Have We Been Thinking About Exercise Wrong for Half a Century? (msn.com) 172
"After a half-century asking us to exercise more, doctors and physiologists say we have been thinking about it wrong," writes Washington Post columnist Michael J. Coren.
"U.S. and World Health Organization guidelines no longer specify a minimum duration of moderate or vigorous aerobic activity." Movement-tracking studies show even tiny, regular bursts of effort — as short as 30 seconds — can capture many of the health benefits of the gym. Climbing two to three flights of stairs a few times per day could change your life. Experts call it VILPA, or vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity. "The message now is that all activity counts," said Martin Gibala, a professor and former chair of the kinesiology department at McMaster University in Canada... Just taking the stairs daily is associated with lower body weight and cutting the risk of stroke and heart disease — the leading (and largely preventable) cause of death globally. While it may not burn many calories (most exercise doesn't), it does appear to extend your health span. Leg power — a measure of explosive muscle strength — was a stronger predictor of brain aging than any lifestyle factors measured in a 2015 study in the journal Gerontology...
How little activity can you do? Four minutes daily. Essentially, a few flights of stairs at a vigorous pace. That's the effort [Emmanuel Stamatakis, a professor of physical activity and population health at the University of Sydney] found delivered significant health benefits in that 2022 study of British non-exercisers. "We saw benefits from the first minute," Stamatakis said. For Americans, the effect is even more dramatic: a 44 percent drop in deaths, according to a peer-reviewed paper recently accepted for publication. "We showed for the first time that vigorous intensity, even if it's done as part of the day-to-day routine, not in a planned and structured manner, works miracles," Stamatakis said. "The key principle here is start with one, two minutes a day. The focus should be on making sure that it's something that you can incorporate into your daily routine. Then you can start thinking about increasing the dose."
Intensity is the most important factor. You won't break a sweat in a brief burst, but you do need to feel it. A highly conditioned athlete might need to sprint to reach vigorous territory. But many people need only to take the stairs. Use your breathing as a guide, Stamatakis said: If you can sing, it's light intensity. If you can speak but not sing, you're entering moderate exertion. If you can't hold a conversation, it's vigorous. The biggest benefits come from moderate to vigorous movement. One minute of incidental vigorous activity prevents premature deaths, heart attacks or strokes as well as about three minutes of moderate activity or 35 to 49 minutes of light activity.
"U.S. and World Health Organization guidelines no longer specify a minimum duration of moderate or vigorous aerobic activity." Movement-tracking studies show even tiny, regular bursts of effort — as short as 30 seconds — can capture many of the health benefits of the gym. Climbing two to three flights of stairs a few times per day could change your life. Experts call it VILPA, or vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity. "The message now is that all activity counts," said Martin Gibala, a professor and former chair of the kinesiology department at McMaster University in Canada... Just taking the stairs daily is associated with lower body weight and cutting the risk of stroke and heart disease — the leading (and largely preventable) cause of death globally. While it may not burn many calories (most exercise doesn't), it does appear to extend your health span. Leg power — a measure of explosive muscle strength — was a stronger predictor of brain aging than any lifestyle factors measured in a 2015 study in the journal Gerontology...
How little activity can you do? Four minutes daily. Essentially, a few flights of stairs at a vigorous pace. That's the effort [Emmanuel Stamatakis, a professor of physical activity and population health at the University of Sydney] found delivered significant health benefits in that 2022 study of British non-exercisers. "We saw benefits from the first minute," Stamatakis said. For Americans, the effect is even more dramatic: a 44 percent drop in deaths, according to a peer-reviewed paper recently accepted for publication. "We showed for the first time that vigorous intensity, even if it's done as part of the day-to-day routine, not in a planned and structured manner, works miracles," Stamatakis said. "The key principle here is start with one, two minutes a day. The focus should be on making sure that it's something that you can incorporate into your daily routine. Then you can start thinking about increasing the dose."
Intensity is the most important factor. You won't break a sweat in a brief burst, but you do need to feel it. A highly conditioned athlete might need to sprint to reach vigorous territory. But many people need only to take the stairs. Use your breathing as a guide, Stamatakis said: If you can sing, it's light intensity. If you can speak but not sing, you're entering moderate exertion. If you can't hold a conversation, it's vigorous. The biggest benefits come from moderate to vigorous movement. One minute of incidental vigorous activity prevents premature deaths, heart attacks or strokes as well as about three minutes of moderate activity or 35 to 49 minutes of light activity.
Cheesy Poof Workout (Score:3)
So if you just lift the cheesy poof fast enough, it's a life-extending workout?
