The closest thing to a wonder drug is exercise(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The closest thing to a wonder drug is exercise
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/upshot/why-you-should-exercise-no-not-to-lose-weight.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=MostViewed&version=Full&src=mv&WT.nav=MostViewed
11 comments
I actually found that part disappointing. I had sent this to my parents before I read to the end and now wish I could take it back. More and more research is pointing to strength being a leading predictor of mortality.
My father has loss of mobility and strength from disuse of his limbs through their entire ranges of motion. Walking and jogging at the rates indicated do almost nothing for this. He walks 4 miles twice a week with my mom, but can barely stand up from the couch. Human walking is very efficient and requires hardly any strength and that through a fractional range of motion.
Walking and jogging is better than not exercising at all, but on the walking and jogging regimen my father has steadily deteriorated in function as he approaches his 70s. His shoulders and knees have stiffened while his muscles are constantly sore from lack of conditioning.
The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking. People are rationalization engines, and if you give them a way to skirt the essence by being lazy, they will. In my experience, the objectivity of resistance training is more effective.
My father has loss of mobility and strength from disuse of his limbs through their entire ranges of motion. Walking and jogging at the rates indicated do almost nothing for this. He walks 4 miles twice a week with my mom, but can barely stand up from the couch. Human walking is very efficient and requires hardly any strength and that through a fractional range of motion.
Walking and jogging is better than not exercising at all, but on the walking and jogging regimen my father has steadily deteriorated in function as he approaches his 70s. His shoulders and knees have stiffened while his muscles are constantly sore from lack of conditioning.
The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking. People are rationalization engines, and if you give them a way to skirt the essence by being lazy, they will. In my experience, the objectivity of resistance training is more effective.
These two articles from the NHS might help:
1) Guidelines for physical exercise for the older generation. 150 minutes of moderate exercise plus strength training on 2 days. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/physical-activity-g...
2) Strength and motion exercises for older people. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/strength-exercises-...
1) Guidelines for physical exercise for the older generation. 150 minutes of moderate exercise plus strength training on 2 days. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/physical-activity-g...
2) Strength and motion exercises for older people. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/strength-exercises-...
<em>The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking.</em>
I think you're overthinking things. If walking seems to easy, jog. If jogging is too easy, run. If say, running is too hard, run when you can, take breaks by walking. If walking is too easy, you start with standing and doing basic drills in movement.
There's always a level you're at, and something you can use as a goal.
Easiest to not fall to low in what you can do, which is more of a preventative thing, unfortunately for those at a lower level of physical fitness.
I think you're overthinking things. If walking seems to easy, jog. If jogging is too easy, run. If say, running is too hard, run when you can, take breaks by walking. If walking is too easy, you start with standing and doing basic drills in movement.
There's always a level you're at, and something you can use as a goal.
Easiest to not fall to low in what you can do, which is more of a preventative thing, unfortunately for those at a lower level of physical fitness.
> More and more research is pointing to strength being a leading predictor of mortality.
Can anyone point me to some sources and readings on this topic? I'd love to see some stats on how strength compares to cardio as a proxy for mortality for instance.
Can anyone point me to some sources and readings on this topic? I'd love to see some stats on how strength compares to cardio as a proxy for mortality for instance.
He should add some basic range of motion exercises. I doubt lifting will help him. Also, walk one mile every day instead of 4 twice a week.
Strength training is the best exercise you can do to preserve function into old age. As an example:
ABSTRACT Muscle plays a central role in whole-body protein metabolism by serving as the principal reservoir for amino acids to maintain protein synthesis in vital tissues and organs in the absence of amino acid absorption from the gut and by providing hepatic gluconeogenic precursors. Furthermore, altered muscle metabolism plays a key role in the genesis, and therefore the prevention, of many common pathologic conditions and chronic diseases. Nonetheless, the maintenance of adequate muscle mass, strength, and metabolic function has rarely, if ever, been targeted as a relevant endpoint of recommendations for dietary intake. It is therefore imperative that factors directly related to muscle mass, strength, and metabolic function be included in future studies designed to demonstrate optimal lifestyle behaviors throughout the life span, including physical activity and diet
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full.pdf
ABSTRACT Muscle plays a central role in whole-body protein metabolism by serving as the principal reservoir for amino acids to maintain protein synthesis in vital tissues and organs in the absence of amino acid absorption from the gut and by providing hepatic gluconeogenic precursors. Furthermore, altered muscle metabolism plays a key role in the genesis, and therefore the prevention, of many common pathologic conditions and chronic diseases. Nonetheless, the maintenance of adequate muscle mass, strength, and metabolic function has rarely, if ever, been targeted as a relevant endpoint of recommendations for dietary intake. It is therefore imperative that factors directly related to muscle mass, strength, and metabolic function be included in future studies designed to demonstrate optimal lifestyle behaviors throughout the life span, including physical activity and diet
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full.pdf
The question is not what's best. Best is to mix strength, endurance, stretching and probably nutrition. People shouldn't pick one and neglect the others.
That's the problem with all the life optimizing stuff. If they just did some basic stuff people would get 90% of the benefit easily. Instead they go to impossible extremes, fail, and do nothing. I used to teach yoga classes. People would give up "I am not good at this" because they couldn't do some crazy poses after two years. They couldn't see that they felt good and were healthier which is the whole point. Same with meditation.
> People would give up "I am not good at this" because they couldn't do some crazy poses after two years.
This is a really bad example if you're trying to show that people give up too easily because they go to extremes. 2 years before quitting is a long time. 2 years of dedication can reach most reasonable fitness goals. If you follow an exercise regimen for two years and decide it's not for you, then either the exercise regimen is crap or else it's really just not for you.
This is a really bad example if you're trying to show that people give up too easily because they go to extremes. 2 years before quitting is a long time. 2 years of dedication can reach most reasonable fitness goals. If you follow an exercise regimen for two years and decide it's not for you, then either the exercise regimen is crap or else it's really just not for you.
My point was that you may never achieve certain poses without injuries because you are just not built for it. But you are still doing yourself a favor practicing.
Really depends on what the alternative is. Yoga vs sedentary? Obviously yoga is better. Yoga vs running, or yoga vs weightlifting, or yoga vs swimming? If the person is switching to some other physical activity they are happier with, then I'd consider it a net gain.
Yoga is good. Just accept your limits and be content. A lot of people won't be able to ever perform a lot of the poses you see in magazines. That's OK. A lot of people play golf and won't win the US Open.
Speaking as someone who has tried both strength training and yoga as an adult - I now understand why gymnasts absolutely have to start at an early age, sometimes as young as 6-7; and also why most gymnasts are of below average height.
As for yoga - some people will never be able to do a certain subset of poses without dislocating their joints. And that's fine.
As for strength - height and bone structure also play a huge role. I'll never be as strong as someone who is 6" taller than me or bench 3 plates. And that's also fine.
As for yoga - some people will never be able to do a certain subset of poses without dislocating their joints. And that's fine.
As for strength - height and bone structure also play a huge role. I'll never be as strong as someone who is 6" taller than me or bench 3 plates. And that's also fine.
Exactly. You will also probably never be able to achieve the physique of Shaquille O'Neal :-). No matter how hard or smart you train.
People drop yoga once they realize that the supermodel at the front of the room doesn't look that way because of yoga. After yoga they hit the stairmaster for an hour. Then skip meals. And they are on estrogen supplements, which can increase flexibility in women. Being great at difficult yoga moves is the result, not the process.
> And they are on estrogen supplements
Is this a thing? I've never heard of a woman supplementing estrogen as a general fitness "shortcut" the way some men (and women) supplement with steroids.
Is this a thing? I've never heard of a woman supplementing estrogen as a general fitness "shortcut" the way some men (and women) supplement with steroids.
Yes. It's a big thing in Hollywood. Taken at the right stage in life, estrogen sups can have dramatic effects. The flexibility thing is tied to the fact that young/fertile women have to push a kid out of them. Some studies of young soccer players have drawn direct links between estrogen levels and knee injuries due to more flex in key tendons. An outcome of those is that more conventionally attractive women were more likely to suffer such injuries. (Higher estrogen is linked to attractiveness, proven through some interesting studies that monitored the estrogen levels of strippers.)
Also, insulin and other drugs that regulate blood sugars. More than a few celebs are diabetic and use this to regulate body fat, famously Halle Barry.
Antibiotics are also popular. They kill bacteria in the skin (acne) but also play havoc with your gut, which is great if you are trying to not eat.
Also, insulin and other drugs that regulate blood sugars. More than a few celebs are diabetic and use this to regulate body fat, famously Halle Barry.
Antibiotics are also popular. They kill bacteria in the skin (acne) but also play havoc with your gut, which is great if you are trying to not eat.
Wow. Never heard about that.
It seems there's a whole industry dedicated to making exercise seem hard and pointless
From trainers that overexert students, things like P90X that do work IF you manage to survive and a large amount of people pushing the "go hard or go home" mentality
From trainers that overexert students, things like P90X that do work IF you manage to survive and a large amount of people pushing the "go hard or go home" mentality
Gym's have a huge incentive to get people to sign up and then not go. As such, go big or go home fit's their goals.
Most of the people you see their are over the hump, young and in shape. The people that give up feel it as a personal failure and keep paying on the assumption that someday they will go back. They also train people to make canceling seem like failure.
Further, if you keep up a demanding schedule you will see rapid improvements until injury. Which further pushes the health halo effect.
Most of the people you see their are over the hump, young and in shape. The people that give up feel it as a personal failure and keep paying on the assumption that someday they will go back. They also train people to make canceling seem like failure.
Further, if you keep up a demanding schedule you will see rapid improvements until injury. Which further pushes the health halo effect.
I really dislike the habit of the culture in the US trying to make exercise a competition, so you get high intensity "brag-worthy" workouts like P90X or cross-fit or what-have-you. The best exercise regime is one you can maintain, which can be as simple as just taking a walk for a bit every few days or some low intensity yoga at home. And those sorts of things have major long-term health benefits, they're vastly better than trying to go hard and injuring yourself or failing to maintain exercise as a regular habit.
yep. I just skip my 2nd bus transfer and walk to the office after getting dropped off downtown by the first bus (little under 2 miles each way). only takes a little longer than waiting for and riding the bus, but i get free exercise out of my work commute 2x a day.
Unless you are in a polluted city. Only a couple months ago the BBC was reporting that the air in london was so bad as to negate the health benefits of walking, even biking into work. You might loose a little weight, but you aren't going to be living any longer having inhaled all those fumes.
interesting, i've always wondered about this. especially with all the bans on public smoking/vaping/etc but its totally fine to have 5000 gridlocked cars idling in the city.
Here is a BBC article that talks about a study that quantifies the issue:
* http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36208003
Even in very polluted cities you would have to do much more cycling/walking than anyone would normally do to negate the effects of exercise (7 and 16 hours respectively)
* http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36208003
Even in very polluted cities you would have to do much more cycling/walking than anyone would normally do to negate the effects of exercise (7 and 16 hours respectively)
ah, I knew they had said something about it. I guess much would also depend on your exact route.
