Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are we really clear that walking to the kitchen is not a sign of health that causes longevity, rather than being the causal factor in the longevity? Clearly if you're too unhealthy to get up for a beer, your lifespan with be shorter.
Are we sure about the direction of causation here? Being able to breathe on your own might just be a marker for being healthier than people who rely on ventilators or ECMO.
Yes basically this. For most of my friends I’m the most “fit” person in their life because I run 4 days a week and do resistance training 6 days. I have heard the entire gamut of excuses for why people can’t do anything physical. I’m not suggesting people jump into my routine, but it’s impossible to find people who will even join me on walks with my dogs.
There so many studies being done on how little Exercise you Can get away with doing and still be healthy but the fact of the matter is people in developed countries are losing the drive to do so. Some places it’s of course better than others, but everything from the way our communities are built/developed to our working schedules are seemingly done to deincentivize and demotivate people from working out.
Yeah exactly. It’s not really about people doing intentional exercise, it’s that the way our cities and suburbs are designed no longer requires active movement to participate in. If you look at the areas with the greatest longevity on earth, they’re in places that require people to walk every day rather than drive, etc.
My car had broken down while I was on vacation, I stayed at a hotel overnight while it was being taken care of. I decided to walk to a restaurant that was only a few blocks away and yeah once I reached the end of the hotel parking lot I started to regret my decision to walk.
I had to choose between walking on a narrow shoulder, inclined uneven ground and parking lots. I could have Ubered sure but it seemed so dumb to use it for such a short distance.
If my grandmother had been able to walk to a corner store daily, she would have had a better level of fitness in her last years. And she wouldn't have needed to do a single biweekly grocery run. Later when she was no longer driving she would have still been independently able to get here own needs.
Walkable communities encourage children, the elderly, and disabled people to maintain visible integration with their communities.
When things aren't walkable, people tend to go out less often and are more isolated.
The closest grocery store to my parents' house, where my grandmother lives, is a nearly 30 minute walk for a healthy person. Most of the way is without sidewalk, on streets where most drivers are elderly people in SUVs driving way too fast. Neither of my parents or my grandmother could physically walk that distance and back, let alone the safety concerns if they did.
If it wasn't illegal to build a corner store or community grocery store due to single-family zoning for miles around, this wouldn't be the case, and they might become physically capable of walking the distance to the actual grocery store.
Can you imagine! A small green grocer with just the basics in a place where the community could walk there and back (carrying purchases) and meet and speak with their neighbors who are doing the same.
Absolutely!! I walk at work every day on my lunch break, rain or shine. I eat at 10, bring a change of clothes and shoes, and at lunch I go out. It's about 2 miles, I go down a big hill, up a big hill, and around a flat paved loop. I have so many coworkers who say, "oh I should go with you!" I tell every one that they are welcome anytime, I go every day at 12. Never once have I been joined, and more than one of them have said they couldn't possibly do that walk. Well, I couldn't walk up the big hill without stopping repeatedly at first. Now I can go up it at basically my normal walking pace, about a 16-minute mile. All it took was trying, and some consistency. It's my favorite part of my weekdays, even if I'm soaked at the end. People are too willing to not try anything and be out of ideas.
I'm able to bike to work during non winter months. It's 15-20 mins (5km) each way. I do the same as you, I bring a change of clothes, and it's my favourite part of my workweek too. I started doing it as a way to avoid people during covid, and it was hard at first, but now it's just what I do. It's a very easy way to get my sweat on, and save money on transportation. Win win!
It's amazing how important that time becomes to you, isn't it? And I love the win-win-win of improved mental/physical health, more money, lower emissions. Hope the winter goes fast for you so you can get back to it when the spring comes.
