How it looks across the Pond
http://www.jameswhalefund.org/editpics/File/Glasgow Patient Day Report v2 (2)(1).pdf
I was surprised that it didn't touch on depression, which, when profound/severe is a far worse condition than any sort of cancer but which inevitably is often an additional burden on a cancer victim. The excellent KCA book We Have Kidney Cancer also doesn't even mention depression, though it talks of stress and distress. I think this is a subject which should be given greater prominence and I was interested to find this UK reference to some interesting US research suggesting that cancer cells may be one possible source of depressive illness:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/05/19/us-research-suggests-that-cancer-cells-trigger-depression/
I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on either of these links.
Comments
-
Depression
TW,
First, I assume that the next KC Patient Day in Scotland must be in 25 years...
I did want to make a brief comment about depression. I know personally I was in a deep, dark hole for months after my surgery. At first I thought I was depressed because of the cancer diagnosis. Then I wondered if the fatigue/anemia had a role in it. I also take care of my mother, who has late stage Lewy Body dementia, which is also depressing, so I figured it must be a combination of everything. And perhaps it was, but I have never felt so void before. I was merely going through the motions of life each day, but I knew something was not right.
Looking back now, I do think major surgery must play a role in depression. I also think having the time to sit back and think about the diagnosis after surgery played a role. I am sure each case is unique. I can't recall if I was depressed prior to the diagnosis - I certainly wasn't feeling well for some time.
It is interesting that depression isn't addressed enough regarding cancer diagnoses. Depression could play a big role in our immune system. Being healthy in mind, body and spirit is beneficial to fighting any disease.
Enough typing for one night. My thoughts are scattered- I have a 23 year old that is talking my ears off.
My two cents worth,
Rae0 -
Depression, cancer and exerciserae_rae said:Depression
TW,
First, I assume that the next KC Patient Day in Scotland must be in 25 years...
I did want to make a brief comment about depression. I know personally I was in a deep, dark hole for months after my surgery. At first I thought I was depressed because of the cancer diagnosis. Then I wondered if the fatigue/anemia had a role in it. I also take care of my mother, who has late stage Lewy Body dementia, which is also depressing, so I figured it must be a combination of everything. And perhaps it was, but I have never felt so void before. I was merely going through the motions of life each day, but I knew something was not right.
Looking back now, I do think major surgery must play a role in depression. I also think having the time to sit back and think about the diagnosis after surgery played a role. I am sure each case is unique. I can't recall if I was depressed prior to the diagnosis - I certainly wasn't feeling well for some time.
It is interesting that depression isn't addressed enough regarding cancer diagnoses. Depression could play a big role in our immune system. Being healthy in mind, body and spirit is beneficial to fighting any disease.
Enough typing for one night. My thoughts are scattered- I have a 23 year old that is talking my ears off.
My two cents worth,
Rae
Rae, thanks for the 25 years ;-) I did, as an earnest of faith, buy green bananas yesterday (only 2, mind you - this is Scotland!).
Sense of humour remains important. ['I see you're keeping busy in the garden; by the way I was sorry to hear your wife is unwell.' - 'Thanks, I'll pass on your good wishes.' - 'Is that her coughin' ?' - 'No, it's just a new rabbit-hutch I'm building.' ]
I was struck by your remark about the advantage conferred by health in mind body and spirit. I've always believed in a holistic approach to life. So I was gutted about the latest event I've missed - yesterday evening - a talk just up the road at Dundee University by a recent addition to the academic staff, Dr. Anna Campbell. She has spent the last 12 years specialising in exercise programs for cancer patients. With a first degree in immunology, a doctorate in biochemistry and an M Sc in Sport and Exercise Science she is as well qualified in this area as anyone in the world. So I'll call her tomorrow and ask for a transcript of her talk which was entitled Rest is Not Best: Cancer Survival Through Active Living. Meanwhile, some here (especially pros in the field like Foxy) may be interested in this material
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Commissioners/Physicalactivityevidencereview.pdf
For those only wanting the bottom line, it's this:
"Conclusions
This review demonstrates that good evidence exists to support the promotion of physical activity throughout the cancer care pathway.
Activity should be promoted to patients at all stages of cancer from initial diagnosis through to the later stages, where being active can continue to benefit physical function and quality of life. The evidence shows that if an activity recommendation is carefully tailored to the individual, and takes account of potential side effects, it is likely to have a positive impact.
There is a clear need for mechanisms within the cancer care pathway to support patients in maintaining or initiating physical activity during and after treatment."
A related interesting piece of work Anna Campbell has been centrally involved in is to be found at:
http://www.bases.org.uk/Exercise-and-Cancer
That is entitled "The BASES Expert Statement on Exercise and Cancer Survivorship" and was produced on behalf of the British Assn. of Sport and Exercise Sciences. It reviewed relevant literature and cited a study which showed that post-treatment exercise programs had led to valuable gains in both upper and lower body strength but also benefits in alleviation of depression and anxiety and even more so in combating chronic fatigue.
All of which goes to show that exercise is beneficial both for people suffering from cancer and those beset by depression.0 -
exerciseTexas_wedge said:Depression, cancer and exercise
Rae, thanks for the 25 years ;-) I did, as an earnest of faith, buy green bananas yesterday (only 2, mind you - this is Scotland!).
Sense of humour remains important. ['I see you're keeping busy in the garden; by the way I was sorry to hear your wife is unwell.' - 'Thanks, I'll pass on your good wishes.' - 'Is that her coughin' ?' - 'No, it's just a new rabbit-hutch I'm building.' ]
I was struck by your remark about the advantage conferred by health in mind body and spirit. I've always believed in a holistic approach to life. So I was gutted about the latest event I've missed - yesterday evening - a talk just up the road at Dundee University by a recent addition to the academic staff, Dr. Anna Campbell. She has spent the last 12 years specialising in exercise programs for cancer patients. With a first degree in immunology, a doctorate in biochemistry and an M Sc in Sport and Exercise Science she is as well qualified in this area as anyone in the world. So I'll call her tomorrow and ask for a transcript of her talk which was entitled Rest is Not Best: Cancer Survival Through Active Living. Meanwhile, some here (especially pros in the field like Foxy) may be interested in this material
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Documents/AboutUs/Commissioners/Physicalactivityevidencereview.pdf
For those only wanting the bottom line, it's this:
"Conclusions
This review demonstrates that good evidence exists to support the promotion of physical activity throughout the cancer care pathway.
