Not exercising worse than smoking, diabetes and heart disease study finds

Post by dang » Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 4:50 AM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #144

themagician wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m older than you. When I was younger I thought you had more control over your health. Now I realize the amount of control you really have is minimal. It seems like a crapshoot. I see older people who did nothing to take care of themselves doing just fine, and plenty of fit people whose health is surprisingly bad. I see some people over 65 who can do what they once did, but they are the exceptions. I see how diet an…

> I see older people who did nothing to take care of themselves doing just fine, and plenty of fit people whose health is surprisingly bad You may be older, but your viewpoint seems surprisingly immature. Unless you've kept careful records, it's likely that you feel this way because your brain has lived the surprising counterexamples, not because people don't have control over their health outcomes. Genetics obviousl…

Post by jholman » Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 5:12 AM UTC

shin_lao wrote: post #66

ddebernardy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not pedantic at all. I'm ~40 and don't exercise at all, yet I'm still perfectly fit. I presume it's due to doing groceries by foot several times per week, having a standup desk, and carrying the kid around. Perhaps genes help too. But the point I'd like to get across is: going to the gym isn't the sine qua non of making you fit. You can get enough "exercise" by simply living without a car, standing, and walking.

I think you need to define perfectly fit. Can you do 10 pullups?

Post by grecy » Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

learnstats2 wrote: post #86

downandout wrote: post #71

...and then we see that exercising an hour per day (7.5 hours or more per week), which people trying to lose weight often do, can cause damaging calcium buildups in your heart, especially if you are a man [1]. So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I really hate these conflicting studies. [1] http://time.com/4987426/too-much-exercise/

7.5 hours or more per week of gym is an extreme amount that elite athletes might think twice about, not to mention that it's not recommended by anyone. Where is the conflict? That article itself says: “This [study] doesn’t apply to 99% of people”

Post by anovikov » Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #153

Gatsky wrote: post #92

If there is one universal truth of human biology, it is that exercise is good. It is good if you do a bit or a lot, if you are young, old, male, female, trans, pregnant, trying to get pregnant, single, married, divorced, depressed, a smoker, have cancer, have heart disease, have dementia, an astronaut, a pure mathematician, a plumber, tall, short, liberal, conservative etc etc. There isn't anyone that doesn't benefit…

> I think we can just stop doing studies about how exercise is good I heartily disagree. People have limited time. We need to figure out what form of excercise gives the most benefit for unit of time spent. There is serious disagreement about this (the two camps being cardio vs strength training, basically).

Post by Tharkun » Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 6:08 AM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #177

toasterlovin wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we can just stop doing studies about how exercise is good I heartily disagree. People have limited time. We need to figure out what form of excercise gives the most benefit for unit of time spent. There is serious disagreement about this (the two camps being cardio vs strength training, basically).

Thing about exercise is that it effectively, doesn't take any time at all because one of the results is that you need to sleep less. In my experience, it at least makes up for the time you spend exercising.