Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques .
These involve setting programme goals , prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other , non-supervised context s. However , expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic .
BACKGROUND The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent .
However , how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood .
A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations .
Hence , review ing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions : Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance ?
What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions ?
Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers ?
Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term ( 12 months or longer ) exercise behaviour ?
What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE Men with prostate cancer are often advised to make changes in diet and lifestyle , although the impact of these changes has not been well documented . Therefore , we evaluated the effects of comprehensive lifestyle changes on prostate specific antigen ( PSA ) , treatment trends and serum stimulated LNCaP cell growth in men with early , biopsy proven prostate cancer after 1 year . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Patient recruitment was limited to men who had chosen not to undergo any conventional treatment , which provided an unusual opportunity to have a nonintervention r and omized control group to avoid the confounding effects of interventions such as radiation , surgery or and rogen deprivation therapy . A total of 93 volunteers with serum PSA 4 to 10 ng/ml and cancer Gleason scores less than 7 were r and omly assigned to an experimental group that was asked to make comprehensive lifestyle changes or to a usual care control group . RESULTS None of the experimental group patients but 6 control patients underwent conventional treatment due to an increase in PSA and /or progression of disease on magnetic resonance imaging . PSA decreased 4 % in the experimental group but increased 6 % in the control group ( p = 0.016 ) . The growth of LNCaP prostate cancer cells ( American Type Culture Collection , Manassas , Virginia ) was inhibited almost 8 times more by serum from the experimental than from the control group ( 70 % vs 9 % , p < 0.001 ) . Changes in serum PSA and also in LNCaP cell growth were significantly associated with the degree of change in diet and lifestyle . CONCLUSIONS Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of early , low grade prostate cancer in men . Further studies and longer term followup are warranted
Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques .
These involve setting programme goals , prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other , non-supervised context s. However , expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic .
BACKGROUND The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent .
However , how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood .
A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations .
Hence , review ing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions : Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance ?
What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions ?
Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers ?
Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term ( 12 months or longer ) exercise behaviour ?
What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?
What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour ?