Too much vigorous exercise (like running) bad for longevity?

[Tsuga]

You can obviously do what you like, but planting a seed in youth that moderate exercise and no racing is the way to stay healthy isn't exactly what the video is suggesting either. There is a huge difference between years of over-training, and never even attempting to achieve a high level of athleticism. It is really motivating to tell youth that they can work hard and do well at something, and steer them toward doing this safely under excellent guidance.

It surely depends on your frame of reference.

 

For my kids, weekly hikes and walking to school, one or two organized sports and "jumping off frustration" on a trampoline or pogo stick is moderate. Anything less is pretty lazy. This aligns with what they see in our community. But if your idea of vigorous exercise is walking a mile I can see how that message could be taken the wrong way.

[cintinative]

You’re forgetting how vigorous exercise lowers resting heart rate, as long as someone isn’t overtraining. Before I began indoor soccer again, my sitting heart rate was about 80. Now it is about 63. So the days I play I have about 150*60=9000 beats for the game plus 63*60*23=86,940 for the rest of the day.

 

Soccer day: 95,940 heart beats

Pre-soccer day: 115,200 heart beats

 

So (ignoring however much heart rate drops during sleep), vigorous exercise has lowered my total beats per day, even on days I play. I didn’t get this effect from moderate exercise like Jazzercise, which I had already been doing.

 

 

This is where I get confused. I don't consider myself to be doing vigorous exercise more than twice a week, but my resting heart rate can be in the 50s.  I do strength training on Sunday/Thursday for arms, and low impact strength for legs Mon/Fri and HIIT on Tues and run 4 miles on Saturday.  I would not consider anything but the running and HIIT to be vigorous as my HR does not usually exceed 130 on the other days. 

[cintinative]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but one thing I have noticed among the very small group of runners I know is that there is a focus on the races rather than regular running for exercise.  I do know a few that run year round, but the rest tend to run only when training for a race. So there may be months where they don't run or exercise at all. 

 

Other than the fact I absolutely need the exercise for mental health and would gain so much weight it would be silly, I can't imagine not running for four or five months and then jumping back in to running four miles my first time out.   My body would strongly disagree with that. =)

[KungFuPanda]

You’re forgetting how vigorous exercise lowers resting heart rate, as long as someone isn’t overtraining. Before I began indoor soccer again, my sitting heart rate was about 80. Now it is about 63. So the days I play I have about 150*60=9000 beats for the game plus 63*60*23=86,940 for the rest of the day.

 

Soccer day: 95,940 heart beats

Pre-soccer day: 115,200 heart beats

 

So (ignoring however much heart rate drops during sleep), vigorous exercise has lowered my total beats per day, even on days I play. I didn’t get this effect from moderate exercise like Jazzercise, which I had already been doing.

She addressed that in the last sentence. I read her point as being the lower heart rate doesn’t benefit you if your intensity of exercise pulls your total number of heartbeats way above the average.

[creekland]

LOL. We must know a different set of runners. Everyone who seems to hang in the online running groups just runs to run. I listen to one ultrarunner podcast where they made a race that is 30 miles through Chicago and a bunch of required food stops.  Pizza, burger, chicken wings, etc. Very little discussion of health and longevity. Infinite discussion on running and running and running...

 

Definitely a different set!  There are a couple of kids at our school who would probably know there are online forums dedicated to running, but the majority wouldn't give a hoot.  Teacher-wise, I hang out with math/science mostly, then add some English.  I know the gym teachers, but don't regularly communicate with them.  I suspect they'd be more likely to fall in with your group.  I get folks who are either sedentary and want to exercise because they know it's good for their health or those like myself who mainly love the Great Outdoors and exercise that way.

 

Yes.

 

What it makes me think of is the research on what makes kids most likely to become adults who stay active.  It seems to be involvement in several sports in a less intense way and being comfortable in a lot of physical activity settings, rather than the total dedication to one sport that a lot of leagues seem to encourage.  Even if they don't ask for it straight out, if they have a lot of practices in the week that take up all the student's time, or they run camps and such in the off season, the tendency is to keep the kids working always on the one thing.

 

And I think it also means their bodies are being subject to the same kinds of stresses all the time.

 

Taken together it suggests to me a kind of mixed activity profile where you have to be fit, but not highly conditioned just to participate.

 

I think it's been known for a while that we (general we) are overworking kids' bodies in sports in today's age.  When our kids played soccer, we purposely looked for a community group where they practiced just one evening per week, then had fun games on Saturday.  The head of the group wanted my boys to move up to travel teams.  No thank you.  We didn't choose that for their health.  We chose it because of our family and personal travel schedule, but now I'm really glad it worked out that way.  Otherwise, the only organized sport mine did was Chess.  ;)  Actually, youngest did one year of track at the ps too, but then he got tired of it.