Re:Cheesy Poof Workout (Score:5, Funny)
With my mom driving the golf cart, it's not that easy to pop them in the mouth! Not gonna lie, I think my reflexes are better than Bruce Lee's at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you just lift the cheesy poof fast enough, it's a life-extending workout?
You would have to accelerate the cheesy poof and your arm to 220 mph and then bring it to a stop without losing your arm.
Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:5, Insightful)
About the worst thing you can do exercise wise is be car dependent.
If you're not, exercise becomes part of your day to day activities. You don't have to go to the gym just to keep a base level of fitness. Even if you then sit in a chair at work, you're still moving to get there.
Such a thing is almost impossible anywhere that puts the holy car in absolute prime position and relegates everything else to second place.
Re:Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:5, Interesting)
BIkes are such a win exercise wise. When I got mine, I had in my mind I'd be doing all the 20km+ rides I used to do as a 20yo, and rapidly discovered that I was not nearly as fit as I was then and even a KM would wreck me. BUT short little burts every day of riding had such a noticable effect on my fitness. I still cant quite survive the 20km ride, but I can get 5-6km before the fatigue overtakes me, and that aint nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just ride four-five intense minutes at home on an exercise bike, without the outside rain,
Or the usual 25 minutes to work, but wearing a coat and waterproof trousers if it's raining. Problem with the former is I need to buy an exercise bike, need somewhere inside to keep it, then I have to actually consistently motivate myself to do even that minimal amount when I'm hungry, tired, stressed, busy, etc etc. I can always drag my sorry carcass into work and I need to buy food to eat, which means that unless I'm off sick, I always get my exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you just let me ride my bike to the gym, starbucks, and back home for a 7.5 mile round trip, and keep your urban lifestyle advice for those who don't want to reach for what they want?
Re: (Score:3)
Just ride four-five intense minutes at home on an exercise bike, without the outside rain, and then you can still take the car or buss to work.
So many silly assumptions go into this.
a) That it is raining outside. - Maybe the weather is fantastic.
b) That it is healthier to be indoors. - Indoor air quality in cold climate places fucking SUCKS. Going outside is usually encouraged for non base fitness health reasons unless you have an almost commercial level air exchange unit in your house.
c) You're wasting time. Cycling to work substitutes wasting your life with building fitness. Cycling at home while driving to work is the worst of both worlds, it w
Bike racing![Re:Yes we have, but you won't fix it] (Score:2)
Honestly you're better off with a gym membership than an exercise bike in your house.
Riding a Peloton exercise bike is such a great workout for me as I'm always motivated to compete with the other riders in the class to do my best. Every ride is a race!
Re: (Score:3)
5km? Jesus bro, you are in terrible shape. I ride 500km a week and never get fatigued. Fatigue is your mind lying to you. It's saying one of two things: "Hey, if we have to run from a velociraptor, you're not going to have the energy. Let's stop this now, please!" or "You're burning a lot of energy, and we may not have food later, so let's stop mmkay?". Both of those are lies that you should ignore and keep going.
Re:Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:4, Insightful)
About the worst thing you can do exercise wise is be car dependent.
If you're not, exercise becomes part of your day to day activities. You don't have to go to the gym just to keep a base level of fitness. Even if you then sit in a chair at work, you're still moving to get ther
In my experience, this is far from true in many cases. In the various places I grew up I generally had access to many acres of farmland, woods, rivers to swim in or, when there was no river, a pool. All of those places were completely car dependent. I mean, in one of the places I lived there wasn't a single retail store or gas station in the entire town. When you needed things, you had to drive to the "city" (really just a big town). On the other hand, when I lived in a small apartment in a city in France. Well, we did walk anywhere we needed to go, but that was almost exclusively to school and back and sometimes to stores. In the actual apartment, going outside meant a little balcony. You didn't walk down the stairs without a specific destination in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so car-dependent, living in (desert) Suburbia, that i maintain my xeriscape myself, perform small repairs around the house, and take my bike on 3 mile errands, usually 3 times a week.
I also enjoy dining out regularly, and seeing movies in the theater, which stretches the bike practicality, not for distance, but because I do these things with my wife.
My real complaint? I regularly present as at least 20 years younger than I am, not the result of any deliberate effort on my part, and even my physicians cl
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes you'll always find edge cases. But the vast majority of Americans live in situations where car dependency is a function of city design (funded by Ford - no literally yes, cities designed by Ford, look into the history of this) not the fact they live rural.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes you'll always find edge cases. But the vast majority of Americans live in situations where car dependency is a function of city design (funded by Ford - no literally yes, cities designed by Ford, look into the history of this) not the fact they live rural.
