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

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#121

Post by stephen_g »

beingfit wrote: post #117
stephen_g wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite literally was thinking as I was reading your second paragraph, "hey, they should try swimming" - turns out you're well ahead of me! I started about four years ago, and it's been awesome for me too. For me I tried it because I just never liked how running makes me feel in my chest, whereas the aerobic intensity of swimming (slower burn in zones 2 and 3) feels way better to me. For anyone starting out, there is…

> For anyone starting out, there is a bit of a hump to get over as you get some technique (I just used YouTube videos and feel). Are you saying you learned to swim from YouTube videos and applying those lessons? Any recommendations on videos or playlists?

Oh sorry I can see that’s unclear and I’m assuming a lot!

I’m in Australia so almost everyone who has grown up here has been taught to swim, and generally knows the basic strokes at least (I mostly just do freestyle and breaststroke). I didn’t think of people who might not be at that basic level, I’d definitely recommend some lessons if you’re not up to that!

I was more meaning starting swimming laps regularly - for building fitness and stamina and correcting my technique (not having done lessons since I was in school). For this I’ve mostly used Effortless Swimming [1] and Skills N' Talents (swimming) [2].

1. https://youtube.com/@EffortlessSwimming

2. https://youtube.com/@SkillsNT

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#122

Post by oarfish »

domenicd wrote: post #72
torben-friis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anaerobic training’s returns increase ridiculously with days/week until about 3 and it’s large diminishing returns after that. Just saying, once you’re willing to lift weights once a week with all the upfront cost (gym membership, leaving your comfort zone, learning the ropes, etc) it’s a really good bang for your buck adding one or two more.

For sure. My friend's program is longevity-focused, not strength focused. I usually do 2/week strength training + 1/week bouldering, but have dropped to 1/week strength training + 1/week bouldering while I worked to incorporate the 12k steps into my routine. I'm also currently doing a cut so am less motivated to lift. After I hit 10% body fat I plan to start bulking and go back to 2/week + bouldering or maybe even 3/…

> My friend's program is longevity-focused, not strength focused.

I'd say long lifespan without long healthspan is not very useful, so I'd prioritize strength in common movement patterns over just extending temporal existence as much as possible. So longevity shouldn't be treated as separate from either cardiovascular or muscoskeletal fitness.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#123

Post by _yb2s »

domenicd wrote: post #22

A lot of people in the comments are expressing curiosity about "ideal" amounts of exercise to avoid these sorts of problems. I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to: - 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks. - 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups. - 12,000 steps per day walking (H…

The separate HIIT is probably not necessary if you vary your weight training to include higher volume sets. If you do a true HIIT sprint set at 100 percent effort like the initial journal article, you will be wiped out the rest of the day, it’s not practical.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#124

Post by lucyjojo »

d_silin wrote: post #51
dooglius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't 12k steps like 6 miles? I could plausibly jog that much, but to walk it every day seems like a huge time commitment.

Easy when you don't have a car. I average this much daily for the past 30 years.

i don't have a car and i probably do less than 2000 steps a day. (probably in the hundreds)

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#125

Post by lucyjojo »

dachris wrote: post #112
domenicd wrote: post #22

A lot of people in the comments are expressing curiosity about "ideal" amounts of exercise to avoid these sorts of problems. I have a real-life friend whose hobby is studying this stuff. His recommendations boil down to: - 1/week 20 minutes HIIT: 5 minutes warmup, 3x(2 minutes high intensity + 3 minutes low intensity) blocks. - 1/week strength training focused on large muscle groups. - 12,000 steps per day walking (H…

The manual for a human body says several hours of exercise per day. Children try to follow it, but it's being made hard for them, and by the time you're an adult most have learned to forget the natural instincts for movement and how much fun you can have doing physical exercise.

never understood the physical exercise is fun thing.

i do it but it's just pure pain. i guess people are wired differently.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#126

Post by lucyjojo »

lm28469 wrote: post #116
burnt-resistor wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walking 2 hours per day is a completely impractical fantasy. A better resource: Body By Science a book containing recommendations based on research and data. The overall goal is proper volume of effective effort of cardio and strength exercise that doesn't take too long and reduces risks of wear/tear and injury.