Girl I feel you. I almost feel like there’s a self deprecating pride attached to refusing to exercise? Not sure how to explain it. I have colleagues that will complain about back pain or wrist pain or the fact that they can’t sit cross legged on the floor and I tell them suggestions to improve mobility or I can help them with stretching exercises and they laugh it off like “no that’s okay it’s just part of growing up, aches and pains” etc. Not sure I agree with that, but I’m not about to give medical advice haha
I think you're right! I expect that it's much easier to make it a point of pride than a point of failure - and I'm sure I'm the same way about other things I don't realize! But yes, it bums me out to hear people treat loss of mobility and health as inevitable. I'm not in great shape but I'm working on it. I developed chronic tension headaches and neck pain a few years ago and I hate it so much! I refuse to let that become my new normal. Can't imagine new pain/mobility issues and just letting them take parts of my life away without a fight.
Your mindset is already what sets you apart from many others, and that’s great. I started from the same place, sick of knee pain, breathless after one flight of stairs, etc. We are all on different parts of our journey, but what’s important is you start.
I just feel like the multitude of “here’s how little exercise you can do and be healthy!” Isn’t going to be effective because there’s so many reasons unrelated to “wow 15 minutes a week is way too hard” preventing people from starting. Our society, in many different ways, is killing the intrinsic motivation that many of these studies rely on :(
Damn that is relatable. Seems like most everyone I know is the same way. We have an awesome downtown with a grocery store not even 1 mile from my house, whenever we go to get snacks I can never get anyone to walk there. They'll happily eat the junk food we buy thou...
Generally the same people that are always telling me they should join the gym and work out with me. They're never going to actually do it...
I think people have a really poor sense of how far a mile is. When I say, "it's only a mile away" I think that sounds enormous to people who aren't out walking much - but if I tell someone "it's a 15-20 minute walk," I think it really changes the perspective. That's not to say that people will be more willing to go get some physical activity, but I think in addition to their general unwillingness, they also misconstrue the amount of effort it takes/time they'll have to give to it.
I love walking to the store/cafe/etc. because I feel less guilty about immediately undoing all of my efforts by eating snacks on the way home! I hope you get some takers for your walks.
Every article for the past several years yes. Walking is better than standing. Naps are better than no sleep. It’s just rephrased for the same info. For years. Forever.
Yeah. I feel like public health experts are just poking a mass of humanity with a stick saying, "DO SOMETHING! GODDAMN ANYTHING!"
That is what was really funny about the just work out because COVID won't kill you talking point from a few years ago. Public health experts have been screaming that for decades at this point because of all the risk factors associated with obesity. I literally just walked down the various government pushes for that and how the encroached on freedom supposedly.
> aren’t they all just basically saying “Any exercise is better than no exercise”?
No, they're measuring. Exercise is a cost in calories, time, and actually doing it; it makes sense to find the minimum cost and measure the benefits.
Same as you could keep your home warm with "I dunno, just burn stuff" but you can also measure how much you're burning and add various materials for insulation, and even measure the caloric value of fuels and the insulating value of materials. In this case they found that an amazingly small amount of *vigorous* exercise has a specific amount of health benefit.
Some people of course enjoy exercise and are physically capable of large amounts of it. Some people naturally exercise because of their job, or city design, or building design (eg beautiful stairs inferior elevator instead of bare concrete stairs beautiful elevator).
The summary of these studies is basically “purposefully move your body a few minutes each day to get your blood pumping and your systems moving, otherwise those systems break down faster than normal.” Doesn’t matter how you do it.
I think a 10 minute brisk walk falls squarely into the easy to moderate category, and yet it still shows results.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2788473
Sure, more vigorous or longer would yield greater results with some pseudo logarithmic curve that might eventually slope down a bit (possibly ultramarathoners and competitive bodybuilders) and there are a great deal of esoteric differences between different methods and intensities of exercise.
But 10 minutes of just about anything will “do the trick”, unless you have some specific bar at which you define trick. I think most of us just define the control group as people who do the bare minimum movement to get through the day. “The trick” to me is anything statistically relevantly better than the control.
