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

131–140 of 556 posts

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

#131

Post by weatherlite »

FredPret wrote: post #18
MPSimmons wrote: post #3

The Apple watch has a decent cardio fitness monitor. The absolute values aren't precise (since it uses VO2Max estimates, which is really only accurate if you're doing a metabolic stress test), but it's good to keep an eye on trends.

The poor VO2Max estimates on the Apple Watch is why I'm phasing out of wearing one. I track my actual VO2Max measurements in Apple Health via a shortcut, and I don't need a daily made-up number messing up my data.

Why is Vo2Max important for people who aren't professional athletes? It's not that I'm not curious about my number I'm just not sure how helpful it is going to be - I need to understand what pace I can hold 5k, 10k, 21k and eventually 42k. I think the best way to know that is racing again and again and getting a good feel for your aerobic / threshold zone. Whether my Vo2max is 51 or 52 - does it matter to me?

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

#132

Post by ideamotor »

AbbeSomething wrote: post #99
m463 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This sounds ridiculous until you go to Amsterdam see that few wear helmets there. And everyone is cycling. They might be more inclined to cycle because they don’t need to wear a helmet. After years of cycling with helmet you get so used to it and it doesn’t bother you. But how many skip the bike because they never got used to wearing a helmet?

I biked through Amsterdam as a commuter along with everyone else for a week, and it just blew me away. Everyone was absolutely predictable and part of the “school of fish”. No hesitation or ill-conceived politeness.

It was only a week but it was so refreshing. I think about this experience daily when driving because I think of how much time would be saved if people just knew absolutely when to take their turn and took it; instead of processing each decision and deciding based on their current mood. People knew the damn rules and norms.

So, I think it’s a function of having a critical mass, being necessary, and being embedded already as a norm. I don’t believe a city could make riding without a helmet legal and expect any sort of increase in safety …

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

#133

Post by EasyMark »

darth_avocado wrote: post #51
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like the sort of stuff you’d remember because it validates what you already want to believe

Smoking does reduce appetite and therefore can help in weight loss/getting in shape. (I don’t smoke)

I have definitely seen more than a few smokers who quit gain weight, no idea if it's picking up a new addiction or if the smoking subdued their hunger pangs, or some combination thereof.

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

#134

Post by unmole »

nradov wrote: post #52
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like the sort of stuff you’d remember because it validates what you already want to believe

That sounds like the sort of stuff that is completely correct. Low fitness is significantly more risky than smoking. (I am not suggesting that anyone start or continue smoking.) https://peterattiamd.com/all-things-vo2-max/

Nicotine suppresses appetite and is also a potent nootropic. Consuming nicotine in losenge or gum form doesn't have any of the ill effects of smoking or vaping. It's also virtually impossible for a nicotine naive person to become addicted through losenges.

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

#135

Post by cycomanic »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #67
arendtio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much time do you have to get into shape? When it takes 50 years, the statistic probably doesn't hold because you will be dead by then due to the negative influence of smoking on your health.

Its not cardiovasuclar, but the top 2 causes of death in the US are tied to obesity, which takes zero time to reduce. You just have to not eat, which is actually time positive. Most humans are just incredibly bad at impulse control.

People here complain a lot about social media and the tuning for engagement which makes people addicted to their phones etc..

Well compared to the food industry industry that's nothing. Incidentally they learned their trade from the tobacco industry who invested heavily in the junk food industry in the 60s. [1]

All to say, much of modern food (and the advertising around it) is designed to get people hooked on junk food from a very early age. So saying just eat less is a simplistic solution that requires people to act against a conditioning that has been aggressively imprinted on them from a very early age.

[1] https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-events/all-news/faculty-new...

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

#136

Post by julianeon »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #123

The relationship isn't linear, you can see in https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/20/1195#sec-16 that above 2200 MET-minutes/week there is increased cancer risk which outweighs the cardiovascular benefits. Now admittedly it is a very weak correlation, and MET measurement is imprecise, but I think it is safe to say that there are risks associated with over-exercising and while being in shape is good, being a ultra-maratho…

I remember reading somewhere that, to maximize your health, run as much as you can each week, you won't hit the upper bound when it gets bad.

In the example you cited, that's 36 hours (!) of runnning in a week: meaning I'd have to run 6 hours a day and only take Sunday off each week before I was officially running too much. And I've noticed I can't run more than 4 days a week anyway, so even that's off limits. 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, even under optimal conditions, wouldn't be something I'd approach even if I was retired.

So practically speaking, "run as much as you can before your body aches stops you" seems like a good rule of thumb.

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

#137

Post by Gigachad »

kanbara wrote: post #107
AbbeSomething wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds ridiculous until you go to Amsterdam see that few wear helmets there. And everyone is cycling. They might be more inclined to cycle because they don’t need to wear a helmet. After years of cycling with helmet you get so used to it and it doesn’t bother you. But how many skip the bike because they never got used to wearing a helmet?

more like because it’s safe and there are penalties for injuring pedestrians and cyclists, and because the infrastructure is great. not riding a bike because a helmet is ??uncomfortable?? is ridiculous and probably self-selecting

Is it that ridiculous? Big tech tracking shows that basically any inconvenience at all causes people to drop off. The page taking half a second longer to load and now you’ve lost a few sales.

There isn’t going to be anyone consciously thinking “I’m not gonna ride because I have to wear a helmet” but instead “eh I can’t be bothered riding” without digging too much in to why.

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

#138

Post by aidenn0 »

jagraff wrote: post #117
s1artibartfast wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. I was responding to the time spent (out of ones day), opposed to calendar days of not eating. That said, people can make pretty rapid weight loss without eating. skip eating 1 day a week and that is 30 lbs a year for an average obese man. skip 2 days/week and that is 60 lbs/year.

Those numbers are assuming someone who skips a day of eating doesn’t increase their calorie consumption on other days to compensate

Exactly; when I fast for 24 hours, I feel a compulsion to consume every single calorie within a 3 block radius afterwards.

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

#139

Post by EasyMark »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #67
arendtio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much time do you have to get into shape? When it takes 50 years, the statistic probably doesn't hold because you will be dead by then due to the negative influence of smoking on your health.

Its not cardiovasuclar, but the top 2 causes of death in the US are tied to obesity, which takes zero time to reduce. You just have to not eat, which is actually time positive. Most humans are just incredibly bad at impulse control.

clearly there is no "just" to it as a level of effort on the part of those who are overweight. It is not an easy road and something like 95% of the people fail at it, so I guess it depends on what your meaning of "just" is.

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

#140

Post by refurb »

busymom0 wrote: post #4

Slightly related: I have been engaging in powerlifting/weightlifting for over a decade. In my initial years, I was in the "just do weights, don't need cardio" camp. However, around 2018, I started doing cardio mostly to cut body weight as I wanted to hit my personal bests on squats, deadlifts, and bench at a lower body weight. I personally experienced that my weights moved much better, especially when I was doing mor…

A lot of it comes down to how your body responds.

I found that cardio tended to severely limit my lifting gains if I did anything more than 30 minutes in a week. I stopped entirely and found my lift increased more rapidly.

But that's just me. Just like all the other variables you have - number of sets, number of repetitions, frequency of workouts, rest periods, it's good to try a few options and see which one your body responds to the best.

Post reply on HN