 

You can obviously do what you like, but planting a seed in youth that moderate exercise and no racing is the way to stay healthy isn't exactly what the video is suggesting either. There is a huge difference between years of over-training, and never even attempting to achieve a high level of athleticism. It is really motivating to tell youth that they can work hard and do well at something, and steer them toward doing this safely under excellent guidance. 

 

I'm not sure what makes you think that thought even crossed my mind.

 

In my classes (all high school) we look at facts as per studies and discuss conclusion options.  Seems to me these studies show exercise is super beneficial, just watch overdoing it because years of overuse can have bad consequences.

 

Of course, we also look at more than one study, and if they contradict each other, look for reasons for that too.

 

I try to teach kids to think - look at real evidence and think, understanding science is a subject still in motion and not already "solved."  I don't give them sound bites of what they are supposed to think when these modern day things come up.  I train them to be intelligent adults and to understand any consequences (good or bad) from decisions they make.  Sound bites make for an awful education IMO.  They're only useful for learning vocab and basic facts to be able to talk about the subject.  Then we can get into the interesting stuff.

[wintermom]

It surely depends on your frame of reference.

 

For my kids, weekly hikes and walking to school, one or two organized sports and "jumping off frustration" on a trampoline or pogo stick is moderate. Anything less is pretty lazy. This aligns with what they see in our community. But if your idea of vigorous exercise is walking a mile I can see how that message could be taken the wrong way.

 

Exactly. I remember when I was a competitive swimmer on a high school swim team, and was only training 3 - 4 mornings a week compared to the twice a day training of the club swimmers. I thought my work-outs were moderate in comparison. They were definitely vigorous, but my perception was based on what I knew others were doing. People who only swam in Red Cross lessons would probably have thought my team swimming was really tough and the club swimmers were insane. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by wintermom

[creekland]

This is where I get confused. I don't consider myself to be doing vigorous exercise more than twice a week, but my resting heart rate can be in the 50s.  I do strength training on Sunday/Thursday for arms, and low impact strength for legs Mon/Fri and HIIT on Tues and run 4 miles on Saturday.  I would not consider anything but the running and HIIT to be vigorous as my HR does not usually exceed 130 on the other days. 

 

My resting heart rate is in the upper 50s or lower 60s and I don't do anything I consider vigorous.  We walk, trying to hit 10K steps per day (already accomplished for today, but beach walking makes that super easy!).  At home we do critter chores, but there's nothing more than water buckets for vigor there.  In season we garden.  When home and it snows, we shovel.

 

I'll admit I get concerned because my pulse jumps to 100-120 just by going up stairs or taking our walks, but it goes back down when I'm not moving.  Doctors aren't concerned.  I presume my ticker is doing just what it's supposed to - ramping up as needed and back down when not.  With this study, I'm wary about wanting to do anything more than I'm doing.  My heart gets a workout just with what I do.  (I'll admit to being confused with that thought - not sure what to do.)

[skimomma]

 

 

He wrote a book years ago detailing their lifestyle before the changes this brought about. I have it here somewhere. I'd be happy to find it if you're interested.

 

I'm interested!  Can you share the title.  My Amazon search found too many people with that name for me to find it.

[wintermom]

 

 

I'm not sure what makes you think that thought even crossed my mind

 

 

Because this is exactly what you said. I guess it wasn't what you meant. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

This is where I get confused. I don't consider myself to be doing vigorous exercise more than twice a week, but my resting heart rate can be in the 50s.  I do strength training on Sunday/Thursday for arms, and low impact strength for legs Mon/Fri and HIIT on Tues and run 4 miles on Saturday.  I would not consider anything but the running and HIIT to be vigorous as my HR does not usually exceed 130 on the other days. 

 

 

Vigorous exercise twice a week would probably be enough to lower resting heart rate. I'm not suggesting anyone try HIIT/sprints five days a week.

[Greta]

Several people have mentioned running addiction, and I just wanted to add that in my personal observations, that is a very real thing.  When my husband was running, black and purple toes, and toenails falling off was routine.  And didn't concern him!  I thought that was weird, but some of his friends have taken it to even further extremes.  One friend would get these killer headaches and go blind in one eye on his longest runs.  He didn't stop.  Another friend, poor thing, wouldn't even take a break from running when she had the flu, and she got so dehydrated that she died.  When you can't stop running even when your body is giving you such clear signals that it needs rest, yes, that is absolutely an addiction.  

 

So for the sake of the people in those kinds of situations, I am glad that this information exists, and I hope it might help them to find a healthy balance.  

 

For most of us, of course, (certainly for myself) it is the message about the dangers of too little activity that need to be heard.

 

 

 

ETA:  By "most of us" I did not mean the people in this thread!  I just meant in general, the culture at large.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Greta

[Laura Corin]

Vigorous exercise twice a week would probably be enough to lower resting heart rate. I'm not suggesting anyone try HIIT/sprints five days a week.

 

Very moderate running three times a week brought my heart rate down by ten beats per minute.  I was surprised the difference it made.

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Very moderate running three times a week brought my heart rate down by ten beats per minute.  I was surprised the difference it made.