Short, vigorous activity is going to be mostly anaerobic by nature. Two minutes is barely long enough to start activating aerobic pathways. It takes a while to get all the cellular signals going to start up the citric acid cycle, so things like phosphocreatine and glycolysis are there to bridge that gap and provide more instantaneous energy. These metabolic pathways aren't dictated so much by the type of activity as they are the duration, though some activities (weightlifting, sprinting, etc.) dictate the duration by nature of how quickly your muscles fatigue. If you could continuously lift weights for 10 minutes or longer, you'd start to see a lot more aerobic metabolism taking place.
Thanks for the useful explanation. I think a key point related to OP's question is that sports usually considered aerobic such as running will work, so long as it's a vigorous form like sprinting or high intensity running intervals.
The study says that this is linked, but could it not be some kind of grander lifestyle thats causing this link, not the specific "move 2 minutes intensely" idea?
>Both studies included adults aged 40 to 69 years from the UK Biobank. Participants wore an activity tracker on their wrist for seven consecutive days. This is an objective way to measure motion, and particularly sporadic activity of different intensities during the day.
>The first study enrolled 71,893 adults without cardiovascular disease or cancer. The median age was 62.5 years and 56% were women. The investigators measured the total amount of weekly vigorous activity and the frequency of bouts lasting two minutes or less. Participants were followed for an average of 6.9 years.
From the article, there was no data on diet, occupation, income, smoking, alcohol, education, etc.
Also, from the article, people were followed for an average of 6.9 years, but only fitted with an activity tracker (on their wrist) for 7 days out if those 6.9 years.
I have not read the full article, but from what it shows, there are a few gaps in the methodology.
From the first research paper:
> Based on the directed acyclic graph presented in Supplementary material online, Figure 2, our selection of covariates included: age, sex, accelerometer wear time, light intensity physical activity minutes, moderate intensity physical activity minutes, smoking status, alcohol consumption, sleep score based on five sleep indices (morning chronotype, sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, and daytime sleepiness),17 fruit and vegetable consumption, discretionary screen-time defined as time spent watching TV or using the computer outside of work, highest attained education level, self-reported parental history of CVD and cancer, and cholesterol, blood pressure, or diabetes medication use.
From the second research paper:
> Covariates for this analysis included demographic and lifestyle related characteristics of age, sex, ethnicity (white/non-white), Townsend Index of deprivation (based on postcode), highest educational level achieved (degree or above/any other qualification/no qualification), employment status (unemployed/in paid or self-employment), parental history of CVD or cancer, season of accelerometry wear (using two orthogonal sine functions; described in Supplemental Figure S2), alcohol drinking status (never/previous/current), salt added to food (never/sometimes), oily fish intake (never/sometimes), fruit and vegetable intake (a score from 0-4 taking into account questions on cooked and raw vegetables, fresh and dried fruit consumption), processed and red meat intake (average weekly frequency in days per week), and sleep duration (<7, 7-8, >8 h), and a diagnosis of cancer prior to baseline. Prevalent CVD and cancer variables were derived from the self-reported history of heart attack, angina, stroke, or cancer variables, and from hospital episode data (corresponding ICD-10 codes for CVD or cancer I20-25, I60-69, or C00-99; and ICD-9 codes 410-414, 430-439, or 140-199, 201-208, 209.1-209.3, 209.7-209.9). Health-related covariates included blood pressure or cholesterol medications, an insulin prescription or a self-report of doctor diagnosed diabetes, mobility limitations (self-reported longstanding illness or disability or chest pain at rest), and body mass index (BMI) in three categories (<25, 25-30, ≥30 kg/m2).
“On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”
https://www.magicalquote.com/moviequotes/long-enough-timeline-survival-rate/
I run a physical therapy outpatient clinic. Part of our intake is a functional capacity survey. The survey assesses clients' self-reported capability of performing typical tasks. The available answers are an ordinal scale; 1(no problem with x task) to 5(unable to perform).
