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

Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

bjsm.bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 556 posts

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#71

Post by m463 »

lovecg wrote: post #11

There’s amusing statistics that show that if you’re out of shape and a smoker, you get a bigger bang for the buck from getting in shape first than quitting smoking. Disclaimer: not an endorsement of smoking.

reminds me of the bicycle helmet stuff.

There was a ted talk that said bicycle helmet laws would kill more people than save.

The reasoning was preventing people from riding would also prevent increased fitness, and more lives were lost from that than saved from accidents.

EDIT: I think this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#72

Post by s1artibartfast »

kccqzy wrote: post #60
wrycoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only takes a few months to make substantial gains in c-v fitness.

Define substantial. I find that incredible. EDIT: Now that I've seen the replies, I realize that this is from a very low baseline. I'm personally going to the gym four to five days a week already and my own cardiovascular fitness has not seen much of an improvement in many months.

Not a source, but it tracks for me. Walk, jog, or run daily and you will have massive CV improvement from baseline in 3 months. people can and do go from being exhausted walking to their car to being capable running many miles in an incredibly short time.

The typical human body is very responsive when pushed.

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#73

Post by BenFranklin100 »

giantg2 wrote: post #48
BenFranklin100 wrote: post #17

I am disappointed by how poor primary care is in the developed world. It could easily be made better by including a VO2Max test and a DEXA scan every few years. On my own dime, I took both (cost was ~ $150 total from a private provider) and the DEXA scan revealed I carried too much visceral fat and my cardiovascular fitness was only average, things that never came up in my yearly physical. The same applies for basic…

"It could easily be made better by including a VO2Max test and a DEXA scan every few years." Frankly, the vast majority of people don't need fancy tests. The thing is, the healthcare system is not about optimizing health or performance. It's mostly about fixing problems and heading off the most common ones in the easiest ways. If the goal was to optimize, it would be relatively easy for a trained individual to examin…

I think you neglect the motivation factor. Hard data that can be quantitatively tracked is motivating for many. Think of the fitness tracker market. It’s huge. For myself, the tests served as a wake-up call in a way that knowing I was 10-15 lbs too pudgy and not the fastest runner was not.

At the very least, good medical care provides information. What the individual does with it is up to them.

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#74

Post by hinkley »

fbdab103 wrote: post #57

With the caveat that everything fitness is mostly a bunch of non-researched beliefs... Which is better for establishing cardio fitness? Short and hard vs longer and moderate?

Cardio is aerobic exercise. If you have to ask, you’re not a world class athlete and the answer is longer and moderate.

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#75

Post by nradov »

dixie_land wrote: post #35
jacurtis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what you hypothesize. Research like this affirms your hypothesis with fact. There are historically lots of things that "seemed obvious" but couldn't hold up under research, which is why we do research. It confirms what you think or maybe it forces you to question what you think. Either way, it is good. Case and point, there is a rising opinion lately which Trump has promoted that your heart only beats a set, f…

Not agreeing with the (somewhat amusing) limited heartbeats theory, but even under that theory, cardio is beneficial since it lowers your resting heart rate. e.g. my HR is 50 thanks to running an hour a day, my HR during those runs are between 120 to 150, that gives 50x60x23+150x60 == 78000 beats a day a non runner might've a HR of 60 (being very generous, most folks are well above 70), that gives 60x60x24 == 86400 b…

For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology. Doctors usually won't recommend medical treatment unless resting heart rate exceeds 100 bpm, but over time there is a significantly increased risk of premature death.

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#76

Post by datascienced »

nullc wrote: post #43

But do they establish a causal arrow? If you're in chronic pain because you're dying of something you're not exactly going to be likely to do a lot of cardio workout. :) Without care you might conclude, for example, that rock climbing prevents becoming a quadriplegic since there aren't any quadriplegic rock climbers... when in fact to the extent that they're related at all rock climbing sometimes causes it.

Because you couldn’t say “in mice” :-)

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#77

Post by datascienced »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #12
thunkle wrote: post #2

So the sicker you are the less in shape you are in? Seems obvious to me.

The less in shape you are, the sicker you can possibly get.

Probably a continuum of causal arrows pointing either one way or the other, in the group.

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#78

Post by hnick »

kccqzy wrote: post #60
wrycoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only takes a few months to make substantial gains in c-v fitness.

Define substantial. I find that incredible. EDIT: Now that I've seen the replies, I realize that this is from a very low baseline. I'm personally going to the gym four to five days a week already and my own cardiovascular fitness has not seen much of an improvement in many months.

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couch_to_5K

9 weeks. I have basic fitness but have never been close to completing a 5km run (I think I finally realised I have breathing issues - seeing an ENT soon).

Re: Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

#80

Post by dilyevsky »

giantg2 wrote: post #36
NoPicklez wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why there are separate Cycling and Running VO2 indicators You won't be a 55 Vo2 runner if you're a 55 Vo2 Cyclist, but cardiovascular fitness does cross between those activities to an extent

Your indicators will be different, but your actual O2 uptake should be essentially similar. Any difference should be due to technique (if you've optimized your breathing/rhythm/etc for one but not the other).

This is incorrect. VO2max is influenced mostly by muscle recruitment - different muscle group trained would be a hindrance if anything
Post reply on HN