What's the "but" for? I wasn't arguing against any claims about whether Americans live in situations where they are car dependent.
Re: (Score:2)
In regards to rural life you wrote:
So the problem is you're car dependent. What I said only is true if you are NOT car dependent.
Then to city life you wrote:
So somewhere you weren't car dependent, you walked. I mean it seems a bit limited, school and sometimes shops, but it's still daily exercise.
Uh, no. The point is that in rural life, I would just step out the door and walk for miles and miles and miles through fields and woods in varied terrain, climb trees, slopes, small rockfaces, jump small gorges, cross ponds and streams on fallen logs, swim in the river or our pool, sometimes ride horses (including across the river) though that was mostly my sister's thing, fly kites, sled, even cross country ski, ice skate on ponds, roll down hi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really follow the point though.
I'm specifically talking about how in a place which isn't car dependent you ca live your day to day life, you know work, school, shops, meeting friends, etc, etc in a way which gives you exercise as part of the act of simply living your life.
In rural ares, you either drive to do necessary things, or do a leisure activity to get exercise. Leisure activities are optional, work isn't, so if you, say, walk to work you are guaranteed a base level of exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm specifically talking about how in a place which isn't car dependent you ca live your day to day life, you know work, school, shops, meeting friends, etc, etc in a way which gives you exercise as part of the act of simply living your life.
You're talking about isolated micro-communities though, like gentrified city centers, or villages with a short walk to the shops and, these days mostly inhabited by pensioners/retirees. Most people don't live like that. Most urban dwellers in the world we live in (and you are perfectly free to suggest changing the world, but I am talking about now) are either car dependent, or public transportation dependent. For most of them, the distance they walk to where their car is parked is not that different from th
Re:Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're talking about isolated micro-communities though
I'm talking about London! I live on the zone2/3 border, so not exactly the middle.
"Car dependence" is simply a matter of practical utility depending on where you live and how you live.
Yes, that makes it the only choice, but it doesn't make it good. Car dependence means travel is more or less unavailable to anyone who can't (or shouldn't drive), like kids, people with a variety of medical conditions and old people.
Thus my point that there are places and styles of living that are absolutely as healthy or healthier than many of the environments where you can avoid being "car dependent", but where having a motor vehicle is pretty much a requirement.
Contradiction: having a motor vehicle as a requirement IS car dependence. You require it. You are dependent on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about London! I live on the zone2/3 border, so not exactly the middle
So, not the City of London then, just London. In other words, in a big city that's about 50 km across.
Yes, that makes it the only choice, but it doesn't make it good. Car dependence means travel is more or less unavailable to anyone who can't (or shouldn't drive), like kids, people with a variety of medical conditions and old people.
I... what? I am a little confused. Travel is unavailable to old people and people with a variety of medical conditions because... "car dependence"? Do you somehow think that "car dependence" is some sort of disease or crippling addiction? First of all, for all the groups you mention, travel is a hell of a lot more available with cars than without them. Also, there really isn't a circumstance where having a
Re: (Score:2)
So, not the City of London then, just London. In other words, in a big city that's about 50 km across.
I have no idea what you're driving at. No, not the square mile, though it's not as if it's isolated from the rest of London. Either way you said "You're talking about isolated micro-communities though", and no part of London fits that.
First of all, for all the groups you mention, travel is a hell of a lot more available with cars than without them.
Braaaap wrong.
There's a whole bunch of conditions which prec
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you're driving at. No, not the square mile, though it's not as if it's isolated from the rest of London. Either way you said "You're talking about isolated micro-communities though", and no part of London fits that.
Sorry if I was unclear by using the word "isolated", that has connotations that I wasn't aiming for. I am drawing a blank for the best word. Calling them cells, or bubbles might be a better way to put it. The point is that, while within a larger city, they are really their own separate community. In short, you claim that you're talking about London, but the majority of London is not walkable, it's more like you have a bunch of villages packed together that are walkable. It's not a property that automaticall
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Also, walking is nice. It gives you time to think.
Re: Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:3)
It's nice if your area and your life supports that. Everyone is being enticed to work longer and harder though and soon you don't have time for it. Especially if you are feeding a family of four by walking to the grocery store-- you could really only bring back enough food for one or two days so you are going to the store all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice if your area and your life supports that.
It's not so much nice as a choice. I picked somewhere to live that is not car dependent, and I vote with my votes (and have joined local organisations) who support non car travel.