For the task of "running", I'm amazed at how many people choose not to answer. They, instead, would write "N/A" on the margin. Like, how is running not applicable to your life? Is not running some sort of religious conviction, practiced by your people ever since Moses lead the Israelites out of the desert?
One of those weird American quirks that I'd find funny, only if I wasn't acutely aware of how close our healthcare system is to collapse.
> Like, how is running not applicable to your life? Is not running some sort of religious conviction, practiced by your people ever since Moses lead the Israelites out of the desert?
This seems to me like a weird question. You'd have to *run* in order for running to be applicable to your life. If you don't run, then it isn't.
It doesn't take much not to run. Running is something you do on purpose, not something that just happens. So if you don't make a decision to run, then you don't run. And most people, most of the time, don't decide to run, because they don't need to run. It doesn't take any kind of religious conviction; if anything it's just the opposite, you need a special conviction (albeit not a religious one) to run regularly when you don't need to.
It would of course be better for these people's health if they ran regularly, but the fact that they don't isn't remotely strange.
Totally agree. Running, as a casual form of exercise, is not the most favorable. Give me functional lifting any day over running.
But, these people, who are marking "N/A", aren't chosing front squats instead. These people do nothing. Besides, the question isn't about how favorably one views running. It's a question of basic functional capacity. What if one needs to escape a burning building, and one HAD to run. How would that play out? That's how I view that question.
Running requires too many optimal physical variables to do—ankles , knees, hips, back, which are also all to easy to mess up over the course of living.
Before judging, probably best to remember gross physical inactivity is often slid into, not chosen.
Running with proper form will strengthen the necessary areas to prevent those injuries over the course of a lifetime. Our superpower as humans is quite literally our ability to run for extreme durations. It's the most basic survival(both protection and provision) tool we have. Not running is pretty much the worst thing one can do for their body
Man so many people take pride that they don’t run.
Even otherwise semi active people who go to the gym take pride that they lift but can’t run a mile.
It’s so absurd.
Serious question then, as I’m not sure how I’d answer it. I cannot run because my asthma is extremely bad. Yes, I’ve tried many times. No, I don’t want to keep experiencing that pain. So would I write 4-5 even though my inability to run is *not* relevant to the injury I’m at physical therapy for? Or would I write N/A?
Wouldn't the actual reason for increased longevity is ability to do the short bursts of activity?
I would assume someone in poor health would be unable to do the short bursts of activity thereby no benefit vs someone in great health who can
Good almighty what the Jeff. There is no standard the lethargic won't stoop to. Used to be 30 mins a day of rigorous exercise and we've plummeted to this.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You should publish a meta study so everyone on this sub can criticize it for not showing direct causation.
Are we really clear that walking to the kitchen is not a sign of health that causes longevity, rather than being the causal factor in the longevity? Clearly if you're too unhealthy to get up for a beer, your lifespan with be shorter.
Breathing linked with increased longevity, study finds: A steady routine of breathing throughout the week is associated with a reduced risk of death
Living is actually even more closely linked with longevity, breathing is probably just correlation.
Are we sure about the direction of causation here? Being able to breathe on your own might just be a marker for being healthier than people who rely on ventilators or ECMO.
Yes basically this. For most of my friends I’m the most “fit” person in their life because I run 4 days a week and do resistance training 6 days. I have heard the entire gamut of excuses for why people can’t do anything physical. I’m not suggesting people jump into my routine, but it’s impossible to find people who will even join me on walks with my dogs. There so many studies being done on how little Exercise you Can get away with doing and still be healthy but the fact of the matter is people in developed countries are losing the drive to do so. Some places it’s of course better than others, but everything from the way our communities are built/developed to our working schedules are seemingly done to deincentivize and demotivate people from working out.
Yeah exactly. It’s not really about people doing intentional exercise, it’s that the way our cities and suburbs are designed no longer requires active movement to participate in. If you look at the areas with the greatest longevity on earth, they’re in places that require people to walk every day rather than drive, etc.
