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

321–330 of 556 posts

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

#321

Post by wjnc »

keybored wrote: post #266

Some of my peers are deep into running. I don’t get it. Running is sometimes fun for me but most often painful. Then I overheard one of them (the fittest) say to a budding runner that he [should] do mostly easy sessions. Okay what’s easy to him? He said that so slow that it can feel awkward and unnatural. What? Then I searched around and found out about Zone 2 and how you should do most of your work in that zone when…

A part of become a good runner is letting go of expectations. There is a lot of quasi meditative written on the topic, but even if that’s not your thing: even if you walk/jog/walk to retain a constant, middle to low heart rate you could easily have the same effort as a trained runner doing some great mileage. The humbling part is part of the experience. Stay away from anything with speed for the first thousand miles. It will only lead to injuries. The good thing is, both condition and speed will improve very fast and the happy run feeling isn’t based on speed or distance. It’s being outside, alone, in silence with sounds and weather while doing something actively (but not overly). Did I mention I miss running? (Alas I am now missing some necessary cartilage.)

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

#322

Post by bo1024 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #242
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…

I love these kinds of posts. They are ridiculous. First: > Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change Second: > the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day Are you joking? You are asking average people to commit to 90-120 of c-v exercise per day? So, 7 days per week? This stuff is nonsense. Most people would quit after a week. I guess 99% of people could not sustain this for more than 3…

They did say "simple", not "easy"...

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

#323

Post by vasco »

RamRodification wrote: post #312
vasco wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying other things that aren't free doesn't make the first thing become free. People who don't use helmets don't do it because they are too expensive. They do it because it's not convenient to carry, because it's not cool, because it messes your hair, because you need somewhere to store it. (Not) Free helmets solve zero of these problems, it's just a bad idea.

You are just nitpicking on semantics. If the total cost of publicly funded healthcare is reduced from people using helmets then that could result in not increasing what you are "making other people pay" even though you are also offering helmets at no cost. That is what most people would consider free. People who don't use helmets for whatever reason would be more inclined to do so if they could just go pick one up, a…

Well we disagree. I think there's way more effective things you can do, and this is demonstrated by the netherlands where I live. For an idea to be good it doesn't just have to in theory be net positive, many things can be net positive if you use tax money for them. The problem is we don't have an infinite government or infinite resources or time, so we should pick good measures.

All the cities maintaining a bunch of locations full of helmets for free pickup would just create more waste. I bet people would pick them up and just discard them when it wouldn't be convenient to use them. And nobody wants to pickup and wear a discarded helmet that is dirty and was in the elements so there would be huge waste. You can have a similar effect without any waste by just having a class that teaches children to ride bycicles at school and tells them the benefits of helmets and keeps helmets there for that one class. This memory would be with you for life, and you'd make your own decision.

If helmets were cost prohibitive I'd be with you, I believe in using tax money for that kind of stuff, but price is not the reason people don't use helmets.

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

#324

Post by reify »

Not sure about this one.

When in my fourties I looked in the mirror one day and thought "my god man you have piled on a few pounds lately".

I immediately went out and joined a gym for a bit of indoor running

So, I went weekly for an hour or two. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

My I'm not sure!

I was happily running along on my treadmill one day, hreart rate at a constant 125bpm, whe suddenly there was an almighty commotion on the treadmill next to me.

The guy running next to me had collapsed.

He was 52 years old. I knew this because we had had a few chats.

He suffered a heart attack in the gym and died on the treadmill.

Poor guy. Poor family.

I gave up going to the gym after that.

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

#325

Post by Broken_Hippo »

vasco wrote: post #263
goda90 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing is free, you're just making other people pay for helmets that likely wouldn't be used.

Everyone that comments that "nothing is free" is just being a pedant in a way that means the conversation can't usually go forward as easily.

People do understand that with government programs, "free" means taxpayer funded. As in, almost everyone understands that. The comment isn't needed. Those comments are the reason I put things like "fare free public transport" - not because it is more realistic, but because arguing with these comments is exhausting.

Society is full of things other people helped pay for - and you most definitely use them. Your health insurance company pools money together to cover everyone's ills, for example. You don't pay individually for your infrastructure use - other people help you pay so that you can get electricity. And so on. You can't have modern society without this.

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

#326

Post by TomK32 »

SwiftyBug wrote: post #299
keybored wrote: post #266

Some of my peers are deep into running. I don’t get it. Running is sometimes fun for me but most often painful. Then I overheard one of them (the fittest) say to a budding runner that he [should] do mostly easy sessions. Okay what’s easy to him? He said that so slow that it can feel awkward and unnatural. What? Then I searched around and found out about Zone 2 and how you should do most of your work in that zone when…

I too hate to run. And I do it everyday. To me it's the time I get to be alone with my podcasts for an hour. Now I look forward to it every morning. I'm not sure in what zone I usually run, but my pace is usually around 6min/Km.

6min/km is an average pace, so I do wonder why you still hate it? Have you looked into your cadence? Are you steps too long or the shoes too hard? Or do you have to run through post-apocalyptic ruins?

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

#327

Post by Broken_Hippo »

m3kw9 wrote: post #70
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.

Getting back to the baseline isn’t a bonus

It most definitely is a bonus if you aren't there now.

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

#328

Post by bo1024 »

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…

If the authors don't draw conclusions from that, I wouldn't either.

For example, suppose the main impact of exercise on cancer risk were simply the correlation with time spent outdoors in the sun. Then you would expect to see a chart like this. But a conclusion like 'limit running to 3 hours/week, while walking can be up to 12 hours/week' would be totally wrong.

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

#329

Post by eimrine »

com2kid wrote: post #184
eimrine wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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!

Can you describe the most common scenario of how your helmet got broken?

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

#330

Post by pjc50 »

weatherlite wrote: post #163

It's also absolutely amazing for mental health. It's a shame it isn't considered a first line of treatment for mental health because it's super effective (and free).

Exercise is the perfect treatment for mental health: it doesn't cost the "provider" anything, and when the patient doesn't do it because they're depressed or disordered, you can blame them for not cooperating. It's not a solution, it's something you can say so that it's not your problem any more.

(Would be great if there were actually prescribed work-compatible supervised exercise sessions on offer, but AFAIK that's not a thing offered anywhere by any health service)

Post reply on HN