Cycling can help reduce risk of prostate cancer, new study suggests

I highly recommend any serious amateur rider over 50 to immediately get a PSA test

Or, alternatively, don't take the dubious advice of someone who commits the giveaway 'prostrate' error and don't get a PSA test. Screening with imperfect tests is not necessarily a good idea.

PeterF01 wrote:

This is a seriously mis-leading and potentially dangerous 'survey' that is simply designed as yet aother whitewashing of the scientific reality of regular cycling on traditional bicycle saddles for the over 50's.

It's common knowledge within the cycling industry that older males riding regularly over (say) 8 hrs per week have a 50% increased risk of elevated PSA (Prostrate Specific Antigen), the main blood indicator for potential prostrate cancer.

I have first hand experiene of this. A long time amateur club rider doing around 12 hrs week of training/road racing well into my 50's - I was the first ever male in my family to contract prostrate cancer. When I was diagnosed several others in my club got tested and the results were shocking.

I highly recommend any serious amateur rider over 50 to immediately get a PSA test, and follow up every 6 to 12 months. Don't ever be fooled by bike-industry spin!

so lots of elevated levels of PSA, but any actual cancer diagnosis? Any treatment, or just committed to a future regime of monitoring, and all the worry that comes with that?

Unless you or your clubmates, were diagnosed with prostate cancer (not just high PSA), succesfully treated and now in remission, it seems there was no actual benefit of the testing at all. Just the worry from the shocking results. 

Unless you or your clubmates, were diagnosed with prostate cancer (not just high PSA), succesfully treated and now in remission, it seems there was no actual benefit of the testing at all

Agreed, but your suggested end-point incites the distortion of all the 'my life was saved by my PSA test and surgery and/or drug/radiotherapy treatment, you should all get tested' stories. It's pretty easy to get a diagnosis of prostate cancer if you're old enough and they take enough biopsies through your rectum or perineum, and they're zealots for cancer. At my age, one statistic (don't know how reliable) is that 50% of men will have 'foci' (small bits) of cancer. What you really need are death/ age data and what they died of- and that takes large studies and lots of time. This is the basis of the oft-quoted distinction of whether you 'died with, or of, prostate cancer'. Of course, my strategy of avoiding PSA depends on my luck of being without a family history of prostate cancer and happening to be non-black- other risk factors may be known to experts.

Cycloid wrote:

According to the blurb 1.0% of men get prostate cancer, it goes down by 35%, so it becomes 0.65%, going from a small chance to a slightly smaller chance.

That's one way of looking at it and it does sound negligible. Looking at it another way though, a person who gets the requisite exercise lengthens their odds of being one of the unlucky ones from 100/1 to 135/1, which is quite a substantial boost of your chances.

Having said that both of the people to whom I'm close who have had prostate cancer (both now fully recovered, thankfully) are amongst the fittest chaps for their age I know, one of them being a keen runner and the other a keen cyclist, so I guess sometimes that bullet's just got your name on it.

Cycloid wrote:

Always be suspicious of claims that quote big % numbers like this.

According to the blurb 1.0% of men get prostate cancer, it goes down by 35%, so it becomes 0.65%, going from a small chance to a slightly smaller chance. Probably still worth having in this case.

Politicians do the same trick. Always be suspicious when they use any figures, whether relative or absolute. "We have allocated £X Billion to this good cause". Means it was £X+1 Billion last year

Cynical or what?

Always good to look at what any stats presented actually mean, but the BMJ study below came back with similar reductions for general cardiovascular, cancer and even overall death figures, so there does look to be something going on. And something more specific to what folk do when they are cycling than to what they do for other things.

And it seems to say increasing it by 3% a year over a 7 year reference period.

I can only imagine getting 3% fitter for every one of the last 7 years... 

There was a pretty strong study on active travel effects in the BMJ 7 years ago that doesn't seem to have got much public traction... Those come out at about 45% reductions.