I've had a few occasions where I had to perform some strenuous work even when I was unwell, and in most cases, after the physical labor was concluded, I felt almost miraculously better. On one specific occasion I had a migraine type headache that 3 200 mg Advil's wouldn't touch, but then I was in a situation where I had to walk several miles carrying 50 lbs of gear. Headache was gone after a few miles.
I've had similar experiences, going back to college when I'd wake up hungover and would sweat it out at the gym. It's pretty rare that I wake up feeling like that anymore, but working out continues to be effective for me whenever I'm not feeling great.
That has been my experience as well, going hike when sick usually makes me feel much better during and after. I also recently broke a toe but continued to hike on it and found its level of pain much reduced after each hike compared to a day spent not moving around much. Assuming it wasn't my imagination (I could theorize that it felt better after because it felt worse while hiking on it) I imagine walking increases the bloodflow to the area and may assist with healing faster.
Depending on the type and location of the fracture, mobility can aid in healing.
I think the modern thought is that it helps almost anything, there's a technical term for this I can't remember, but basically resting up after nearly all injuries is considered worse than than moderate usage as part of the healing process.
[deleted]
> Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough.
There's a related point that people often get really wrong when they take up distance running: you can (and should!) actually run within that easy heart rate range. It may seem unbearably slow at first, but that just means you aren't ready yet to go faster.
When the goal is "faster pace at low effort", it's tempting to think you can train at faster pace + high effort and wait for the effort to fall. But that doesn't reliably work. You're better off training at low pace + low effort and wait for the pace to rise, holding low effort constant. Mostly this is because you (definitely) reduce the risk of getting hurt and (probably) don't waste a bunch of energy training the wrong metabolic pathways.
There's a related point that people often get really wrong when they take up distance running: you can (and should!) actually run within that easy heart rate range. It may seem unbearably slow at first, but that just means you aren't ready yet to go faster.
When the goal is "faster pace at low effort", it's tempting to think you can train at faster pace + high effort and wait for the effort to fall. But that doesn't reliably work. You're better off training at low pace + low effort and wait for the pace to rise, holding low effort constant. Mostly this is because you (definitely) reduce the risk of getting hurt and (probably) don't waste a bunch of energy training the wrong metabolic pathways.
Wait until we get the pill that does what exercise does. Supposedly, many groups are trying to create a pill off this research:
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815...
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815...
I really know nothing about this line of research AT ALL. It's all quite interesting, thanks for linking to it.
Now, the general rule of thumb for drugs is there's no such thing as a free lunch, what are the possible negative outcomes of supplementing those kinases and AMPK substrates? Because obviously their effects wouldn't be limited to influencing the neurotransmitter system exclusively.
Now, the general rule of thumb for drugs is there's no such thing as a free lunch, what are the possible negative outcomes of supplementing those kinases and AMPK substrates? Because obviously their effects wouldn't be limited to influencing the neurotransmitter system exclusively.
What if that takes several decades? What if that turns out to be a lot harder than we thought. Supposedly can take a lot longer than you expect.
If you had asked scientist how long it would take to cure cancer in the early 1970's, I'm sure they'd have guess 50 years would have been more than enough time.
If you had asked scientist how long it would take to cure cancer in the early 1970's, I'm sure they'd have guess 50 years would have been more than enough time.
Though the pill may be able to simulate the effects of physical exercise, I don't think a pill will supplement the psychological gains from exercise.
Doing something challenging and feeling accomplished, the mental strength you develop from a rigorous training regime can't easily be replicated by a pill... yet
Doing something challenging and feeling accomplished, the mental strength you develop from a rigorous training regime can't easily be replicated by a pill... yet
Video games have been filling this niche quite well. I felt a lot more accomplished after mastering Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 than after I got up to a 315 lb dead lift.
Maybe try a different physical activity, e.g. rock climbing, a team sport (ultimate frisbee), or running (which requires a different type of mental discipline).
[deleted]
Just exercise. People are so lazy in that regard it baffles me.
Ya know, I used to be in your boat, wondering why folks don't just get off their ass. But it occurred to me that if I didn't actually like running, I don't know what would motivate me to do so. It's like telling people to quit smoking. You don't think they don't already know it's bad for them? But for some reason they keep puffing away.
So we've established that people are lazy, and that "just exercise" would do them wonders (or at least be a lifestyle improvement). And they still don't take the dog for a 30 minute walk. Given that, rather than chastising and feeling superior about our own fitness (for example, I ran ten miles yesterday; mmm, I'm practically marinating in smugness right now), what can we do to get people out the door?
Of course, if I could answer that, I'd be at my book signing and not shouting at the wall on HN.
So we've established that people are lazy, and that "just exercise" would do them wonders (or at least be a lifestyle improvement). And they still don't take the dog for a 30 minute walk. Given that, rather than chastising and feeling superior about our own fitness (for example, I ran ten miles yesterday; mmm, I'm practically marinating in smugness right now), what can we do to get people out the door?
Of course, if I could answer that, I'd be at my book signing and not shouting at the wall on HN.
Another aspect most of the "just exercise" folks don't get is what it feels like to be 300+ lbs and weak. Get out and walk for 30 minutes? Why, so I can expose my gross body to the world? Running? Cycling? Haha, get out of here. And after exercising I'm going to come home and make up for it by eating more.
Diet is more important than exercise. A 300+ lb person can lose 100 lbs in half a year just by changing their diet and doing no more exercise than they currently do. (I advocate the keto diet, especially if one has tried other diets and failed, but it's not the only way.) You can't out-train a bad diet.