 

 

Great! I'm not sure that would've been enough for me. I seem to be one of those people that feels better by having much more intense exercise two or three days per week. I wonder if moderate exercise isn't just enough to increase the number of mitochondria I have.

 

Another thing is that for me, soccer is like meditation. It's the only thing I do where I am consistently completely in the moment, without my thoughts wandering off to other things. The outside world disappears and it's just me, the teams, and the game. I don't feel this way from moderate exercise.

[wintermom]

I'm definitely not one of those people.  :lol:

 

But yeah I am very turned off by what I've seen in sports for kids.  My kids only tried a couple of things when very young, but even at that point it was already stupid.  There also does not seem to be much in the way of recreational sports for kids (or adults for that matter). 

 

I'm not either. I just find a lot of outdoor activities fun to do, so I do them for pleasure. I also like a challenge and want to improve. I learned that I don't want to improve my marathon time, though. It's not worth it to me - and it lost the fun aspect. ;)

 

We are really fortunate in our city that there are lots of opportunities for recreational sports. There are also a good number of physical activities organized by homeschool families. It's amazing. My dc can participate in hockey, soccer, and basketball without breaking the bank, and without being required to practice and train more than once or twice a week. If a child/family wants to pursue more competitive sports, there is that level as well, but it's not the majority. The older children get, the more recreational options there are. Come on up to Canada - if you can stand the cold!  :laugh:

Edited February 5, 2018 by wintermom

[SparklyUnicorn]

My resting heart rate is in the upper 50s or lower 60s and I don't do anything I consider vigorous.  We walk, trying to hit 10K steps per day (already accomplished for today, but beach walking makes that super easy!).  At home we do critter chores, but there's nothing more than water buckets for vigor there.  In season we garden.  When home and it snows, we shovel.

 

I'll admit I get concerned because my pulse jumps to 100-120 just by going up stairs or taking our walks, but it goes back down when I'm not moving.  Doctors aren't concerned.  I presume my ticker is doing just what it's supposed to - ramping up as needed and back down when not.  With this study, I'm wary about wanting to do anything more than I'm doing.  My heart gets a workout just with what I do.  (I'll admit to being confused with that thought - not sure what to do.)

 

Meanwhile my resting heart rate is 90ish.  I've been exercising vigorously on a regular basis for over a year and a half.  It has dropped, but my heart rate has always been quit high.  Always always. 

 

Then again, there is a range of "normal" and each person's normal is going to be different.  Even 100 is normal for some people. 

 

Nobody has ever been concerned with my heart rate either! 

[Bluegoat]

Several people have mentioned running addiction, and I just wanted to add that in my personal observations, that is a very real thing.  When my husband was running, black and purple toes, and toenails falling off was routine.  And didn't concern him!  I thought that was weird, but some of his friends have taken it to even further extremes.  One friend would get these killer headaches and go blind in one eye on his longest runs.  He didn't stop.  Another friend, poor thing, wouldn't even take a break from running when she had the flu, and she got so dehydrated that she died.  When you can't stop running even when your body is giving you such clear signals that it needs rest, yes, that is absolutely an addiction.  

 

So for the sake of the people in those kinds of situations, I am glad that this information exists, and I hope it might help them to find a healthy balance.  

 

For most of us, of course, (certainly for myself) it is the message about the dangers of too little activity that need to be heard.

 

 

 

ETA:  By "most of us" I did not mean the people in this thread!  I just meant in general, the culture at large.

 

I think maybe most people need to hear both together.  

 

A lot of people don't really get active I suspect because it seems too big an undertaking.  Or they imagine that they need to get involved n something really organized.  

 

And some people who were involved in sports get to an age where they have to give it up for a job, or health reasons, and they can't picture a healthy moderately active lifestyle.  

 

Seeing less extreme activity as not enough makes it hard for some people to slow down.

 

Not knowing what that looks like doesn't serve either the over or under active.

[Bluegoat]

I agree.  

 

I have always had either couch potatoes or hyperexercisers around me.  I want to feel like I am accomplishing something but I just can't make myself *want* to hyperexercise.  So I don't do anything.  Find that going for a walk a few times a week (not a "power-walk", but well past a meander) can make a difference got me off the couch.  

 

And my gardening experience last summer also showed me that just doing some hard *work* (instead of paying someone to do it while I go to the gym which I have paid for) can be my exercise and save me two bills to pay.

 

Gardening can be very good exercise, especially if you make a point of doing the really heavy work like detaching.  A friend of mine one year spent the summer working for a lawn maintenance company, and by the end her biceps were huge.

[Greta]

I think maybe most people need to hear both together.  

 

A lot of people don't really get active I suspect because it seems too big an undertaking.  Or they imagine that they need to get involved n something really organized.  

 

And some people who were involved in sports get to an age where they have to give it up for a job, or health reasons, and they can't picture a healthy moderately active lifestyle.  

 

Seeing less extreme activity as not enough makes it hard for some people to slow down.

