Re: Distance Running Is Tied to Skin Cancer Risk - Dougie Freese, what's up with that?


Doug Freese wrote:
<NoOption5L@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1164161755.313960.284350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TC wrote:
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.

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
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.

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 ass 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.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... in the sun. ... Do either cause skin cancer? ... cancer is caused by sun exposure, then we should see skin cancers ... therefore skin cancers should occur on the skin that gets the most sun ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Weekly Health News 06/11 The top of your noggin?
    ... The seasons of the sun are upon us, and, in a noble attempt to heed the ... that's a problem," said Jeanine Downie, director of a dermatology clinic in ... Skin cancers of the scalp account for about 2 percent of all skin cancers, ...
    (alt.support.arthritis)
  • Re: Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... of the most frequent site for melanoma. ... cancer per capita than California and Florida (the big Sun States). ... Skin cancers are predominantly on the ... Melanoma skin cancers are most frequently found on the backs of men, ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Sun Burn!
    ... I am damn sure it has been this painful sunburn that is doing it and I was ... 40 and I know know sun burn and how to avoid most of it. ... I regularly need to have skin cancers removed by ... freezing or occasional excision. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Sun exposure = skin cancer? Not likely.
    ... We evolved for millions of years in the direct light of the sun. ... It is essential for life. ... If sun exposure causes the damage that leads to skin cancer, ... Skin cancers are predominantly on the ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)