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

101–110 of 111 posts

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

#101

Post by fsckboy »

Tarq0n wrote: post #82
esailija wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

marginal effects are small, but it's where the integration and feedback add up or even multiply. the claim here is that the mitchondria are paying attention to their own marginal quantities which are quite small; the outsized effects if they are someplace will lie elsewhere. For example, sendentary life will lead to less muscle mass, which means fewer mitochondria overall, but that's not the individual mitochondria "noticing" anything.

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

#103

Post by jr3592 »

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.

exactly.

leave it to a forum mostly populated with software developers to have the most hyperbolic takes.

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

#104

Post by topgrain2 »

owebmaster wrote: post #88
topgrain2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plenty of them hate at least some of it!

Source: have spent years at a stretch in pretty great shape. I definitely hated a good amount of what I had to do to achieve and maintain that. Disliked the activity, or simply would rather have been doing something else. But, lots of other stuff (including pretty much all other physical activity) is way more fun if you're at least somewhat in-shape.

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

#105

Post by camdenreslink »

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.

Really depends on the suburb. Where I live in NYS (a suburb of Buffalo) all of those things are within walking distance if you live within the village limits.

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

#106

Post by wonderwonder »

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.

I legit love the gym, if I couldn't go anymore I don't know what I would do with my time, that's my only hobby.

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

#107

Post by Herring »

Schiendelman wrote: post #65
Herring wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I know it seems this way, but all you have to do is not subsidize driving with government provided parking, and not build highways , and there's no traffic problem, because people don't get cars in the first place - they don't have anywhere to put them and there's no highway to punch through dense neighborhoods. Transit and bike infrastructure can always be built after the fact through public demand. When you let go,…

I see what you're getting at. That's not going to work. Public transit falls into multiple well-known market failure modes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

You need considerable govt intervention, just aimed properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

Try this: go to your favorite frontier LLM (I like Gemini pro - free in aistudio), paste this entire exchange we're having, and ask it to carefully analyze it and assess who seems more correct. It's a long story.

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

#108

Post by Schiendelman »

camdenreslink wrote: post #105
nine_k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really depends on the suburb. Where I live in NYS (a suburb of Buffalo) all of those things are within walking distance if you live within the village limits.

It's interesting - whether examples of potential destination categories are within walking distance doesn't move the needle on health (physical or mental) outcomes, compared to absolute residential density moving the needle tens of percent.

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

#109

Post by Schiendelman »

Herring wrote: post #107
Schiendelman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it seems this way, but all you have to do is not subsidize driving with government provided parking, and not build highways , and there's no traffic problem, because people don't get cars in the first place - they don't have anywhere to put them and there's no highway to punch through dense neighborhoods. Transit and bike infrastructure can always be built after the fact through public demand. When you let go,…

I see what you're getting at. That's not going to work. Public transit falls into multiple well-known market failure modes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure You need considerable govt intervention, just aimed properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development Try this: go to your favorite frontier LLM (I like Gemini pro - free in aistudio), paste this entire exchange we're having, and a…

Of course you still need government intervention to get transit. I'm not saying "no intervention". I'm being precise: "private companies will ask to operate it".

It also doesn't matter. Which sounds weird, but it's true. If you just let people build density without transit, the market will almost always build it in convenient places (a bank won't underwrite if they don't think it'll be successful), the people who move into it will either be happy with walking or they'll organize.

I've done a lot of such organization, if you're curious. I spearheaded Seattle's successful 2016 ballot measure for $50 billion in additional rail transit, much of which is now under construction. It'll take more ballot measures, but we're getting there: https://seattletransitblog.com/2011/11/23/lets-build-a-seatt... And along the way, we had to save bus service, so I forced the city to do that too: https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2014/04/friend...

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

#110

Post by Herring »

Schiendelman wrote: post #109
Herring wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you're getting at. That's not going to work. Public transit falls into multiple well-known market failure modes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure You need considerable govt intervention, just aimed properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development Try this: go to your favorite frontier LLM (I like Gemini pro - free in aistudio), paste this entire exchange we're having, and a…

Of course you still need government intervention to get transit. I'm not saying "no intervention". I'm being precise: "private companies will ask to operate it". It also doesn't matter. Which sounds weird, but it's true. If you just let people build density without transit, the market will almost always build it in convenient places (a bank won't underwrite if they don't think it'll be successful), the people who mov…

Ok that probably explains it. We're just talking past each other. You're doing really good work, and Seattle is one of the top transit cities in the US, but those three cities I mentioned before are in a whole different league as global outliers. Best practices in an American historical/political context are completely different than best practices overall. You can find lots of examples historically and today (eg in developing countries) where density outpaces good transit and the result is gridlock/pollution/etc. Seattle is just not that dense (yet).
Post reply on HN