Activity should be promoted to patients at all stages of cancer from initial diagnosis through to the later stages, where being active can continue to benefit physical function and quality of life. The evidence shows that if an activity recommendation is carefully tailored to the individual, and takes account of potential side effects, it is likely to have a positive impact.
There is a clear need for mechanisms within the cancer care pathway to support patients in maintaining or initiating physical activity during and after treatment."
A related interesting piece of work Anna Campbell has been centrally involved in is to be found at:
http://www.bases.org.uk/Exercise-and-Cancer
That is entitled "The BASES Expert Statement on Exercise and Cancer Survivorship" and was produced on behalf of the British Assn. of Sport and Exercise Sciences. It reviewed relevant literature and cited a study which showed that post-treatment exercise programs had led to valuable gains in both upper and lower body strength but also benefits in alleviation of depression and anxiety and even more so in combating chronic fatigue.
All of which goes to show that exercise is beneficial both for people suffering from cancer and those beset by depression.
WOW! Gary is right. Your research capacity is amazing!! Illness, decreased capacity for activity, and depression are certainly reflected in a decrease in endorphins. Exercise provides a way for an individual to have an influence on endorphin production. Not everyone is able to run, lift weights or do yoga. Therefore, your doctor can help you find a therapist who can assist you in identifying the right activity to strengthen, motivate, and fight the effects of illness. T-W, if you keep swinging a club and walking Carnoustie, I wouldn't change much. Maybe light weights and quick walks.0 -
Just one more foot notefoxhd said:exercise
WOW! Gary is right. Your research capacity is amazing!! Illness, decreased capacity for activity, and depression are certainly reflected in a decrease in endorphins. Exercise provides a way for an individual to have an influence on endorphin production. Not everyone is able to run, lift weights or do yoga. Therefore, your doctor can help you find a therapist who can assist you in identifying the right activity to strengthen, motivate, and fight the effects of illness. T-W, if you keep swinging a club and walking Carnoustie, I wouldn't change much. Maybe light weights and quick walks.
Just curious,did removing one of my adrenal glands while my right kidney was being removed have any thing to do with my depression or was it the low grade tumor being removed from my bladder the next day,or was it waiting for the pathology report to determine my long term prognosis,or was it the fact this all took place in a weeks time,or could it have been the week before this all took place I thought I was in perfect health,or maybe it was the reality that I probably will not live to see a hundred years,then again who knows maybe I was just being a big cry baby.0 -
Living to be 100Limelife50 said:Just one more foot note
Just curious,did removing one of my adrenal glands while my right kidney was being removed have any thing to do with my depression or was it the low grade tumor being removed from my bladder the next day,or was it waiting for the pathology report to determine my long term prognosis,or was it the fact this all took place in a weeks time,or could it have been the week before this all took place I thought I was in perfect health,or maybe it was the reality that I probably will not live to see a hundred years,then again who knows maybe I was just being a big cry baby.
Even without cancer, most of us older folks will not live to be 100. According to an online kidney cancer life expectancy calculator, a man my age (64) without kidney cancer and in reasonably good health can expect to live another 17.5 years. With Stage 1 kidney cancer, it's 14.7. (That's like the blink of an eye if the last 15 years of my life are any indication.) Most healthy young people will live a lot longer as the beneficiaries of recent scientific developments ... some say the fountain of youth is just around the corner. Just my luck. Born too soon.0 -
Multiple choice...Limelife50 said:Just one more foot note
Just curious,did removing one of my adrenal glands while my right kidney was being removed have any thing to do with my depression or was it the low grade tumor being removed from my bladder the next day,or was it waiting for the pathology report to determine my long term prognosis,or was it the fact this all took place in a weeks time,or could it have been the week before this all took place I thought I was in perfect health,or maybe it was the reality that I probably will not live to see a hundred years,then again who knows maybe I was just being a big cry baby.
Limelife,
Except for the cry baby option I'd go with all of the above. My general comment on the topic of depression would be that exercise is beneficial in fighting it's affects as well.
Gary0 -
Multiple choice...garym said:Multiple choice...
Limelife,
Except for the cry baby option I'd go with all of the above. My general comment on the topic of depression would be that exercise is beneficial in fighting it's affects as well.
Gary
Hi Gary,
Yes exercise is important for fighting depression and for extending one's life expectancy. My right hand, the one I hold my TV remote control in, is expected to live another 30 years
According to the Mayo Clinic, a positive mental attitude is also a life extender.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009
Mike0 -
Footnotes and exerciseMikeK703 said:Multiple choice...
Hi Gary,
Yes exercise is important for fighting depression and for extending one's life expectancy. My right hand, the one I hold my TV remote control in, is expected to live another 30 years
According to the Mayo Clinic, a positive mental attitude is also a life extender.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009
Mike
Limelife50, I think the answer is in your last suggestion - you're just a big cry baby - after all, what have you had to complain about?! Anyway I hope you reach 100+ in good health.
I didn't think my note on depression would elicit quite such an immediate response - perhaps it is a topic that needs to be considered in a bit more depth than it has been so far? I hoped for a response from you, Fox, and I wasn't disappointed! You're right about the endorphins and there's research showing that in some (many?) cases, exercise has outscored SSRIs in alleviating depression. Both have the effect of modifying neurotransmitter balances and it's often found that increasing exercise levels allows depressives to significantly reduce their dosages of Prozac, etc.