I wouldn't try this somewhere which prioritises cars over all else since that would suuuuck.
Everyone is being enticed to work longer and harder though and soon you don't have time for it.
Do you not have traffic where you live? Certainly for me my bike is the fastest way into work i
Re: Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:2)
For that to work, my work and the wives work, the kids school, music lessons, music store, swimming lessons, swim supply store and all other extracurricular activities would have had to of been within walking distance with shops on the way. Then you need a house large enough for the music instruments and I have dogs so I need a pretty big yard for them to run around in. Currently I have a 2500 sq ft house on an acre lot. Does that really exist anywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, no.
Mostly because car free life is popular, FWIW.
I'm reminded of the Iffly Road in Oxford which comprises mostly four story terraced homes that even by the 1980s had mostly be converted into flats or shared homes because demand for housing was so high. These were easily 2,500sqft though as individual homes, and were within walking distance of almost everything. You probably wanted a bus to get to Oxford City Center, but even if you walked it wasn't more than 40-50 minutes walk. The nearby Cowley
Re: (Score:2)
even an (old, so by that point art house) cinema
I remember that cinema! It basically had the ticket office on the street, right?
You probably wanted a bus to get to Oxford City Center, but even if you walked it wasn't more than 40-50 minutes walk.
I lived down off the Botley road, so I biked in and out. I do remember distinctly when by bike vomited the derailleur into the rear spokes and chewed up the frame. It was a bit of a walk dragging a dead bike for sure. I still have the £120 bike I bought
Re: (Score:2)
> I remember that cinema! It basically had the ticket office on the street, right?
Just looked it up on Wikipedia, and yes, still exists apparently. It was the Penultimate Picture Palace [wikipedia.org] when I was there. The box office is on the outside of the building (I think that's what you meant? Not technically on the pavement, still part of the building, but you can walk up to it from the street without entering the building)
(As an aside just saw Bill Heine [wikipedia.org], who funded it, is dead. Famous for the shark in his roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Car free life isn't popular. I live in Manhattan, the biggest car free center in the US. I don't own a car, nor do 95% of the people I know. But we all wish we could.
We don't not own cars because we don't like them. Or because we have no use for them. We don't have them because due to the cost of parking them they aren't practical. I would one hundred percent prefer to be able to drive to a grocery store, shop for myself for a week or two, and drive home. So would everyone else I know. We don't beca
Re: (Score:2)
> Nobody likes car free life.
And there you have it, the carosexual refusing to believe that other people aren't also carosexuals.
Car free life is fantastic. I wish I could go back to it, but alas I moved to the states.
The lifestyle associated with being car free is such that, regardless of your attempts to pretend everyone around you secretly wants to drive in Manhattan, every single place I've known of where it's possible, the housing has ended up costing astronomical amounts of money because too many p
Re: (Score:2)
Car free life is fantastic. I wish I could go back to it, but alas I moved to the states.
So, by the standards you're using, calling the GP a "carosexual" because they want a car for pragmatic reasons, doesn't that make you a "carosexual" because you also apparently have a car for pragmatic reasons? While there clearly is a whole culture thing with obsession with personal transportation in the US and there are some where the term "carosexual" could apply (and there are some here on Slashdot who are indeed car obsessed and I have gotten into arguments with on car-related stories). However, genera
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said- there may be a small single digit percentage of people that actually do like not having access to a car. But that's all it is. This isn't just me talking- it's every time I've had this conversation with everyone else who lives in Manhattan, the one area of the country where a car is actually not practical. In the 12 years of having that discussion, nobody has ever said that they like not having a car. Not once. The amount they missed it differs, but every single person has wished they cou
Re: Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:2)
It's difficult enough for us to get back from work, eat supper, then leave again for competitive swim classes 7-8 and get home within a reasonable hour. I'm still confused how you have time to walk to shopping several days a week on top of that. Do you not work 8 hour days? Every neighborhood in London cannot have a competitive swimming pool. There were several in my city but only one that the swim teams actually trained out of. Then there was music class on the weekends. That was only 15 minutes away
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very strange conversation. You keep telling me how impossible for you because of car dependency. That's the point. If you lived somewhere not car dependent these would not be problems. You can't build exercise into your day because you live somewhere that isn't practical. Saying "yeah but I live somewhere car dependent, checkmate!" isn't a checkmate.
I'm still confused how you have time to walk to shopping several days a week on top of that.
I don't. I already explained that twice I think now.
P.S.
