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

With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 245 posts

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#151

Post by ZeroFries »

slothtrop wrote: post #146

What I'd like to more accurately identify is the point at which we get diminishing returns to health from strenuous exercise, in measurable form. Exercise of course provides enormous health benefits, but progressive overload for instance demands ever increasing caloric intake which runs counter to health recommendations. This is probably easier to track than high intensity cardio except in terms of pure caloric need.…

It would vary depending on type of exercise. Giving my opinions based on being very interested in the subject for years, without bothering with citations.

For muscle-mass, the health benefits come from having higher glycogen storage (helping to prevent diabetes), as well as maintaining function late into life. The latter is subject to diminishing returns, and maintenance is more important than the amount when you peaked. Also, having too much muscle mass would put a strain on the heart.

Daily light movement is important for circulation. 10-12k steps seems to about ideal.

15-20 minutes of moderate-intensity (120-140 bpm) or 4 total minutes of high-intensity (> 160 bpm) cardio improves heart function, blood-flow, and mitochondrial density. Any more seems to be subject to diminishing returns.

Stretching around 10 minutes per day may help prevent cancer and preserve function.

This leads me to the following recommendations:

1-3 weekly strength training sessions of around 45 minutes

10-12k daily steps

2-4 weekly cardio sessions of around 15 minutes

10 minutes daily stretching

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#152

Post by titzer »

m23khan wrote: post #125

isn't this happening already? From totally unscientific perspective, if you look at pictures of people from olden days (say high school seniors from 1970s/1980s vs from 21st century) as well pictures of 60+ people from 1940s/1950s, you will notice people now look a lot younger. It isn't only the sense of grooming/clothing but also physical attributes which have changed

Sunblock.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#153

Post by slothtrop »

ZeroFries wrote: post #151
slothtrop wrote: post #146

What I'd like to more accurately identify is the point at which we get diminishing returns to health from strenuous exercise, in measurable form. Exercise of course provides enormous health benefits, but progressive overload for instance demands ever increasing caloric intake which runs counter to health recommendations. This is probably easier to track than high intensity cardio except in terms of pure caloric need.…

It would vary depending on type of exercise. Giving my opinions based on being very interested in the subject for years, without bothering with citations. For muscle-mass, the health benefits come from having higher glycogen storage (helping to prevent diabetes), as well as maintaining function late into life. The latter is subject to diminishing returns, and maintenance is more important than the amount when you pea…

This closely approximates what I've gunned for. I'm not aiming to be a maximalist, but want my investments to be worthwhile. My intuition has suggested to me that with cardio (moderate/intense), a little goes a long way and long sessions can eventually yield injury. You mentioned not bothering with citations but if you recall any sources I'd check those out.

You didn't mention it, but the other benefit of strength training is higher testosterone levels.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#154

Post by GuiA »

paideic wrote: post #106

Somewhat off-topic, but I always thought the most prominent real-life reenactment of The Fox and the Grapes was all of the media and thinkpieces that people have written about how living for an extended period of time would be just _awful_. You wouldn't find many people who think that 40 years would be an acceptable lifespan, and most people would probably like to live to 100 if they got there in good health, but as…

Boy, it sure is convenient that our "natural" longevity (whatever that means) is right at the limits of what humans can reasonably enjoy, huh?

I suspect you have not spent much time around eg people with dementia, who are well within their “natural longevity” but for some have not “reasonably enjoyed” anything in many years, sometimes decades.

Visit a nursing home, and you may find yourself pondering that perhaps medicine has by and large given us many more years than we know what to do with already.

For many entering old age, the concern is not about how many years they have left, but if they’ll be able to take care of their basic needs during them.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#155

Post by fizwhiz »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #150

Yes. Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Eat fruits and vegetables. Exercise regularly. Walking counts, but you probably want to throw some upper-body stuff in there as well. Working in the garden counts. That's about 80-95% of "how to stay healthy using forces under your control" as far as I can tell.

> Don't eat sugar. Don't smoke. Don't drink.

Oh but where's the fun in that? :)

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#156

Post by skybrian »

Retra wrote: post #147
skybrian wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too simple. Slowing the decline for people who are in at least moderately good health who can enjoy life is of course a good thing. But in poor health, with no prospects of improvement... well, when's the last time you've visited a nursing home? The experience of helping taking care someone in hospice care makes it very clear that at some point they can't do much of anything, or enjoy much of anything, and pro…

Ok then. Let's just take this broad conversation about "most people" and distort it with wildly pessimistic and self-contradictory assumptions. I can only repeat myself here. If you want to live longer, you want better health. If you don't want better health because "there's no prospect for improvement", then I don't know what to tell you. That's a contradiction. In any case, slowing the decline due to aging doesn't…

I agree that it's very useful to prolong the amount of time spent in earlier, healthier stages of life. The treatments described in the New Yorker article sound quite promising.

