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

Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

news.cuanschutz.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#91

Post by adam_arthur »

bluecalm wrote: post #85
adam_arthur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, typically "intense exercise" is implying HIIT style cardio. More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort. The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.

HIIT vs LISS is a false dichotomy. If you look at endurance athletes the most important part of the training is in "heavy domain" that is between what typical LISS and HIIT are. This is intensity high enough that you need to breathe faster but it's still sustainable for at least 40-70 minutes. >>E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort. This is very unli…

A 40-70m sustained effort is effectively LISS from a study perspective. The main distinction being made is intensity, and it's impossible to sustain even a marginally intense effort for 40m (unless you redefine "intense" as different from what most studies use)

Recent studies have shown compelling evidence that LISS promotes arterial plaque buildup, while HIIT does not have this effect and has even been shown to reverse it if other parameters are in order.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.0...

"""

Physical activity and exercise training are effective strategies for reducing the risk of cardiovascular events, but multiple studies have reported an increased prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis, usually measured as coronary artery calcification, among athletes who are middle-aged and older. Our review of the medical literature demonstrates that the prevalence of coronary artery calcification and atherosclerotic plaques, which are strong predictors for future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, was higher in athletes compared with controls, and was higher in the most active athletes compared with less active athletes.

"""

While the health benefits of LISS seem to outweigh this factor, the new evidence that comes out in various studies continually nudge health impact of HIIT over LISS.

I find it difficult to recommend a form of cardio that 1) promotes arterial plaque over one that reverses it, and 2) seems to produce equivalent or worse biomarkers along almost every axis per unit of time spent.

(Not just V02 max)

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#92

Post by Jweb_Guru »

adam_arthur wrote: post #75
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like absolute BS to me. Even in very large scale studies specifically designed for studying mortality, only morbid obesity has been negatively correlated with lifespan. There is even some evidence that being a little overweight is actually helpful for the very old (essentially, because it gives them more buffer if they get sick enough that they stop eating for a while). A lot of this is because modern medicine…

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies. Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people. From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) co…

If a single article in a low-impact journal cited by a handful of other articles is the only evidence you have, you're guilty of cherrypicking, I'm afraid. The article you're citing is clearly a response to the current medical consensus.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#93

Post by adam_arthur »

IndySun wrote: post #78
adam_arthur wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies. Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people. From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) co…

BMI, in many cases, is considered a poor measure of health. https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/bmi-we-know-its-flawed-...

Yes it is but most of the studies use it, so that's the data we have.

And the OP implicitly referenced these studies in his claim that being overweight could be healthier (which comes up in BMI studies of elderly people that don't sufficiently control for confounding factors)

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#94

Post by adam_arthur »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #92
adam_arthur wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies. Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people. From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) co…

If a single article in a low-impact journal cited by a handful of other articles is the only evidence you have, you're guilty of cherrypicking, I'm afraid. The article you're citing is clearly a response to the current medical consensus.

There are hundreds of studies indicating that each marginal additional unit of bodyfat is less healthy for you than not having it.

You are quoting poorly done and controlled BMI studies to dispute this, studies which look primarily at elderly people where weight is highly correlated with health to begin with and is not properly controlled for along every axis.

I'm not here to litigate it or convince you though.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#95

Post by Swizec »

Earw0rm wrote: post #79
Swizec wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. For best results run fast and far. During my personal best marathon (3h 15min) my heart rate averaged in the 170 range

How old were you at the time? Mid 40s here and can comfortably sustain low 150s, but burn out quick past 160.

Mid 30s

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#96

Post by Jweb_Guru »

adam_arthur wrote: post #94
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a single article in a low-impact journal cited by a handful of other articles is the only evidence you have, you're guilty of cherrypicking, I'm afraid. The article you're citing is clearly a response to the current medical consensus.

