Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging • Hacker News Board

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#261

Post by stinkytaco » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

jawilson2 wrote: post #240

amelius wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice, but if you have body fat then you still need another guide to lose it. I'd rather have a guide that deals with muscles and fat simultaneously. From the linked website: > Recognize that all these guys have low body fat, which helps reveal their muscles. You will not actually lose fat by lifting weights, so weight loss is a separate goal altogether.

> You will not actually lose fat by lifting weights, so weight loss is a separate goal altogether. This is both true and not true. If you increase muscle mass, you increase your metabolism, which means your resting metabolic rate increases. However, as they say, abs are made in the kitchen, and a better diet is the quickest, most efficient way to drop fat. But, why not both? The easiest way to drop weight is to stop…

> If you increase muscle mass, you increase your metabolism, which means your resting metabolic rate increases.

Yes, but not as much as people think [0]. It's about 5 kcals per lb. of muscle (compared to roughly 1 for fat). Your organs consume the vast majority of your calories. An extremely fit person can expect to burn maybe 50-100 kcals more a day than a fat one per pound. It's not nothing, but if you read men's magazines they make it sound like if you lift some weights, you can eat whatever you want.

This isn't to say there are not many good reasons to strength train, especially as you age. I just wish people weren't trying to sell benefits that didn't exist when there are so many that do exist.

[0]: https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/metabolismcon...

EDIT: I shouldn't say "50-100 per pound", I should say that a fit person can expect to burn 50-100 more than a fat person of the same weight, within a normal weight range.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#262

Post by d0lph » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

midwestcode wrote: post #227

rhubarbcustard wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stronglifts is a great program and the lifts in it are the basis for gaining strength and size. The 5x5 on deadlifts and squats soon start to get tough when the weight increases. I'd recommend Wendler 531 instead, I made much better progress with that. https://jimwendler.com/blogs/jimwendler-com/101065094-5-3-1-... There are some apps that calculate weights for you and show you what you need to do each session, I use…

This is part of what keeps me distant from weightlifting. Everyone you talk to offers a different routine (admittedly, almost all of them are some combination of squats, deadlifts, etc., all of which are workouts I struggle with). I should probably apply the same process as I have with frontend web frameworks... just pick one and roll with it, it will "workout" in the end.

Isn't it like which language you code in, all are pretty much going to work, and if you want your project finished you better pick one. If you want to be fit, pick one, you can't go wrong with picking a popular program and sticking with it.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#263

Post by wmblaettler » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

zild3d wrote: post #115

overcast wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

36, same thing. It works, it's not anecdotal. Number one reason for lower back pain, is weak back muscles.

Makes sense, but why pushups then? They target mostly the chest, shoulders, and triceps. http://www.md-health.com/What-Muscles-Do-Push-Ups-Work.html

If you actively try to engage your core (abs, back, gluts) isometrically while doing pushups you gain more than just arms, chest and shoulder workout. It's about the form - you have to consciously focus on it.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#264

Post by hufflepuff » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

driverdan wrote: post #233

amelius wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice, but if you have body fat then you still need another guide to lose it. I'd rather have a guide that deals with muscles and fat simultaneously. From the linked website: > Recognize that all these guys have low body fat, which helps reveal their muscles. You will not actually lose fat by lifting weights, so weight loss is a separate goal altogether.

> You will not actually lose fat by lifting weights Of course you can lose fat by lifting weights. Calories in < calories out = weight loss (hopefully fat). Any type of physical activity increases calories out.

> Calories in Nope. When calories in https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-do-we-gain-weight...

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/a-calorie-is-a-calori...

> Any type of physical activity increases calories out.

This may be true but that doesn't mean that physical activity has a measurable effect on weight loss:

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/myth-exercise-exercis...

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/exercise-effective-we...

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#265

Post by soundwave106 » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:35 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #82

zeamaize wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not about a decade. Good friend of mine died at 30 from obesity induced cardiomyopathy. Then we talk about quality of life. I run, lift, and generally workout because I want to maintain quality of life as much as length. My Aunt is 95 and still runs 5k every day. Guess who isn't an invalid in her autumn years?

How much of your aunt's outcome was genetic predetermination? I'd wager the majority of it. You either have genetics that are tilted toward extreme longevity, or you don't. If you don't, nothing you can do will get you to 100.

Genes are a good part of whether you get to 100. I'm less certain that genes alone contributed to the aunt being able to run a 5K at age 95. A large part of exercise is in my opinion more improving quality of life.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#266

Post by 6DM » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:40 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #258

driverdan wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maximum lifting weight is going to vary from individual based on their experience and strength. If your muscles take weeks to recover you should see a doctor. That could be rhabdo or some other condition. It should never take that long.

>If your muscles take weeks to recover you should see a doctor. Are you talking about normal recovery after weightlifting? The OP was talking about muscle strains. I've hurt muscles that then take a month to recover. It seems fundamentally different from tired muscles after a workout.

Exactly, it's not recovery. It's an actual injury. I had been working out consistently 4-5 times a week at a high intensity for at least 5 months straight before this occurred. I know what that kind of muscle soreness feels like.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#267

Post by EternalData » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

My solution to this is to set myself weekly goals in terms of steps. It changes your routine when you do that. At 12.7k steps a day, I basically have to elongate my walking commute, and find create ways to stand up and move all day.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#268

Post by tomerific » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:56 PM UTC

All, this isn't a legitimate news source -- heck they're not even a legitimate scientific group. It is a dude that is republishing some data.

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#269

Post by ergot » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 4:57 PM UTC

I do yoga for my back and ensure there's good lumbar support on any chair I sit on. They say sitting is the 'new cancer' and prevention is often the way to go. Here's an interesting article on some yoga exercises you can try for back pain: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/yoga-exercises-for-back-pain....

Re: Too much sitting, too little exercise may accelerate biological aging

#270

Post by dspillett » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 5:01 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #190

snowcrshd wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 for C25k Pretty solid program to get started running. After that, I'd suggest doing Bridge to 10K [1] Surprisingly to me at the time, Bridge to 10K was way easier than C25k [1]: https://blog.bluefinapps.com/about-bridge-to-10k/

AFAICT, all of the health benefits of running come in the first 5K or 10K. Running longer distances becomes detrimental. Save your joints, preserve your muscles and keep your body fat at a healthy level (especially important for women). Rather than increasing your distance, concentrate on increasing your speed.

Yes, recent studies indicate that the sweet spot for optimising benefits vs injuries rates is between 5K and 8K, varying a fair amount between people, and gets quickly worse after twice that.

BUT increase your speed very carefully, or you will hurt your knees possibly giving yourself a semi-permanent (recurring) injury or worse. Beyond a certain point injury rates shoot up with speed a lot more than any health benefits do, more so than with distance as it is easy to let your form slip when concentrating on speed, and in my experience the only advantages in doing 10K in 42 minutes instead of, say, 60 are bragging rights and getting finished & to the shower/pub/other faster afterwards!

Also note that those studies (well, the ones I've seen) compared like for like too (same pace over the distance, studying flat(ish) road racing or treadmill running. I find 16-to-20K trail running with a group (sometimes more of a "fast trek" than a run depending on terrain!) to work out much better for me than 10K road running at full pace.