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

Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 215 posts

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#121

Post by ameister14 »

IanDrake wrote: post #46
unoti wrote: post #4

I've been doing strength training (the program is called Stronglifts 5x5[1]) with freeweights for about 9 months now. I just turned 44, and I've never felt better, and I'm stronger now than I have ever been. The program I use describes 3 simple exercises to do 3 times a week, and each workout takes me 30-45 minutes. Very little equipment is needed. It's hard to find good information about this on the net that covers…

I'm going to look into this. I'm halfway through p90x (again) and starting to feel really beat up, instead of really great. This is where I usually get some kind of injury with p90x. Actually, just yesterday I think I pulled my trap a bit. Now it hurts to hold my left arm out (as if reaching to shake someone's hand). Anyway, I work out for surfing. I'm happy with the p90x results, but again, starting to feel 10 years…

I used to be a competitive ski racer. p90x is basically the same workout we did for cross-training with more pull-ups and less weight training; it's a weird result. You get fitter but at least in my case you don't really feel awesome; you can just do things you couldn't before on the hill.

Weight training actually helps prevent injuries. If you don't have that as a part of your routine, you should add it.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#122

Post by kayoone »

3327 wrote: post #35

here is my 2 cents. Im a coder, developer but I am ripped (sorry for the self love) I work out like crazy and actively surf / kitesurf, rockclimb. So my gym sessions have always had a purpose - to make myself stronger per the requirements of those sports. So my 2 cents - get of the whey protein. don't take it do not touch it. I have no scientific evidence but way too many people are on that and no long term studies.…

Even in healthy atheletes theres always the risk of heart attack of even sudden cardiac arrest which is the most common reason of death in young athletes.

Doing excessive amounts of sports stops being healthy at some point but overall its still alot better than todo nothing of course. There was a guy on HN a c ouple of weeks ago that had a sudden cardiac arrest in the gym while running on the treadmill and he is 22 years old. He just survived because he was incredibly lucky.

Those cases are extremely rare of course, just saying that working out is not without risks, especially in pro athletes. Its never a bad idea to go see a cardiologist if you work out alot.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#124

Post by bjterry »

tokenadult wrote: post #65

The most statistically astute comment posted here so far is the top-level comment by micro_cam https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5493772 pointing out that the study design here doesn't involve random assignment to strength training of any kind, but rather just observation of the study population over time. Sure, it's a good idea to be stronger rather than weaker. Moreover, it is plausible that exercises that tend…

From a Bayesian perspective, you should have had a high prior that lifting weights will cause an in increase your longevity because of several plausible mechanisms, and this study should slightly increase your posterior probability for that causation. Limiting your understanding of the causations of things only to those things which have had interventionist studies performed on them will have a very deleterious effect on your life, with high probability. No one has performed an interventionist study on basically anything in macroeconomics, politics, relationships, English literature, history or just about anything else, so I hope that you apply the same understanding to all of those fields as you do to the field of health and simply throw your hands up in the air when asked if "cheating causes divorces" or "yelling racial epithets causes a lack of re-election."

And please don't After Edit me, I find it patronizing.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#125

Post by marknutter »

EA wrote: post #92

"We love CrossFit. It is great job security." - my physical therapist edit: my point being that from the PT's POV, the more intense the strength training, the more likely a serious injury will occur during training.

It's well known in weight-lifting circles that CrossFit is rife with problems. Intense strength training does not correlate with increased injury; bad form and instruction correlates with increased injury.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#126

Post by ignostic »

tokenadult wrote: post #65

The most statistically astute comment posted here so far is the top-level comment by micro_cam https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5493772 pointing out that the study design here doesn't involve random assignment to strength training of any kind, but rather just observation of the study population over time. Sure, it's a good idea to be stronger rather than weaker. Moreover, it is plausible that exercises that tend…

Criticism regarding association, while valid, is largely irrelevant.

You need to understand that a clinical trial on this matter is nearly impossible.

1) Imagine the cost of holding a clinical trial over 20 years.

2) Imagine the difficulty of trying to get people to adhere to a workout routine for 20 years!

3) Given what we already know, it's probably unethical to tell a control group not to exercise or build significant muscle strength.

4) Finally, even if you work out all the issues above, imagine trying to get funding for a hugely expensive study trying to answer the question of whether strength training lowers these risks when it's already widely regarded as healthy.

The researchers are very aware of the limitations, so they went to great lengths to exclude the most likely confounding variables.

> there are also confounding factors like genetics and selection bias

To be more accurate, these are potential confounding variables. It's very possible that the association would hold up if we could adjust for these variables, too.