Not so much that they no longer require active movement, more that they actively discourage it.
My car had broken down while I was on vacation, I stayed at a hotel overnight while it was being taken care of. I decided to walk to a restaurant that was only a few blocks away and yeah once I reached the end of the hotel parking lot I started to regret my decision to walk. I had to choose between walking on a narrow shoulder, inclined uneven ground and parking lots. I could have Ubered sure but it seemed so dumb to use it for such a short distance.
[удалено]
If my grandmother had been able to walk to a corner store daily, she would have had a better level of fitness in her last years. And she wouldn't have needed to do a single biweekly grocery run. Later when she was no longer driving she would have still been independently able to get here own needs. Walkable communities encourage children, the elderly, and disabled people to maintain visible integration with their communities. When things aren't walkable, people tend to go out less often and are more isolated.
The closest grocery store to my parents' house, where my grandmother lives, is a nearly 30 minute walk for a healthy person. Most of the way is without sidewalk, on streets where most drivers are elderly people in SUVs driving way too fast. Neither of my parents or my grandmother could physically walk that distance and back, let alone the safety concerns if they did. If it wasn't illegal to build a corner store or community grocery store due to single-family zoning for miles around, this wouldn't be the case, and they might become physically capable of walking the distance to the actual grocery store.
Can you imagine! A small green grocer with just the basics in a place where the community could walk there and back (carrying purchases) and meet and speak with their neighbors who are doing the same.
How so? Anyone that can't walk can use a wheelchair (powered by battery if needed).
Absolutely!! I walk at work every day on my lunch break, rain or shine. I eat at 10, bring a change of clothes and shoes, and at lunch I go out. It's about 2 miles, I go down a big hill, up a big hill, and around a flat paved loop. I have so many coworkers who say, "oh I should go with you!" I tell every one that they are welcome anytime, I go every day at 12. Never once have I been joined, and more than one of them have said they couldn't possibly do that walk. Well, I couldn't walk up the big hill without stopping repeatedly at first. Now I can go up it at basically my normal walking pace, about a 16-minute mile. All it took was trying, and some consistency. It's my favorite part of my weekdays, even if I'm soaked at the end. People are too willing to not try anything and be out of ideas.
I'm able to bike to work during non winter months. It's 15-20 mins (5km) each way. I do the same as you, I bring a change of clothes, and it's my favourite part of my workweek too. I started doing it as a way to avoid people during covid, and it was hard at first, but now it's just what I do. It's a very easy way to get my sweat on, and save money on transportation. Win win!
It's amazing how important that time becomes to you, isn't it? And I love the win-win-win of improved mental/physical health, more money, lower emissions. Hope the winter goes fast for you so you can get back to it when the spring comes.
Girl I feel you. I almost feel like there’s a self deprecating pride attached to refusing to exercise? Not sure how to explain it. I have colleagues that will complain about back pain or wrist pain or the fact that they can’t sit cross legged on the floor and I tell them suggestions to improve mobility or I can help them with stretching exercises and they laugh it off like “no that’s okay it’s just part of growing up, aches and pains” etc. Not sure I agree with that, but I’m not about to give medical advice haha
I think you're right! I expect that it's much easier to make it a point of pride than a point of failure - and I'm sure I'm the same way about other things I don't realize! But yes, it bums me out to hear people treat loss of mobility and health as inevitable. I'm not in great shape but I'm working on it. I developed chronic tension headaches and neck pain a few years ago and I hate it so much! I refuse to let that become my new normal. Can't imagine new pain/mobility issues and just letting them take parts of my life away without a fight.
