21–30 of 186 posts
Why do we have an article saying basically the same thing every single week here? I get it, and I think everyone here has, exercise is good for you, in many ways, don't sit on your ass all day. I guess it's sad to see this becoming the "Good Morning America" of tech (not that we didn't have those ones already) or the ultra localized we-only-care-about-the-bay-area medium.
Are there any studies on what kind of exercise, or what kind of intensity is most beneficial to overall or mental health? Edit: Got back to my laptop and did some research myself. Aerobic Exercise Training Increases Brain Volume in Aging Humans (and nonaerobic doesn't) - http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/11/11... Findings show that although the more intense, motorized running exercise induced a r…
TL;DR: Long distance running or other sustained aerobic exercise is best. Several meta-analyses also have shown that the mood and cognitive benefits increase with aerobic exercise duration and intensity.
Why do we have an article saying basically the same thing every single week here? I get it, and I think everyone here has, exercise is good for you, in many ways, don't sit on your ass all day. I guess it's sad to see this becoming the "Good Morning America" of tech (not that we didn't have those ones already) or the ultra localized we-only-care-about-the-bay-area medium.
Because an enormous chunk of the population still refuses to exercise and/or diet and articles like this help motivate some of that subset.
More seriously though, I really find no pleasure in exercise and would like to approach it in the most cost-effective way (i.e. maximum benefit for minimum time used). Any hints on exercise regime optimised for that? I heard weightlifting is good.
Are there any studies on what kind of exercise, or what kind of intensity is most beneficial to overall or mental health? Edit: Got back to my laptop and did some research myself. Aerobic Exercise Training Increases Brain Volume in Aging Humans (and nonaerobic doesn't) - http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/11/11... Findings show that although the more intense, motorized running exercise induced a r…
Why do we have an article saying basically the same thing every single week here? I get it, and I think everyone here has, exercise is good for you, in many ways, don't sit on your ass all day. I guess it's sad to see this becoming the "Good Morning America" of tech (not that we didn't have those ones already) or the ultra localized we-only-care-about-the-bay-area medium.
Because an enormous chunk of the population still refuses to exercise and/or diet and articles like this help motivate some of that subset.
Anyone who likes exercise is already doing it. The constant drumbeat of "living healthy" that pervades the media and now the workplace is getting monotonous and annoying.
Why do we have an article saying basically the same thing every single week here? I get it, and I think everyone here has, exercise is good for you, in many ways, don't sit on your ass all day. I guess it's sad to see this becoming the "Good Morning America" of tech (not that we didn't have those ones already) or the ultra localized we-only-care-about-the-bay-area medium.
It is interesting to ask why, though.
Are people still interested because a lot don't know and are hearing about it? There's often secondary posts and discussions by different groups of people a day or two later, I suspect there are different demographics reading at different times. (This new thing sounds cool, let's discuss!)
Are they interested because they heard about it recently and thinks it needs more exposure? (This new thing seems cool, let's spread the word more!)
Are they interested because it has spurred them to action, and they had or have currently changed some aspect of their life for better or worse, and they feel they need to share? (This new thing is/was cool/sucked, let me tell you why!)
These are all different stages in the life cycle of a trend. I think it's interesting to identify the stages, as there can be different benefits and drawbacks to getting on board (if that's your wish) depending on the stage.
Why do we have an article saying basically the same thing every single week here? I get it, and I think everyone here has, exercise is good for you, in many ways, don't sit on your ass all day. I guess it's sad to see this becoming the "Good Morning America" of tech (not that we didn't have those ones already) or the ultra localized we-only-care-about-the-bay-area medium.
Also, this is a newly discovered mechanism for exercise being healthy, so it's not exactly "the same thing." I've been checking the comments regularly to get HN's "take."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because an enormous chunk of the population still refuses to exercise and/or diet and articles like this help motivate some of that subset.
Why do we care? Why cannot we just accept that some people have no desire/interest in exercise, and let them live the way they want to live. Anyone who likes exercise is already doing it. The constant drumbeat of "living healthy" that pervades the media and now the workplace is getting monotonous and annoying.
The connection between exercise and brain health has now been super conclusively and astonishingly shown, but what are some possible evolutionary reasons for this connection? Maybe the extra energetic investment in brain health is only justified when there is an energetic surplus, and doing exercise correlates with having extra energy available? (As opposed to starving and thus needing to conserve energy.) But that d…
Prehistoric humans likely exercised as a matter of course. They weren't sedentary. The brain evolved assuming the condition of exercise. naturally occurring byproducts of exercise were just always there for the brain to use.
Which types help lower cholestrol?
Which types are best for the heart?