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

181–190 of 556 posts

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

#181

Post by SamPatt »

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.

It's the same with lifting and adding muscle mass.

If you've never lifted before and you hit the gym consistently and have the proper diet, you will get some serious "newb gains." The first year can be amazing.

But if you've lifted seriously for a decade, it's totally different. Muscle mass is very hard to add now.

Cardio gains from a coach potato introducing a serious routine will be incredible. I went from not being able to run more than 30 seconds to running a 5k in 4-5 months, and that's without pushing myself extremely hard.

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

#182

Post by snemvalts »

lostmsu wrote: post #118
electrondood wrote: post #92

I was blown away at just how little exercise is required to significantly increase your lifespan: 20 minutes a day, 3 times a week. That's it. The Copenhagen City Heart Study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology in 2018 found that light jogging for 20 minutes a day, 3x a week reduces all-cause mortality by 78%. That's insane.

Assuming 80 year lifespan -10 years of childhood this comes out to approximately 1 year spent on exercise. That does not include preparation and recovery times.

If you have to measure time spent and do cost/benefit analysis, you're most likely not going to stick with it for the entirety of life.

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

#183

Post by s1artibartfast »

cycomanic wrote: post #135
s1artibartfast wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Most of life is acting against one conditioned impulse in favor of a better one.

Every solution to every problem involves overcoming ones own detrimental impulses in favor of positive ones.

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

#184

Post by com2kid »

eimrine wrote: post #142
kanbara wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

> Me and my bicyclist friends have never injured a head while falling down from bike

Back when I did bike, I'd fall off and hit my (helmeted) head once a year or so.

I was always thankful for having a helmet.

Granted it was typically doing something stupid (jumping a curb or such), but still, I was thankful for having a helmet!

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

#185

Post by goda90 »

abandonliberty wrote: post #165
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

More cyclists on the road makes it safer for cyclists. Combined with risk compensation, this seems enough to make helmet laws a net negative. Well studied. Wear a helmet though, they work!

A better alternative law would be to provide free helmets. People can choose not to use them out of preference but at least they'll have one to make that choice with.

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

#186

Post by Mathnerd314 »

julianeon wrote: post #136
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 hour…

I'm not sure what math you're using. 12.9 MET for running * 3 hours * 60 minutes/hour is 2322 MET-minutes, so just 3 hours of running is sufficient to exceed the 2200 threshold. 36 hours of running would be 27864 MET-minutes, of course it is too much. But 3 hours of running in a week is quite easy to exceed, e.g. if you run half an hour every morning.

There are some studies which suggest that the artery buildup from frequent running is not bad, but these don't take cancer or other factors into account - in contrast all-cause mortality is one of the most comprehensive statistics available. The drawback is that although it gives you a number, that number might be affected by unknown variables.

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

#187

Post by voisin »

julianeon wrote: post #136
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 hour…

> In the example you cited, that's 36 hours (!) of runnning in a week

Isn’t OP saying explicitly that 2200 MET minutes per week is simply 3 hours of running per week at 8mph? Where does your 36 hours come from?

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

#188

Post by ywnico »

julianeon wrote: post #136
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 hour…

MET-minutes seem to be "Metabolic equivalent of task" minutes [1]. In the paper, they give running an MET of 8 (paragraph 3 of Data Analysis section), so 2200 MET-minutes of running would be 2200/8 = 275 minutes, if I understand correctly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task

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

#189

Post by SamPatt »

38 wrote: post #164
Aperocky wrote: post #47

Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change (compared to other things with this magnitude of impact). It was a transformative experience to go from 40 VO2max to 57 (as reported by Apple Watch, and losing 30lbs on the way) over the past 12 months. The best part about it is that I didn't even have to give up anything - the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day also had the effect of maki…

2 hours a day is a ridiculous amount

Why is two hours ridiculous?

I find most people who devote themselves like this enjoy the process. If they enjoy it, it objectively improves their body, and they have the time - why not?

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

#190

Post by rhplus »

mvkel wrote: post #173
rhplus wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really doesn’t matter for most amateurs trying to improve their health whether the metric is accurate or not. The huge benefit of fitness trackers is that a metric is a metric is a metric. Eat less, exercise more, sleep soundly - you can’t go wrong, and if the metric is steps, or HR, or pace, or calories burned, or (in this case) estimated VO2max and seeing improvements in those metrics relative to a baseline is a…

I disagree. Weight loss doesn't automatically mean "healthier." Using vo2 as a metric of "health" would not be correct if weight loss is the sole attribution of vo2 gain. One can lose weight without doing a minute of exercise and vo2 would increase. If one is interested in getting healthier, I think it's well worth the time to learn about how the metrics work.

My point is that for most adults in the world right now (western, industrialized, developing, modern, whatever) there is an obesity epidemic and any amount of focused self-care through exercise and diet will improve health outcomes. Eat less, exercise more. If an arbitrary metric on fitness tracker helps you reach that goal, then just do it.
Post reply on HN