 

Not knowing what that looks like doesn't serve either the over or under active.

 

 

Yes, I agree.  

 

I find myself wishing that our culture was more geared towards activity as part of socializing.  I mean, when people get together, it's usually to share a meal or to go to a movie or a performance.  It would be fun to get together for a game of volleyball, or a hike, or a bike ride.  I don't know, maybe in other places and subcultures people do that!  But in mine, you really have to specifically seek out groups devoted to one of those things, and they are so serious about that activity that it's extremely intimidating (if not impossible) for a beginner to join in.  So it would be nice to just do those things more casually with a group of people that I already know.  I guess that means I need to be the one to initiate it!

[Bluegoat]

Hmm, that is true, if everyone takes sports so seriously, it does make it hard to just join a pick-up game.

 

They converted the tennis courts dow the street from me into pickle ball last summer, so I am thinking I might learn to play that.  There are  lot of indoor groups in winter too, but it seems very casual.

[TravelingChris]

My husband has a low heart rate and it doesn't matter if he has recently been doing any exercise or not.  I am super happy about this study.  I cannot do vigorous exercises due to my bone conditions and RA.  I am forbidden from running, for example, because one of my legs has broken so many times that I risk never having it heal if it breaks again in the same area.  So I walk, garden, bike, kayak, dance, do housework, and most days, even if I do not take a walk, I get 10K steps including multiple times going up and down stairs do to the things I do at my house.

[Greta]

My husband has a low heart rate and it doesn't matter if he has recently been doing any exercise or not.  I am super happy about this study.  I cannot do vigorous exercises due to my bone conditions and RA.  I am forbidden from running, for example, because one of my legs has broken so many times that I risk never having it heal if it breaks again in the same area.  So I walk, garden, bike, kayak, dance, do housework, and most days, even if I do not take a walk, I get 10K steps including multiple times going up and down stairs do to the things I do at my house.

 

 

Oh my goodness!  :grouphug:  

 

See, even though I formally exercise almost every day, I rarely get 10K steps in a day because I'm not very active when I'm not exercising.  I really need to try to change that.  You sound very active!  

[SparklyUnicorn]

Hmm, that is true, if everyone takes sports so seriously, it does make it hard to just join a pick-up game.

 

They converted the tennis courts dow the street from me into pickle ball last summer, so I am thinking I might learn to play that.  There are  lot of indoor groups in winter too, but it seems very casual.

 

Oh that's nice.  I can manage pickle ball.  I suck at tennis.

[Laurie4b]

Great! I'm not sure that would've been enough for me. I seem to be one of those people that feels better by having much more intense exercise two or three days per week. I wonder if moderate exercise isn't just enough to increase the number of mitochondria I have.

 

Another thing is that for me, soccer is like meditation. It's the only thing I do where I am consistently completely in the moment, without my thoughts wandering off to other things. The outside world disappears and it's just me, the teams, and the game. I don't feel this way from moderate exercise.

 

 

The bit about mitochondria brings up a limitation to most of these studies cited wrt longevity. The studies are solid because they involve so many people and were done for such a long time. But the trend toward HIIT wasn't a thing "back in the day" when they were starting out. It's not mentioned in the studies. 

 

There was a study that came out last year "Fountain of Youth" study at the Mayo clinic that was published in Cell Metabolism that had two groups: a group of 18-30 year olds and a group of 65-80 year olds. They were assigned to resistance, HIIT, or a combo of moderate cardio plus resistance training. HIIT produced the greatest gains in mitochondrial functioning.  Here's the link to the full article if you have access: http://K. Sreekumaran Nair, M.D., Ph.D., professor, medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Chip Lavie, M.D., medical director, cardiac rehabilitation and prevention, and director, exercise laboratories, John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, New Orleans; March 7, 2017, Cell Metabolism

 

Here is a link to a summary for the general public: https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20170328/exercise-the-cellular-fountain-of-youth#2  

 

This one is from Science Daily:http://https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170307155214.htm  In contrast to the WebMD summary, it says the second condition was intervals plus resistance. I'm inclined to think that webmd's summary of moderate plus resistance is the one that makes the most sense. I really need one of my college kids to look it up for me!

 

 

One thing that is unclear to me is how they determined "maximum speed". I don't know if that was a certain heartrate or whatever. But to go at maximum for 4 min is pretty darned daunting unless maximum is a percentage of maximum heart rate---in which case, that would be more doable. 

 

The way I've processed this study & combined with the Copenhagen City study is while I am doing my 2-3 x per week of walking for an hour with 30 min of jogging intervals, I try to get to my max HR range during at least the second half of the 3 min intervals. 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Laurie4b

[Laurie4b]

And to throw one more perspective in the pot: https://news.byu.edu/news/research-finds-vigorous-exercise-associated-reduced-aging-cellular-level

 

This study found that telomere length (longer correlates with longevity) is lengthened by vigorous exercise only (30-40 min of running, 5 days per week) . That confers a 9 year advantage over sedentary folks and a 7 year advantage over moderately active folks. I don't have access to anything but a summary of the actual research article and this byu press release summarized what was in the abstract clearly. What I don't know is what constituted moderate exercise. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

What I don't know is what constituted moderate exercise. 

