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

481–490 of 556 posts

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

#481

Post by lukas099 »

fransje26 wrote: post #366
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…

> Then it hit me. I’ve probably been jogging a lot in Zone 3. Or higher? Because the harder you go the more benefit, right? That's unfortunately not fully how it works. For maximum benefits, you would want to train your aerobic energy system, and to do that without risking injury, zone 2 is the recommended zone. The claim is that pain is gain, but more often than not, pain is your body telling you you are over the li…

As I understand, aerobic-only training increases your anaerobic threshold (you can do more without going anaerobic) while anaerobic training improves your anaerobic tolerance (you can continue to function with more lactic acid buildup)

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

#482

Post by Leherenn »

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 think the oft missed bit about zone 2 is that the goal is to increase volume. If you simply reduce intensity without increasing volume, you'll get worse, not better.

If you only run 30 minutes once a week, you won't see as many gains if you do it in zone 2 than zone 3/4. But you also can't run 10h/w zone 4/5, so that's where the zone 2 comes into play. It allows to increase volume without increasing fatigue/risk of injury too much.

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

#483

Post by beingfit »

layman51 wrote: post #16
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.

I wonder how it estimates VO2Max and how often depending on the model. On my Series 3, it seems to make a data point two or three times a month and it’s concerning to me because it seems like it isn’t trending up even though I have started to do more cardio exercises. Instead, it has consistently reported a range that it says is below average. Could it be that it’s just pretty difficult to improve VO2Max in general?…

> I wonder how it estimates VO2Max and how often depending on the model. On my Series 3, it seems to make a data point two or three times a month and it’s concerning to me because it seems like it isn’t trending up even though I have started to do more cardio exercises.

The description in the Health App under Cardio Fitness (the one that shows VO2 Max) says that it measure it only for outdoor walks, hikes and runs. If you don’t do these outdoor activities, it won’t measure or record VO2 Max. I’ve seen this reflected in my measurements. I do HIIT and cardio workouts at home, and it certainly doesn’t measure or record VO2 Max.

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

#484

Post by lukas099 »

caeril wrote: post #438
bigfudge wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only have correlation for lots of important results. Smoking cigarettes is one example. Experiments are almost always better, and a lot of correlational research is terrible. But knowing something for sure doesn’t always require an experiment.

That's a bit different. There's no reasonable path to reverse-causality with smoking. "People prone to developing lung cancer are more likely to take up smoking" doesn't really make sense. On the other hand, "Fat and unhealthy people are more prone not to exercise" is a reasonable reverse-causality position, for all kind of reasons. Your knees hurt, you're self-conscious, it's extremely uncomfortable, your fat jiggle…

"People who smoke are more likely to do other things that the medical establishment condemns" is a plausible non-causal explanation for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

I think that we just have to look at the best explanation for the current data to determine causality, but it’s always a guess.

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

#485

Post by lukas099 »

eimrine wrote: post #336
pjerem wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helmets aren’t uncomfortable if you try them before buying them. There are different shapes, materials, sizes and settings. About finding my helmet, I always attach it together with the bike with the U lock. Unless I’m parked in a secure place where I let it hang on the handlebars. I’m not especially advocating for mandatory helmets and I’m the first to say absence of helmet shouldn’t prevent you to ride, but if you…

> Helmets aren’t uncomfortable if you try them before buying them. There are different shapes, materials, sizes and settings. Come on man, I have never rode a bicycle more expensive than $100 despite riding at least 5000km annually. I bet that your helmet costs more than all of my 3 bicycles.

If you have a $100 bike then a helmet that is more expensive than your bike its totally reasonable.

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

#486

Post by nikolay »

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…

It's natural to run in these cases:

- chasing an animal during hunting;

- being chased by a beast;

- playing.

You don't have to really run for good cardio fitnes. In addition to HIIT, now there's IWT (Interval Walking Training), which yields similar results. Also, slow running seems to be more beneficial, too [0].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z71aHZ4scMs

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

#487

Post by r00fus »

lostlogin wrote: post #360
apatheticonion wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had to back off that and instead do other games (ie, wandrer.earth gives you points for "new miles") because I got a bit too competitive and borderline dangerous.

Besides, I got records and fastest times when e.g. wind was at my back or the lights all went my way - so I knew it wasn't just my effort & just happenstance.

I still use Strava - mostly as a personal blog of my efforts & take a picture of wildlife or crazy videos to share with others sometimes.

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

#488

Post by r00fus »

uvesten wrote: post #401
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…

> And try to not let my groin fall asleep. I was "forced" into biking a few years ago (had an injury that prevented running) and had the same problem with the groin. I thought it was a natural thing with biking, but it can actually be quite bad for you in the long run, and it's very fixable! Sitting position and saddle makes a huge difference. Ofc position is the cheaper thing to fix, but saddle is easier. Go to a bi…

Yes, it could be a fit issue - ie, seat height is wrong, need more padding in your clothing, etc.

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

#489

Post by r00fus »

Mawr wrote: post #392
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…

Just remember not to get lulled into a false sense of security just because you're wearing a helmet. PPE is by far the least effective safety precaution. If you have to ride alongside cars, make sure you practice defensive riding.

Be predictable. Be visible [1]. Take the lane when needed (if you're traveling fast enough).

[1] https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/698001

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

#490

Post by lukas099 »

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…

Yeah, I think the usgov-recommended guidelines of 150min/week (plus two strength training sessions) is a decent starting point thought.
Post reply on HN