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

Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

howardluksmd.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 159 posts

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#11

Post by strken »

pton_xd wrote: post #9
Insanity wrote: post #3

But how do you know if you exercise enough?

According to the linked paper [0]: " - Sedentary (SED): Does not perform exercise regularly or elevate heart rate outside of daily tasks - Active (AC): Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week, and has at least a six-month history of doing so " A more comprehensive study that determines the optimal amount of exercise per week to achieve peak cellular function over a population would be quite intere…

I find this a bit confusing. If you're doing an hour of HIIT a week and additionally work as a removalist, a picker in a warehouse, or a white-water rafting instructor, you're sedentary? Or is there some middle group that was excluded from the study?

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#12

Post by UltraSane »

Insanity wrote: post #3

But how do you know if you exercise enough?

The best indicator of fitness is your VO2 max value and this can be estimated using fitness trackers and smart watches. You should try to be in the top 10% for your age bracket. The higher the better as all cause mortality decreases as VO2 max increases.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#13

Post by koolba »

strken wrote: post #11
pton_xd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the linked paper [0]: " - Sedentary (SED): Does not perform exercise regularly or elevate heart rate outside of daily tasks - Active (AC): Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week, and has at least a six-month history of doing so " A more comprehensive study that determines the optimal amount of exercise per week to achieve peak cellular function over a population would be quite intere…

I find this a bit confusing. If you're doing an hour of HIIT a week and additionally work as a removalist, a picker in a warehouse, or a white-water rafting instructor, you're sedentary? Or is there some middle group that was excluded from the study?

What warehouse worker is doing HIIT? I’m not saying they’re sedentary, but there is no way a warehouse worker is moving at the pace of a HIIT workout, let alone for an entire shift.

There’s no job on the plan outside of drug runner that requires you to actually “run”.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#14

Post by eru »

koolba wrote: post #13
strken wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this a bit confusing. If you're doing an hour of HIIT a week and additionally work as a removalist, a picker in a warehouse, or a white-water rafting instructor, you're sedentary? Or is there some middle group that was excluded from the study?

What warehouse worker is doing HIIT? I’m not saying they’re sedentary, but there is no way a warehouse worker is moving at the pace of a HIIT workout, let alone for an entire shift. There’s no job on the plan outside of drug runner that requires you to actually “run”.

> There’s no job on the plan outside of drug runner that requires you to actually “run”.

Drug runners don't really run either, do they? But athletes do.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#15

Post by xgulfie »

pton_xd wrote: post #9
Insanity wrote: post #3

But how do you know if you exercise enough?

According to the linked paper [0]: " - Sedentary (SED): Does not perform exercise regularly or elevate heart rate outside of daily tasks - Active (AC): Performs aerobic exercise for at least 150 minutes per week, and has at least a six-month history of doing so " A more comprehensive study that determines the optimal amount of exercise per week to achieve peak cellular function over a population would be quite intere…

That "outside of daily tasks" addendum is killing me. What task performed regularly during the day is not a daily task???

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#16

Post by rootusrootus »

UltraSane wrote: post #12
Insanity wrote: post #3

But how do you know if you exercise enough?

The best indicator of fitness is your VO2 max value and this can be estimated using fitness trackers and smart watches. You should try to be in the top 10% for your age bracket. The higher the better as all cause mortality decreases as VO2 max increases.

My gripe with VO2 max on my Apple Watch, at least, is that Apple has dozens of different workout options, but none of them include the option of changing your body weight. So my VO2 max was climbing steadily until I added rucking to my workouts, and now it's been dropping. Nowhere do I have the option of telling the watch that I'm intentionally carrying extra weight. This should be trivial to add into the UI and factor into the calculation.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#18

Post by rester324 »

I haven't read the paper, but what I am curious about, how much of the damage can be turned back if someone becomes physically active after a long sedentary period? Let's say someone already had low fat oxidization and/or cardiovascular disease, how much of that can be "cured" by being active?

This post claims: the good news is, this is reversible. But is that so? Is it also proven to reverse things in all cases? I would imagine there are caveats, and things are not that rosy in reality.

The reason I am asking because if the answer is "None. It can only keep the symptoms from worsening" then it's not really reasonable to expect people with such physiological situation to become active again.

They will most probably need to put in much more effort to achieve much smaller gain compared to a healthy individual, which is as I said is unreasonable. Especially because some people simply have worse genetics and or social circumstances which they might not be able to change.

So I appreciate these findings, but how I read this: you need to be aware of this to prevent the ill effects. And I doubt the reversible claim (although I have not much of an argument to corroborate that).

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#19

Post by [deleted] »

rester324 wrote: post #18

I haven't read the paper, but what I am curious about, how much of the damage can be turned back if someone becomes physically active after a long sedentary period? Let's say someone already had low fat oxidization and/or cardiovascular disease, how much of that can be "cured" by being active? This post claims: the good news is, this is reversible. But is that so? Is it also proven to reverse things in all cases? I w…

[deleted]

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#20

Post by trjordan »

Between this and http://myticker.com (posted recently), I want to share a theory of mine:

1) the internet is mostly made up of spaces where the median opinion is vanishingly rare among actual humans.

2) the median internet opinion is that of a person who is deep into the topic they're writing about.

The net result is that for most topics, you will feel moderate to severe anxiety about being "behind" about what you shuld be doing.

I'm 40, and I'm active. I ran a half marathon last weekend. I spent 5 hours climbing with my kids this weekend. My reaction to these articles, emotionally, was "I'm probably going to die of heart disease," because my cholesterol is a bit high and my BMI is 30. When I was biking 90 miles a week, my VO2 max was "sub-standard."

Let's assume this information is true. That's OK. It's all dialed up to 11, and you don't have to do anything about it right now.

Post reply on HN