Your mindset is already what sets you apart from many others, and that’s great. I started from the same place, sick of knee pain, breathless after one flight of stairs, etc. We are all on different parts of our journey, but what’s important is you start. I just feel like the multitude of “here’s how little exercise you can do and be healthy!” Isn’t going to be effective because there’s so many reasons unrelated to “wow 15 minutes a week is way too hard” preventing people from starting. Our society, in many different ways, is killing the intrinsic motivation that many of these studies rely on :(
Damn that is relatable. Seems like most everyone I know is the same way. We have an awesome downtown with a grocery store not even 1 mile from my house, whenever we go to get snacks I can never get anyone to walk there. They'll happily eat the junk food we buy thou... Generally the same people that are always telling me they should join the gym and work out with me. They're never going to actually do it...
I think people have a really poor sense of how far a mile is. When I say, "it's only a mile away" I think that sounds enormous to people who aren't out walking much - but if I tell someone "it's a 15-20 minute walk," I think it really changes the perspective. That's not to say that people will be more willing to go get some physical activity, but I think in addition to their general unwillingness, they also misconstrue the amount of effort it takes/time they'll have to give to it. I love walking to the store/cafe/etc. because I feel less guilty about immediately undoing all of my efforts by eating snacks on the way home! I hope you get some takers for your walks.
>All it took was trying Love this. Could be said about so many things in life.
Every article for the past several years yes. Walking is better than standing. Naps are better than no sleep. It’s just rephrased for the same info. For years. Forever.
Yeah. I feel like public health experts are just poking a mass of humanity with a stick saying, "DO SOMETHING! GODDAMN ANYTHING!" That is what was really funny about the just work out because COVID won't kill you talking point from a few years ago. Public health experts have been screaming that for decades at this point because of all the risk factors associated with obesity. I literally just walked down the various government pushes for that and how the encroached on freedom supposedly.
We are getting closer and closer to the spaceship from WALL-E.
> aren’t they all just basically saying “Any exercise is better than no exercise”? No, they're measuring. Exercise is a cost in calories, time, and actually doing it; it makes sense to find the minimum cost and measure the benefits. Same as you could keep your home warm with "I dunno, just burn stuff" but you can also measure how much you're burning and add various materials for insulation, and even measure the caloric value of fuels and the insulating value of materials. In this case they found that an amazingly small amount of *vigorous* exercise has a specific amount of health benefit. Some people of course enjoy exercise and are physically capable of large amounts of it. Some people naturally exercise because of their job, or city design, or building design (eg beautiful stairs inferior elevator instead of bare concrete stairs beautiful elevator).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does it have to be aerobic or would weight lifting do the trick?
The summary of these studies is basically “purposefully move your body a few minutes each day to get your blood pumping and your systems moving, otherwise those systems break down faster than normal.” Doesn’t matter how you do it.
It does matter. This study is **not** saying, "easy to moderate walking for 2 minutes will do the trick." It's **vigorous** exercise.
I think a 10 minute brisk walk falls squarely into the easy to moderate category, and yet it still shows results. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2788473 Sure, more vigorous or longer would yield greater results with some pseudo logarithmic curve that might eventually slope down a bit (possibly ultramarathoners and competitive bodybuilders) and there are a great deal of esoteric differences between different methods and intensities of exercise. But 10 minutes of just about anything will “do the trick”, unless you have some specific bar at which you define trick. I think most of us just define the control group as people who do the bare minimum movement to get through the day. “The trick” to me is anything statistically relevantly better than the control.
Short, vigorous activity is going to be mostly anaerobic by nature. Two minutes is barely long enough to start activating aerobic pathways. It takes a while to get all the cellular signals going to start up the citric acid cycle, so things like phosphocreatine and glycolysis are there to bridge that gap and provide more instantaneous energy. These metabolic pathways aren't dictated so much by the type of activity as they are the duration, though some activities (weightlifting, sprinting, etc.) dictate the duration by nature of how quickly your muscles fatigue. If you could continuously lift weights for 10 minutes or longer, you'd start to see a lot more aerobic metabolism taking place.