Oh
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying "you just walk everywhere" but you have also said that every neighborhood doesn't have anything. I'm just trying to ascertain what percentage of time is spent driving and what percentage walking. Truthfully, I have felt run ragged time-wise even driving everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, every neighborhood doesn't have everything*
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying "you just walk everywhere"
Why would I say that? I don't walk everywhere. I largely get around by a mix of bike, bus, train and walking.
but you have also said that every neighborhood doesn't have anything
I don't recall saying that, but it is certainly true.
Truthfully, I have felt run ragged time-wise even driving everywhere.
I'd say that's possibly a "because I am" not an "even when".
Look: I'm not saying you should just sell your car and walk everywhere. If you live somewhere fairly car depend
Re: (Score:2)
I tried asking in a very careful way but you are still not answering my question.
Re: (Score:2)
I think serviscope_minor is actually advising you to embrace asceticism. Give up all worldly things, desires, and attachments, for the sake of living a more fulfilling, car free life. Of course, it seems weirdly circular to start from the notion that living a car-free life means more physical activity and then end up with abandoning physical activities like competitive swimming for your kids in order to live a car-free life.
Re: (Score:2)
I think serviscope_minor is actually advising you to embrace asceticism.
This is the thing about carbrain, you cannot comprehend anything other than car dependence so you assume there must be weirdness involved.
Opposite of acetic, not being car dependent means I can go to the pub with friends, then get home easily without spending a fortune on cabs.
Re: (Score:2)
No the fact that no one can explain how you gain time by walking places almost every day is the weird thing. It doesnt atdd up unless you do less with your life.
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding us right?
How does being forced to drive everywhere increase the amount of time available vs living in a walkable city?
In practice, doing the stuff you do in a real walkable city would take so long that you can't do it in a suburban car-only place. Really! I used to walk by dozens of speciality stores just going to the supermarket when I lived in Britain. Do you think you could just drop into even four random stores on your shopping day if they're not at the mall if you drive? You'll be drivin
Re: (Score:2)
This is the thing about carbrain...
See, I can't help feeling that, since you keep saying that people have "carbrain" or that they are "carosexuals" (indirectly), etc. that indicates that it is you who is a bit weird about the whole thing. No one is attacking your preferred lifestyle. It sounds nice. The problem is that you are apparently demonizing people who are not in your situation and need cars to get around. It's a little odd.
Opposite of acetic, not being car dependent means I can go to the pub with friends, then get home easily without spending a fortune on cabs.
See, that there is an example. Not everyone is like you. I don't drink. I can drive back from the places I drive
Re: (Score:2)
See, I can't help feeling
Yes of course: you're so wrapped up in cars you assume I must be some sort of acetic to not have one. What you are feeling is wildly irrational.
See, that there is an example. Not everyone is like you. I don't drink.
And yet you think I'm an acetic.
sometimes I take people with me who would be incapable of walking that far.
Ah the old "but what about the disabled" card. Car use is underrepresented with the disabled compared to able boded because many disabilities preclude driving. Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Yes of course: you're so wrapped up in cars you assume I must be some sort of acetic to not have one. What you are feeling is wildly irrational.
Stop telling me what I supposedly am. I could not care less about cars except in a pragmatic sense where they are functional system. Also, you are apparently misunderstanding what I said about you recommending that fluffernutter become an ascetic. In response to fluffernutter how they were supposed to shop, travel to the pool for competitive swim classes, get to music class, etc. in the available time, you gave no real answer. So, I commented that it appeared that you wanted fluffernutter to just give all t
Re: (Score:2)
About the worst thing you can do exercise wise is be car dependent.
the worst thing you can do exercise wise is to not do any. other than that you have to adapt to what you have: health condition, environment, time and personal preferences. even with limitations the possibilities are endless.
now, it's often not really reasonable to be "car independent", particularly in the us. one of my kids was just in houston and posted a lot of videos of daily routine. it was an appalling view: cars over cars, ample spaces but narrow sidewalks literally deserted (in maybe over an hour of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really talking about how practical it is in any one place.
People in cities are on average healthier and with less body fat, even controlling for wealth. The reason is day to day exercise as part of living.
Re: (Score:2)
About the worst thing you can do exercise wise is be car dependent.
If you're not, exercise becomes part of your day to day activities.
Electric mobility scooters have entered the chat.
Re: Yes we have, but you won't fix it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With the wind chill, it is 12F (-11C) right now near Chicago. Get bent.
The residents of Oulu, Finland wonder why Americans are such wussies and haven't heard of "coats".
