Sharing this one here because I think it will matter to a number of people in this community directly.
Results from the Active Surveillance Exercise (ASX) randomised controlled trial have confirmed what many have suspected: men with prostate cancer assigned to structured exercise had meaningfully better inflammation and insulin profiles compared to those on usual care. These aren't minor quality-of-life markers — inflammation and insulin sensitivity are directly implicated in how prostate cancer behaves over time.
The phrase "active surveillance" frustrates a lot of men. It sounds passive. It sounds like being told to wait and hope. What this trial underlines is that the word "active" was always supposed to mean something.
I want to be honest here: "just exercise" is advice that many men receive and don't know what to do with. The men in this trial had a programme. A specific, supervised structure. That distinction matters.
For those on active surveillance, or supporting someone who is: the question I'd want brought to the next oncology or urology appointment isn't "should I exercise?" It's "what specific programme is appropriate for my situation — and is there support to do it properly?"
Has anyone in this community had a formal exercise programme recommended as part of their active surveillance protocol? Or has it been more general advice? I'm curious whether people are getting the structured version or just being told "stay active."
On a personal note - my father was a farmer, active all of his life, until arthritis made it more difficult to be active. Nobody mentioned that he had a prostate problem, so I cannot be sure he did not, but he lived until 93 and I think that speaks for itself.