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

[Tc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/health/21baka.html?ref=spor-
ts

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

[Tc]

NoOption5L@aol.com wrote:
> 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."

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 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

And yet, they still get a statisctically significant increased
risk in skin cancers.

TC

[Tc]

Doug Freese wrote:
> <NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message news:1164161755.31396-
> 0.284350@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > 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.

[Doug Frees]

<NoOption5L@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164161755.313960.284350@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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."

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.

[Enrico C]

On 26 Nov 2006 10:51:50 -0800, TC wrote:

> 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?

[jt]

On 26 Nov 2006 16:30:28 -0800, "TC"
<tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Enrico C wrote:
>> On 26 Nov 2006 10:51:50 -0800, TC wrote:
>>
>> > 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?
>
>Ans what has changed in the last 50 years? Before that skin
>was rare.
>
Sun Tan lotions and hydrogenated oils.

[Tc]

jt@nowhere.com wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006 16:30:28 -0800, "TC"
> <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Enrico C wrote:
> >> On 26 Nov 2006 10:51:50 -0800, TC wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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?
> >
> >Ans what has changed in the last 50 years? Before that skin
> >was rare.
> >
> 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

[Tc]

Enrico C wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006 10:51:50 -0800, TC wrote:
>
> > 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

[Tc]

http://www.aad.org/aad/Newsroom/2005+Skin+Cancer+Fact+Sheet.h-
tm

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

TC wrote:
> Enrico C wrote:
> > On 26 Nov 2006 10:51:50 -0800, TC wrote:
> >
> > > 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

[Tc]

Doug Freese wrote:
> "TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:11646610-
> 95.416741.273230@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.aad.org/aad/Newsroom/2005+Skin+Cancer+Fact+She-
> > et.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?
>
> It must be those damned carbs, especially the whole grains.
>
> -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

[Enrico C]

On 27 Nov 2006 11:03:47 -0800, TC wrote: [...]
> 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.