21–30 of 133 posts
remember: "associated with" does NOT mean "causes" having a Mercedes in the driveway might be associated with higher grades in high school ... but you're not going to magically raise your kid's grade by parking a mercedes in the driveway
Just started to read the book "Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School". It basically starts with this "For starters, we are not used to sitting at a desk for eight hours a day. From an evolutionary perspective, our brains developed while working out, walking as many as 12 miles a day. The brain still craves that experience, especially in sedentary populations like our own. Tha…
> Exercisers outperform couch potatoes in long-term memory, reasoning, attention, and problem-solving tasks I'm pretty sure the cause/effect is reversed here. It's more likely that people who are smart and have better focus/are less impulsive are more likely to take care of their health and exercise.
I'd be interested to know more precisely whether the subjects were doing more aerobic or anaerobic exercises. My hunch, given my distant past life as an athlete, is that the correlation is with aerobic exercise and not anaerobic.
Why so? Surely, if the correlation is explicitly with leg power rather than endurance or general fitness, then anaerobic exercise (squats, deadlifts, lunges, leg-presses, as well as running/bike sprints etc) would be the a better driver for building that power rather than aerobic exercise?
My comment was primarily from personal experience. When I did my anaerobic exercise when I used to train, it was heavily anaerobic, where I would do a lot of short bursts of heavy lifting. Later I transitioned to primarily focus on aerobic, where I did a lot of distance swimming. So I think I had a good amount of both extremes to at least provide some insights. Everyone's experience will likely be slightly different.
My hunch, though, is a lot of people who do lifting still get aerobic benefits because they're not training as intensely. So I think I'm speaking more about the extremes of the two types of exercise and not a middle ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Exercisers outperform couch potatoes in long-term memory, reasoning, attention, and problem-solving tasks I'm pretty sure the cause/effect is reversed here. It's more likely that people who are smart and have better focus/are less impulsive are more likely to take care of their health and exercise.
From my experience, there is no correllation between someone being smart and doing exercise.
I guess there are many factors affecting intelligence and fitness, from cultural to genetic.
It might not be the only factor, but it could well be one of many.
I'd be interested to know more precisely whether the subjects were doing more aerobic or anaerobic exercises. My hunch, given my distant past life as an athlete, is that the correlation is with aerobic exercise and not anaerobic.
You can build aerobic power (at least to some extent) using anaerobic exercise like sprints / intervals. I would assume a combination of aerobic & anaerobic exercise is probably the healthiest because that way all energy pathways and muscle fibres get activated. I always think it's crazy to expect humans to function properly without exercise. We see the problems in all other animals when they become sedentary below t…
If an increase in mental ability represent a greater work-done-per hour; But the cost is time spent exercising -> less time working (maybe somewhat compensated for other positive non-work benefits), Then what would be the perfect amount of exercise to boost productivity?
i.e. would an hour spent exercising pay for itself in productivity boost?
What I'd like to know is how this boils down wrt work. If an increase in mental ability represent a greater work-done-per hour; But the cost is time spent exercising -> less time working (maybe somewhat compensated for other positive non-work benefits), Then what would be the perfect amount of exercise to boost productivity? i.e. would an hour spent exercising pay for itself in productivity boost?
TL;DR "muscle fitness (measured by leg power)" is correlated with cognitive ageing.
inversely correlated I hope?
I wrote it just because the title was suggesting that stronger legs lead to healthier brain. Whereas the study suggests that healthy lifestyle (better diet, more exercises) lead to healthier brain. Which is to be honest, nothing new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Exercisers outperform couch potatoes in long-term memory, reasoning, attention, and problem-solving tasks I'm pretty sure the cause/effect is reversed here. It's more likely that people who are smart and have better focus/are less impulsive are more likely to take care of their health and exercise.
From my experience, there is no correllation between someone being smart and doing exercise.
What I'd like to know is how this boils down wrt work. If an increase in mental ability represent a greater work-done-per hour; But the cost is time spent exercising -> less time working (maybe somewhat compensated for other positive non-work benefits), Then what would be the perfect amount of exercise to boost productivity? i.e. would an hour spent exercising pay for itself in productivity boost?
The really big time sinks associated with lifting include: - commute to/from gym - changing clothes - another shower
If you don't live in cramped quarters such as SF/NYC, I recommend a small home/garage gym to address these.