 

One problem with this entire thread and many articles referenced is that everyone may not be using the same definition of moderate and vigorous or high intensity exercise. For me, moderate would be an average heart rate of 140-150 for a 45-60 minute workout (something that never gets me out of breath). My definition of intense would be the sprinting intervals in indoor soccer. I haven't worn my heart rate monitor in a year, but my pulse use to average 160-175, which included time on the bench. Sprints would get it up to 190-200, a pace I couldn't maintain long and would leave me out of breath.

 

I suspect my idea of intense and moderate may not match other people's or researchers. I guess that's why the journal articles usually define things with percent of V02 max and such. Those measures rarely seem to make it into mainstream articles, leaving me wondering if in a particular article research about "moderate" exercise meant slow jogging or just walking around the block.

[plansrme]

I found this. Apparently they relaxed some of the hours/days per week statements?

 

https://www.runnersworld.com/health/excessive-exercise-proponents-soften-their-views

This article says that the same guys now say that exercise up to TEN TIMES their original recommendation (1.5 hours, I think?) is safe. That is such a “relaxation†that it pretty much invalidates the entire premise as summarized in their attention-grabbing headline. I seriously doubt that many of us are exercising more than 15-20 hours/week. Some, sure, but not enough to make it worth a headline telling us that runners need to update their wills before next lacing up their running shoes.

 

And for the sake of this thread, let’s keep in mind the difference between “enough,†which may well be 1.5 hours/week, and “too much,†which is apparently now somewhere north of 20 hours/week.

[JumpyTheFrog]

And for the sake of this thread, let’s keep in mind the difference between “enough,†which may well be 1.5 hours/week, and “too much,†which is apparently now somewhere north of 20 hours/week.

 

Good point. There is a huge gap in there. I'm concerned these headlines may give sedentary more excuses to rationalize not exercising. Couch potatoes are not at risk of ruining their health from running too much. Similarly, all the contradictory dietary advice shouldn't be used as an excuse for someone who eats mostly white bread, fries, chips, and soda to avoid cleaning up their diet. People may argue about if X is good or bad for you, but everyone agrees that soda is junk.

[eternalsummer]

Makes total sense to me. Being underweight and not having enough fat is worse for you, far worse pound for pound, than being overweight.

 

Likewise, people who work out too much get many injuries which can later cause serious problems.

 

Everything in moderation.

 

 

This one I've been interested in - I thought I'd read that if you discount the people who are underweight because they're ill from long-term cigarette use or cancer or whatever else, being underweight doesn't have negative health consequences.

[SparklyUnicorn]

One problem with this entire thread and many articles referenced is that everyone may not be using the same definition of moderate and vigorous or high intensity exercise. For me, moderate would be an average heart rate of 140-150 for a 45-60 minute workout (something that never gets me out of breath). My definition of intense would be the sprinting intervals in indoor soccer. I haven't worn my heart rate monitor in a year, but my pulse use to average 160-175, which included time on the bench. Sprints would get it up to 190-200, a pace I couldn't maintain long and would leave me out of breath.

 

I suspect my idea of intense and moderate may not match other people's or researchers. I guess that's why the journal articles usually define things with percent of V02 max and such. Those measures rarely seem to make it into mainstream articles, leaving me wondering if in a particular article research about "moderate" exercise meant slow jogging or just walking around the block.

 

Wow. I think I'd throw up and pass out if my heart rate went up that high.

[Laurie4b]

One problem with this entire thread and many articles referenced is that everyone may not be using the same definition of moderate and vigorous or high intensity exercise. For me, moderate would be an average heart rate of 140-150 for a 45-60 minute workout (something that never gets me out of breath). My definition of intense would be the sprinting intervals in indoor soccer. I haven't worn my heart rate monitor in a year, but my pulse use to average 160-175, which included time on the bench. Sprints would get it up to 190-200, a pace I couldn't maintain long and would leave me out of breath.

 

I suspect my idea of intense and moderate may not match other people's or researchers. I guess that's why the journal articles usually define things with percent of V02 max and such. Those measures rarely seem to make it into mainstream articles, leaving me wondering if in a particular article research about "moderate" exercise meant slow jogging or just walking around the block.

 

Yes, it is important to know what they mean, but most of the studies are very clear in terms of what they categorize as vigorous or moderate when you read the actual study and the terms are used pretty consistently across studies. I've mostly posted links to the actual studies. Much of the time, they categorize it in METS, which you can compare across exercise categories. Because I can't access the entirety of that particular study I posted that you referenced (without paying $36 for the article) I wanted to flag that. because "moderate" was so close to "sedentary" in results. There is usually the biggest jump in results from sedentary to *anything* so I want to read the whole thing and see what they were characterizing as "moderate." Maybe it's the same as is typical, but like I said, the result is inconsistent with almost all others studies I've ever read. 

 

For the general public who generally doesn't deal in METS, etc, what is pretty typically defined as moderate is that you can talk but not sing. Your breathing has definitely changed. For most people, that's a brisk walk. But once your body is accustomed to a brisk walk, it will drop to  the low end of moderate and maybe even light. You can walk and sing hiking songs. :)  Vigorous is you can still talk but only in short bursts.  Jogging is vigorous; sprints are very vigorous. You can't talk at all while sprinting. 

 

Raw heart rate data is not used to indicate moderate or vigorous because it varies strongly by age and  is affected by other factors as well. For instance, a person with a heart on the small side of average will tend to have a higher rate because it needs to pump more to get the same volume out.  So it's usually indicated as a percentage of max HR, the crudest measure of which is 220- your age. Resting heart rate is used in other more specific formulas as an input into the max.

 

Perceived exertion rate has generally shown a strong correlation with actual percentage of heart rate in research studies so is considered a scientifically valid measure. The BORG scale is the most widely used one. 

[Laurie4b]

This one I've been interested in - I thought I'd read that if you discount the people who are underweight because they're ill from long-term cigarette use or cancer or whatever else, being underweight doesn't have negative health consequences.

 

I think that what I've read is in reaction to a study that was widely publicized a couple years ago that said being overweight was better than normal weight. When others went back in and looked at the data, it had included smokers (who weigh less than they would if they didn't) as well as people who weigh less because of chronic diseases. When they teased that out, normal BMI (unless your mass is because of a lot of muscle) is better than overweight.

 

I don't recall underweight as ever coming up as a good target if longevity is the goal. I think that may be because there is no cushion for your body to draw on if you do get acutely ill. 

[creekland]

I agree.  

 

I have always had either couch potatoes or hyperexercisers around me.  I want to feel like I am accomplishing something but I just can't make myself *want* to hyperexercise.  So I don't do anything.  Find that going for a walk a few times a week (not a "power-walk", but well past a meander) can make a difference got me off the couch.  

 

And my gardening experience last summer also showed me that just doing some hard *work* (instead of paying someone to do it while I go to the gym which I have paid for) can be my exercise and save me two bills to pay.

 

To me, this is one of the big take aways from many exercise studies.  Those who do none fare the worst - period.  Anything that is done is better than nothing.  If it helps those who are prone to be sedentary to know that 20+ hours = bad, so they don't have to push for that to "do it right," then it's good.  In our culture most won't do that anyway, so just giving that push to do something is as big a deal as the other extreme.

[Bluegoat]

To me, this is one of the big take aways from many exercise studies.  Those who do none fare the worst - period.  Anything that is done is better than nothing.  If it helps those who are prone to be sedentary to know that 20+ hours = bad, so they don't have to push for that to "do it right," then it's good.  In our culture most won't do that anyway, so just giving that push to do something is as big a deal as the other extreme.

 

Yes.  I see this as very encouraging to sedentary people to become more active, not something that will make people not bother.

[Laurie4b]

 

In my classes (all high school) we look at facts as per studies and discuss conclusion options.  Seems to me these studies show exercise is super beneficial, just watch overdoing it because years of overuse can have bad consequences.

 

Of course, we also look at more than one study, and if they contradict each other, look for reasons for that too.

 

I try to teach kids to think - look at real evidence and think, understanding science is a subject still in motion and not already "solved."  I don't give them sound bites of what they are supposed to think when these modern day things come up.  I train them to be intelligent adults and to understand any consequences (good or bad) from decisions they make.  Sound bites make for an awful education IMO.  They're only useful for learning vocab and basic facts to be able to talk about the subject.  Then we can get into the interesting stuff.

What a great service you are doing your students--not just wrt exercise, but every scientific study they have to evaluate in some way, especially wrt any decision they might make in their behavior in reaction to it. 

[Laurie4b]

Yes, I agree.  

 

I find myself wishing that our culture was more geared towards activity as part of socializing.  I mean, when people get together, it's usually to share a meal or to go to a movie or a performance.  It would be fun to get together for a game of volleyball, or a hike, or a bike ride.  I don't know, maybe in other places and subcultures people do that!  But in mine, you really have to specifically seek out groups devoted to one of those things, and they are so serious about that activity that it's extremely intimidating (if not impossible) for a beginner to join in.  So it would be nice to just do those things more casually with a group of people that I already know.  I guess that means I need to be the one to initiate it!

 

Amen to that! I do have a couple, just a couple, people I can call to hike with. I am friends with my Zumba instructor. There are a couple people I can talk into a "walk" instead of food as a way to get together. That's about it. So most of my exercise is solitary. 

 

I really wish I had stuck with learning tennis when I was high school/ college age. You only need 1 other person to play with and there are often organizations that you can plug into. Unfortunately, I played sports where you needed like 20+ other people to have a game! (field hockey and lacrosse.) There is recreational soccer around here which I played in right out of college but I stunk at it. Weird because strategically it's so much like field hockey. But I guess I have uncoordinated feet as far as kicking or dribbling a ball goes. They seem to be fine otherwise!

