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

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#131

Post by AaronAPU »

lucyjojo wrote: post #125
dachris wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Finding enjoyment in things that are difficult or painful is the probably highest impact quality of life lesson you can learn.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#132

Post by Libidinalecon »

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/…

What is missing in all this is testosterone levels, especially diminishing as you age.

I have lifted weights for 35 years now and just reached the point that I can not lift, recover and cut calories. I can only recover from a very light full body once a week workout. Otherwise, I need a caloric surplus so I can't cut weight.

To me, it is why there is so much bad information in this space because training is so highly variable based on genetics, hormone levels and age. When I was 20, I had no problem recovering from lifting 6 days a week, running 30 minutes a day and cutting. Now I can barely lift and more than 30 minutes a day of walking is not so easy to recover from. I would suspect this is the state that not taking testosterone becomes increasingly unhealthy. So I have basically quit lifting, cutting to 10% bodyfat and then will rebuild with lifting once on testosterone. I have never read a single reference though that lifting can be bad from the recovery demands if trying to cut at some level of hormones. We are basically in the dark ages with all this stuff so you have to figure it out for yourself.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#133

Post by storus »

justinator wrote: post #70
storus wrote: post #26

How about boosting mitochondria via supplements? Would that be something to look at? I climbed out of ME/CFS-like neurocovid mainly thanks to boosting mitochondria as much as I could and am wondering if the same lesson could be applied here?

How about just moving around for 30 minutes most days? Supplements aren't going to help you mentally as a nice walk in the park.

The point was that in ME/CFS you are essentially a conscious vegetable where drinking a glass of water or crawling to the toilet feels like a massive achievement. That mitochondrial supplements allowed pushing the limit every day a bit further in that state could have implications for regular folks as well who for whatever reasons can't move (imagine injury, lack of energy after a stressful day etc.).

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#134

Post by storus »

solraph wrote: post #107
storus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4-minute HIIT run (30s full/5s walk, repeat) makes you vomit and not feel your legs. 15 minutes of HIIT 5-times a week is a wishful thinking. It's not your typical "vigorous" activity. At my athletic very best I could at most chain 3 HIITs in a row and be destroyed for a few days.

Fair enough, I don't think it changes my the conclusion though. On that basis, I would say that someone whose entire exercise regime is doing HIIT a few times a week for 8 minutes (24 minutes in total) is not going to be hitting the 6x multipler required for an equivalent of regular 150 minutes of exercise.

Look up Tabata intervals, used to train speed-skating Olympians.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#135

Post by tpm »

lucyjojo wrote: post #125
dachris wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a theory that testosterone makes physical exercise fun. No idea if it's true, or to what extent.

Anyway it's completely possible you just didn't find the right physical activity yet. It took me some years to realize that I have to exercise alone and outdoors.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#136

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

#137

Post by Lord-Jobo »

abraxas wrote: post #77

I dislike most forms of exercise for one reason or another. I'm likely on the autism spectrum and have all the clumsiness that comes with the package so ball sports or dance are particularly hard and turned me off of sports for decades. I also dislike walking and hiking as nature loves to make me miserable - I'm a pale mosquito magnet. Meanwhile walking in my city is a miserable experience as the urban environment is…

I love swimming but it’s incredibly inaccessible for me. I don’t own a pool, the closet public pool is 20 minutes away and doesn’t have lane rental so I can’t consistently do laps, and everything is outdoors so it’s sun poisoning or winter temperatures for most of the year.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#138

Post by rootusrootus »

wotmatetherow wrote: post #71
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.

Where are you getting this number? Over 27% body fat is a health risk. For an active but not muscular individual, 30 BMI is at least 33% body fat, likely higher.

From the multitude of studies, in particular the relatively recent huge multi-study analysis of all-cause mortality vs BMI.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#139

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

Yes, those are the definitions we have assigned to the number. However, independent of the arbitrary labels, the actual impact on health matters more to me.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#140

Post by justinator »

storus wrote: post #133
justinator wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about just moving around for 30 minutes most days? Supplements aren't going to help you mentally as a nice walk in the park.

The point was that in ME/CFS you are essentially a conscious vegetable where drinking a glass of water or crawling to the toilet feels like a massive achievement. That mitochondrial supplements allowed pushing the limit every day a bit further in that state could have implications for regular folks as well who for whatever reasons can't move (imagine injury, lack of energy after a stressful day etc.).

I'm going to set aside the "you're a vegetable" use case, because that's wholly beyond of the pale of this discussion.

The "lack of energy after a stressful day" is a lifestyle issue, and not something that I would suggest taking a drug to overcome. I would suggest taking a walk. You need to take responsibility for your well being, no one else should care about it more than you.

Post reply on HN