While mentioning meds, when next I see my urologist, or oncologist, I'm going to say I want what my friend Fox is having! Perhaps MDX-1106 is that silver bullet and I know we all hope so.
Fox, you were kind enough to outline your thoughts on my exercise program and that has emboldened me to pick your brains some more. I'm currently able to walk a good few miles and to keep up around 4 mph. I've just come in from walking 18 holes on the course next to Carnoustie (a swish private club called Panmure) with 3 friends. There was a strongish wind blowing and it's well below freezing so I was in work boots and wearing snowboarding gloves (not that I've ever even seen a snowboard). I tried a number of drives, borrowing each of my companions' drivers in turn but couldn't get it right at all except for the odd hole where I outdrove the longest of the three by more than 40 yds which instantly pulled me out of the gathering despondency. I've just had a call from my GP (who's just drifted off his 2 handicap and so knows a bit about golf). I told him where I'd just been and he has approved my trying 9 holes mid-week and, barring any adverse consequences, my going for 18 on Sunday in a winter league match. So, here's hoping.
I've stayed off rowing and lifting, although I have been going through the motions with just a bar, doing sets of 10 curls, upright rowing, reverse curls, press behind neck, triceps stretches and full squats. However, on days when my Wife has abjured walking because of gales and low temperatures, I've been doing 20 minute sessions on our elliptical cross-trainer, using a novice-level program and scanning my HR, among other parameters and this is where I'd welcome your further reflections.
Our machine's manual has sections on heart-rate zones for "Health" "Fat burning" and "Fitness" all predicated on max. HR based on the received wisdom that this can be determined by 220 - age in years. Many years ago I used to enjoy reading textbooks and academic papers in exercise physiology and related disciplines (so long ago that I suspect that favourites like Karpovich and Karvonen, Asmussen and Per Olav Astrand will all be superseded by newer authorities). I regarded the HR max. formula as unscientific and treated it as a shibboleth among the exercise physiologists that I could safely ignore. Now, at 69 and as a cancer survivor (so far, so good, but steady on buying the green bananas!) I'm inclined to be less cavalier.
'
On the hallowed formula, my max. HR would be just about 150, giving me a 'health' range of 75-90 beats/min. 'fat-burning' at 90-105 or so and 'fitness' at 105 - 120. Now that's a piece of nonsense. In my 30s I could take my rate from not much above resting to way over 200 in about 20 seconds by doing 8-10 full squats to the point of failure. In my 60s when road-running I would cruise comfortably at around 170. Two or three years ago, in fair shape, I was curious to see what oarsmen call "the red mist" so when finishing a 10k, with about 300 m to go I went flat out and, oh boy, into the red mist (which my GP tells me is the immediate precursor to losing consciousness). I didn't have a heart monitor on but I'm sure I was way beyond my supposed max. of 150.
So, on my current elliptical workouts, I've been happy to see myself at 160s and still feeling comfortable. In the closing stages I'm topping out around 170 -175, sweating and breathing fairly heavily but still relatively comfortable. I've recovered very rapidly and suffered no discernible sequelae. What has made me even more relaxed is that I'm set up to look out over the golf fairway adjacent to my garden but also able to watch TV. On Sat. I was working out and watching a recording of a favourite prog. - the World's Strongest Man - the 2011 final in N. Carolina. I was running at 165 - 170 and watching Zydrunas Savickas in the truck pull. Those guys are not all spring chickens but they don't burn out until, typically, reaching 190 or so.
Since I was happy training with my pulse at about 20 beats over my supposed max.possible, I decided to update myself on current thinking on HR max and read a bit on the subject on The Web (ignoring all my old books). I was delighted to read an article in "JEP online" (the Official Journal of The American Society of Exercise Physiologists) entitled
'THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age” EQUATION' which is to be found at
http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf
which seems to blame Fox [S.M. Fox III] et al. for originating the suspect formula! [Any relation??] The article reviews some of the many subsequent attempts to arrive at a more accurate formula and concludes that the best is that of Inbar et al. 1994, viz.
HR max. = 205.8 - 0.685(AGE)
To my disquiet, this would give a HR max. for me of 159, and thus an upper limit of the highest training range (for "fitness") of 111 - 127. Now here's the thing, as Horatio Caine would say, even at the upper training limit recommended for me I don't feel as if I'm doing anything at all in the way of exercise.
Two major considerations that emerge from this study are that the training modality is important and that there is significant variation between individuals. I agree that modality is important because I know that my ranges are different as between our bicycle ergometer (we have a Puch Tunturi) our rowing machine and our elliptical. I can show that the relevant variable here is not the machine itself but how the body is being worked. Thus, my heart rate drops noticeably at the same sort of work rate if, on the elliptical I am using arms and shoulders as well as legs (by using the 'ski-pole' handles) as against lower body only (holding the stationary handles).
However, whichever equipment I am using, i can easily work at a HR way off the scale. This suggests to me that differences between individuals is so great as to make any notional HR max. and attendant training ranges a totally untenable concept. Do you think this is a correct conclusion?0 -
exerciseTexas_wedge said:Footnotes and exercise
Limelife50, I think the answer is in your last suggestion - you're just a big cry baby - after all, what have you had to complain about?! Anyway I hope you reach 100+ in good health.
I didn't think my note on depression would elicit quite such an immediate response - perhaps it is a topic that needs to be considered in a bit more depth than it has been so far? I hoped for a response from you, Fox, and I wasn't disappointed! You're right about the endorphins and there's research showing that in some (many?) cases, exercise has outscored SSRIs in alleviating depression. Both have the effect of modifying neurotransmitter balances and it's often found that increasing exercise levels allows depressives to significantly reduce their dosages of Prozac, etc.
While mentioning meds, when next I see my urologist, or oncologist, I'm going to say I want what my friend Fox is having! Perhaps MDX-1106 is that silver bullet and I know we all hope so.
