"Exercise damages DNA" doesn't really make sense, but I suppose if you get your science news from the local paper, not much can be done to improve your understanding of what DNA is....
In case you're wondering Pavonis, you're wrong.
Some other everyday things that can damage a person's DNA would be walking in sun light, and exposing themselves to certain chemicals (like insecticides).
Thank you for the link. I'm still not clear on what "DNA damage" means in this context - missing base pairs? bad transcription? How extensive is the damage done by exercise? Is it in cells that are relatively quick to replace? Is there damage to gametes? Will this "exercise-induced DNA damage" be passed on to children? What kind of exercises do the most damage? How does the damage induced by "exercise" compare to the levels of damage inflicted by ionizing radiation? Is the damage done faster than the body's repair mechanisms can undo it? What are the probabilities of this damage leading to more serious conditions? Can you see why I'm asking these questions? Will it do any good for me to read this article you linked to, T'Girl
? Did you read it? Do you understand it? Do you have any insights into the research, methodology, or its context to offer me (besides telling me I'm "wrong")?
I'll go read the article now, though.
Edit: From the article linked -
Currently, there are no indications that exhaustive endurance exercise increases the risk for cancer and other diseases via DNA damage. However, it remains to be clarified whether perturbances of the genomic stability of immuno-competent cells are involved in the post-exercise temporary dysfunction of certain aspects of immunity, which may increase the risk of subclinical and clinical infection
So I gather that exercise is related to tissue inflammation, and increased DNA damage as measured by breakages in the DNA seen in electrophoresis techniques. How the damage is related to the exercise is unclear. What are the biomolecular and/or biochemical causes of the damage? At any rate, the damage to the DNA is not serious, and not tied to any particular disease. The damage seems to be limited to the DNA of leukocytes and other immune system related cells. Doesn't really make sense to me, but then the authors don't have a mechanism relating the "cause" to the "effect", so I stand by my statement that "exercise damages DNA" doesn't make sense. There is damaged DNA after exercise, but I bet there's damaged DNA after eating a hearty meal, too, or after having sex. In fact, as I said before, living
causes damage to DNA (do you think DNA is replicated without error?). So in what way was I wrong?