Troublesome article about biking creates concern in my family

[peterw_diy]

What kind of saddle do you have now? I find ones with central relief cutouts much more comfortable than traditional saddles. Narrow is fine. Padding isn’t needed much. But the Terry-style cutaways make a big difference.

[PotomacCyclist]

You can also introduce more variety into your bike routine, namely riding different types of bikes. If you don’t want to buy another bike, you could sign up for Capital Bikeshare and add CaBi rides to your routine.

I train for triathlon races, but I’m not super, super serious about it. I take the training seriously, but I ride on the mountain bike and on CaBi a lot. Far more than I would if I were a pro. While it’s good to spend more time on your race bike the closer you get to a key race, for someone who isn’t training for races or who isn’t going to be winning age group awards, it doesn’t matter that much if you split up your bike riding among different types of bikes.

Bike fit is important for any bike, but changing up bikes can also help. After my final race of each year (usually in the early or mid fall), I put away the tri bike and ride on the MTB or CaBi almost exclusively. (I do occasional workouts on the spin bike at the gym over the winter too. I rarely ride the tri bike in the winter, partly because of the messy roads and partly because I like the change of pace of riding on different types of bikes.)

I also like the sport variety of triathlons. I don’t run as much as a pure runner does. I don’t bike as much as a pure cyclist does. I don’t swim nearly as much as a pure swimmer does. I don’t train as much as a pro or top amateur triathlete does. But I’m in very good health and I have fun with the training. I always look back to a decade ago, when I didn’t do any endurance sports at all, and only occasional exercise (a few strength workouts here and there). I wouldn’t be able to just hop out and do a 5K run at any time back then. I hadn’t ridden a bike in years at that point. But now I can enjoy casual bike rides or runs at any time, and it’s not a big deal. Back then, it would have been.

***
In addition to bike fit, I think general strength training (not bodybuilding) might help with potential risks of overuse injury from cycling. If you have a strong and stable core, you are less likely to get sloppy with your form and positioning on the bike. Poor form and positioning can cause you to put excessive pressure in places where… you don’t want excessive pressure.

You can also break up rides by standing up on the pedals, shifting your position slightly so that you are kind of sitting more on one “cheek” than the other, speeding up for spurts, slowing down, and so on.

If you notice any problems, address them, instead of trying to push through them. Overuse injuries can occur from ramping up the miles/hours too rapidly, or introducing too much intensity too quickly. Or increasing total ride volume and intensity at the same time. Poor bike fit and poor core strength are other contributing factors to overuse injuries. Take care of this before problems occur. It’s far, far better to prevent injuries than to try to solve them after they occur.

[Dickie]

Much like if your freewheel is too loud…. don’t coast. If your saddle is causing a life threatening disease…. don’t sit

In all seriousness, everyday we learn of new things that will kill us. If I get prostate cancer from riding everyday at least I went down trying to improve my health…eff cancer!

[Bilsko]

The study was pretty poorly designed, so there’s not much reason to pay attention to it.
Two main issues:
— The sample size was 42 men.
— Participants self reported through an online survey.

From the reporting website ( http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/07July/Pages/Cycling-linked-to-prostate-cancer-but-not-infertility.aspx ):
Despite these seemingly alarming results, regular cyclists do not need to panic – this type of study cannot prove increased cycling time leads to prostate cancer; it can only prove an association.

Also, the prostate cancer analyses were only carried out on fewer than 42 men, which is only a relatively small sample of men. With such a small sample, it increases the possibility that any association is the result of chance. Most experts would agree that the health benefits of frequent cycling outweigh the risks.

[baiskeli]

@Bilsko 90441 wrote:

The study was pretty poorly designed, so there’s not much reason to pay attention to it.
Two main issues:
— The sample size was 42 men.
— Participants self reported through an online survey.

From the reporting website ( http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/07July/Pages/Cycling-linked-to-prostate-cancer-but-not-infertility.aspx ):
Despite these seemingly alarming results, regular cyclists do not need to panic – this type of study cannot prove increased cycling time leads to prostate cancer; it can only prove an association.

Also, the prostate cancer analyses were only carried out on fewer than 42 men, which is only a relatively small sample of men. With such a small sample, it increases the possibility that any association is the result of chance. Most experts would agree that the health benefits of frequent cycling outweigh the risks.

Thanks for looking into it. That’s a nearly worthless study – all it does is point to the need for better studies.

[ShawnoftheDread]

Everything good for you will kill you. Everything bad for you will prolong your life. Reverse those each week and you won’t have to read the news accounts of the latest “studies” anymore.