Fox, you were kind enough to outline your thoughts on my exercise program and that has emboldened me to pick your brains some more. I'm currently able to walk a good few miles and to keep up around 4 mph. I've just come in from walking 18 holes on the course next to Carnoustie (a swish private club called Panmure) with 3 friends. There was a strongish wind blowing and it's well below freezing so I was in work boots and wearing snowboarding gloves (not that I've ever even seen a snowboard). I tried a number of drives, borrowing each of my companions' drivers in turn but couldn't get it right at all except for the odd hole where I outdrove the longest of the three by more than 40 yds which instantly pulled me out of the gathering despondency. I've just had a call from my GP (who's just drifted off his 2 handicap and so knows a bit about golf). I told him where I'd just been and he has approved my trying 9 holes mid-week and, barring any adverse consequences, my going for 18 on Sunday in a winter league match. So, here's hoping.
I've stayed off rowing and lifting, although I have been going through the motions with just a bar, doing sets of 10 curls, upright rowing, reverse curls, press behind neck, triceps stretches and full squats. However, on days when my Wife has abjured walking because of gales and low temperatures, I've been doing 20 minute sessions on our elliptical cross-trainer, using a novice-level program and scanning my HR, among other parameters and this is where I'd welcome your further reflections.
Our machine's manual has sections on heart-rate zones for "Health" "Fat burning" and "Fitness" all predicated on max. HR based on the received wisdom that this can be determined by 220 - age in years. Many years ago I used to enjoy reading textbooks and academic papers in exercise physiology and related disciplines (so long ago that I suspect that favourites like Karpovich and Karvonen, Asmussen and Per Olav Astrand will all be superseded by newer authorities). I regarded the HR max. formula as unscientific and treated it as a shibboleth among the exercise physiologists that I could safely ignore. Now, at 69 and as a cancer survivor (so far, so good, but steady on buying the green bananas!) I'm inclined to be less cavalier.
'
On the hallowed formula, my max. HR would be just about 150, giving me a 'health' range of 75-90 beats/min. 'fat-burning' at 90-105 or so and 'fitness' at 105 - 120. Now that's a piece of nonsense. In my 30s I could take my rate from not much above resting to way over 200 in about 20 seconds by doing 8-10 full squats to the point of failure. In my 60s when road-running I would cruise comfortably at around 170. Two or three years ago, in fair shape, I was curious to see what oarsmen call "the red mist" so when finishing a 10k, with about 300 m to go I went flat out and, oh boy, into the red mist (which my GP tells me is the immediate precursor to losing consciousness). I didn't have a heart monitor on but I'm sure I was way beyond my supposed max. of 150.
So, on my current elliptical workouts, I've been happy to see myself at 160s and still feeling comfortable. In the closing stages I'm topping out around 170 -175, sweating and breathing fairly heavily but still relatively comfortable. I've recovered very rapidly and suffered no discernible sequelae. What has made me even more relaxed is that I'm set up to look out over the golf fairway adjacent to my garden but also able to watch TV. On Sat. I was working out and watching a recording of a favourite prog. - the World's Strongest Man - the 2011 final in N. Carolina. I was running at 165 - 170 and watching Zydrunas Savickas in the truck pull. Those guys are not all spring chickens but they don't burn out until, typically, reaching 190 or so.
Since I was happy training with my pulse at about 20 beats over my supposed max.possible, I decided to update myself on current thinking on HR max and read a bit on the subject on The Web (ignoring all my old books). I was delighted to read an article in "JEP online" (the Official Journal of The American Society of Exercise Physiologists) entitled
'THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age” EQUATION' which is to be found at
http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf
which seems to blame Fox [S.M. Fox III] et al. for originating the suspect formula! [Any relation??] The article reviews some of the many subsequent attempts to arrive at a more accurate formula and concludes that the best is that of Inbar et al. 1994, viz.
HR max. = 205.8 - 0.685(AGE)
To my disquiet, this would give a HR max. for me of 159, and thus an upper limit of the highest training range (for "fitness") of 111 - 127. Now here's the thing, as Horatio Caine would say, even at the upper training limit recommended for me I don't feel as if I'm doing anything at all in the way of exercise.
Two major considerations that emerge from this study are that the training modality is important and that there is significant variation between individuals. I agree that modality is important because I know that my ranges are different as between our bicycle ergometer (we have a Puch Tunturi) our rowing machine and our elliptical. I can show that the relevant variable here is not the machine itself but how the body is being worked. Thus, my heart rate drops noticeably at the same sort of work rate if, on the elliptical I am using arms and shoulders as well as legs (by using the 'ski-pole' handles) as against lower body only (holding the stationary handles).
However, whichever equipment I am using, i can easily work at a HR way off the scale. This suggests to me that differences between individuals is so great as to make any notional HR max. and attendant training ranges a totally untenable concept. Do you think this is a correct conclusion?
OK, Here goes again. Lost last night's post but will copy this in case. First and foremost I think that you are already exceeding expectations in your recovery. Don't cloud the big picture with too many details. You have some preset standards and expectations. But you have not defined any goals. Therefore you can not know when you are successful. That could drive you into being a compulsive exercise over achiever and never happy.
Is the goal to return to fitness with strength gains? How much? Are you expecting a new 10k PR? Longer drives? High level aerobic conditioning is important but has it's limits. It didn't save Greta Waitz.
In practice using 220-age is still effective. We're still talking about recovery not qualifying for the Olympic trials. You are right about max HR being different depending on the ex. It's difficult to run uphill carrying weights because your ex becomes anerobic too quickly fatiguing fast twitch muscle fibers. You cannot maintain your aerobic threshold. On the other hand if getting your heart rate to max for an extended period is what you want, then cross country ski. Utilizes large muscle groups in near frictionless enviornment. Lance Armstrong has been arguably the worlds most dominant cyclelist. Extreme lung capacity, max VO2, leg strength. However when he has run marathons his performance is only a footnote. Not even close to world class.