Diet is more important than exercise. A 300+ lb person can lose 100 lbs in half a year just by changing their diet and doing no more exercise than they currently do. (I advocate the keto diet, especially if one has tried other diets and failed, but it's not the only way.) You can't out-train a bad diet.
Another aspect most of the "just exercise" folks don't get is what it feels like to be 300+ lbs.
I have no idea, I can only imagine. Skinny all my life, competitive runner since I was 12, I've never once put on a pair of skimpy shorts and a singlet, and headed out the door for a run worried about my body image. But let me tell you a story...
Buddy of mine on Xbox, played with him for years when we mutually worked at MSFT, but never "met" him. I remember he once mentioned that he weighed 400lbs. Well, one night we're playing Halo as we do on Friday nights, and he's cutting out early. "I've got a 5K to run tomorrow." Wait a minute, what? Hey, $GAMER_TAG, am I remembering right that you weigh about 400lbs.? "Used to. Doctor said to lose weight, so I started running. Lost 175lbs. so far, still have XX to go."
I had to mute my microphone because I cried. I was so proud of this person I'd never met in person, but knew for years. No, I don't know what it's like to be 400lbs. But I can imagine. I can imagine what it's like to walk around with another me riding piggyback. And I can imagine the mental hurdles to overcome, the body image issues, and the other barriers that make it easy to just sit back down on the couch and say, "who am I kidding?". Instead, this person said one day, "today, I am a runner" and went out and did it. And then did it again, and again until the weight started to come off.
Why, so I can expose my gross body to the world?
Fuck 'em. Tell 'em this sub-3:00 marathoner said it's okay, and they can just look the other way if it bothers them. And if you see a skinny guy with a brindle pit bull dog running by you, don't worry about what he's thinking about you, because he's silently cheering you on.
I have no idea, I can only imagine. Skinny all my life, competitive runner since I was 12, I've never once put on a pair of skimpy shorts and a singlet, and headed out the door for a run worried about my body image. But let me tell you a story...
Buddy of mine on Xbox, played with him for years when we mutually worked at MSFT, but never "met" him. I remember he once mentioned that he weighed 400lbs. Well, one night we're playing Halo as we do on Friday nights, and he's cutting out early. "I've got a 5K to run tomorrow." Wait a minute, what? Hey, $GAMER_TAG, am I remembering right that you weigh about 400lbs.? "Used to. Doctor said to lose weight, so I started running. Lost 175lbs. so far, still have XX to go."
I had to mute my microphone because I cried. I was so proud of this person I'd never met in person, but knew for years. No, I don't know what it's like to be 400lbs. But I can imagine. I can imagine what it's like to walk around with another me riding piggyback. And I can imagine the mental hurdles to overcome, the body image issues, and the other barriers that make it easy to just sit back down on the couch and say, "who am I kidding?". Instead, this person said one day, "today, I am a runner" and went out and did it. And then did it again, and again until the weight started to come off.
Why, so I can expose my gross body to the world?
Fuck 'em. Tell 'em this sub-3:00 marathoner said it's okay, and they can just look the other way if it bothers them. And if you see a skinny guy with a brindle pit bull dog running by you, don't worry about what he's thinking about you, because he's silently cheering you on.
On the cycling side, I'd have to disagree. It's one type of exercise you can get into while being very overweight: the gearing means you can start out really gently and very gradually work up over time. You can start out pottering around short distances at a very slow pace without it being too stressful. I have a friend who was unhealthily obese who started cycling, and in a year they were utterly transformed. To the point they could actually enter cycling races. And they were healthier in both mind and body--looked very healthy, and noticeably changed positive outlook.
Diet is definitely important for sure, but so is exercise. Diet is controlling what's going into your body. Exercise will improve your body's metabolism, and have a host of other benefits.
Diet is definitely important for sure, but so is exercise. Diet is controlling what's going into your body. Exercise will improve your body's metabolism, and have a host of other benefits.
I have to agree here about motivation being an important factor. When I injured myself running, I tried experimenting with a few other types of cardio (cycling, swimming, rowing, stairmaster, etc.) but they were all miserable experiences compared to running. It was beyond frustrating and the only thing that kept me going was the anticipation of running again.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, several of my coworkers lift weights exclusively and can't believe I prefer running. It bores them out of their minds.
I have to wonder if many people don't exercise because they find it boring and unsatisfying, not because it's difficult.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, several of my coworkers lift weights exclusively and can't believe I prefer running. It bores them out of their minds.
I have to wonder if many people don't exercise because they find it boring and unsatisfying, not because it's difficult.
exercise has always felt like work to me. all types of exercise, too -- you name it, i've tried it, often for months at a time on a rigorous schedule. i simply do not like doing it. i don't like the time it takes, i don't like dealing with the laundry, i don't like the equipment, i don't like the monotony of cardio, i don't like the sound of weights slamming, i don't like dealing with the other people at the gym/courts/whatever, i don't like any of it (i'm not lucky enough to have have my own gym, that would probably help quite a bit). high intensity interval sprinting is the only thing i don't massively despise, but it's still a pain in the ass and can produce injuries, which i also don't like.
don't even get me started on swimming...
so as you can see, i've done plenty of exercise in my life, and at this point i'm 100% comfortable saying that i just don't like doing it. i admit it is a major personality shortcoming of mine. i'm not a negative person, this kind of stuff doesn't leak into areas of my life -- i just wasn't born with that selection of genetics that drives me to love this stuff. to me it's basically like a second job, a manual labor job, i have to do.
