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

81–90 of 159 posts

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#81

Post by throwup238 »

tom_alexander wrote: post #45
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.

Wikipedia puts the "preferred walking speed" around 3 miles per hour, so that would be 2 hours of walking per day. So with 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 2 hours of walking, 1 hour of hygiene, 1 hour of commuting, and 2 hours for meals, you'd still be left with 2 hours of personal time to do all your extracurriculars like cleaning, parenting, spousing, hobbying, shopping, repairing things, etc.

> you'd still be left with 2 hours of personal time to do all your extracurriculars like cleaning, parenting, spousing, hobbying, shopping, repairing things, etc.

In what way is parenting an extracurricular activity?

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#82

Post by chaostheory »

dooglius wrote: post #27
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…

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.

Use a walking treadmill for your desk. Life changer

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#83

Post by djtango »

cvwright wrote: post #43
Blackthorn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People must have very different definitions of HIIT because there's no way someone is sustaining a 2 minute absolute max-effort sprint.

Usually in this context it means “the max effort that you can sustain for 2 minutes”. Same thing goes for a 20-minute max effort or even an hour etc.

Max effort is kind of nebulous as it really means different things to different people. Heart rate is probably the simplest and universal gauge for this...

Atm I am somewhat unfit (relative to my past/potential) so when I do a round on the pads in muay thai/boxing which could be 2-4 minutes, my heart rate sits around 180-185 for the duration of the round. Often, sparring is actually more relaxed than pads because the coaches like to work us hard.

I have noticed that if my training meaningfully reaches 173+ I will usually feel like a vegetable for several hours after, usually the whole day. I get endorphins and heightened awareness around the 150-172 region.

"Max effort" is kind of meaningless because it means different things to different people - when I was 16 my swimming coach pushed me with sprints until I puked, not THAT uncommon amongst competitive athletes and I was a little out of shape that one time. I rarely see people push themselves that hard during HIIT classes, myself included...

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#84

Post by nradov »

justinator wrote: post #65
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.

You'll miss walking when your older and your bones turn to dust. I'd honestly walk as much as you can. Rust never sleeps.

Get busy living or get busy dying.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#85

Post by pandaman »

striking wrote: post #37
John23832 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then jog it? That's not a negative.

There's a difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise. For many people, that manifests as walking being different from running. Which "zone" your heart rate is in (as compared to your maximum heart rate for your age group) tends to be a good indicator of which kind of exercise you're doing. It's important to do both kinds of exercise, with an 80/20 rule being pretty commonly followed.

Both walking and jogging are aerobic. Unless you can jog 6 miles under 2 minutes, of course.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#86

Post by nradov »

striking wrote: post #37
John23832 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then jog it? That's not a negative.

There's a difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise. For many people, that manifests as walking being different from running. Which "zone" your heart rate is in (as compared to your maximum heart rate for your age group) tends to be a good indicator of which kind of exercise you're doing. It's important to do both kinds of exercise, with an 80/20 rule being pretty commonly followed.

The 80/20 rule is kind of bullshit unless you're a professional endurance athlete. People who are only exercising a few hours per week will probably benefit from spending more than 20% of that time in higher intensity zones.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vTgpKtseKCA3r4fKbrTUi?si=5...

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#87

Post by makk »

justinator wrote: post #63
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…

I love when exercise is hyper-optimized as possible so I can back to what's most important: working at a job I actually hate to make as much money as possible -- the real source of my happiness.

Unlikely that working a job leads to making as much money as possible.

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#88

Post by nradov »

rootusrootus wrote: post #59
wotmatetherow wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity is an independent risk factor, even if otherwise active/healthy. It's worth getting under control for lifespan and healthspan.

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 is useful for screening purposes but on an individual basis it's meaningless as a predictor of all-cause mortality. What really matters is body composition, or more specifically amount of visceral fat (subcutaneous fat doesn't matter nearly as much).

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24147-viscera...

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#89

Post by inverted666 »

This article describes issues lurking unseen for inactive people. I have the inverse. I'm one of the more active people I know: lots of walking, biking, swimming, hiking (with a heavy pack). I like to do outside work like digging and chopping firewood, etc. Yet, my blood glucose went prediabetic a couple of years ago (I'm 45). I actually eat very well too, lots of greens and whole grains, mostly vegetarian (my wife is a dietitian). I rarely eat sweets.

So, I have the inverse issue: instead of being inactive with an unobserved symptom, I am active with an observed symptom.

Alas, I haven't been able to get any relevant medical advice because the answer is always: diet and exercise. And, while I suppose I could find some way to improve my diet and exercise to some degree, I'm clearly above the norm. And, when I got a referral to an endocrinologist, they ended up canceling the appointment without seeing me because I'm only prediabetic.

Does anyone have thoughts or advice?

Re: Metabolic and cellular differences between sedentary and active individuals

#90

Post by nradov »

Madmallard wrote: post #34
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…

I’ve been chronically ill for 11 years now. I wasn’t really exercising basically at all for 8 of them then I started walking 3 years ago and jogging 1 year ago and cycling 6 months ago. My VO2 max was 52 at age 24. 40 when tested a year later after becoming sick. I had it retested a year ago and it was 36.5. But I ran a 5:59 mile a month ago so it is very likely higher now. But I haven’t been able to get it retested…

If you want to know your VO2 Max then you can do a Cooper Test for free at your local school running track. That won't be as precise as a metabolic lab test with a breathing mask but close enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_test

Post reply on HN