Rebounding as gentle exercise that pumps lymph system

Have you read this article? http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2006/10/08/healthy_skepticism/ I highly recommend it. And best wishes to you for future good health.

So, are we to assume that basketball players shall never be stricken with cancer?

I think it's safe to say that Dennis Rodman will be fine.

My apologies, gazinginhaferfetzervingzaltzengiginhooferfetz.

I should have included the reference about rebounding. I get quite frustrated with "alternative" health people who make statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. Here is the reference, and it does not at all necessary apply to rebounding alone:

Here is the exact quote:
"According to Dr. Guyton, the number of neutrophils in the circulatory system can increase to as much as 2-3 times normal after a single minute of hard exercise, or after injection of norepinephrine. This can be explained as follows: When blood flow is sluggish through the tissues, large numbers of white blood cells, especially neutrophils, adhere to the walls of the capillaries -- a process called margination -- and, therefore, are sequestered from the usual circulation. Hard exercise, or stimulation of the circulation by norepinephrine, with rapid flow of blood through essentially all capillaries, can mobilize the leucocytes.
Approximately one hour after physiological neutrophelia has resulted from exercise or any other stimulus, the number of leucocytes in the blood is usually back to normal because most of the leucocytes will again be sequestered in the capillaries."
Arthur Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology, page 57.

As for basketball players never getting cancer, I know you were being facetious, but who knows if maybe as a group they get less cancer?

Certainly rebounding is far, far gentler on the body.

That doesn't say the lymphocyte count increases, it says the neutrophil count increases. Lymphocytes and neutrophils are two different types of leucocyte, the medical word for white blood cell. I haven't read any of the links, am just commenting on word usage.

Hi, Jespah.

Thank you for referring me to that article. Did you ever see the film, "Soylent Green"? It takes place in the future, where the government has become unable to feed an ever-burgeoning populace, and so has resorted to supplying them with some kind of wafers or bars called "Soylent Green." At the end of the film, the main character discovers that "Soylent Green" is in fact made from the ground up bodies of the dead.

The situation in this country is similar. The chemical industry, the drug companies, the processed food manufacturers, the cigarette and alchohol industries, the doctors, hospitals and insurance companies and even the funeral parlor and cemetary industry are all profiting from the dying and the dead. A tremendous portion of our economy is based on the populace suffering from preventable disease and premature death.

Very few people will listen to good sense. Every time I go to the supermarket, for every one of me, who is buying purified water, whole wheat bread, fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts and dried beans, 50 more are buying white bread, beer, cigarettes, sugar-laced dry cereal, soda pop, iceburg lettuce, canned fruits and vegetables, hormone/antibiotic (maybe even "mad cow') red meat, Frankenstein Perdue chicken, mass-produced eggs layed by crazed chickens that are kept awake 24-hours-a-day, and so on.

Do you know of any good stocks or mutual funds I can buy so as to take advantage of the foolishness of so many millions of people? They are not going to listen; they are going to keep on lock-stepping to early disease and death, so why should one not profit off of them, if possible.

One stock I have that could be a winner at some point is MLTO.PK. It's a Latino company that sells diabetic supplies by mail. Yes, it's a pink sheets stock, but I did not buy it. I ended up with it when another company whose stock I owned went bankrupt. When they reorganized, I ended up with stock in MLTO.

Thank you for the well wishes regarding the cancer.

Actually, ossobuco, it can be understood from the article that leukocytes in general increase, with the most prominent increase being among neutrophyls, which is just fine, because they, along with lymphocytes, are what keeps our organisms clean and free from disease.

I am new to this forum, and this is the first topic I have started. I am a bit taken aback that out of 3 responses, two have been either sarcastic or critical. Perhaps I should seek a different forum on which to participate.

Hi Survivor. Whatever your methods, it would certainly to please me to hear you are doing well.

...

There's a lot I don't know about this stuff. That said, wouldn't this sort of exercise be dangerous for certain folks with cancer?

Just recalling to listening to the doc discussing treatment with a loved one of mine. Because the cancer was already in the lymph system: vigorous exercise, hard massage, and that sort of thing was discouraged. We were told it could speed the growth of the cancer through out the body and 'break up' small clumps so they would distribute more readily and to more areas of the body.

I'd be interested to hear what people with more knowledge than I have to say about that.

Did you take my post as critical? Perhaps I should have phrased my comment in a nicer way. I am skeptical of the value of the trampoline device in the battle with cancer, but am not sure that I'm right on that. Exercise might pulse-boost the immune system in myriad ways, possibly including this one - I'd want to see double blind studies by well qualified researchers.

I surely wish you well in dealing with cancer.

Skeptical, actually. One can be positive in thinking and careful with one's health without buying into fads and alternatives with nothing to back them up that's scientific or impartial. Like ossobuco said, where's the double blind study? There's a reason why medical science does what it does -- most of it is vetted and vetted -- and then vetted some more -- by studies. I do not hold the medical profession up as perfect and there are many, many things that are not fully understood (obesity, for one), but there are efforts made to test theories in as logical and rigorous a manner as possible. This does not mean that the medical profession is never wrong, of course.

Folks buy sugary cereals, etc. because, well, because they taste good. We've got lovely sweetness receptors on our tongues and pleasure centers in our brains and it's fun to stimulate them. Plus, children who might not eat much else will often eat them. They may not be much of a step up from candy, but they are still a step up from it. Do I defend them? Of course not. But this is a part of the why. It's not just a lack of education although that's true of some. I'm sure most people are fully aware of what they're tossing in their carts, yet economics (free-range chicken is expensive, etc.), time (how many hours a week do you work? how much time do you spend commuting? etc.) and family preferences (do you really want to have mealtime battles with your 3-year-old every single day, three times a day?) sway us in other ways. Want to exploit them? Buy RJ Reynolds and the like. Don't, of course, make any economic decisions without research. Much like you shouldn't make any other major decisions without research.

Oh, and gus was making a joke.