yes, i feel good afterwards, but to me sitting my ass down on the couch also feels good. as i understand it, to some people, sitting down for an hour feels disgusting, like a physical revulsion in their body. they're very lucky. i could sit on my couch for days on end and it takes effort to not actually do that.
my desire to make money, be presentable, and contribute to society override my natural laziness, but i totally understand how those people get to 800 pounds and are couch-locked. they simply do not have any kind of social drive, which is the built-in mechanism that is supposed to balance your built-in human condition of laziness (in my case).
be thankful that you take to running/exercise like we take to computers/technology -- it's definitely an asset in life. it's something i have to constantly overcome, i'm envious of people who get the urge to get up and move around without any kind of outside motivation. i've spent a lot of money on extrinsic motivation and it's clearly the inferior choice!
don't even get me started on swimming...
so as you can see, i've done plenty of exercise in my life, and at this point i'm 100% comfortable saying that i just don't like doing it. i admit it is a major personality shortcoming of mine. i'm not a negative person, this kind of stuff doesn't leak into areas of my life -- i just wasn't born with that selection of genetics that drives me to love this stuff. to me it's basically like a second job, a manual labor job, i have to do.
yes, i feel good afterwards, but to me sitting my ass down on the couch also feels good. as i understand it, to some people, sitting down for an hour feels disgusting, like a physical revulsion in their body. they're very lucky. i could sit on my couch for days on end and it takes effort to not actually do that.
my desire to make money, be presentable, and contribute to society override my natural laziness, but i totally understand how those people get to 800 pounds and are couch-locked. they simply do not have any kind of social drive, which is the built-in mechanism that is supposed to balance your built-in human condition of laziness (in my case).
be thankful that you take to running/exercise like we take to computers/technology -- it's definitely an asset in life. it's something i have to constantly overcome, i'm envious of people who get the urge to get up and move around without any kind of outside motivation. i've spent a lot of money on extrinsic motivation and it's clearly the inferior choice!
This pretty much describes my experience with exercise as well.
What worked for me was to stop associating exercise with working out. Instead, I just started seeking out more physically demanding hobbies/activities. I enjoy yard work; when I had a yard, I spent a lot of time creating a garden and pathways and trimming trees and whatnot. In an apartment now, but still help friends out with that because I genuinely enjoy it. I also like woodwork and building things, but again apartment. So I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity frequently. I also frequently rearrange parts of my apartment when I get bored.
I can't stand the gym - to me it feels like wasting time because I don't independently enjoy the activities the gym offers. Or running, or cycling. But I enjoy what I mentioned above, so the "exercise" stemming from them are ancillary benefits rather than the primary purpose.
What worked for me was to stop associating exercise with working out. Instead, I just started seeking out more physically demanding hobbies/activities. I enjoy yard work; when I had a yard, I spent a lot of time creating a garden and pathways and trimming trees and whatnot. In an apartment now, but still help friends out with that because I genuinely enjoy it. I also like woodwork and building things, but again apartment. So I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity frequently. I also frequently rearrange parts of my apartment when I get bored.
I can't stand the gym - to me it feels like wasting time because I don't independently enjoy the activities the gym offers. Or running, or cycling. But I enjoy what I mentioned above, so the "exercise" stemming from them are ancillary benefits rather than the primary purpose.
What's to be baffled about? Exercise is tiring, time-consuming, and sometimes painful. People generally avoid such activities, absent any overriding motivation.
You're doing it wrong.
Exercise can certainly be tiring, if you're training for performance, or rehabilitating an injury. But, a basic yoga class, a few laps of the pool, or walk around the block isn't going to noticeably tire an otherwise healthy adult.
Time-consuming? That's likely short-sighted when you account for reduced longevity, time spent ill, etc. A few hours a week isn't that much time in the overall scheme of things.
And exercise should almost never be painful. The only exceptions would be rehab or training for a specific event.
Exercise can certainly be tiring, if you're training for performance, or rehabilitating an injury. But, a basic yoga class, a few laps of the pool, or walk around the block isn't going to noticeably tire an otherwise healthy adult.
Time-consuming? That's likely short-sighted when you account for reduced longevity, time spent ill, etc. A few hours a week isn't that much time in the overall scheme of things.
And exercise should almost never be painful. The only exceptions would be rehab or training for a specific event.
Hours in a weekday: 24
- Sleep: 7
- Work: 8
- Commute: 1
- Personal maintenance (grooming/eating/etc): 2
- Be a good dad: 2
- Put kids to bed: 1
- Household maintenance (dishes/laundry/etc): 1
What's left: 2 hours. If I spend 30 minutes exercising, that's 25% of my discretionary time every day. That feels pretty time-consuming, even though I do think it's worth it.
What's left: 2 hours. If I spend 30 minutes exercising, that's 25% of my discretionary time every day. That feels pretty time-consuming, even though I do think it's worth it.
Your schedule just needs fixing. Designate one parent as the "put kids to bed" and the "household maintenance" for the day, that gives the other an extra 2 hours. Exercising every other day is practically as good or better as every day depending on the exercise.
Though even with 4 hours, depending on the person, every day after work might feel like they need their entire 8 hours of free time between work and sleep just to survive, ideally they'd have more. Technology was supposed to give us more leisure time we can put into things like exercise but here we are still slaving away at desk jobs for 40 hours a week.
Though even with 4 hours, depending on the person, every day after work might feel like they need their entire 8 hours of free time between work and sleep just to survive, ideally they'd have more. Technology was supposed to give us more leisure time we can put into things like exercise but here we are still slaving away at desk jobs for 40 hours a week.
