[url= http://www.****/health/article-2684947/Men-cycling-nine-hours-week-six-times-likely-develop-prostate-cancer-study-finds.html ]Health heart or this?[/url]
Are we supposed to pick the lesser of 2 evils and let that be the thing to kill us.
Maybe if we all switch to "Chopper" style seats we'll be ok 🙂
Forgot about the No Daily Mail link, so here's the headline:
Men who cycle more than nine hours a week are six times more likely to develop prostate cancer, study finds
"Men cycling nine hours week six times likely develop prostate cancer study finds"
Daily Mail in a cancer scare story?
Well I never.
Anyway, to avoid giving them anymore traffic/ad revenue:
[img] 
[/img]
Thank **** for my 7.5 hour a week training plan....
Will the MMR Jab save us?
gotta die of something......enjoy your journey to death..... 8)
5200 cyclists is a fair old number, someone on here must've been involved.
Or it's made up bullshit. But they wouldn't print that, would they?
There was a far less sensational piece on R4 about half an hour ago. The conclusions were that actually yes, fréquent cyclists DO have bloodflow issues and we'd be better off using those weird 'noseless' saddles - the funny seats with a pad for each buttock.
I read I to it that you're fine with a cutaway type saddle so you're not compressing the nerve bundle.
Just make a prostate exam a weekly occurrence 😀
Statistically, prostate cancer is an old man's killer. They're really saying, ride your bike, live to a ripe old age.
As with most of these crappy articles, does it tell you the absolute figures?
If my risk of prostate cancer went up from 0.005% to 0.025% I wouldn't be too bothered.
Ride a BMX and you rarely get to sit down
fear not - aspirin will cure everything next week.
So more people cycle, more people live longer, more people are getting checked for prostate cancer. Would it be fair to suggest that fit healthy people take a more proactive interest in their health than those who are not? Would that lead to a higher proportion of cyclists getting checked out?
Not sure which one is causing more cases of prostate cancer to be discovered. As with most things we seem to find more of what we are looking for.
Do we need a prostrate? Just think of the weight saving of having it removed 😀
Classic Daily Wail.
I don't see the problem...
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
How can they get away with this shit.
It says study finds you are definitely 6x more likely in the headline and then 'may be up to 5x' in the text!
Statistically, prostate cancer is an old man's killer. They're really saying, ride your bike, live to a ripe old age.
The Telegraph has a slightly more balanced version of the study findings.
The main point of the study was to look at issues around infertility and erectile dysfunction, and suggests that we can still get it up and produce brats, so hurrah for that.
The prostate stuff was a side-finding, and this quote suggests that they would need to be confirmed by a study more focused on these issues:
“We were quite surprised by the size of the finding for prostate cancer so it does warrant further investigation, but we can’t draw any conclusions from the study."
Typical Mail, headlining the bad news about cycling, sidelining the good.
Great journalism as always!
I wonder how less likely men who ride a bike more than 9 hours a week are to get other life threatening illnesses...
[b]The team said the statistical link – tested in the 2,000 participants who were over the age of 50 - did not necessarily prove that cycling directly causes prostate cancer.[/b]
As that age group is statistically more likely to get prostate cancer anyway, I'd say it's a load of bollox (ha!)