Don't focus purely on your performance and what it takes to get there. At least not this year. Smell the roses. Golf is important to you. Don't need to bench 200 pounds or finish in the top 5 of a marathon to play well or comfortably walk the course. Cross train. Do it with fun in mind. Don't set such high standards that the task of reaching your goals are all consuming. Your wife will see the difference in your enjoyment and mindset. I often joke that "I am gonna die in the best shape of my life". But to do that, it will take too much time away from what is really important. Enjoy your day. I did. Weight trained and jogged this morning. Shortly I'm going to work on an old motorcycle. Maybe play my guitar. No ex. tomorrow. 3rd infusion and consult on my progress. If report is bad, there is no point in increasing my effort thursday. If report is good, no point either. But I'll still weight train and jog. Staying fit is still a part of my life.0 -
81 years for a maleMikeK703 said:Living to be 100
Even without cancer, most of us older folks will not live to be 100. According to an online kidney cancer life expectancy calculator, a man my age (64) without kidney cancer and in reasonably good health can expect to live another 17.5 years. With Stage 1 kidney cancer, it's 14.7. (That's like the blink of an eye if the last 15 years of my life are any indication.) Most healthy young people will live a lot longer as the beneficiaries of recent scientific developments ... some say the fountain of youth is just around the corner. Just my luck. Born too soon.
Hey mike703 when I mentioned a hundred years i meant that more as a joke,but according to your math life expectancy of a male is 81 years.I live in the united states and from what I have read,the life expectancy for a male in this country is closer to 73 ,oh and Texas wedge thanks for the cry baby comment,I guess for now on if someone is feeling sorry for themselves we can just tell them to get off their butt and exercise and they will feel better in no time0 -
Life expectancyLimelife50 said:81 years for a male
Hey mike703 when I mentioned a hundred years i meant that more as a joke,but according to your math life expectancy of a male is 81 years.I live in the united states and from what I have read,the life expectancy for a male in this country is closer to 73 ,oh and Texas wedge thanks for the cry baby comment,I guess for now on if someone is feeling sorry for themselves we can just tell them to get off their butt and exercise and they will feel better in no time
Limelife50, you realised that Mike didn't get your joke about living to be 100 so maybe you can forgive me for you not getting my joke - I was being ironic, meaning that with all you went through in the space of a week you were fully entitled to feel sorry for yourself!
That said, I'll happily nail my colours to the mast and say that YES, when you're feeling low (if you're up to it) getting off your butt and taking some healthy exercise WILL help you feel better, even if only by providing a change of focus.
On life expectancy, you're not getting the whole picture. Try going here, for instance:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0103.pdf
You'll see that by 2007 the upward trend had already led to a male figure of 75.4. However, if you study Table 103, you'll see that at your present age you can (if you accept the application to an individual) expect to live to be at least 79. By the time you've made it to my age you can expect (cancer aside) to go on to be almost 84. Since my paternal grandfather was born in 1841 and lived to be 77, I'm not going to settle for anything less (assuming I make it to my next birthday, which I have every intention of doing!). So you see Mike's figure wasn't so misleading was it?
The joke may now turn out to be on me because you've got me onto a hobby horse:- Apart from exercise making you feel better it will also help your chances of living longer. The 2 big killers in both the US and UK are obesity and smoking, by way of the numerous causes of death they're responsible for (including, spectacularly, kidney cancer!!). Smoking is being successfully combated in the developed world, via education but the obesity epidemic is getting dramatically worse in both our countries. Those who exercise are more likely not to be smokers and will be less obese than average. So, the life expectancy of non-smokers of healthy weight is far better than that of obese smokers (who are also much more likely to get kidney cancer).
Mike pointed to 'an online kidney cancer life expectancy calculator' which might show you some revealing stats. I would certainly like to study it so, Mike, if you happen to read this, could you post a link to that calculator?0 -
Hey TexasTexas_wedge said:Footnotes and exercise
Limelife50, I think the answer is in your last suggestion - you're just a big cry baby - after all, what have you had to complain about?! Anyway I hope you reach 100+ in good health.
I didn't think my note on depression would elicit quite such an immediate response - perhaps it is a topic that needs to be considered in a bit more depth than it has been so far? I hoped for a response from you, Fox, and I wasn't disappointed! You're right about the endorphins and there's research showing that in some (many?) cases, exercise has outscored SSRIs in alleviating depression. Both have the effect of modifying neurotransmitter balances and it's often found that increasing exercise levels allows depressives to significantly reduce their dosages of Prozac, etc.
While mentioning meds, when next I see my urologist, or oncologist, I'm going to say I want what my friend Fox is having! Perhaps MDX-1106 is that silver bullet and I know we all hope so.
Fox, you were kind enough to outline your thoughts on my exercise program and that has emboldened me to pick your brains some more. I'm currently able to walk a good few miles and to keep up around 4 mph. I've just come in from walking 18 holes on the course next to Carnoustie (a swish private club called Panmure) with 3 friends. There was a strongish wind blowing and it's well below freezing so I was in work boots and wearing snowboarding gloves (not that I've ever even seen a snowboard). I tried a number of drives, borrowing each of my companions' drivers in turn but couldn't get it right at all except for the odd hole where I outdrove the longest of the three by more than 40 yds which instantly pulled me out of the gathering despondency. I've just had a call from my GP (who's just drifted off his 2 handicap and so knows a bit about golf). I told him where I'd just been and he has approved my trying 9 holes mid-week and, barring any adverse consequences, my going for 18 on Sunday in a winter league match. So, here's hoping.
I've stayed off rowing and lifting, although I have been going through the motions with just a bar, doing sets of 10 curls, upright rowing, reverse curls, press behind neck, triceps stretches and full squats. However, on days when my Wife has abjured walking because of gales and low temperatures, I've been doing 20 minute sessions on our elliptical cross-trainer, using a novice-level program and scanning my HR, among other parameters and this is where I'd welcome your further reflections.
Our machine's manual has sections on heart-rate zones for "Health" "Fat burning" and "Fitness" all predicated on max. HR based on the received wisdom that this can be determined by 220 - age in years. Many years ago I used to enjoy reading textbooks and academic papers in exercise physiology and related disciplines (so long ago that I suspect that favourites like Karpovich and Karvonen, Asmussen and Per Olav Astrand will all be superseded by newer authorities). I regarded the HR max. formula as unscientific and treated it as a shibboleth among the exercise physiologists that I could safely ignore. Now, at 69 and as a cancer survivor (so far, so good, but steady on buying the green bananas!) I'm inclined to be less cavalier.
'
On the hallowed formula, my max. HR would be just about 150, giving me a 'health' range of 75-90 beats/min. 'fat-burning' at 90-105 or so and 'fitness' at 105 - 120. Now that's a piece of nonsense. In my 30s I could take my rate from not much above resting to way over 200 in about 20 seconds by doing 8-10 full squats to the point of failure. In my 60s when road-running I would cruise comfortably at around 170. Two or three years ago, in fair shape, I was curious to see what oarsmen call "the red mist" so when finishing a 10k, with about 300 m to go I went flat out and, oh boy, into the red mist (which my GP tells me is the immediate precursor to losing consciousness). I didn't have a heart monitor on but I'm sure I was way beyond my supposed max. of 150.
So, on my current elliptical workouts, I've been happy to see myself at 160s and still feeling comfortable. In the closing stages I'm topping out around 170 -175, sweating and breathing fairly heavily but still relatively comfortable. I've recovered very rapidly and suffered no discernible sequelae. What has made me even more relaxed is that I'm set up to look out over the golf fairway adjacent to my garden but also able to watch TV. On Sat. I was working out and watching a recording of a favourite prog. - the World's Strongest Man - the 2011 final in N. Carolina. I was running at 165 - 170 and watching Zydrunas Savickas in the truck pull. Those guys are not all spring chickens but they don't burn out until, typically, reaching 190 or so.
Since I was happy training with my pulse at about 20 beats over my supposed max.possible, I decided to update myself on current thinking on HR max and read a bit on the subject on The Web (ignoring all my old books). I was delighted to read an article in "JEP online" (the Official Journal of The American Society of Exercise Physiologists) entitled
'THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE “HRmax=220-age” EQUATION' which is to be found at
http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Age-Origins-Problems.pdf
which seems to blame Fox [S.M. Fox III] et al. for originating the suspect formula! [Any relation??] The article reviews some of the many subsequent attempts to arrive at a more accurate formula and concludes that the best is that of Inbar et al. 1994, viz.
HR max. = 205.8 - 0.685(AGE)
To my disquiet, this would give a HR max. for me of 159, and thus an upper limit of the highest training range (for "fitness") of 111 - 127. Now here's the thing, as Horatio Caine would say, even at the upper training limit recommended for me I don't feel as if I'm doing anything at all in the way of exercise.
Two major considerations that emerge from this study are that the training modality is important and that there is significant variation between individuals. I agree that modality is important because I know that my ranges are different as between our bicycle ergometer (we have a Puch Tunturi) our rowing machine and our elliptical. I can show that the relevant variable here is not the machine itself but how the body is being worked. Thus, my heart rate drops noticeably at the same sort of work rate if, on the elliptical I am using arms and shoulders as well as legs (by using the 'ski-pole' handles) as against lower body only (holding the stationary handles).
However, whichever equipment I am using, i can easily work at a HR way off the scale. This suggests to me that differences between individuals is so great as to make any notional HR max. and attendant training ranges a totally untenable concept. Do you think this is a correct conclusion?
Just one last comment,I came here for support,I did not come here to be referred to as a cry baby ,I guess the best thing to to do about ignorant people is just ignore them,oh and by the way can't you find a discussion forum that talks about excersise.0 -
Too funny...MikeK703 said:Multiple choice...
Hi Gary,
Yes exercise is important for fighting depression and for extending one's life expectancy. My right hand, the one I hold my TV remote control in, is expected to live another 30 years
According to the Mayo Clinic, a positive mental attitude is also a life extender.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009
Mike
Mike,
Another 30 years huh, the whole hand or just your thumb?
LOL,
Gary
PS. This thread seems to need a bit more humor0 -
Exercisefoxhd said:exercise
OK, Here goes again. Lost last night's post but will copy this in case. First and foremost I think that you are already exceeding expectations in your recovery. Don't cloud the big picture with too many details. You have some preset standards and expectations. But you have not defined any goals. Therefore you can not know when you are successful. That could drive you into being a compulsive exercise over achiever and never happy.
Is the goal to return to fitness with strength gains? How much? Are you expecting a new 10k PR? Longer drives? High level aerobic conditioning is important but has it's limits. It didn't save Greta Waitz.
In practice using 220-age is still effective. We're still talking about recovery not qualifying for the Olympic trials. You are right about max HR being different depending on the ex. It's difficult to run uphill carrying weights because your ex becomes anerobic too quickly fatiguing fast twitch muscle fibers. You cannot maintain your aerobic threshold. On the other hand if getting your heart rate to max for an extended period is what you want, then cross country ski. Utilizes large muscle groups in near frictionless enviornment. Lance Armstrong has been arguably the worlds most dominant cyclelist. Extreme lung capacity, max VO2, leg strength. However when he has run marathons his performance is only a footnote. Not even close to world class.
Don't focus purely on your performance and what it takes to get there. At least not this year. Smell the roses. Golf is important to you. Don't need to bench 200 pounds or finish in the top 5 of a marathon to play well or comfortably walk the course. Cross train. Do it with fun in mind. Don't set such high standards that the task of reaching your goals are all consuming. Your wife will see the difference in your enjoyment and mindset. I often joke that "I am gonna die in the best shape of my life". But to do that, it will take too much time away from what is really important. Enjoy your day. I did. Weight trained and jogged this morning. Shortly I'm going to work on an old motorcycle. Maybe play my guitar. No ex. tomorrow. 3rd infusion and consult on my progress. If report is bad, there is no point in increasing my effort thursday. If report is good, no point either. But I'll still weight train and jog. Staying fit is still a part of my life.