[Anonymous]

Bobco @bobco85 90367 wrote:

Important text from the results of this study:

linked the actual research paper yesterday. Without knowing (or being qualified to interpret even if I did know) the actual statistical analysis they used, it doesn’t look like a poorly designed study to me– it’s just being reported at saying something much more definitive than it actually says. What it actually says (right there in the conclusion section), as bobco quoted,

The findings suggest a graded association between cycling and risk of prostate cancer, but whether this is a definitive association related to causation or diagnosis remains to be seen.

Also from the research paper

Indeed, it may be that cycling increases rates of diagnosis rather than risk of developing pathology. PSA has been found to be elevated in long-distance cyclists aged over 50 years.14 In addition, urogenital complaints such as hematuria, known as “bike-seat hematuria,” perineal soft-tissue lesions, ED, and perineal sensory abnormalities that are associated with cycling6 may lead to increased rates of investigation and subsequent diagnosis of other underlying conditions. This is speculative, however, but the presence of a biological gradient, and a compelling strength of association between prostate cancer and high cycling volumes warrant further investigation.

(my layman’s interpretation of that)– Elevated PSA (and some of those other symptoms) will cause your doctor to order a biopsy. Since many men have prostate cancer, very frequently without symptoms unless it has metastasized, more biopsies are going to equal more prostate cancer diagnoses even with the same number of cancers. (you might have prostate cancer, you’ll just never know it unless you have a biopsy or you develop symptoms, and you’re unlikely to have a biopsy unless you have either symptoms or an elevated psa).

That is only one speculative explanation for the results. Another is that cycling actually does increase the risk. Many men have prostate cancer; the overall risk is relatively high as compared to more rare cancers. So if cycling really increases the risk by two to five times (depending on hours cycled), that is not negligible in my opinion. But one study that shows a correlation doesn’t come anywhere close to proving that. It just means it’s worth looking into further.

Someone I love has had prostate cancer, been treated, had a recurrence, been treated again. I’ve spent a fair amount of time fully immersed in diagnosis/treatment/follow-up as amatuer therapist/sounding board/research assistant/probably some other stuff I wasn’t qualified to do. I take it seriously.* It is pretty survivable as far as cancers go, but it is not a walk in the park by any means. As seriously as I take it, I am not going to rush out and advise my male loved ones to stop cycling based on this study.

However, as I am not lordofthemark’s wife, that’s probably highly unhelpful.

*at least seriously enough to follow a helpfully provided link and read a fairly accessible research paper, ha

[cyclingfool]

@mstone 90409 wrote:

Brooks. Only negative is attractiveness to thieves, and rain. I do keep a cover rolled up under the saddle of the Brooks and have camped in the woods in torrential downpours with the bike sitting out, but if I parked outside to commute it might give me pause.

Amen. Brooks devotee here as well. Love it. lordofthemark, don’t scoff at the price tag. It’s worth every penny. Seriously.

[Raymo853]

@Raymo853 90365 wrote:

Remind your wife there is a stronger correlation between men who that do not ejaculate often enough and prostate cancer rates.

This article cites a study with a sample size of 30,000.
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20040406/frequent-ejaculation-prostate

[baiskeli]

@Raymo853 90494 wrote:

This article cites a study with a sample size of 30,000.
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20040406/frequent-ejaculation-prostate

That looks like a much more solid and reliable study. Yes, indeed.

[Raymo853]

@baiskeli 90509 wrote:

That looks like a much more solid and reliable study. Yes, indeed.

Masturbation and apathy are the keys to happiness.

[Vicegrip]

Fat out of shape sedentary and not out in the world with the sun shining or the rain cooling me on a ride is not living

[Belcher]

@lordofthemark 90362 wrote:

No, not THAT article, no one in my family takes Mr Milloy seriously.

My wife is now worried I might get prostate cancer from biking more than 4 hours a week (which assuming my commuting becomes more regular after we move, is how much I will be biking.) She understands the other health benefits, but I also mentioned to her that I could get a better seat.

Do I need to a new seat (saddle?) only if I am feeling discomfort, or is there a health benefit anyway. What should I look for in a new seat? Note I did not have a new seat at the top of my shopping list, as I still need a some other accessories and kit.

I really enjoyed the posts shared by the community members here.

[Steve O]

@Belcher 147083 wrote:

I really enjoyed the posts shared by the community members here.

Then come meet us in person at one of the many, many coffee clubs.

[accordioneur]

@Steve O 147084 wrote:

Then come meet us in person at one of the many, many coffee clubs.

Speaking of which, some meta-analyses suggest that coffee has a protective effect against prostate cancer (e.g., http://coffeeandhealth.org/topic-overview/coffee-consumption-and-bladder-kidney-and-prostate-cancers/). So, ride more and drink more coffee!

[Author]

Posts