Wrong? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ludicrous to suggest we've been thinking about it wrong. The standard wisdom about exercise has been healthy and beneficial. Lots of exercise is great for you. A little is perhaps better than we thought, that's all.
Lazy writing. Just a hair better than "scientists baffled!".
Re: (Score:2)
Before that it was, "this will revolutionize X" and before that, everything had to have some practical effect. "The modern day importance of 13th century Italian smut literature." Things like that.
Re:Wrong? No. (Score:5, Informative)
These days, it's hard to find a headline about science that doesn't read "Scientists got this point wrong for 40 years!"
Before that it was, "this will revolutionize X" and before that, everything had to have some practical effect. "The modern day importance of 13th century Italian smut literature." Things like that.
To me, it reads of recent years of deconstruction efforts. And this one is a doozy. I've been very active my whole life. Hard to imagine that 30 seconds a day is remotely the same as my daily running, weight lifting and multiple games of Ice Hockey a week.
I can't get my heart rate over 60 in 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't get my heart rate over 60 in 30 seconds.
Wow, nice!
Hard to imagine that 30 seconds a day is remotely the same as my daily running,
There was a study years back that found ultramarathoners continue to find more health benefits the longer they run (all else being equal).
It's easy to think of a mechanism behind 1 minute of exercise improving health. For example, the lymphatic system needs daily muscle movement to circulate. Even a little movement will be enough to remove waste products. Furthermore the flow of the intercellular matrix requires muscle movement.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, it reads of recent years of deconstruction efforts. And this one is a doozy. I've been very active my whole life. Hard to imagine that 30 seconds a day is remotely the same as my daily running, weight lifting and multiple games of Ice Hockey a week.
And yet, that is exactly what this research suggests. The results are still observational, so not something that is proven. We've always known that exercise is a good thing. That question (that still remains) is how much is needed. It's likely that more is better up to some point. But what is that point of almost no further return? And is the relationship between health benefits and exercise duration linear? This research suggests that the relationship may be somewhat logarithmic, where most of the b
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to imagine that 30 seconds a day is remotely the same as my daily running, weight lifting and multiple games of Ice Hockey a week.
Literally no one is claiming it's the same. The point being made is that 30 seconds and low heart rate movement is better than nothing. Previously it was widely considered *not* to be better than nothing and that you actually had to do moderate to intense exercise to get any medical benefit.
This is however good news for those pushing the idea of baby steps. Too many people are stuck in the "I can't do that much exercise so why should I bother doing any at all" rut.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen the recommended minimum excercise time per day shrink every few years for a long time.
One or two years ago I predicted thst it would end up becoming almost nothing. Next will be the announcment that just thinking about exercise once a day will improve your health.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wrong? No. (Score:2)
What exactly is unrealistic about eating an Apple, banana, and an orange each day, with some broccoli for each meal. It's good advice.
Or eat some Metamucil with each meal, it's the same idea, to reduce the urge to eat more by increasing fiber. The fruit is even better because it should help keep blood sugar stable between meals.
Re: (Score:2)
400g a day of fruits and vegetables is out of touch? Good god. And the hope for flickers ever more dimly...
Re: (Score:2)
400g a day of fruits and vegetables is out of touch? Good god. And the hope for flickers ever more dimly...
There was also that article a couple of days ago about how more than 50% of them don't read even a single book in a year. https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Yeah, we're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that, the exercise they describe is already routinely advised. What they are advising against is cardio, merely one form of exercise. Literally everything they recommend is routine and they offer no claim against cardio. Lazy writing is kind.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ludicrous to suggest we've been thinking about it wrong. The standard wisdom about exercise has been healthy and beneficial. Lots of exercise is great for you. A little is perhaps better than we thought, that's all.
Lazy writing. Just a hair better than "scientists baffled!".
Exactly, I'm attempting to understand that how 30 seconds a day can be remotely equivalent to my years of 3 Ice Hockey games a week, running no less than two miles a day, and daily weights at the gym.
The gym has more than just physical benefits. Feeling stressed? hit the gym. Wife or GF broke up with you? A good friend or family member pass away? The gym or other strenuous physical activity can be a lifesaver - especially for men. I do less now, hike instead of run (too many leg injuries from Hockey) an
Re: Wrong? No. (Score:2)
Equivalent in terms of what? The level of fitness it lead you to, no, not the same, but improved quality of life? Can't you enjoy hockey for what it is, instead of thinking you're somehow getting 10x more out of life than someone that didn't do all that?