Thanks for your detailed response, particularly after going to the effort of re-creating it when the original fell into the posting abyss.
[PS Your lost postings aren't always actually lost. When you appear to have posted but your laboriously crafted message vanishes and the thread reappears without it, you've opened a new screen. If you hit < in your browser and return to the previous screen you should find your message still sitting there and you can keep on trying to post it until it takes (or you get fed up and leave it for a while).]
I guess the key words in your advice are "At least not this year". In terms of goal setting, I do have some thoughts. I want to run the London Marathon again and record an un-embarrassing time - for an old codger. At the moment I have no inclination to run at all. Before I even break into a trot I think of my innards being minus a kidney and a biggish tumour and other tissues. Even though my sagittal height is now minimal (lying in a hot tub my navel is not far above my spine) I imagine everything rattling around inside with the extra space and it puts me right off!
I intend to be playing at least 4 rounds of golf a week this upcoming season (and at least one being a qualifying round for handicap).
As opposed to high impact work like running, rowing and elliptical machines are perfect for your ideal exercise that "Utilizes large muscle groups in near frictionless environment". I plan to be rowing 10k in no more than 50 mins. before my 70th birthday and hope to be doing at least 20k/week. As regards the weights, I can wait! I'll do classic double-progression but keep it light for a good while yet. I had a good chat with Dr. Anna Campbell today (she's sent me the slides from her talk about exercise for cancer patients) who says she's happy to vet my exercise program!
If I continue with the elliptical I'll just be aiming to make gradual increases in the work load without pushing myself, with fun in mind, as you counsel.
But, Fox, I still have the aerobic training level problem. You reckon the old 220-age is still usable. This means that I only feel I'm doing something worthwhile, in conditioning terms, when I'm working at a level that is way over my theoretical HR max. By definition, my HR max. is fictitious. So what should my training threshold be? I'm thinking of re-calibrating and treating 170 as 80% of my HR max, making that, say, about 210, as opposed to 150 (for the cross-trainer) and aim to limit my work on it to a rate of between about 145 and 170 on that machine.
I'm amazed at how many cyclists seem to have resting heart rates around 30. Indurain, (who was surely physically superior to Armstrong?) was around 28bpm. I must confess I don't really remember any cyclists since Anquetil and Tommy Simpson. I note your remark that the spectacular L A was no good at the marathon. I still recall a conversation at school when I was trying to put together a good running team and tried to persuade a couple of boys who were time-trialists to join us. They flatly refused, saying the two sports used 'totally different muscles' and that running would ruin their cycling. I was disappointed but had to accept that they were right.
Good luck tomorrow - I Iook forward to seeing promising results - don't go in too oily from working on the bike! Now been trying to post for about 24 hours, so for tomorrow read today!0 -
Exercisefoxhd said:exercise
OK, Here goes again. Lost last night's post but will copy this in case. First and foremost I think that you are already exceeding expectations in your recovery. Don't cloud the big picture with too many details. You have some preset standards and expectations. But you have not defined any goals. Therefore you can not know when you are successful. That could drive you into being a compulsive exercise over achiever and never happy.
Is the goal to return to fitness with strength gains? How much? Are you expecting a new 10k PR? Longer drives? High level aerobic conditioning is important but has it's limits. It didn't save Greta Waitz.
In practice using 220-age is still effective. We're still talking about recovery not qualifying for the Olympic trials. You are right about max HR being different depending on the ex. It's difficult to run uphill carrying weights because your ex becomes anerobic too quickly fatiguing fast twitch muscle fibers. You cannot maintain your aerobic threshold. On the other hand if getting your heart rate to max for an extended period is what you want, then cross country ski. Utilizes large muscle groups in near frictionless enviornment. Lance Armstrong has been arguably the worlds most dominant cyclelist. Extreme lung capacity, max VO2, leg strength. However when he has run marathons his performance is only a footnote. Not even close to world class.
Don't focus purely on your performance and what it takes to get there. At least not this year. Smell the roses. Golf is important to you. Don't need to bench 200 pounds or finish in the top 5 of a marathon to play well or comfortably walk the course. Cross train. Do it with fun in mind. Don't set such high standards that the task of reaching your goals are all consuming. Your wife will see the difference in your enjoyment and mindset. I often joke that "I am gonna die in the best shape of my life". But to do that, it will take too much time away from what is really important. Enjoy your day. I did. Weight trained and jogged this morning. Shortly I'm going to work on an old motorcycle. Maybe play my guitar. No ex. tomorrow. 3rd infusion and consult on my progress. If report is bad, there is no point in increasing my effort thursday. If report is good, no point either. But I'll still weight train and jog. Staying fit is still a part of my life.
Thanks for your detailed response, particularly after going to the effort of re-creating it when the original fell into the posting abyss.
[PS Your lost postings aren't always actually lost. When you appear to have posted but your laboriously crafted message vanishes and the thread reappears without it, you've opened a new screen. If you hit < in your browser and return to the previous screen you should find your message still sitting there and you can keep on trying to post it until it takes (or you get fed up and leave it for a while).]
I guess the key words in your advice are "At least not this year". In terms of goal setting, I do have some thoughts. I want to run the London Marathon again and record an un-embarrassing time - for an old codger. At the moment I have no inclination to run at all. Before I even break into a trot I think of my innards being minus a kidney and a biggish tumour and other tissues. Even though my sagittal height is now minimal (lying in a hot tub my navel is not far above my spine) I imagine everything rattling around inside with the extra space and it puts me right off!
I intend to be playing at least 4 rounds of golf a week this upcoming season (and at least one being a qualifying round for handicap).