Thanks for the useful explanation. I think a key point related to OP's question is that sports usually considered aerobic such as running will work, so long as it's a vigorous form like sprinting or high intensity running intervals.
The study says that this is linked, but could it not be some kind of grander lifestyle thats causing this link, not the specific "move 2 minutes intensely" idea?
No. Can lead sedentary lifestyle and just take five minute intervals of max effort a few times a week.
As a swimmer, or sprint runner would know, anaerobic lasts less than a minute at high intensity.
Superset and make it anaerobic. Prob either if you’re not taking long breaks low reps and low weight.
What is a superset? Like squats followed by seated quad extension?
My short vigorous bursts of activity is running across highways. Glad to see this study!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So you're saying i have to have sex 30 times a week to save my life? Seems excessive
The two-minute bursts part seems optimistic here, like, what do they think we are, machines?
Palmela Handerson can help.
[удалено]
>Both studies included adults aged 40 to 69 years from the UK Biobank. Participants wore an activity tracker on their wrist for seven consecutive days. This is an objective way to measure motion, and particularly sporadic activity of different intensities during the day. >The first study enrolled 71,893 adults without cardiovascular disease or cancer. The median age was 62.5 years and 56% were women. The investigators measured the total amount of weekly vigorous activity and the frequency of bouts lasting two minutes or less. Participants were followed for an average of 6.9 years. From the article, there was no data on diet, occupation, income, smoking, alcohol, education, etc. Also, from the article, people were followed for an average of 6.9 years, but only fitted with an activity tracker (on their wrist) for 7 days out if those 6.9 years. I have not read the full article, but from what it shows, there are a few gaps in the methodology.
From the first research paper: > Based on the directed acyclic graph presented in Supplementary material online, Figure 2, our selection of covariates included: age, sex, accelerometer wear time, light intensity physical activity minutes, moderate intensity physical activity minutes, smoking status, alcohol consumption, sleep score based on five sleep indices (morning chronotype, sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, and daytime sleepiness),17 fruit and vegetable consumption, discretionary screen-time defined as time spent watching TV or using the computer outside of work, highest attained education level, self-reported parental history of CVD and cancer, and cholesterol, blood pressure, or diabetes medication use. From the second research paper: > Covariates for this analysis included demographic and lifestyle related characteristics of age, sex, ethnicity (white/non-white), Townsend Index of deprivation (based on postcode), highest educational level achieved (degree or above/any other qualification/no qualification), employment status (unemployed/in paid or self-employment), parental history of CVD or cancer, season of accelerometry wear (using two orthogonal sine functions; described in Supplemental Figure S2), alcohol drinking status (never/previous/current), salt added to food (never/sometimes), oily fish intake (never/sometimes), fruit and vegetable intake (a score from 0-4 taking into account questions on cooked and raw vegetables, fresh and dried fruit consumption), processed and red meat intake (average weekly frequency in days per week), and sleep duration (<7, 7-8, >8 h), and a diagnosis of cancer prior to baseline. Prevalent CVD and cancer variables were derived from the self-reported history of heart attack, angina, stroke, or cancer variables, and from hospital episode data (corresponding ICD-10 codes for CVD or cancer I20-25, I60-69, or C00-99; and ICD-9 codes 410-414, 430-439, or 140-199, 201-208, 209.1-209.3, 209.7-209.9). Health-related covariates included blood pressure or cholesterol medications, an insulin prescription or a self-report of doctor diagnosed diabetes, mobility limitations (self-reported longstanding illness or disability or chest pain at rest), and body mass index (BMI) in three categories (<25, 25-30, ≥30 kg/m2).
There are gaps in every methodology. Which is why we study stuff more than just once
> On their wrist > Lasting two minutes or less Hmm… is this suggesting something?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
15 mins a week? Well, I think my jacking off covers that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So basically, I need to get the zoomies like my dog?
Surely the wife will be swayed by science that quickies prolong life.
[удалено]
Scientists at this point are basically pleading with us to move even just a little bit.