Conclusions 
Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality. Walking commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD independent of major measured confounding factors. Initiatives to encourage and support active commuting could reduce risk of death and the burden of important chronic conditions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456

There was a pretty strong study on active travel effects in the BMJ 7 years ago

But that doesn't cut much ice for a government and police force that thinks motorists have a right to have no excuse to say they believe that it's cyclists who cause delays, traffic jams and pollution

It's a bit like smoking, we know it's bad for you but people still do it.

If a study came out and said sitting in a car for an hour a day increases your risk of prostate cancer, how many people do you think would give up driving and use a bike instead.

I went for a PSA test a couple of years ago and was advised not to cycle for a week before the test as cycling increases the risk of a false positive apparently.  It broke my 5.5 year run of daily rides.

Interesting, I wasn't given that advice before my PSA test and I'm now hoping that  pre test rides account for my above average score.

As it was described to me by a ride buddy, who also happened to be a former prostate specialist, cycling can give a raised PSA score - but this was a false-flag. He was interested to establish ones base level, then only be concerned about a sudden rise in this number at some future test.

I had a PSA in the summer. I had done a 60km ride just before. I got a high result,  but before I spoke to the doctor,  I had been on the NHS site to read up about it. There was a list of things to not do. First was ejaculate...and  second was vigorous exercise. Doctor sent me for a second test. I asked the nurse about it, and she was surprised. She didn't know about the list. Still got a high ish score. Get tested lads!

Mr Hoopdriver wrote:

It's a bit like smoking, we know it's bad for you but people still do it.
If a study came out and said sitting in a car for an hour a day increases your risk of prostate cancer, how many people do you think would give up driving and use a bike instead.

Yup, imagine a BMJ study for a treatment that reduced CVD and cancer deaths by 45% and it turned out it wasn't being made available to everybody.....

wtjs wrote:

There was a pretty strong study on active travel effects in the BMJ 7 years ago

But that doesn't cut much ice for a government and police force that thinks motorists have a right to have no excuse to say they believe that it's cyclists who cause delays, traffic jams and pollution

Ah, the surface has plenty of grandstanders, but more quietly government policy on all kinds of things have implicit actions set for more actively/active travel changes and funding at much higher levels than in the past (except until the recent changes in England ) even when other budgets are being reduced - and at the root that's because it's accepted that whatever populist angles you (public pronoucer) want to present, there are huge cost/benefit ratios for anything that gets the population as a whole just a little bit more active and a little bit less in need of NHS budget...

Quote - Conclusions 
Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality.

Cycle commuting is associated with a higher risk of mortality.

If you do the same journey on the bike and in a car (eg a commute) the probability of getting killed or seriously injured is 25-45 times higher (depending on which statistics you believe) on the bike.

Perhaps we need a meta analysis to look at the big picture. You only get the long term benefits if you survive the commute. Maybe there is an optimum length of commute that gives the benefits without too much exposure to risk, thus maximising longevity.

Any one fancy a PhD?

It's probably not the full PhD thesis you would like, but Cycling UK have a useful page that considers both the health benefits and risks from cycling, including references to studies where available:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-health 

I've just been there to check things out before I made my post!

Thanks - It's a useful source of information.

Cycloid wrote:

Cycle commuting is associated with a higher risk of mortality.

If you do the same journey on the bike and in a car (eg a commute) the probability of getting killed or seriously injured is 25-45 times higher (depending on which statistics you believe) on the bike.

You only get the long term benefits if you survive the commute. Maybe there is an optimum length of commute that gives the benefits without too much exposure to risk, thus maximising longevity.

Or an optimum mode of commute. I imagine e.g. commutes on segregated paths don't have massive KSI figures. 

Exactly, I try using segregated paths and somehow low motor traffic to keep away from exhaust fumes. When a 20 ton diesel truck starts off a traffic light with its exhaust in your face as you try to catch your breath, isn't very healthy.

Cycloid wrote:

Cycle commuting is associated with a higher risk of mortality.

It's not actually, it's associated with a higher risk of mortality from accidents but that is more than outweighed by the health benefits, all large-scale studies have found that all-cause mortality is lower than average in regular commuter cyclists.

If you re-read Cycloid's post, I think that's exactly the point they were making - KSI risks on any given ride versus long term health benefits.