As opposed to high impact work like running, rowing and elliptical machines are perfect for your ideal exercise that "Utilizes large muscle groups in near frictionless environment". I plan to be rowing 10k in no more than 50 mins. before my 70th birthday and hope to be doing at least 20k/week. As regards the weights, I can wait! I'll do classic double-progression but keep it light for a good while yet. I had a good chat with Dr. Anna Campbell today (she's sent me the slides from her talk about exercise for cancer patients) who says she's happy to vet my exercise program!
If I continue with the elliptical I'll just be aiming to make gradual increases in the work load without pushing myself, with fun in mind, as you counsel.
But, Fox, I still have the aerobic training level problem. You reckon the old 220-age is still usable. This means that I only feel I'm doing something worthwhile, in conditioning terms, when I'm working at a level that is way over my theoretical HR max. By definition, my HR max. is fictitious. So what should my training threshold be? I'm thinking of re-calibrating and treating 170 as 80% of my HR max, making that, say, about 210, as opposed to 150 (for the cross-trainer) and aim to limit my work on it to a rate of between about 145 and 170 on that machine.
I'm amazed at how many cyclists seem to have resting heart rates around 30. Indurain, (who was surely physically superior to Armstrong?) was around 28bpm. I must confess I don't really remember any cyclists since Anquetil and Tommy Simpson. I note your remark that the spectacular Lance Armstrong was no good at the marathon. I still recall a conversation at school when I was trying to put together a good running team and tried to persuade a couple of boys who were time-trialists to join us. They flatly refused, saying the two sports used 'totally different muscles' and that running would ruin their cycling. I was disappointed but had to accept that they were right.
Good luck tomorrow - I Iook forward to seeing promising results - don't go in too oily from working on the bike! Now been trying to post for about 24 hours, so for tomorrow read today!0 -
Hey Texasgarym said:Too funny...
Mike,
Another 30 years huh, the whole hand or just your thumb?
LOL,
Gary
PS. This thread seems to need a bit more humor
Limelife50, I hope I can safely assume you hadn't read my reply to you above, at 8.40 pm yesterday. (Please do, so you realise I wasn't getting at you - quite the opposite in fact) If you had read my reply to you, then I can only apologise if I upset you - it was certainly not my intention to do so. You and I joined here at about the same time and I hope that you've noticed that the messages here are very civilised and no-one wants to cause offence to anyone else. Also, there's a great sense of fun here, if you know where to look for it.
You make a point about my going on about exercise so perhaps I should explain. I started this thread to share some information about what's going on in the UK on the subject of kidney cancer, believing that info. from another part of the world might interest some members here. I wanted to highlight the issues of depression and the value of exercise in combating it and also the value of exercise for kidney cancer sufferers, before surgery as well as during, and after, treatment. I make no apology for doing so. I realise that most members here won't bother to read what I write but I've already had gracious responses from a small number whom I've already grown to think of as friends, even if we never meet (which makes me sad but reality suggests we probably never will). That's good enough for me.
My long ramble about my own exercise activities was addressed specifically to foxhd who is an expert on the subject and no-one needed to read it (including him!) if they didn't wish to do so. People here ask about issues of concern to them, such as coping with sleeping, showering, drug treatments etc. and that's fine. I think I'm equally entitled to seek advice on what matters for me. I'm 69, have advanced sarcomatoid rcc, for which the outlook is pretty dismal, and am trying to make the best of it.
We have a lot of experience and professional expertise on these threads and it would be a shame if we couldn't seek advice here from those better equipped to know the answers.0 -
Life expectancyLimelife50 said:81 years for a male
Hey mike703 when I mentioned a hundred years i meant that more as a joke,but according to your math life expectancy of a male is 81 years.I live in the united states and from what I have read,the life expectancy for a male in this country is closer to 73 ,oh and Texas wedge thanks for the cry baby comment,I guess for now on if someone is feeling sorry for themselves we can just tell them to get off their butt and exercise and they will feel better in no time
Hi,
Yes, I understood you to be joking. It's difficult sometimes, as I can see from another posting here, to determine if a person is joking around or is being sarcastic or mean. But I think we here are pretty civil at least 99.9% of the time but sometimes attempts at written humor don't always work quite as well as they do in person when you can see the smile on the other guy's face. Anyway, according to the U.S. actuary table (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html), the average life expectancy of an American male born in 2007 is around 75 but the older one gets the longer his life expectancy. So a person who is fortunate enough to live to 64 advances his life expectancy to around 82. I guess they figure if you are ornery enough, like me, to reach 64 you probably have another 18 years left in you. I don't get it but that's the way it seems to work.
Regards,
Mike0 -
Life expectancygarym said:Too funny...
Mike,
Another 30 years huh, the whole hand or just your thumb?
LOL,
Gary
PS. This thread seems to need a bit more humor
Hi Gary,
Not just the thumb, but my unique method of channel surfing makes productive use of both hands. Inserting batteries into the back of the remote allows the left hand to benefit. I also use my left hand to channel surf when my right hand is busy collecting potato chips on the table next to my recliner. Channel surfing is an art as well as a beneficial exercise.
Regards,
Mike0 -
Life expectancyMikeK703 said:Life expectancy
Hi Gary,
Not just the thumb, but my unique method of channel surfing makes productive use of both hands. Inserting batteries into the back of the remote allows the left hand to benefit. I also use my left hand to channel surf when my right hand is busy collecting potato chips on the table next to my recliner. Channel surfing is an art as well as a beneficial exercise.
Regards,
Mike
Mike,
If you noticed my request for the link to the mortality calculator, please ignore - since you alerted me to its existence I've tracked it down and learnt a great deal from it, so thanks for that. I see I can buy a few more green bananas but I'd better not keep them in the fridge. :-)0 -
220-ageTexas_wedge said:Life expectancy
Mike,
If you noticed my request for the link to the mortality calculator, please ignore - since you alerted me to its existence I've tracked it down and learnt a great deal from it, so thanks for that. I see I can buy a few more green bananas but I'd better not keep them in the fridge. :-)
Abbreviated formula for some simplicity. 220-age x 75%. 220-69=151. 151 x .75= 113. Close enough.0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 792 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards