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

371–380 of 556 posts

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

#371

Post by ulnarkressty »

ktosobcy wrote: post #295
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 do love running and indeed it's better to jog slowly for longer time... though, to avoid injuries - please do exercises before and after because you can easily injure your (lower-)back and knees (talking from experience, chronic lower-back pain after ~20y of running…)

There are no exercises that restore joints which are degenerating. Most likely you would have gotten 5-10 more pain-free years without the running, but it would have come anyway at some point. The increased cardio health and bone density does help sweeten the terrible deal though.

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

#372

Post by arpinum »

m463 wrote: post #71
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

Bicycle helmets are not designed for impact with a car. They are designed to handle falls to the ground. The forces are quite different.

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

#373

Post by refurb »

TechDebtDevin wrote: post #203
refurb wrote: post #111

Yup, for all the risks that people focus on (microplastics, pesticide residues, etc), they don't do the easiest thing to ensure health - exercise.

Well I think you have that backwards, most people concern themselves with the former because they are the easiest to address. It's very easy to just eat less and buy healthier food. Getting your running shoes on and going for a run when you're out of shape and overweight is extremely hard for most people in that category.

That's certainly true, and nothing wrong with doing the "easiest" first, but it's interesting that people get so focused on such small changes in risk all the while ignoring the big ones.

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

#374

Post by tim333 »

m463 wrote: post #71
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

I think that's pretty true in my demographic - kind of old fat, at risk of heart attacks and a casual cyclist. For us lot heart attack deaths are like 1000x+ more than cycle head fatalities. On the other hand for young cycle racers I'd go with compulsory helmets.

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

#375

Post by andbberger »

voisin wrote: post #161
nanidin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Apple[0] it is only after the specific activities of: Outdoor Walk, Outdoor Run, and Hiking. Which explains why my estimated VO2 max goes down significantly in the winter months when I'm mainly doing cardio indoors and only taking leisurely walks with the dog outdoors. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/108790#:~:text=Apple%20Watch... .

I wonder why they can’t track cardio indoors. Perhaps because the watch doesn’t link up to most / any treadmills and is generally totally inaccurate with respect to distance and speed?

it's just the V02 max estimate which is only validated for those scenarios

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

#376

Post by pjc50 »

weatherlite wrote: post #368
agos wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it not? I thought the suggestion "have you tried exercising" to depressed people had reached meme status based on its frequency

I'm not familiar with people suggesting this. It should come from school counselors , college counselors, family doctors and therapists. The thing is all these people, statistically, are not exercising enough themselves so I find it hard to believe they will offer exercise as a first line.

It does. It's just that, as you've noticed, even those people giving the advice aren't exercising "enough" for you either because it's not as easy or rewarding as you think it is. Just saying "you should do more exercise" is completely useless because people tune it out like an advertising slogan they've heard 5,000 times before.

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

#377

Post by r_c_a_d_t_s »

gjjydfhgd wrote: post #304
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?

Helmets are also overrated. I've fallen many times and not once I've hit my head. They are probably useful in high speed impacts, but then you are fucked anyways. Gloves are much more useful on a daily basis. Saved my hand many times.

Counter point: in the last 40 years I have come off my bike only about 10 times and on 2 of those my helmet was so badly damaged that I think without it my head would have been seriously hurt. Those were both low-speed accidents, one was being hit from behind by a car and the other was hitting a nasty pothole.

I've also seen a friend have a high-speed impact: he was airlifted to hospital, survived and has mostly recovered. Looking at the state of his helmet I have no doubt that he would have died at the scene without it.

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

#378

Post by pjc50 »

danielbln wrote: post #351
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…

> It's just deeply ingrained in peoples heads that "only if it's hard or painful it must work".

Yes - this meme is extremely prevalent and extremely effective at putting people off exercise.

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

#379

Post by AlecSchueler »

jajko wrote: post #363
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking in Amsterdam is leagues safer then biking in most places in the US, though. The risks are different. Helmets aren't as important if most of your crashes are going to be with another low-speed, mostly-soft bodied cyclist. Traffic and pedestrians are pretty separated and you have your own lanes to cycle in. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of biking is convenient: The local grocery store is just a short bike ride…

Yes this is annoying in all these same debates which point to Netherland / Denmark - the infrastructure elsewhere is just not there. Lanes shared with cars (or just taking away from car lane so no normal cars fits in anymore) isn't a solution, just adding friction danger zone. Or dedicated bicycle lanes wide enough for a single row of cyclists, if even that. Also look at those 'old' basic bikes they use there, you do…

> Yes this is annoying in all these same debates which point to Netherland / Denmark - the infrastructure elsewhere is just not there

That's why we point to them. The infrastructure didn't exist in Holland either, until they choose to build it.

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

#380

Post by AlecSchueler »

EasyMark wrote: post #130
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?

Since Amsterdam is a "peak biking" city, I wouldn't trust the cited study to even apply there and would think that an independent study would be needed since it would be likely an outlier.

What about other Dutch cities like Zwolle, the Hague, Utrecht, Nijmegen, Emmen, Middleburg etc etc etc?
Post reply on HN