There are hundreds of studies indicating that each marginal additional unit of bodyfat is less healthy for you than not having it. You are quoting poorly done and controlled BMI studies to dispute this, studies which look primarily at elderly people where weight is highly correlated with health to begin with and is not properly controlled for along every axis. I'm not here to litigate it or convince you though.

"Less healthy" is distinct from "shortens lifespan" which was pretty much the entire point I was making.

I understand that the idea that there are well-controlled massive studies with enough power to detect differences from weight alone is appealing, but they simply aren't there -- which should tell you that even if the effect exists, it's not strong enough that it should be your primary motivation to lose weight. There are already plenty of reasons to lose weight that don't require lying to people about having a BMI > 20 shortening your lifespan.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#97

Post by Schiendelman »

acuozzo wrote: post #84
nine_k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. In NYC I do 98% of my shopping by walking. I can reach my doctor by walking. My daughter used to walk to school because it was a 10 minutes walk (and an excellent school). That would be impossible in a suburban setting; at best, one of these destinations would be within the theoretical waking distance, but without the walkways.

> That would be impossible in a suburban setting; Not necessarily true. The "village center" idea Jim Rouse used in his design of Columbia, MD could be used to solve the problem. All of these things are within walking distance if you live in Columbia's village of Wilde Lake (and, of course, your health insurance covers the primary care physicians in walking distance). I'm guessing you're thinking of typical "stroad"…

The fact that alternative designs are possible is almost irrelevant, because the problem is that you don't get people to agree on the same things. You get one example of something like that and it never replicates.

If you want public health outcomes, actual scale, you get much better outcomes by not having that regulatory system at all.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#98

Post by Schiendelman »

Gigachad wrote: post #72
Herring wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you'll run into traffic/parking issues unless you have a good public transit and land use policy (e.g. bikes, trams, mixed use development, etc). That requires such good design skills few cities have mastered it (Tokyo, Copenhagen, Singapore).

It really doesn't take that much at all. You just have to allow apartments and mixed use zoning, and not actively chop up the land with stroads. Human populations naturally gravitate towards walking, and it's pretty much active sabotage of the outside environment that has broken this.

You're right, of course!

The hard part is "just". If you have mechanisms that allow neighbors to have an opinion at all, they will organize around it, they will stop growth, and you will eventually get San Francisco and New York restrictions anywhere that has high demand.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#99

Post by anon291 »

zaradvutra wrote: post #81
anon291 wrote: post #69

I have no idea what 'sedentary' even means. I work on a desk mostly but I also walk 15 - 20 k steps per day because that's just my life and I accomplish most daily tasks (shopping, going to park, coffee, etc walking). Is that sedentary?

According to the study: Sedentary (SED, n = 9): No regular exercise or elevated heart rate beyond daily tasks. Active (AC, n = 10): ≥150 min/week aerobic exercise for ≥6 months. I guess if you walk fast and sustain that walking pace for some time, it could count (HR in Zone 2/3). But there's really no replacement for a couple sessions of any sport a week (running, cycling, swimming, tennis, soccer - whatever gets you…

Oh sure I run about 10 miles / week, but that's only like 2 hours max running. I still sit most of the day and have tons of 'sitting' problems. I don't know what everyone else's experience with tech work is, but sports is max 4-5 hours / week, and about 20 hours is spent mostly sitting even with a standing desk. Still have the lower back issues that most sitters have.

Re: Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

#100

Post by IndySun »

adam_arthur wrote: post #93
IndySun wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BMI, in many cases, is considered a poor measure of health. https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/bmi-we-know-its-flawed-...

Yes it is but most of the studies use it, so that's the data we have. And the OP implicitly referenced these studies in his claim that being overweight could be healthier (which comes up in BMI studies of elderly people that don't sufficiently control for confounding factors)

It was my intention to add some background detail, for anyone not aware, or wanting a side dive, about how BMI stands 'these days'. As such, it can be said the variables may be considered wider than they may appear at first (in the article conclusions). Which is a roundabout way of saying we all 3 are agreeing.

Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.

Post reply on HN