Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#11

Post by rocket_surgeron »

I'm not a human bodyologist.

I'm a barely functional human being who feels as though he is faking his way though being an adult.

What I can say is that two years ago in my early 40s I had a L5-S1 spinal fusion after decades of pain, tremendous weight gain, and crippling depression. My surgeon really only said two things after I woke up from the surgery. He loomed over me in what my post-anesthetic stupor remembers as a pose resembling the nun scene in Blues Brothers and said "if you want to recover, waaaaaaaalk" and then the next day when I was a little more cognizant he said "lift weights". When I asked him what else, he said "DO YOGA".

Doctor surgeon looming over my bed: https://i.imgur.com/jlMRimz.jpg

Every day I walk at least 1 mile, which takes 20 minutes. Three days per week I lift weights under the direction of a trainer specifically educated to deal with people with fused backs and I'm extremely close to "graduating" from her on to "normal people weightlifting". The other four days I do yoga, a mix of ashtanga or yin depending on how I'm feeling the day after the strength training.

It has completely, radically, transformed my physique, mental health, and life in general.

Walking and yoga cost $0.00, weightlifting costs me a lot but can be very inexpensive, and it is all more than worth it.

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#13

Post by jobs_throwaway »

> people who hit the cardio and the weights realized an approximately 40 percent reduced risk of all-cause mortality and 50 percent reduced risk of cardiovascular disease mortality

it makes sense, but damn is that figure staggering. 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality?!

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#14

Post by sonthonax »

I’ve always thought there’s something misguided about the legions of “want to get fit” types who self flagellate with long runs.

Running is terrible exercise. Terrible because it’s extremely hard on the body unless you’re on the lower end of the BMI scale. If you do any sport with a high mobility requirement, you can feel how tight a single run makes you.

The killer in old age is immobility, of your knees and hips. Running really doesn’t help.

Now before people point me to some article debunking how running isn’t in fact bad for your knees, that’s not what I’m saying. Efficient running is all about maximising power through a very small range of motion. Runners by and large have terrible hip mobility for athletes.

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#15

Post by jackschultz »

Temporary_31337 wrote: post #6
jackschultz wrote: post #3

> Running, swimming, playing soccer and other aerobic exercise do a lot for the cardiovascular system — our heart and blood vessels — but they don’t do much for overall muscle mass or strength. Preface: like most people here, I'm not a doctor or physiological specialist. I am decently active, and what I've found from the papers and science that gets brought up, and from my own self experimentation, is that the majori…

Yeah, the science around endurance sports (cycling, nordic skiing, rowing, running etc) has got this covered in quite the detail and does recommend that majority (80%) of your training should be aerobic - i.e. below first lactate threshold. That said, especially as you're unfit early on, doing above aerobic exercices is absolutely fine to increase toe aerobic capacity.

What I'm saying is that for the majority of people, even those who are considered "fit", don't default to aerobic system of energy when doing endurance sports because they don't have a solid enough base. They think because they're going for a 30 minute run it _must_ be aerobic, but if tested, they'd find it wasn't.

To know if this is true or not would require testing and numbers and defining what's considered "fit", rather than commenting on HN. That said, I truly have relatively high confidence in that the active population these days very much relies on the glycolytic energy system rather than oxidative, anaerobic rather than aerobic.

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#17

Post by radu_floricica »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #13

> people who hit the cardio and the weights realized an approximately 40 percent reduced risk of all-cause mortality and 50 percent reduced risk of cardiovascular disease mortality it makes sense, but damn is that figure staggering. 40% reduced risk of all-cause mortality?!

I am a firm believer that the first 15 minutes of daily light exercise are not for fitness, they're simply for basic health. You can and should definitely do more, but if you don't even do that you go down.

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#18

Post by johnrob »

sonthonax wrote: post #14

I’ve always thought there’s something misguided about the legions of “want to get fit” types who self flagellate with long runs. Running is terrible exercise. Terrible because it’s extremely hard on the body unless you’re on the lower end of the BMI scale. If you do any sport with a high mobility requirement, you can feel how tight a single run makes you. The killer in old age is immobility, of your knees and hips. R…

This is not a scientific argument, but if you build up conditioning safely, i think running should be excellent for you - especially if sprinting is involved. My take is that it’s a natural movement that evolution has prepared you for. Just my 2 cents.

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#19

Post by altdataseller »

sonthonax wrote: post #14

I’ve always thought there’s something misguided about the legions of “want to get fit” types who self flagellate with long runs. Running is terrible exercise. Terrible because it’s extremely hard on the body unless you’re on the lower end of the BMI scale. If you do any sport with a high mobility requirement, you can feel how tight a single run makes you. The killer in old age is immobility, of your knees and hips. R…

Is that the case for cycling too?

Re: For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

#20

Post by ren_engineer »

feels like a correlation/causation thing once again. If you are in good enough health to lift weights at an older age by definition you are healthier because you aren't suffering from a debilitating illness. People who are dedicated enough to lift weights are also probably following a much better diet than the average person

regardless it's good to see strength training getting some love instead of the cult of cardio. People associating fitness/working out with misery on a treadmill is why so few people workout

Post reply on HN