> Walking 2 hours per day is a completely impractical fantasy. Tell people you spend 12 hours a day starring at a screen and they won't bat an eye, tell them you walk 10k step a day and they'll try to convince your it's unpractical, unhealthy, "10k is a made up number anyways", "I don't have time", "isn't it too hard?"

it depends on your circumstances but for a lot of people it's impractical.

i want to spend my free time with my kids, not walking somewhere in the woods/city.

i walk 2 hours once a week after their bed time. but i certainly can't do that every day or i would die of exhaustion.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#127

Post by torben-friis »

domenicd wrote: post #72
torben-friis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anaerobic training’s returns increase ridiculously with days/week until about 3 and it’s large diminishing returns after that. Just saying, once you’re willing to lift weights once a week with all the upfront cost (gym membership, leaving your comfort zone, learning the ropes, etc) it’s a really good bang for your buck adding one or two more.

For sure. My friend's program is longevity-focused, not strength focused. I usually do 2/week strength training + 1/week bouldering, but have dropped to 1/week strength training + 1/week bouldering while I worked to incorporate the 12k steps into my routine. I'm also currently doing a cut so am less motivated to lift. After I hit 10% body fat I plan to start bulking and go back to 2/week + bouldering or maybe even 3/…

Mind that the result in the paper seems to only have number for CVD, not general mortality, and most importantly, tests subjects are middle aged men with checks 5 and 10 years later.

It’s perhaps good to see if there’s a lower chance of an early stroke/heart attack, but they don’t get in the range where the loss of muscle function and bone density can truly affect you, which is where anaerobic training shines (the usual “grandma broke her hip and never recovered”).

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#128

Post by lucyjojo »

andsoitis wrote: post #99
rootusrootus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Across the population as a whole, BMI 30 is basically negligible increase in all-cause mortality. For someone otherwise reasonably active I wouldn't stress about the number. Ideal is somewhere around 27.

BMI over 25 is overweight. Obese is 30 or higher.

bmi doesn't mean much though.

size, body composition, ethnicity will give very different meanings to the same bmi.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#129

Post by lm28469 »

lucyjojo wrote: post #126
lm28469 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Walking 2 hours per day is a completely impractical fantasy. Tell people you spend 12 hours a day starring at a screen and they won't bat an eye, tell them you walk 10k step a day and they'll try to convince your it's unpractical, unhealthy, "10k is a made up number anyways", "I don't have time", "isn't it too hard?"

it depends on your circumstances but for a lot of people it's impractical. i want to spend my free time with my kids, not walking somewhere in the woods/city. i walk 2 hours once a week after their bed time. but i certainly can't do that every day or i would die of exhaustion.

All my friends are single and spend more time gaming than I spent exercising, by far, for most people it's a time allocation decision. My brother is more active than me despite having a kid

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#130

Post by Libidinalecon »

daemonologist wrote: post #47
sublinear wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The walking is the only true daily exercise commitment here, and 10k steps is a classic goal. Close enough for me would be reinterpreting this as "walk about an hour a day". Otherwise, I think once-a-week HIIT and once-a-week strength training sounds very reasonable and easy to maintain for just about anyone.

An hour is only 5k, maybe 6k steps for me (I'm sure it varies by individual). 12k is two hours of walking minimum, six or seven miles, which is a pretty big chunk - I did that much in college walking to class, and when I briefly lived in a city, but no way I'm getting that in on a daily basis out here in the suburbs. The other stuff, yeah no problem.

So much depends if you work remote or not. Before covid, I would hit 10k steps with just a 30 minute walk after work because the office involved so many cumulative steps. Since going remote, it is very difficult with a 60 minute walk. Walking 90 minutes after work is not going to happen so I just focus on my nutrition all the more now.
Post reply on HN