Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#161

Post by ax0n » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 1:26 AM UTC

itistoday wrote: post #159

ax0n wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, my "I guess" was tongue in cheek. Volumes upon volumes have been written on it. It should be common sense that you don't fuel your daily existence with ho-hos and mountain dew. Unfortunately, a lot of hackers opt for that -- or worse! some days, I'm guilty of it, but I do burn about 1,800 kCal on the bike daily. Still, burning the calories you eat is only part of the deal. The whole "organic" thing doesn't…

When was your grandfather born? He and his generation may very well have been eating what today is labeled "organic food". Factory farming is a relatively new phenomenon that has swept the country in only recently, and with phenomenal speed. >> In the 1930s, 24 percent of the American population worked in agriculture compared to 1.5 percent in 2002; in 1940, each farm worker supplied 11 consumers, whereas in 2002, ea…

He was born in 1884, and passed in 1991. He was an avid mycologist by hobby, writing a few books on mushrooms -- the very food he used to credit for his longevity. I'm glad he was around long enough for me to get to know him. I'll concede the fact that in his era, things were done a lot more naturally than they are now if for no other reason than they lacked the technology to do it any other way.

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#162

Post by peoplerock » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 2:48 AM UTC

Zak wrote: post #75

tyrmored wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can't have too much emphasis. Red Bull and its ilk will pretty much destroy your nervous system -- even one a day is probably too much.

Please explain how (with links to sane sources if possible).

Former biofeedback therapist here. The effect of caffeine on muscle tension is measurable: it is impossible for nearly everyone to achieve as deep a muscular relaxation (measured by EMG) after just 100mg caffeine.

I haven't looked at evidence in years, but the gastrointestinal and heart rate effects of even higher levels can be remarkable. I remember medical journal articles (Am J Psychiatry, i believe) referring to it as "caffeinism" - since the mental-alertness benefits habituate, but not the autonomic stimulation.

Like with any mind-alteration: exercise caution. Listen to what your own body tells you.

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#163

Post by kingkongrevenge » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 2:57 AM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #158

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 41 percent less likely to suffer from high blood pressure Compared to whom? Serious racquet sport competitors? Power lifters? No, compared to couch potatoes with lousy diets. Well no shit. That's not the point.

Endurance athletes fare significantly better than basketball, soccer and sprinting athletes, who fare better than power athletes, who fare better than couch potatoes. In terms of life expectancy, endurance athletes such as marathoners and cross-country skiers live about 2 years longer than sprinters, 4 years longer than power lifters and 6 years longer than the general populace. http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/…

The link is worthless. Some researchers say runners live long ... because their model says runners live long. Tautology.

Why didn't they just look at dead olympic athletes? That would be an interesting and potentially worthwhile study. Actually, I know why: that study would have been hard work whereas for this garbage all they had to do was plug a canned data set into some silly unverified pharma model they tweaked for their own agenda.

http://www.theheart.org/article/243897.do

Endurance sports can mess up your heart rhythm.

Here's the first google result for "runners die young": http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/ehn273v1.pdf

"The current report demonstrates a high prevalence of advanced coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial scar formation in see- mingly healthy marathon runners aged >50 years."

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#164

Post by xiaoma » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 7:45 AM UTC

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #163

xiaoma wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Endurance athletes fare significantly better than basketball, soccer and sprinting athletes, who fare better than power athletes, who fare better than couch potatoes. In terms of life expectancy, endurance athletes such as marathoners and cross-country skiers live about 2 years longer than sprinters, 4 years longer than power lifters and 6 years longer than the general populace. http://www.mdconsult.com/das/citation/…

The link is worthless. Some researchers say runners live long ... because their model says runners live long. Tautology. Why didn't they just look at dead olympic athletes? That would be an interesting and potentially worthwhile study. Actually, I know why: that study would have been hard work whereas for this garbage all they had to do was plug a canned data set into some silly unverified pharma model they tweaked f…

I've repeatedly cited gigantic peer-reviewed studies including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999) one in which participants were split into many groups based upon differing levels of activity from sedentary to daily runners. Each one has shown dose-dependent gains from cardio-vascular exercise. And in each case, you've shrugged off the research and then come back with something like this.

From your links: "Heidbüchel's study included only a small, highly selective population of endurance athletes, predominantly cyclists, who engage in a particular type of strain, with preexisting arrhythmias."

So even when you specifically searched for "runners die young", it came back with a paper that states that marathon running is part of a healthy lifestyle and then goes on to talk about possible risks for those who race without sufficient training or who are trying to undo decades of unhealthy living. Over half of the participants were former smokers. The paper does not in any way claim that "endurance sports can mess up your heart rhythm" nor is the quotation you took out of context representative. In fact, it said:

"Marathon running is part of a healthy lifestyle. There is overwhelming evidence for the cardiovascular protective effects of physical activity."

What is it with this? What ax to grind is so important that it's worth posting misleading, disingenuous summaries of research you find by googling for your already chosen conclusion? As I asked last time, Can you refer me to any peer-reviewed research linking sprint training or weight training with equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators that Paul Williams's 100,000 person study found distance running improved?

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#165

Post by kingkongrevenge » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 2:00 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #164

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is worthless. Some researchers say runners live long ... because their model says runners live long. Tautology. Why didn't they just look at dead olympic athletes? That would be an interesting and potentially worthwhile study. Actually, I know why: that study would have been hard work whereas for this garbage all they had to do was plug a canned data set into some silly unverified pharma model they tweaked f…

I've repeatedly cited gigantic peer-reviewed studies including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999) one in which participants were split into many groups based upon differing levels of activity from sedentary to daily runners. Each one has shown dose-dependent gains from cardio-vascular exercise. And in each case, you've shrugged off the research and then come back with something like this. From your lin…

Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. And they both did in fact raise questions about damage caused by distance training. They just couched their language with platitudes about how healthy distance training is, presumably to ward off concerted attack.