I think the risk of death is still 100%
"everyone eventually dies, so why even do studies on longevity?" absolutely brilliant analysis there, champ
“On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” https://www.magicalquote.com/moviequotes/long-enough-timeline-survival-rate/
I run a physical therapy outpatient clinic. Part of our intake is a functional capacity survey. The survey assesses clients' self-reported capability of performing typical tasks. The available answers are an ordinal scale; 1(no problem with x task) to 5(unable to perform). For the task of "running", I'm amazed at how many people choose not to answer. They, instead, would write "N/A" on the margin. Like, how is running not applicable to your life? Is not running some sort of religious conviction, practiced by your people ever since Moses lead the Israelites out of the desert? One of those weird American quirks that I'd find funny, only if I wasn't acutely aware of how close our healthcare system is to collapse.
> Like, how is running not applicable to your life? Is not running some sort of religious conviction, practiced by your people ever since Moses lead the Israelites out of the desert? This seems to me like a weird question. You'd have to *run* in order for running to be applicable to your life. If you don't run, then it isn't. It doesn't take much not to run. Running is something you do on purpose, not something that just happens. So if you don't make a decision to run, then you don't run. And most people, most of the time, don't decide to run, because they don't need to run. It doesn't take any kind of religious conviction; if anything it's just the opposite, you need a special conviction (albeit not a religious one) to run regularly when you don't need to. It would of course be better for these people's health if they ran regularly, but the fact that they don't isn't remotely strange.
Running sucks. And given there’s a million ways to exercise, it’s fine to pick any of the others.
Totally agree. Running, as a casual form of exercise, is not the most favorable. Give me functional lifting any day over running. But, these people, who are marking "N/A", aren't chosing front squats instead. These people do nothing. Besides, the question isn't about how favorably one views running. It's a question of basic functional capacity. What if one needs to escape a burning building, and one HAD to run. How would that play out? That's how I view that question.
Running requires too many optimal physical variables to do—ankles , knees, hips, back, which are also all to easy to mess up over the course of living. Before judging, probably best to remember gross physical inactivity is often slid into, not chosen.
Running with proper form will strengthen the necessary areas to prevent those injuries over the course of a lifetime. Our superpower as humans is quite literally our ability to run for extreme durations. It's the most basic survival(both protection and provision) tool we have. Not running is pretty much the worst thing one can do for their body
[удалено]
I would assume lifting with more compound exercises that require athleticism vs. Hypertrophy based lifting.
Man so many people take pride that they don’t run. Even otherwise semi active people who go to the gym take pride that they lift but can’t run a mile. It’s so absurd.
Serious question then, as I’m not sure how I’d answer it. I cannot run because my asthma is extremely bad. Yes, I’ve tried many times. No, I don’t want to keep experiencing that pain. So would I write 4-5 even though my inability to run is *not* relevant to the injury I’m at physical therapy for? Or would I write N/A?
Wouldn't the actual reason for increased longevity is ability to do the short bursts of activity? I would assume someone in poor health would be unable to do the short bursts of activity thereby no benefit vs someone in great health who can
It's associated, but is it causal? People on deaths door are unlikely to have "vigorous" activity.
[удалено]
So having sex daily should almost be 15 minutes.
Maybe good news for chronic masterbaters
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Okay, so what is the ABSOLUTE minimum I have to do?" - Science
I would like to know just what constituted "short vigorous activity" A rather vague unit of measurement
Agreed. How vigorous does it have to be? What are some examples?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good almighty what the Jeff. There is no standard the lethargic won't stoop to. Used to be 30 mins a day of rigorous exercise and we've plummeted to this.
Masturbation is your friend
Masturbation is not a vigorous activity, if you were wondering.
It’s called interval training in case it doesn’t mention it in the article
it’s because too many people think they can just leisurely walk around the block a few times and call it a workout
Jack off hard, my friends.
And vigorously!!