Vigorous Exercise Cuts Breast Cancer Risk - Big Time!

A very exciting study has just been released demonstrating that vigorous exercisers are 30% less likely to develop breast cancer. Here are the details - reported in the journal Breast Cancer Research.
- Researchers followed 32,269 post-menopausal women for eleven years and found that vigorous exercise was protective against breast cancer - independent of body weight.
- The study controlled for other risk factors
- Vigorous activity was defined as anything from strenuous sports such as running, biking up hills, and aerobics to taxing housework such as scrubbing floors, chopping wood or heavy yard work.
- Fascinatingly, non-vigorous activity was not protective (non-vigorous activity included walking, light housework, leisure biking).
- Also of note, vigorous activity was only protective in lean women and not those who were overweight or obese. Researchers noted that a possible explanation for this finding is that heavier women may misreport non-vigorous activities as vigorous ones.
According to lead researcher Michael F. Leitzmann, possible explanations of the protective effect of vigorous exercise include:
- Reduced exposure to growth factors
- Enhanced immune function
- Decreased chronic inflammation
Is it time to crank things up?
There is a growing body of research showing the amazing health benefits of higher intensity exercise. But before jumping on the *HIIT parade, understand that vigorous exercise is something that must be built up to.
Decide on an action plan
- If you are deconditioned and/or overweight, you can still reap benefits of lower intensity exercise while building up to doing more intense activity.
- If you are a little more seasoned at exercise - try ratcheting things up a notch or two. If you've been walking, try walk/runs, join a sports team or a boot camp.
- Intersperse vigorous and non-vigorous activity days.
- Although not mentioned in the study, weight training is of considerable benefit and would fall under "vigorous" exercise under most circumstances.
* HIIT: High Intenstiy Interval Training.
More like this in Science · Nov 2, 2008
I wonder if maybe there is also a correlation between the fact that lean, active women typically have smaller breasts and the fact that they can detect cancer earlier because there isn't as much there to hide lumps.
Decreased estrogen levels in leaner women may be a factor too...the more fat you have, the more estrogen you store. Many types of breast cancer "feed" on estrogen, so it's to your benefit to not have as much in your body.
So this is good news for me, I suppose. I don't have any family history of breast cancer and I'm very active. Hopefully there's not another study out there that says that being active makes you more prone to some other type of cancer or something.
ReplyUnfortunately this didn't hold true for my mother-in-law, who was very lean and a very active runner and was still diagnosed with breast cancer in her mid-50s. Thankfully she caught it early and is now in the clear.
It's an interesting theory though.
ReplySadly, I was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 45. At age 40, I ran trained for and ran a marathon. And, I've done much vigorous exercise in the intervening years.
Cancer SUCKS. I'd like to see more attention to environmental causes.
If you are wondering about my diet, I have been a vegetarian since age 30. I've never weighed more than 115 lbs. Did I mention that CANCER SUCKS?!?!
ReplyI'm sorry to hear about it. Cancer is so unfair!
My aunt, aged 39, was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier this year. In her early 30s, she wasn't extremely healthy, but in the years prior to her diagnosis, she began eating healthily and exercising a lot. She was enjoying her weight loss and all...until the diagnosis. I think the treatments will conclude this year, though I'm not too sure.
I think the results of the research may be true. In Malach's case, and my aunt, diagnosis occurred in the years prior to menopause.
ReplyVegetarian, hmm. How is your soy consumption?
ReplyIt appears that reducing the risk of breast cancer and most other cancers requires a combination of good habits...getting vigorous exercise, achieving or maintaining a healthy body weight, eating a balanced, nutritious diet, getting regular medical checkups, and learning about and avoiding possible environmental factors...as opposed to doing just one thing like getting vigorous exercise.
ReplyDid anyone actually read the study, because after reading it I didn't come to the conclusion that they showed any worthwhile evidence that vigorous activity actually helped with reducing breast cancer risks.
My biggest problem with this study was the fact that the vigorous activity levels in the group that did 3.6 hours a week and the group that did 22.7 hours a week had nearly identical results. The way I see it if there was any truth to the correlation studied here than the results would have gotten better as they increased activity level not gone up and down from group to group.
ReplyAny news is good news when it comes to fighting cancer. It makes me wonder what it is about "rigorous" exercise that is so benefitual.
ReplyHate to burst your bubble ,but the study didn't actually show a correlation between vigorous exercise and breast cancer reduction.It's actually a pretty bad study that it seems no one has bothered to read.
Even if you were to take this study seriously it would require you to do over three hours of vigorous exercise a day too get the full benefits.
ReplyThat is some great news! It is wonderful to hear that we can protect ourselves from such life threatening diseases as cancer simply by eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight and exercising vigorously.
ReplyWhile no matter what we do to prevent cancer, we unfortunately cannot always escape it. Diet and exercise is the most preventative maintaince.
ReplyOdd how the UK's biggest cancer research charity didn't cover this story. Odder still when you consider that one of their most senior scientists is on the editorial staff.
ReplyUnfortunately, Breast Cancer Research does not have a particularly high readership, and has a fairly low impact factor. I wonder about the actual findings in this study, and why the story hasn't been picked up by the more serious cancer/oncology news sites.