Causation here is not proven, that's true, but taken together with everything else we know, it does strengthen the case. E.g. we can independently explain the mechanism whereby the heart is strengthened by resistance training. I'm not an expert in either cancer or heart disease, but I would love to hear whether we can explain the mechanism of action already.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#127

Post by john_b »

archon wrote: post #106
john_b wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like software development, fitness has many methods and plenty of adherents that will swear by each one. Unlike software, however, human physiology doesn't change very quickly. Generally, simpler is better. In general, you should mix cardio work with lifting heavy things. The ratio will depend on your goals, as will the kinds of lifting you do. All things being equal, exercises that involve more muscle groups and lar…

> If you have weak joints or other physical constraints, machines can be a good place to start, as they will provide you some degree of support and help with your form. This is one of the main reasons I've stuck with the machines. I have a rotator cuff issue in my left arm that makes that arm very unstable. Lifting heavy things with that arm without any support makes me very nervous, even after doing PT exercises for…

Understandable. Without knowing the details of your issue, all I can say is that even light lifting with free weights will help develop your secondary/stabilizer muscles. You may or may not be able to make it a mainstay of your exercise program, but light to medium free weight exercise will improve your joint condition over time as well. If you do anything that feels iffy, just be sure to get a spotter. Pretty much anything you do in a gym will make you stronger, except getting injured.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#128

Post by mindcrime »

sudont wrote: post #82
mindcrime wrote: post #17

I used to dabble with some amateur powerlifting (I could deadlift 420 and squat about 340 at my peak), and I have to say, there's something really addictive about lifting weights and getting stronger. Knowing that it can decrease your chance of death makes it even more compelling. Sadly, I, like so many other people, "fell off the wagon" and more or less quit lifting, gained a bunch of weight, and now, a few years la…

Forgive the fact it comes from a shameless marketer. I've always thought "panic early" was good advice, though: http://www.sethgodin.com/bigmoo/free/panic.pdf

Forgive the fact it comes from a shameless marketer.

Why would that be something that should be forgiven? Marketing is awesome, and I - for one - am a huge Seth Godin fan.

Great article, too. That's a great point about "panic when there's still time to do something about it". You should probably submit that to HN as a standalone submission, actually.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#129

Post by kyllo »

bjterry wrote: post #114
sofal wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now just hold on a second there. As long as we're throwing out anecdotes, let me say that I've been lifting for a few years now and squats completely devastate my knees. I've tried over and over again and no matter what, my knees get a stabbing, debilitating pain when I squat, even at lighter weights. Physical therapy doesn't help. X-rays show no problems. Obsessing about correct posture doesn't help. Squats are just…

I used to have patella tendinopathy in one of my knees from heavy squats. I was able to eliminate all pain in about a week or two using these "Voodoo Floss Band" things.[1] They don't seem like they would work that effectively, but calling them magical is as justified as it was for the iPad. I had tried other strategies such as decline boards and negatives for several months which are commonly prescribed by physical…

Yeah I had pain around the patellar tendon last year and doing this helped. But you don't need to buy that thing for $24, you can do it with a cut-open $5 bicycle tire tube and it works equally well.

Re: Association between muscular strength and mortality in men (2008) [pdf]

#130

Post by micro_cam »

ellyagg wrote: post #95
tokenadult wrote: post #65

The most statistically astute comment posted here so far is the top-level comment by micro_cam https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5493772 pointing out that the study design here doesn't involve random assignment to strength training of any kind, but rather just observation of the study population over time. Sure, it's a good idea to be stronger rather than weaker. Moreover, it is plausible that exercises that tend…

Can you list some things that weren't controlled for that you think would lead to both increased one rep max and longer life expectancy? As Edward Tufte says, "Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint." That increased strength improves life expectancy should be the null hypothesis. At least at the one end, extreme frailty is a common eye test for poor health. Since this isn't a scientific journal here, but…

The big issue is sub populations. I work on similar large studies including genomic data and it is quite frequent to see associations of the form "central americans have a lower rate of disease x" and "central americans have a higher rait of factor y."

This produces a statistical association but, especially with genomic factors, factor y can just be something that randomly identifies the group.

Similarly in this data set you might find a group of people who have higher strength because of genomic factors that make it easier for them to build strength from the same workouts as "normall" people. These people might also come from a subpopulation (farm famlies, people of Slavic heritage who knows) that has lower rates of cancer for genomic or cultural reasons. Even a small number of such people can make the association look significant though it will disappear once you remove them.

It could also be something like a certain food or diet making it both easier to build strength and preventing cancer.

Post reply on HN