Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

news.cuanschutz.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#81

Post by zaradvutra »

anon291 wrote: post #69

I have no idea what 'sedentary' even means. I work on a desk mostly but I also walk 15 - 20 k steps per day because that's just my life and I accomplish most daily tasks (shopping, going to park, coffee, etc walking). Is that sedentary?

According to the study:

  Sedentary (SED, n = 9): No regular exercise or elevated heart rate beyond daily tasks. Active (AC, n = 10): ≥150 min/week aerobic exercise for ≥6 months.
I guess if you walk fast and sustain that walking pace for some time, it could count (HR in Zone 2/3). But there's really no replacement for a couple sessions of any sport a week (running, cycling, swimming, tennis, soccer - whatever gets you on your feet and moving).

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#82

Post by Tarq0n »

esailija wrote: post #74
fsckboy wrote: post #71

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.

If you live paycheck to paycheck and then get a 25% salary increase, if everything else stays the same, in a year you have already saved 300% worth of your original salary vs 0%. 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.

Exactly, this is called a marginal effect and it's very relevant for our bodies which basically need their homeostasis disrupted to be prompted to adapt.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#84

Post by acuozzo »

nine_k wrote: post #47
Schiendelman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a big part of why zoning is so dangerous. In most of the western world (Europe too on average), we pushed down population density so much that your typical destinations are much less likely to be within walking distance, so you don't walk.

Indeed. In NYC I do 98% of my shopping by walking. I can reach my doctor by walking. My daughter used to walk to school because it was a 10 minutes walk (and an excellent school). That would be impossible in a suburban setting; at best, one of these destinations would be within the theoretical waking distance, but without the walkways.

> That would be impossible in a suburban setting;

Not necessarily true. The "village center" idea Jim Rouse used in his design of Columbia, MD could be used to solve the problem.

All of these things are within walking distance if you live in Columbia's village of Wilde Lake (and, of course, your health insurance covers the primary care physicians in walking distance).

I'm guessing you're thinking of typical "stroad" suburbs, but alternatives are possible and do exist.

Unfortunately, the suburb has to be the product of planning like Columbia. Typical "emergent" suburbs turn into unwalkable ones.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#85

Post by bluecalm »

adam_arthur wrote: post #34
makeitdouble wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of that for exercising, but was ignorant of what "intense" actually means in this context. And you're right. Looking around, the simplest wording I get: > the intensity must be high. This means that you need to really exert yourself so you get out of breath. [ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-lit... ] So if climbing the stairs gets someone out of breath it's intense (and I also see…

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.

HIIT vs LISS is a false dichotomy. If you look at endurance athletes the most important part of the training is in "heavy domain" that is between what typical LISS and HIIT are. This is intensity high enough that you need to breathe faster but it's still sustainable for at least 40-70 minutes.

>>E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort.

This is very unlikely to be true. Studies I've seen usually compare low intensity to HIIT and then measure things like VO2max improvements instead of direct health outcomes. VO2max is a good health indicator for general population and it's maximized short term by HIIT style of training but it's not enough to conclude short term improvements in VO2max imply long term health.

>>The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.

I very much doubt it. Usual number mentioned is at least 5 hours but in general the more the better.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#86

Post by bluecalm »

econ wrote: post #46
makeitdouble wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aware of that for exercising, but was ignorant of what "intense" actually means in this context. And you're right. Looking around, the simplest wording I get: > the intensity must be high. This means that you need to really exert yourself so you get out of breath. [ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-lit... ] So if climbing the stairs gets someone out of breath it's intense (and I also see…

There (for example) is High intensity interval training. What that is depends somewhat on who you ask but to give an example. Take a normal exercise like cycling for 45 minutes. If you do HIIT you cycle as fast as you can for 10-15 seconds (or until properly worn out) then rest long enough to be able to do it again. You only end up working out for less than one minute or just half a minute in total but you get simila…

>>If you do HIIT you cycle as fast as you can for 10-15 seconds (or until properly worn out) then rest long enough to be able to do it again. You only end up working out for less than one minute or just half a minute in total but you get similar if not better results than the 45 minutes workout.

You will improve things like muscle buffer capacity and maybe VO2max (although for that longer intervals are much better) but those are not the most important things for metabolic health or health in general.

Recommending sprinting to untrained people is just a very bad idea. Fatigue and injury risk is higher. Benefits when it comes to metabolic health are lower.

It's important for exercise to be in heavy domain. Maybe it's a good idea to be in severe domain for a while (VO2max training) but typical HIIT hacks maximize pain/injury risk/recovery time while giving less benefits (unless you compare it to something silly like strolling for 30 minutes).

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#88

Post by owebmaster »

topgrain2 wrote: post #25
SchemaLoad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if we could just lay in a pod 24/7 taking peptides and nutrient supplements while having an endless stream of instagram reals beamed in to our eyeballs on our Meta Raybans. That way we would never have to do pesky things like go outside or move.

On the other hand, a pill to replace all the un-fun activity needed to stay in shape while having a family and office job would let you enjoy fun activity a lot more, and want to do those things more often, since they’re all more-fun and safer if you’re already in shape.

People in good shape don't hate exercise.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#90

Post by Schiendelman »

Earw0rm wrote: post #80
Schiendelman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! Fitness scales super closely with localized population density.

This is a recent phenomenon. 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.

Yep, and we caused it, through the massive subsidy to cars that was the federal highway program. Many tranches of spending, from ~1937 forward, caused this.
Post reply on HN