I'm not doing it at all - it's just too boring! I'm very active, generally, and will happily work myself to the point of physical collapse if there's something interesting to be accomplished, but repetitive mindless physical motion for its own sake is not something I can deal with.
Exercise is tiring, time-consuming, and sometimes painful.
That's why I have a problem with things like CrossFit, P90X and the like. Time-consuming, that I can't help with. But "tiring" and "sometimes painful"? Unless you're a competitive athlete, you're doing it wrong. The article points this out (and I'm basically echoing the sentiment of the article). A 30 minute walk with the dog? That shouldn't be tiring or painful (or if it is, you really need to do it more often).
But I'm guessing that some folks get the impression that "exercise" must be EXTREME!!!!11!! or it doesn't count. Why work on bringing your half-marathon time down (which is a much more appropriate goal for the 20 mile/week runner) when you can slog through the death march of a six hour marathon?
A little overweight? A lot overweight? Don't exercise because you don't think you'd survive the CrossFit your cow-orkers are doing? Don't think epic mountain bike rides are really your thing? Meh, fuck all that, put your shoes on, go for a walk for a half hour. Your cow-orkers won't be impressed, but I will be. Yes, a guy with multiple marathons (and a whole list of other shit you don't care about) under his belt whose idea of a good Saturday morning is running up some mountain for a few hours, will be impressed. Because inertia is really good at keeping you on that couch, and if you can overcome that and make that first step out the door, in my book your ahead of this guy who gets out the door out of habit more than anything else.
That's why I have a problem with things like CrossFit, P90X and the like. Time-consuming, that I can't help with. But "tiring" and "sometimes painful"? Unless you're a competitive athlete, you're doing it wrong. The article points this out (and I'm basically echoing the sentiment of the article). A 30 minute walk with the dog? That shouldn't be tiring or painful (or if it is, you really need to do it more often).
But I'm guessing that some folks get the impression that "exercise" must be EXTREME!!!!11!! or it doesn't count. Why work on bringing your half-marathon time down (which is a much more appropriate goal for the 20 mile/week runner) when you can slog through the death march of a six hour marathon?
A little overweight? A lot overweight? Don't exercise because you don't think you'd survive the CrossFit your cow-orkers are doing? Don't think epic mountain bike rides are really your thing? Meh, fuck all that, put your shoes on, go for a walk for a half hour. Your cow-orkers won't be impressed, but I will be. Yes, a guy with multiple marathons (and a whole list of other shit you don't care about) under his belt whose idea of a good Saturday morning is running up some mountain for a few hours, will be impressed. Because inertia is really good at keeping you on that couch, and if you can overcome that and make that first step out the door, in my book your ahead of this guy who gets out the door out of habit more than anything else.
> Because inertia is really good at keeping you on that couch
So true. It works the other way too. Once you get into the routine of exercising it becomes easier to work it into your schedule.
So true. It works the other way too. Once you get into the routine of exercising it becomes easier to work it into your schedule.
Ironically one of my motivations with exercise is to avoid being tired or fatigued. I notice a big increase in energy levels when I'm getting regular exercise. Better to be a little fatigued at the end of an exercise than be fatigued for the rest of the day.
I also agree that exercise should never be painful. Unfortunately, we have a "no pain, no gain" mentality about exercise in this country. I don't even think the exercises advertised as "extreme" (ala P90X/Insanity/Crossfit) need to be painful, but some people will push themselves more than they should (Crossfit in particular is notorious for poor trainers overpushing people to injury).
I also agree that exercise should never be painful. Unfortunately, we have a "no pain, no gain" mentality about exercise in this country. I don't even think the exercises advertised as "extreme" (ala P90X/Insanity/Crossfit) need to be painful, but some people will push themselves more than they should (Crossfit in particular is notorious for poor trainers overpushing people to injury).
Exercise can take so many different forms, and too many people only think of it as running or going to the gym. Going for a walk or hike with friends on a regular basis is an excellent form of exercise while also using that time as a social activity. The same can apply to many other activities—a good form of exercise and a social opportunity.
Well, should such a pill be created, if the time required to generate money for the pills is less than the time required to exercise at an equivalent level... I mean, heck, I don't think it's at all likely I'll exercise beyond a certain level, but take a pill and poof?
[deleted]
Move more, eat mostly vegetables, sleep enough.
A lot of research has shown that you need at least a certain amount of protein, 60-120g/day on average depending on your lean muscle mass. You should have at most about 100g sugars/day. Beyond that, barring a medical condition (diabetes, pku, etc) calories are calories, for the most part. You need some fat (balance is surprisingly important here), and avoiding overly processed/refined foods is generally a good idea.
That said, mostly vegetables, maybe by volume, but if you are counting grains/cerials/starches as a separate category, then mostly wouldn't get you enough calories, and often not enough protein on average. Not to mention those mildly allergic to soy.
In general, the practice of even tracking everything you take in tends to make you very mindful of the calories in everything. Knowing what you should probably be taking in on average in combination with tracking can go a long way. I would suggest getting a variety of foods in to your diet, this should include some vegetables, but the majority of your calories will come from protein, carbs or fats. The sources may be vegetable based, but vegetable fats, specifically refined vegetable oils aren't so great a lot of the time. If you stick to fats/oils that are either cold-pressed or animal based, you're better off.
That said, mostly vegetables, maybe by volume, but if you are counting grains/cerials/starches as a separate category, then mostly wouldn't get you enough calories, and often not enough protein on average. Not to mention those mildly allergic to soy.