I don't have an ax to grind. I literally don't want people trying to get in shape to waste large amounts of time and hurt their knees and so on doing long distance running when it is so much inferior for losing weight and maintaining fitness. I want to steer them in the right direction. They will have so much more success training in other ways.

It is common knowledge at this point that interval training, sprints, and properly done strength training produce all the same cardiovascular health benefits as distance training but without the repetitive stress and other physiological stresses of long distance. Also without the huge time investment. Also with much better body fat percentage measurements. You can use google as well as I can.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/for-heart-health-sp...

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2008/11/01/sho...

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#166

Post by xiaoma » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 6:12 PM UTC

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #165

xiaoma wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've repeatedly cited gigantic peer-reviewed studies including the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1999) one in which participants were split into many groups based upon differing levels of activity from sedentary to daily runners. Each one has shown dose-dependent gains from cardio-vascular exercise. And in each case, you've shrugged off the research and then come back with something like this. From your lin…

Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. And they both did in fact raise questions about damage caused by distance training. They just couched their language with platitudes about how healthy distance training is, presumably to ward off concerted attack. I don't have an ax to grind. I literally don't want people trying to get in shape to waste lar…

>Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything.

The studies I've referred you to are the largest, the most rigorous that have ever been done to date on the topic. They are not "observational garbage".

>You can use google as well as I can.

Well, that's the thing. My knowledge comes from readining actual journals and having doctors in the family who can interpret them. You're the one googling "runners die young". In fact, the actual study behind your NYT link paints a different picture than the NYT article did. See the conclusion:

"We conclude that SIT is a time-efficient strategy to elicit improvements in peripheral vascular structure and function that are comparable to ET. However, alterations in central artery distensibility may require a longer training stimuli and/or greater initial vascular stiffness than observed in this group of healthy subjects."

I repeat, Can you refer me to any peer-reviewed research linking sprint training or weight training with equal or greater benefit in any of the health indicators that Paul Williams's 100,000 person study found distance running improved? I seriously doubt it, because I've scoured every journal I have access to for comparative studies, and every one of those studies found greater longevity and fewer lifestyle diseases in endurance athletes than in speed or power athletes.

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#167

Post by kingkongrevenge » Tue, Oct 06, 2009, 7:04 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #166

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. And they both did in fact raise questions about damage caused by distance training. They just couched their language with platitudes about how healthy distance training is, presumably to ward off concerted attack. I don't have an ax to grind. I literally don't want people trying to get in shape to waste lar…

> Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. The studies I've referred you to are the largest , the most rigorous that have ever been done to date on the topic. They are not "observational garbage". > You can use google as well as I can. Well, that's the thing. My knowledge comes from readining actual journals and having doctors in the family who ca…

> every one of those studies found greater longevity and fewer lifestyle diseases in endurance athletes than in speed or power athletes.

Do share.

I hope you know what I mean by observational and understand how it's a worthless way to develop understanding. It's for forming hypotheses.

Resistance training reverses aging in muscles: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleUR...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_ea...

Short bursts of intense exercise every few days could dramatically cut the risk of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, according to an expert.

"If we can get people in their 20s, 30s and 40s doing these exercises twice a week then it could have a very dramatic effect on the future prevalence of diabetes."

Strong people live longest (I post this despite acknowledging it is also model derived garbage): Jonatan R. Ruiz and his co-authors tested more than 8,000 subjects aged 20 to 80 for muscular strength. They grouped individuals into three categories of strength and found that the age-adjusted risk of cancer was 17.5 per thousand in the weakest group, 11.0 in the middle group, and 10.3 in the strongest group. The weaker groups also had higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, more cardiovascular disease, and more of them had diabetes. (Cancer Epidemiological Biomarkers Prevention 2009;18(5):1468–76).

>the actual study behind your NYT link paints a different picture than the NYT article did

No, it incidentally raised a question, just as the previous link about heart rhythm problems in cyclists raised a much more strongly indicated question about exercise induced damage.

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#168

Post by lorenzsell » Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 7:03 AM UTC

listic wrote: post #99

What sort of reading on health do you recommend for a newbie that wishes to learn how to stay healthy? I'm beginning to worry about my health, but I'd hate to just follow some or another fad diet, even if recommended by fellow hackers. First, I wish to understand how my body works.

check out findmefit.com. it's a blog I started a few months ago, all about helping young professionals live healthy lives through practical advice. i'd love to get your feedback.

Re: Ask HN: How do you stay (somewhat) healthy?

#169

Post by kingkongrevenge » Thu, Oct 08, 2009, 1:05 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #166

kingkongrevenge wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. And they both did in fact raise questions about damage caused by distance training. They just couched their language with platitudes about how healthy distance training is, presumably to ward off concerted attack. I don't have an ax to grind. I literally don't want people trying to get in shape to waste lar…

> Your studies are all observational garbage, as were the two links I posted, more to make a point than anything. The studies I've referred you to are the largest , the most rigorous that have ever been done to date on the topic. They are not "observational garbage". > You can use google as well as I can. Well, that's the thing. My knowledge comes from readining actual journals and having doctors in the family who ca…

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0679.htm

"marathoners might have even lower frequencies of heart attacks if they gave up marathoning and focused on shorter events which are less taxing for the heart."