You sound like a runner sneering at a bicyclist. If other people getting the same benefit for less pain subtracts from your experience... I mean that's like kicking yourself in the nuts and being mad at someone else because they got the same out of not doing
Re: (Score:2)
He described some comparative benefits. You chose to disregard them and project. You assigned him viewpoints you have reason to infer.
We don't really know that much about what he thinks, but the pedestal you placed yourself on in the last sentence is on full view.
Re: (Score:2)
Equivalent in terms of what? The level of fitness it lead you to, no, not the same, but improved quality of life?
My fitness level had two different results. A lot of cardio exercise. A lot of muscle work, very similar to bicycling - the glutes and red thigh muscles get well developed. Side note - both my spouse and the ladies at work found them quite touchable Between the hockey and the weights and running, I had the paradox of the standard weight height scales claiming I was obese, while my body fat was considered a little low. (note - another one of those medical truths that aren't quite true.
The other half thoug
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake might be that you have to do 5 hours a week to get benefits, even more to lose weight.
The smallest things seem to help - taking the stairs, going for a walk that people can make in their lives without actually compromising much. Instead of taking the elevator, go use the stairs. Instead of fighting for the parking spaces near the mall/office/etc, park farther away, maybe a separate parking lot down the block if you can.
It's a lot easier to convince people to do these smaller things than it is to
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the actual point is a good one. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and every little bit helps. You're correct across the board.
My objection is to the characterization at the top. "Have we been thinking about exercise wrong for half a century?" It's another form of click bait.
Re: (Score:2)
A little is perhaps better than we thought, that's all. Lazy writing.
Not at all. The prevailing wisdom was that a little exercise was virtually meaningless and that you had to get your heart properly beating in order to gain any benefit. Even the thought that simply hitting 10000 steps was rubbish due to lack of impact on the body (this number had no medical backing, it was marketing that decided on 10000 steps).
This study seems to turn that notion on its head. It really is quite a drastic departure from the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the question is, "Who is the 'we' in the title?" The "prevailing wisdom" is almost universally not to be trusted. As you pointed out, 10,000 was a 60s Japanese marketing promo. If it's the same universal "we" that flits from superfood to superfood and couldn't define inflammation past it being the thing turmeric fixes, then, sure. "We've" been thinking about it wrong, just like we think wrong about most things.
But if the "we" is actually the people studying these things in earnest, well... We"ve be
Reverse causation? (Score:2)
Haven't fully read the paper, though I did get partway through the methodology chapter, and while they did some work to reduce the impact of reverse causation, I don't think they did enough to rule out the possibility that people who with healthier cardiovascular condition simply are more likely to move more.
The only way I would have a lot of faith in this study would be if they started with a numerical measure of plaque buildup based on MRI, CT, doppler test, etc.) plus the data about how much they exerci
Re: (Score:2)
Something else I'm confused by is that they're talking about sedentary people, yet their data is plotted out to 85 kj/kg/day. If I'm doing the math right, that's about how many calories someone weighing 180 pounds would burn by bicycling 240 miles every week, which is up in professional cyclist territory. How do they have numbers for sedentary people that are in that order of magnitude?
1 kj is .239 kcal. A 180 pound person weighs 81 kg. So that is 81 * .239 = 19 standard calories a day.
Re: (Score:2)
That's for 1 kj/kg/day, yes. Extrapolating that to 85 kj/kg/day is in turn just over 1600 dietary calories per day, which is pretty much right for a seriously sedentary person.
On the other hand, weight change is ultimately driven by calories consumed versus calories burned. Someone with excess fat usually needs to improve both sides of that equation, and short bursts of exercise probably don't move one's basal metabolic rate enough to shift "calories burned" much. That's where the ability to sustain exer
Re: (Score:2)
short bursts of exercise probably don't move one's basal metabolic rate enough to shift "calories burned" much
It might, actually. Of course attention will need to be paid to nutrition, but that's true no matter how much you exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
weight change is ultimately driven by calories consumed versus calories burned
Ugh, stop saying this. It's obviously untrue. It's calories metabolized and stored vs calories not metabolized and stored. Literally anything else you say is speculation about what is occurring. Maybe they're metabolizing but not storing. Maybe they're not even digesting the food completely, and the undigested "calories" cannot be digested and therefore cannot be metabolized and therefore cannot be stored. How much you chew, how much you salivate, the current state of your intestinal biome all affect digest
Re: Reverse causation? (Score:2)
This is basically a lie people tell themselves to put less focus on the calories in part of the equation. You take calories in, then you use or store or excrete them.