In general, the practice of even tracking everything you take in tends to make you very mindful of the calories in everything. Knowing what you should probably be taking in on average in combination with tracking can go a long way. I would suggest getting a variety of foods in to your diet, this should include some vegetables, but the majority of your calories will come from protein, carbs or fats. The sources may be vegetable based, but vegetable fats, specifically refined vegetable oils aren't so great a lot of the time. If you stick to fats/oils that are either cold-pressed or animal based, you're better off.
Also, if you drive everywhere, park at the opposite end of the parking lot... this gives quite a bit of boost to your activity per day. Though harder to do in Phoenix at the end of Jone, when it's in the high 1-teens.
Comments like this sounds like saying to a depressed person: "have you tried being happy instead?"
In other words, it's pithy, not helpful and sounds smug and condescending.
We should be able to support maximal health in everyone, regardless of if they live the ideal middle class lifestyle that gives them time to exercise, money to afford food, and the many things that go in to a good nights sleep.
In other words, it's pithy, not helpful and sounds smug and condescending.
We should be able to support maximal health in everyone, regardless of if they live the ideal middle class lifestyle that gives them time to exercise, money to afford food, and the many things that go in to a good nights sleep.
For the most part good food costs less than crap food as long as you cook.
Depends on where you live and what you are cooking... Living in Phoenix, produce is pretty expensive, as is fish. I can't speak for the rest of the country. I also tend to get produce from Sprouts, Whole Foods, Fry's (kroger) in that order, depending on what it is. I use celeriac, cauliflower, and parsnips regularly as a potato substitute, and it's pretty costly to do so.
I could get my calories from the dollar menu for quite a bit less. My target intake is around 2400-2800/day (metabolic support for 3800 at my size), trying to lose about 2#/week. Though, I'm diabetic, so tend to avoid a lot of fast-food, and often when I do indulge, I get only the sandwich/burger without the bread, with tea and/or water. Though the baked cod at ljs (green beans and broccoli), and chicken and green beans at kfc are serviceable options.
I also make soup a couple times a month, which gives me about a week's worth, give or take.... soup is usually suprisingly low in calories and glycemic load (even vichyssoise subbing the potatoes) but tend to have 3-4 cups to feel sated (usually coming in around 450-600 calories depending on the soup for 4 cups).
A big thing for me is getting a couple snacks in, especially for the afternoon (apple, carrots, nuts, kind bar), which helps with the cravings to overeat later in the day.
I could get my calories from the dollar menu for quite a bit less. My target intake is around 2400-2800/day (metabolic support for 3800 at my size), trying to lose about 2#/week. Though, I'm diabetic, so tend to avoid a lot of fast-food, and often when I do indulge, I get only the sandwich/burger without the bread, with tea and/or water. Though the baked cod at ljs (green beans and broccoli), and chicken and green beans at kfc are serviceable options.
I also make soup a couple times a month, which gives me about a week's worth, give or take.... soup is usually suprisingly low in calories and glycemic load (even vichyssoise subbing the potatoes) but tend to have 3-4 cups to feel sated (usually coming in around 450-600 calories depending on the soup for 4 cups).
A big thing for me is getting a couple snacks in, especially for the afternoon (apple, carrots, nuts, kind bar), which helps with the cravings to overeat later in the day.
For a baseline a micdouble has 390 calories, 10 of then so that's 6-7$ / day to hit 2,400-2,800 kcal.
If you go for beans, rice, grain, that's under 1$ per day for 1/2 your calories. Leaving 5-6$ to for the other half. That's plenty for a 500-700 kcal in chicken breast / eggs / other cheap protean, and vegies etc.
PS: 9oz of meat per day will generally cover your protean needs. But, less is fine depending on the rest of your diet.
If you go for beans, rice, grain, that's under 1$ per day for 1/2 your calories. Leaving 5-6$ to for the other half. That's plenty for a 500-700 kcal in chicken breast / eggs / other cheap protean, and vegies etc.
PS: 9oz of meat per day will generally cover your protean needs. But, less is fine depending on the rest of your diet.
Plus an hour each day of cooking and cleaning up. The median american salary is about 50K, which is about $24 an hour, so lets say it costs $6/7 a day to eat crappy, and $25/30 to eat well.
First that's median household income.
Second, eating out 3 times a day takes non zero time and you can spend less than 7 extra hours a week cooking / cleaning / shopping vs. eating at the Golden Arches / microwaveable meals etc. However, this is a case where being efficient tends to end up being boring.
Second, eating out 3 times a day takes non zero time and you can spend less than 7 extra hours a week cooking / cleaning / shopping vs. eating at the Golden Arches / microwaveable meals etc. However, this is a case where being efficient tends to end up being boring.
Again, I'm diabetic and try to keep all carbs to a minimum... Though other people won't have those restrictions... in general, I tend to keep my total carbs under 200g/day, which means more fat/protein. Again, depends on what you are cooking.
You can generally eat beans (black, lima, pinto, or Lentils) on a diabetic diet, depending on your restriction levels. Which fit into cheap bulk food category.
This is only true if your time is worthless or you really love cooking.
That is the mantra, but there is debate. Exercise puts the onus on the individual. So it's a great cop out for other problems. It's not the extra sugar they are seeking into our diets, it that's we don't exercise. I remember one pitiful interview with a MacDonald's rep who claimed that their food was healthy so long as customers exercised well enough. That's too much of an easy, cheap, answer.
Imho the days of answering every health problem with exercise alone should end. We must acknowledge the approach has failed and we need to deal with the wider environment impacting individual choice. That means healthier foods, but I'd support tax deductions (preferably credits) for exercise-related costs. Make the money back with a tax on unhealthy foods/things, as we did with cigarettes.
