Unfortunately you claim about about up to 42% cancer risk reduction due to exercise is misleading.
Yes in Moore et al one rare type of cancer was reduced with 42% but the general picture was hazard ratios around 80-90%. That was between the 10 percentile and the 90th percentile of exercise intensity , meaning thats it’s a comparison between the very most inactive people and the most active.
I thinks it important since unrealistic numbers makes some believe that healthy living can eliminate the risk of diseases, which is unfortunately fare from the truth.
Please don’t mischaracterize my position: this post is a list of links and the quote you refer to as my quote is from the linked article. My commentary is to the effect that exercise seems to help with cancer.
For the energy use – while electricity consumption is down, what do we know about other forms of energy use? Transportation is probably up – and electrification is probably still a rounding error in that field. Use of gas, coal (coke) directly in industry – is that up? Obviously it must be as CO2 is still increasing.
To suggest that economic growth does not require increased energy might be relying on incomplete data.
It is always difficult to measure something as vague as “energy use”. However, electricity is not some kind of obsolete form of energy that is being replaced. If total energy use was way up in the US, common sense dictates that electricity use would increase.
We have a strong hint that energy use is uncoupled from GPD growth.
Regarding cancer and exercise.
Unfortunately you claim about about up to 42% cancer risk reduction due to exercise is misleading.
Yes in Moore et al one rare type of cancer was reduced with 42% but the general picture was hazard ratios around 80-90%. That was between the 10 percentile and the 90th percentile of exercise intensity , meaning thats it’s a comparison between the very most inactive people and the most active.
I thinks it important since unrealistic numbers makes some believe that healthy living can eliminate the risk of diseases, which is unfortunately fare from the truth.
Thanks for the analysis.
Please don’t mischaracterize my position: this post is a list of links and the quote you refer to as my quote is from the linked article. My commentary is to the effect that exercise seems to help with cancer.
For the energy use – while electricity consumption is down, what do we know about other forms of energy use? Transportation is probably up – and electrification is probably still a rounding error in that field. Use of gas, coal (coke) directly in industry – is that up? Obviously it must be as CO2 is still increasing.
To suggest that economic growth does not require increased energy might be relying on incomplete data.
It is always difficult to measure something as vague as “energy use”. However, electricity is not some kind of obsolete form of energy that is being replaced. If total energy use was way up in the US, common sense dictates that electricity use would increase.
We have a strong hint that energy use is uncoupled from GPD growth.