However, you aren't taking the elderly seriously. It's not "wildly pessimistic" to spend time thinking about what happens after people get beyond that point. This is something that happens to everyone who doesn't die first. It's a normal part of life.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#157

Post by okcando »

dkersten wrote: post #134
paideic wrote: post #106

Somewhat off-topic, but I always thought the most prominent real-life reenactment of The Fox and the Grapes was all of the media and thinkpieces that people have written about how living for an extended period of time would be just _awful_. You wouldn't find many people who think that 40 years would be an acceptable lifespan, and most people would probably like to live to 100 if they got there in good health, but as…

These are the same people who complain that they would be bored if out of work for too long. I personally have so many personal or passion projects that I would like to undertake, but don’t have the time for, that I’d happily fill a few lifetimes with interesting things to do. Of course, there’s a difference between a few lifetimes and thousands of years or immortality.

I expect most people's experiences when they're unemployed are colored by being... unemployed. You're not retired or on vacation, you're jobless. You're not supposed to be having a good time following your passions, you're supposed to be looking for more work or skill-building so you can get work. And money is going to run out eventually and who is going to want to hire you when you haven't had a job in six months or a year?

A lot of cultural baggage and shame in it, most people just end up stressed out and depressed.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#158

Post by dkersten »

okcando wrote: post #157
dkersten wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same people who complain that they would be bored if out of work for too long. I personally have so many personal or passion projects that I would like to undertake, but don’t have the time for, that I’d happily fill a few lifetimes with interesting things to do. Of course, there’s a difference between a few lifetimes and thousands of years or immortality.

I expect most people's experiences when they're unemployed are colored by being... unemployed. You're not retired or on vacation, you're jobless. You're not supposed to be having a good time following your passions, you're supposed to be looking for more work or skill-building so you can get work. And money is going to run out eventually and who is going to want to hire you when you haven't had a job in six months or…

I’m not talking about the people who are unemployed against their will, but the people who are not unemployed and say “no, they couldn’t take a load of time of work[1] because they would be bored”. I took some time off a while back, to destress and work on my own ideas for a while and the amount of people who said they couldn’t do it, they’d be bored was mind blowing.

> who is going to want to hire you when you haven't had a job in six months or a year?

I’m lucky enough that in our industry, this hasn’t affected me. Tech companies seem pretty open to the idea that people take sabbaticals and such. Don’t get me wrong, I’m under no illusion that this isn’t a problem for other people and other industries, it absolutely is, unfortunately.

[1] Assuming they could financially afford it

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#159

Post by dkersten »

oblio wrote: post #149
dkersten wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same people who complain that they would be bored if out of work for too long. I personally have so many personal or passion projects that I would like to undertake, but don’t have the time for, that I’d happily fill a few lifetimes with interesting things to do. Of course, there’s a difference between a few lifetimes and thousands of years or immortality.

I took a long sabbatical (6+ months). All my friends were working. My own projects didn't seem that fulfilling. I was bored after about 4 months.

I guess I can’t relate, I’ve been lucky enough to have had a number of periods in my life where I’ve had time to do my own thing and... I never tire of having long periods of time to do with as I wish. I mean, sure, I have to actively seek the next fulfilling thing, I can’t just sit back and assume the projects in my mind will fulfilling longtime and I do agree that its easy to slip into boredom, but there are so many things I’d like to do or experience that there’s always something I can do that I find interesting or exciting enough to fill my time. I certainly wouldn’t be idle, which absolutely would bore me.

I suppose everybody is different though and what works for me, might not work for you.

Re: With greater longevity, the quest to avoid infirmities of aging is more urgent

#160

Post by stronglikedan »

acheron wrote: post #100
mcv wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking is fun, but running? It's the most boring activity I've ever tried. A gym membership you don't use is useless of course, but having set appointments for sport, getting called on it when you don't show, and getting encouraged when you do, is far easier than trying to work up the self-discipline to do it at home. When you don't go to the gym on your own, what makes you think you'll do your exercises at home? I s…

Totally opposite here. Running is much better than biking, and also I much prefer excising at home to a gym. Point is: it's a personal preference. Glad you enjoy biking and going to the gym, but both of those sound terrible to me.

I never enjoyed running until I started focusing on my form. Now it's almost meditative. I always thought the only way I'd run is if I were being chased by a predator (or a fucking wasp), but now I run everyday and am totally addicted.
Post reply on HN