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

351–360 of 556 posts

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

#351

Post by danielbln »

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've been streak running (so running at least a mile per day with no exceptions, mostly 5ks during the week, 10-20k on weekends) for almost 8 years (2817 days). The single best tip I give to everyone is "slow down! run slow!"

Of course, almost no-one adheres to it unless they are already well practiced. It's just deeply ingrained in peoples heads that "only if it's hard or painful it must work". Then people check out of running because it feels like crap, which it does if you always push too hard.

In my opinion, three of the most important rules are:

- slow down! does it feel "too slow"? Great, that's the right speed for most runs

- small steps! feels awkward at first, but is sooo much more efficient and soo much better for your joints

- land on mid- or forefoot (that happens mostly automatically with small steps)

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

#352

Post by bjornsing »

cycomanic wrote: post #341
bjornsing wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science. Or perhaps you don’t fully understand the challenges of establishing causality? Just because an intervention causes an improvement in some bio markers that are associated with lower mortality (unfortunately) does not mean that the intervention will cause lower mortality. The classic example i…

> > People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science. > Or perhaps you don’t fully understand the challenges of establishing causality? Just because an intervention causes an improvement in some bio markers that are associated with lower mortality (unfortunately) does not mean that the intervention will cause lower mortality. > The classic exa…

> > Why? Probably because vitamin D is produced in the skin when we are in the sun. The more healthy subpopulation of any study will typically spend more time outside, so they will have higher vitamin D levels. But it’s (relative) health that causes higher vitamin D, not the other way around.

> You realise that you are proclaiming causality here?

Yes, with emphasis on the word probably. Just like I will happily proclaim that exercise probably lowers mortality.

> A RCT does not establish causality. That's essentially my point. A single study/experiment never proofs causality. You need a theory to explain the causality and multiple studies that falsify other possible causality mechanisms. That has been done extensively for excercise and morbity/mortality, the current study just establishes that this also correlates in the bigger picture. So yes the study itself does not "proof" causality, it's just a piece in the bigger puzzle of causality.

The beauty of an end-to-end RCT is that it effectively neutralizes other possible causality mechanisms. You do not seem to appreciate this. My impression is that your reasoning is more in line with evidence based medicine (EBM), rather than the hypothetico-deductive method that I personally subscribe to. In my way of thinking there will never be definitive “proof” of causality, but I will happily take a drug that has gone through sufficiently powerful RCTs that failed to prove its ineffectiveness (and harm).

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

#353

Post by bpizzi »

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…

There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]).

Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].

In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.

The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.

[1] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/high-intensity-zo...

[2] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/

[3] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/aerobic-zone-2-tr...

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

#354

Post by aqme28 »

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…

If you don’t like running, find an exercise you do enjoy. Running isn’t the only cardio out there. If you’re jumping through hoops to force yourself to enjoy it, try a few other activities. Me, I can only get myself to run if I’m engaged in sports.

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

#355

Post by apatheticonion »

bpizzi wrote: post #353
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…

There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]). Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel inst…

I got a indoor bicycle trainer (with power readings) and do intervals in Zone 5.

I created a custom "track" on TrainerDay and spend about 20 minutes 2-3 times a week doing this.

It feels like dying - but I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment

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

#356

Post by llm_trw »

BenFranklin100 wrote: post #105
llm_trw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morbidity and mortality, which is what the article's title is about.

The article is about how morbidity and mortality relate to cardiovascular fitness. The fact that waist to hip ratio also is related to morbidity and mortality is a bit irrelevant in that specific context. One can imagine a person who vigorously rows every morning for 45 minutes and has a high cardiovascular fitness, but who also has a very poor diet and is thus fat.

One can imagine many a thing which doesn't exist.

One should stick to the facts however.

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

#357

Post by Ylpertnodi »

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…

Zone 2 works on a bicycle, too.

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

#358

Post by bpizzi »

apatheticonion wrote: post #355
bpizzi wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]). Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel inst…

I got a indoor bicycle trainer (with power readings) and do intervals in Zone 5. I created a custom "track" on TrainerDay and spend about 20 minutes 2-3 times a week doing this. It feels like dying - but I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment

Yeah, I'm in Team Rowing (indoor) myself, and 30min of HIIT every week is HELL. My next session is in 1h...

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

#359

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

01100011 wrote: post #284
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…

Are you carrying excess weight? I've been overweight most of my life. For a while in my 40s I hiked a lot and my BMI dropped into the normal range. When that happened, I became a runner. It felt amazing. I would run 5+ miles and felt like I could keep going forever. Once I put the weight back on(new relationship with someone who liked to eat), I couldn't run. It hurt and didn't feel good. I don't know what the curren…

Unless you have actual mechanical problems with your joints or you're, as you said, heavy or out of normal BMI, then running is actually healthy for your joints. One caveat is the surface you run on. Running on softer surfaces than asphalt can be easier on your legs and feet.

Most injuries from running come from repetitive motion overuse and are muscular. People go out way too hard then discover that their muscles are weak for running (especially hips and glutes). Easing into running and doing some weightlifting or bodyweight exercises to supplement can usually keep you injury free and running well into old age. Some research shows it actually reducing the onset of osteoarthritis.

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

#360

Post by lostlogin »

apatheticonion wrote: post #355
bpizzi wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]). Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel inst…

I got a indoor bicycle trainer (with power readings) and do intervals in Zone 5. I created a custom "track" on TrainerDay and spend about 20 minutes 2-3 times a week doing this. It feels like dying - but I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment

> I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment

Biking to work using Strava is like this for me.

It gamifies exercise in a very addictive manner. Getting a PR, being quickest on a segment or becoming a local legend. There is always someone or something to beat.

Post reply on HN