not . " If you look at enough possible correlations you're bound to find something statistically significant.
The Journal of Men's Health is not exactly a major medical journal. So I would take this study with a grain of salt and continue cycling unless more definitive research comes out.

[Ralph]

My Eurologist says.....(and I've had the green light laser surgury for enlarged prostate) if it's the right saddle for the kind of riding you're doing, and if it fits you properly.....he doesn't think cycling causes prostate problems. He's a good avid cyclist. Dura Ace Trek Madone, etc.

Having said that....he further says that as men get older and their prostate enlarges, they can lose some of the ability to completely empty the bladder, and the nose of the seat can cause the frequent sensation to urinate....because the bladder needs emptying ....... lots of things can aggravate the prostate in an older man. But these things don't lead to cancer very often. At least....not from riding.

[oldpotatoe]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2684947/Men-cycling-nine-hours-week-six-times-likely-develop-prostate-cancer-study-finds.html#ixzz36zknNp7K

Yes

[Admiral Ackbar]

daily mail, BS? you don't say....its a tabloid, not a reliable news source.

[mccx]

First of all, there's no causality established in the study, only association.

Some reasons to be wary of reading much into the conclusions:
- it's based on voluntary participation in an online survey and it's not clear how representative or accurate the survey is
- the prostate cancer findings were only based on men over 50
- the prostate cancer findings were only based on 42 men (actually less, because the 42 is before they exclude those under 50)
- no comparison is made to non-cyclists. The way the analyses are constructed means that, for two (imaginary statistical) men with equivalent age, alcohol intake, cigarette use, history of cardiovascular events, history of cancer, diagnosis of hypertension or diabetes, and participation in non-cycling fitness activities, cyclists in the "more hours" groups are more likely to have had prostate cancer than cyclists who do less than 3.75 hours.
- additionally, "it may be that cycling increases rates of diagnosis rather than risk of developing pathology"
- and it says that overall the health benefits of cycling outweigh any added risk of prostate cancer

The NHS has a run-down: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/07July/Pages/Cycling-linked-to-prostate-cancer-but-not-infertility.aspx

[Elefantino]

Use body geometry saddles or you'll get prostate cancer.
Specialized would never stoop to something so low.

[bobswire]

I've always had higher than average PSA and even had a biopsy done a few years ago, they took 20 samples. That was the first and last time I'll allow that procedure and only because I was ignorant about PSA count, enlarged prostate and some of the after affects of the procedure. I've been a cyclist for over 40 years and feel some of that affects my PSA count,heck I rode over 10 miles to get my last physical 3 weeks ago. I expected a high count and received one but my other lab work were excellent.

[biker72]

I've only been riding 30 years but my PSA has always been 1.0 or less. It actually went down this year to .8.

[tiretrax]

First of all, there's no causality established in the study, only association.

Some reasons to be wary of reading much into the conclusions:
- it's based on voluntary participation in an online survey and it's not clear how representative or accurate the survey is
- the prostate cancer findings were only based on men over 50
- the prostate cancer findings were only based on 42 men (actually less, because the 42 is before they exclude those under 50)
- no comparison is made to non-cyclists. The way the analyses are constructed means that, for two (imaginary statistical) men with equivalent age, alcohol intake, cigarette use, history of cardiovascular events, history of cancer, diagnosis of hypertension or diabetes, and participation in non-cycling fitness activities, cyclists in the "more hours" groups are more likely to have had prostate cancer than cyclists who do less than 3.75 hours.
- additionally, "it may be that cycling increases rates of diagnosis rather than risk of developing pathology"
- and it says that overall the health benefits of cycling outweigh any added risk of prostate cancer

The NHS has a run-down: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/07July/Pages/Cycling-linked-to-prostate-cancer-but-not-infertility.aspx

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. There was a study done a few years back that drew a correlation between endurance sports (including marathons) and cancer, too. It was proved to be the result of bad math.

[yngpunk]

Well, the debunked the erectile dysfunction link to cycling, so I guess Specialized Body Geometry needs a new bogeyman to scare people into using their saddles.

Use body geometry saddles or you'll get prostate cancer.


The bigger issue that this article does not deal with is whether these prostate cancers are actually dangerous. From what I understand, most prostate cancers are not dangerous... "watchful waiting" is the term I've heard. You just monitor it and make sure it isn't becoming a problem. Doing surgery on it is dangerous and has lots of risk, that may prove unnecessary if it is not a dangerous cancer.

Some would argue if getting a PSA test/screen is even worthwhile....

From the Dartmouth Atlas Project :
"A second important problem with relying on PSA level for cancer diagnosis is
that the majority of early-stage prostate cancers are slow growing and unlikely to ever become life threatening. Diagnosing these cancers means that the test has uncovered the presence of something that does not require treatment. The problem is our current inability to distinguish between those early-stage prostate cancers that will grow slowly and those that will develop into aggressive disease."

The Atlas Project goes on to show the variation in the treatment of prostate cancer depending on your geographic location and level of patient involvement in the treatment decision. Some would argue that doctors are trained to automatically treat prostate cancer via the removal of the prostate and don't adequately weigh the risk benefit trade off of invasive action vs. active surveillance.

The Dartmouth Atlas can be found here:

http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/

An interesting read, even for non-health care professionals and a key project in enabling patient informed and directed health care.

Sorry for the digression...back to your regular programming...

[mccx]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. There was a study done a few years back that drew a correlation between endurance sports (including marathons) and cancer, too. It was proved to be the result of bad math.

Yup. It's not their math that's dubious (so far as I can tell), but how the study is framed and the inductive reasoning needed to make the (statistically) significant results seem significant (in their importance).

Really they found that – for the 30-40 people that did their web survey who have had prostate cancer and were over 50 years old – these people were likely to have spent more time in the saddle than the rest of the people that did the survey. Talking about the result that way makes the study barely seems worth mentioning IMO.