Yes, those other variables are different for everyone and vary over time and there are lots of stabilizing feedback loops in our bodies. Those variables don't vary as much as calories in. The variance in the nutritional value of your turds is mouse nuts compared to how much you can swing calories in. You can skip a meal, you can't shit a meals
Re: (Score:2)
That's for 1 kj/kg/day, yes. Extrapolating that to 85 kj/kg/day is in turn just over 1600 dietary calories per day, which is pretty much right for a seriously sedentary person.
Right. But I'm assuming that is extra calories on top of the baseline, because no matter how sedentary you are, if you're only burning a third of that, you're basically dead.
Simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I live 4 floors up. There is a very nice elevator. I only use it rarely, and only with good reasons. It does make a real difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Simple (Score:2)
That's a joke. Just engage your largest muscles for a couple minutes, don't worry about your heart. Doesn't mean don't worry about your heart, it means that will take care of it.
Legs are the best way to spike your heart rate.
Cool! But. (Score:2)
I always love to run up the stairs for no reason, and got 3 flights of them, even though it takes probably less than 30 seconds. Maybe need to do daily garbage/recycling rounds. But vigorous activity out of nothing without warm-up might have other nasty side-effects, your joints won't be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Mini-jog up? then I'm feeling pretty good.
Avoiding them or taking elevator? I'm feeling sickly or exhausted because of bad sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar! Although there's no elevator so I can't shortcut it. My personal long-term fitness test is if I'm not tired and I double-step up the stairs holding a bike with my right hand; on a good day I can do it, on a normal day I give up after a flight or two.
Re: (Score:2)
The conscious choice (Score:3)
Make a conscious choice to move more. See a short escalator? Take the stairs. Is the shop 20 minutes a way and you're not in a rush? Walk. Have a holiday and wanna go site seeing? Try cycling some of that. Enjoy sports? Join a local club for some friendly games with people of similar ability.
Every day most of us can choose to sit on our ass and eat badly. Make the conscious choice to do better. Small changes that we can turn into a routine. Overnight transformations are typically a road to ruin...
...and to add a joke: I sit 16 hours a day but I have short, intense periods in which I click and type rapidly to the point of sweating to I maintain my obese physique (instead of becoming morbidly obese).
Lifespan can be shorter, for all I care (Score:2)
The only problem I currently have is that I no longer think that a longer lifespan is beneficial. I have no will to live through WW3 or any other global or local upheaval or pandemic or whatnot. When growing up the future looked good. Then in the 90s people started imagining the future as dystopian. I disliked that notion, but recent years led me to think it's where we're going.
So I don't currently see extending my lifespan as something that's worth the effort.
Evolution (Score:2)
Do what your preagricultural ancestors did - ignore self-appointed 'experts'.
So .... (Score:5, Funny)
as short as 30 seconds
... sex?
I showed this article to the wife. She replied, "What? That's twice in a row."
Blue zones (Score:2)
Not mentioned is that one of these reasons that regions with large numbers people recorded as having ages over 100 years is that these are region with poor or even non-exi
The muscle fatigue hack (Score:2)
Since the studies came out showing significant muscle growth from doing a single curl per day, I have been muscle growth hacking.
I do one set of pull ups a day, as many as I can until I can't anymore. Started with zero; eventually got one; now I'm up to four. From just doing one set once a day. I don't break a sweat or get tired.
For the squat, I don't do multiple squats, I just do 1RM. I started with 40lbs. Now I'm up to 140.
Same for curl. Started with 15lbs. Up to 40.
I'm still fat because I drink too much
All you need to pay rent is to cut starbucks too?? (Score:2)
I live in an urban townhouse with 3 floors. I run up and down the steps all the time...to go to bed, get food, etc. My VO2 max scores su
Clickbait "Common sense advice was wrong" story (Score:2)
Whenever you see a story that says "You've been doing X wrong" or "What we've all thought about X was wrong"--the story is just clickbait.
Yes, exercise is beneficial in a million ways.
No, steak shouldn't be at the top of the food pyramid.
Vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious illnesses.
Too much fat in your diet is indeed bad for you. (Too much of anything, really.)
Spending money you don't have on impulses is a bad idea.
It is not better to invest money rather than pay down your mortgage.
Grandma'
After a half-century asking us to exercise more, (Score:2)
doctors and physiologists have given up. "Just do the bare minimum. It's better than doing nothing."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
10 Things You Didn't Know About Headlines!
Re: Hey, Michael J. Coren (Score:2)
When someone else's improved quality of life offends you, it kind of says something I don't think you meant to say out loud. I'm sorry for you.