71–80 of 111 posts
do you think mitochondria notice the difference? I don't.
If I cut my caloric intake, I drop weight like nobody's business, and that's all thanks to my mitochondria at their place in the chain. It's the same thing my mitochondria are doing when I overeat and put on weight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crazy part is you don't even have to DESIGN it, the market is desperate to build walkable density because it's so much more profitable than anything else. You just have to LET landowners build upward.
But then you'll run into traffic/parking issues unless you have a good public transit and land use policy (e.g. bikes, trams, mixed use development, etc). That requires such good design skills few cities have mastered it (Tokyo, Copenhagen, Singapore).
Human populations naturally gravitate towards walking, and it's pretty much active sabotage of the outside environment that has broken this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men has negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women; when reviewed at scale) Can you link evidence for this? I stay at 12% year around as male (confirmed via DEXA)
Sounds like absolute BS to me. Even in very large scale studies specifically designed for studying mortality, only morbid obesity has been negatively correlated with lifespan. There is even some evidence that being a little overweight is actually helpful for the very old (essentially, because it gives them more buffer if they get sick enough that they stop eating for a while). A lot of this is because modern medicine…
Our mitochondria process the total of our energy needs every day, while exercise adds, percentagewise, only fractional additional energy need. do you think mitochondria notice the difference? I don't. If I cut my caloric intake, I drop weight like nobody's business, and that's all thanks to my mitochondria at their place in the chain. It's the same thing my mitochondria are doing when I overeat and put on weight.
That is even with your unwarranted assumption that all energy use is the same and doesn't cause different adaptations. This kind of simplicity is just not happening in biology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men has negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women; when reviewed at scale) Can you link evidence for this? I stay at 12% year around as male (confirmed via DEXA)
Sounds like absolute BS to me. Even in very large scale studies specifically designed for studying mortality, only morbid obesity has been negatively correlated with lifespan. There is even some evidence that being a little overweight is actually helpful for the very old (essentially, because it gives them more buffer if they get sick enough that they stop eating for a while). A lot of this is because modern medicine…
Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies.
Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people.
From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) confounding bias from heterogeneity in body shape; (2) positive survival bias in high-BMI samples due to recent weight gain; and (3) negative survival bias in low-BMI samples due to recent weight loss
And if you follow the longevity/health space and studies as they come out, it's becoming pretty clear that bodyfat is objectively bad for you above a pretty low baseline.
It shows up in insulin resistance, heart markers, inflammation, and once you control for confounding factors sufficiently, mortality.
You likely won't become diabetic with a bodyfat of 25%, but all your health markers will be worse than somebody at 15%. This is measurable and clear.
Seems like a potential use for peptides like Mots-C or SLU-PP-332
It would be cool if one could safely adapt to modern life (lots of sitting, required focus over long sessions) without having to spend time exercising if they don't want to (to be clear, some people want to). Imagine if you could just take something to get all the benefits of exercise, without having to actually spend the time. That'd be pretty great for everyone if it truly was safe and without downsides (skeptical)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen studies like this before. They'll suggest that as little as 15 minutes of exercise significantly improves health in some group they studied. My initial assumption was they added 15 minutes of additional exercise. No, they studied people who did literally nothing. Then had them exercise 15 minutes a day. As you might guess, their outcomes improved greatly.
This is sadly not a rare type of person. I'm worried my parents fit this description, they drive everywhere and work an office job. I'd guess on average they get 0 minutes of exercise a day. I think people get this image in their head that someone who doesn't exercise ever is this comically fat unemployed person when in reality it's the average office worker who isn't fitness minded. A good chunk of HN users wouldn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like absolute BS to me. Even in very large scale studies specifically designed for studying mortality, only morbid obesity has been negatively correlated with lifespan. There is even some evidence that being a little overweight is actually helpful for the very old (essentially, because it gives them more buffer if they get sick enough that they stop eating for a while). A lot of this is because modern medicine…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies. Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people. From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) co…
https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/bmi-we-know-its-flawed-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, typically "intense exercise" is implying HIIT style cardio. More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort. The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.
> More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. For best results run fast and far. During my personal best marathon (3h 15min) my heart rate averaged in the 170 range
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is something I've visually observed all over Australia. The walkable areas are noticeably fitter. I don't think all of those people just happen to care about fitness more, they just spend more time moving to get between places rather than sitting all day.
Absolutely! Fitness scales super closely with localized population density.
The original reason for low population density was agricultural work, which - even in the early days of mechanisation - was plenty physical.
Living in exurbia to work and consume like a city dweller is a new kind of stupid.