[KungFuPanda]

Good point. There is a huge gap in there. I'm concerned these headlines may give sedentary more excuses to rationalize not exercising. Couch potatoes are not at risk of ruining their health from running too much. Similarly, all the contradictory dietary advice shouldn't be used as an excuse for someone who eats mostly white bread, fries, chips, and soda to avoid cleaning up their diet. People may argue about if X is good or bad for you, but everyone agrees that soda is junk.

I think they made it clear that being sedentary was the very worst thing of all and you’re still better off over-marathoning.

[creekland]

What a great service you are doing your students--not just wrt exercise, but every scientific study they have to evaluate in some way, especially wrt any decision they might make in their behavior in reaction to it. 

 

Yes, that's my goal.  These students are at the stage where they are making their own decisions and will be for the rest of their lives.  I want them to be able to think, evaluate, and make educated decisions.  They may not choose the same thing I would (which is good for some things since I still drink soda - my bad habit), but they are equipped with knowledge.  Often decisions aren't just black and white.  There are pros and cons - or even many things that are still unknown. 

 

That's real life.  Then too, as they see other studies, they should know to look beyond the headline and see what it really says.

 

One of the reasons I give them for learning to do this is so they don't end up as an adult posting cwap on the internet and having readers snicker. ;) They may not have everyone agreeing with them (when do all humans always agree anyway?), but they should be able to have an intelligent discussion with solid reasoning while also understanding those with differing viewpoints.

 

FWIW, most students love this.  It makes learning interesting.  Their thoughts matter.

[Sugarfoot]

I'm interested!  Can you share the title.  My Amazon search found too many people with that name for me to find it.

 

Here you go.  Keep in mind this was written before his change in thinking. It's co-written by his wife, who's a dietician.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Forever-Young-Diet-Lifestyle/dp/0740754882/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1517878347&sr=1-12&keywords=james+o%27keefe

[cintinative]

This article says that the same guys now say that exercise up to TEN TIMES their original recommendation (1.5 hours, I think?) is safe. That is such a “relaxation†that it pretty much invalidates the entire premise as summarized in their attention-grabbing headline. I seriously doubt that many of us are exercising more than 15-20 hours/week. Some, sure, but not enough to make it worth a headline telling us that runners need to update their wills before next lacing up their running shoes.

 

And for the sake of this thread, let’s keep in mind the difference between “enough,†which may well be 1.5 hours/week, and “too much,†which is apparently now somewhere north of 20 hours/week.

 

Actually, it says, "They now conclude that most runners would be smart to run no more than five to six days a week and no more than five hours total per week. A year ago, they were recommending only two to three days a week of running, for a total of one to 2.5 hours."

 

ETA: I definitely know runners that, when training, exceed five hours total per week.

Edited February 6, 2018 by cintinative

[Kassia]

Actually, it says, "They now conclude that most runners would be smart to run no more than five to six days a week and no more than five hours total per week. A year ago, they were recommending only two to three days a week of running, for a total of one to 2.5 hours."

 

ETA: I definitely know runners that, when training, exceed five hours total per week.

 

I run almost 9 hours a week.  This thread has me so nervous.  I should stop reading it.  Plus I weight train and use my heavy bag, too.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Kassia

[plansrme]

Actually, it says, "They now conclude that most runners would be smart to run no more than five to six days a week and no more than five hours total per week. A year ago, they were recommending only two to three days a week of running, for a total of one to 2.5 hours."

 

ETA: I definitely know runners that, when training, exceed five hours total per week.

 

It also says:

"More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum."

[Soror]

I finally had a chance to read this thread. I never really liked running but decided a couple of years ago to train and complete a 5k trail run. I ended up really enjoying it and did another 6 months later, I could understand how people get addicted to it. But, long story short, it was too much stress for my body (at least for now).  I hope I tolerate more intensity at some point but I'm trying to take it easy on my body.

 

I'm really torn on my thoughts about exercising in general. Mostly I think we need people to move more in general. I mean we have a nation full of obese and seriously unfit people and we're fretting about how much running is too much, that is so far removed from the vast majority I don't see it as very helpful (although for a very small number they do need to hear that there is diminishing returns with exercise and more is not always better). I think a lot of people get discouraged because they see these ideals as something they can't possibly live up to, the face of fitness in America is ridiculously buff (if we could stop photoshopping that would be great and not have fitness models get dehydrated). For the vast majority of people, they need to just hear move more! Just move more then you are doing now, doing any activity you like. We get so caught up in the exact right way to do things that people end up paralyzed and do nothing when they can't meet that ideal. You don't have to be able to do xyz ridiculously hard activity to be fit and active. Walking still counts, start where you are, do something you like. You don't have to time out your workouts by the minute, I'm certain the longest lived didn't spend that much thought into it.

 

 

[regentrude]

It also says:

"More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum."

 

In that case, the whole study is pretty pointless, isn't it?

"It's best to exercise in moderation, but if you exercise ten times as much, it does not cause any harm either".

 

So what are we even discussing?

Edited February 6, 2018 by regentrude

[SparklyUnicorn]

In that case, the whole study is pretty pointless, isn't it?

"It's best to exercise in moderation, but if you exercise ten times as much, it does not cause any harm either".

 

So what are we even discussing?

 

We are discussing superiority? 

 

You know, who is most cool because they exercise most and the rest of you sloths should rot somewhere.

 

Or maybe not... :closedeyes:

[SparklyUnicorn]

Sorry.  I think I'm tired of talking about diet and exercise.  People are so judgy and know it all.  This isn't directed at anyone in particular.  It's just a turn off to think that one has to exercise 10,000 hours a day and eat a few bird seed to be healthy and in shape, but that will kill you anyway because it's also too much dontcha know.  Good grief.  Is it really that difficult? 

 

 

[regentrude]

Sorry.  I think I'm tired of talking about diet and exercise.  People are so judgy and know it all.  This isn't directed at anyone in particular.  It's just a turn off to think that one has to exercise 10,000 hours a day and eat a few bird seed to be healthy and in shape, but that will kill you anyway because it's also too much dontcha know.  Good grief.  Is it really that difficult? 

 

I don't think it is. I personally have chosen to ignore all the "advice" and just do what is intuitive to me: varied diet of minimally processed foods with everything in moderation, active life with everything in moderation there as well. Worked for grandma and will work for me. 

 

I find the societal obsession with diet and exercise almost absurd, considering the actual outcomes. Btw, nobody in my circle spends much time thinking and talking about these things. The only place I encounter these discussions is this board.

Edited February 6, 2018 by regentrude

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't think it is. I personally have chosen to ignore all the "advice" and just do what is intuitive to me: varied diet of minimally processed foods with everything in moderation, active life with everything in moderation there as well. Worked for grandma and will work for me. 

 

I find the societal obsession with diet and exercise almost absurd, considering the actual outcomes. Btw, nobody in my circle spends much time thinking about these things. The only place I encounter these discussions is this board.

 

It seems some people trade one obsession for another.  They go from not moving and eating piles of junk constantly to exercising until their body falls apart and eating bits of grass (while preaching about how unhealthy everyone else is).  Not everyone, but some for sure.

 

I need to tune it out.  *sigh*

 

It's easier when you've had it modeled for you.  A lot of people haven't.  I haven't.  It's kind of a daily struggle to do what is right, but I'm not even sure what is right.

[Pawz4me]

I think it's the American way to be obsessed. In general people seem to read one study that x might potentially be good or bad for them and suddenly x is a miracle or evil. There's no balance. Balance or moderation just doesn't seem to be sexy. We HAVE to be on the bandwagon, totally for (or against) something. I've been guilty of that myself in the past. I'm slow, but I did learn. ;)

[Pawz4me]

Mostly I think we need people to move more in general. I mean we have a nation full of obese and seriously unfit people and we're fretting about how much running is too much, that is so far removed from the vast majority I don't see it as very helpful (although for a very small number they do need to hear that there is diminishing returns with exercise and more is not always better). I think a lot of people get discouraged because they see these ideals as something they can't possibly live up to, the face of fitness in America is ridiculously buff (if we could stop photoshopping that would be great and not have fitness models get dehydrated). For the vast majority of people, they need to just hear move more! Just move more then you are doing now, doing any activity you like. We get so caught up in the exact right way to do things that people end up paralyzed and do nothing when they can't meet that ideal. You don't have to be able to do xyz ridiculously hard activity to be fit and active. Walking still counts, start where you are, do something you like. You don't have to time out your workouts by the minute, I'm certain the longest lived didn't spend that much thought into it.

 

 

:iagree:

Edited February 6, 2018 by Pawz4me

[Laura Corin]

I don't think it is. I personally have chosen to ignore all the "advice" and just do what is intuitive to me: varied diet of minimally processed foods with everything in moderation, active life with everything in moderation there as well. Worked for grandma and will work for me. 

 

I find the societal obsession with diet and exercise almost absurd, considering the actual outcomes. Btw, nobody in my circle spends much time thinking and talking about these things. The only place I encounter these discussions is this board.

 

For me the problem comes if you have no underlying reasons for doing things and suddenly your life changes.

 

My mum, at age 90 and very mobile (riding a motorbike until five years previously) was admitted to hospital and was there on and off for three months.  She came out frail and almost immediately began falling.  She had always walked a lot because it's not worth getting onto a motorbike for a short trip; after she gave up the motorbike, she didn't drive so she was walking to the bus stop.  In the hospital, the staff tried to keep her walking but she refused because she couldn't see how important it was - she had never thought about exercise and its importance for maintaining muscle in old age.  And she was too ornery to do what the staff suggested.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Laura Corin