Imho the days of answering every health problem with exercise alone should end. We must acknowledge the approach has failed and we need to deal with the wider environment impacting individual choice. That means healthier foods, but I'd support tax deductions (preferably credits) for exercise-related costs. Make the money back with a tax on unhealthy foods/things, as we did with cigarettes.
I'm not completely sure there... In the end, the onus is on the consumer to know how many calories they're taking in. That said, I do dislike a lot of the additives/preservatives that are being put into the food supply. Packaging meats in inert gases to preserve color, taste/preservation additives in bread, the widespread use of heavily subsidized and refined/perfumed/died vegetable oils.
First get rid of subsidies... second might be a tax on products containing sugars not in their natural state (okay in whole apples, not in juice, or added to breads/candy/pasteries).
Another large issue is simply education and advertising. Child-targeted advertising works surprisingly well. Also, people assume that "natural sugar" is significantly better for you than refined sugars. Once it's juiced/pureed and/or cooked, it's far more digestible and far more unhealthy than whole fruits.
First get rid of subsidies... second might be a tax on products containing sugars not in their natural state (okay in whole apples, not in juice, or added to breads/candy/pasteries).
Another large issue is simply education and advertising. Child-targeted advertising works surprisingly well. Also, people assume that "natural sugar" is significantly better for you than refined sugars. Once it's juiced/pureed and/or cooked, it's far more digestible and far more unhealthy than whole fruits.
When I get on an exercise kick and do it every day (intense 15 minutes and warm down), after about two weeks, my life gets very smooth. It's fascinating.
"23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health"
https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo
I skimmed the video and couldn't figure it out -- what is it please?
Exercise. 30 minutes a day. Mild intensity (e.g. walking).
[deleted]
No. Youth is the real wonder drug. Exercise is a fallback once that stops being effective.
So true. In my 20s I did drugs and played in bands. In my 40s I build startups and run marathons. There's nothing like "the countdown" to kick your motivation into gear.
Im in my 30s now and am very happy to have skipped the 20s drinking/drugs/smoking phase. Too many of my 30-something friends look like 50-somethings. I just had a full eye exam as part of a security clearance thing for a new job. Supposedly my retinas look like a teenager's. The doc
chalked it up to a lack of drugs/alcohol. When I was 20 nobody told me that was a thing. They should.
Apologies if this comes off as harsh, but I don't understand how this comments adds value to anyone but yourself. And to me, it seems like you're feeling rather inadequate about the possibility of missing out on experiences many tend to sensationalize.
Because this is a forum about sharing knowledge. Young people don't understand the damage certain behaviors can do to their bodies. Some people relate this by demonstrating how past errors are now effecting them later in life. That's the norm. Others explain it by showing that good decisions can actually pay off. I had no idea that eye health was tied to drugs/alcohol use. It's not the sort of thing discussed as once the damage is done there is little point. So I assume others here were equally oblivious.
The knowledge you claim to be sharing is a little flimsy isn't it? You took an eye test, great results, and the doctor chalked it up as lack of drugs and alcohol. That is an unbelievably broad statement. So broad, I'd argue it's worthless. Do _all_ drugs and alcohol damage your eyes? In what quantities does this damage take place? What about legal drugs? What about genetics? What about diet and exercise? I fail to see any practical knowledge being passed here. That's why I took the liberty to assume ulterior motives for posting.
> And to me, it seems like you're feeling rather inadequate about the possibility of missing out on experiences many tend to sensationalize.
Wow. You're really reaching there.
Wow. You're really reaching there.
When did he say he missed out on experiences? I must have missed that part.
Ditto on that. I'm 25 and people think I'm 18 all the time. I'm not sure if it's just my genes or if it's because I don't partake in drugs/alcohol; probably both.
Both of these can be true. I'm still relatively young, but when I was much younger (18) and still able to reap all the benefits of being young and reasonably athletic, I went through a rough breakup. Exercise truly was a wonder drug for me, all the way back then.
I like to post this as a PSA in HN weight loss threads. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people.
1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453)
2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full)
3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/)
4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data.
5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/)
Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.
1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453)
2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full)
3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/)
4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data.
5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/)
Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.
You are talking about weight loss programs.
That doesn't necessarily inform weight loss in general. It sort of points to external interventions not being hugely useful.
Personally, I'm about 25% down from my heaviest and a bit more than 10% down from a decade ago. I've never gone on a program, I've just examined my habits and worked to improve them. I would say that it's taken many years to have my weight and habits stabilize at the new lower levels. But that's fine.
That doesn't necessarily inform weight loss in general. It sort of points to external interventions not being hugely useful.
Personally, I'm about 25% down from my heaviest and a bit more than 10% down from a decade ago. I've never gone on a program, I've just examined my habits and worked to improve them. I would say that it's taken many years to have my weight and habits stabilize at the new lower levels. But that's fine.
Your link to the NYTimes article at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-... is cut off.
I think it's because HN does auto-link shortening and you copy and pasted a previous comment?
I think it's because HN does auto-link shortening and you copy and pasted a previous comment?
Thanks! Corrected.
Diets don't work. You need to change your life(style). It's pretty common knowledge outside of commercially-promoted media.
Most such studies are done with pathologically obese patients and aren't representative of the general population.
I do, however, agree that it's easy for people to drift. The key is emphasising lifelong change, rather than "diets" per se.
I do, however, agree that it's easy for people to drift. The key is emphasising lifelong change, rather than "diets" per se.
The studies from the meta analysis range from simply overweight (30% of pop) to obese (30% of pop) to morbidly obese (5%) of population. The data did not vary much for each one.
Then that's changed.
I guess I will have to settle for being one of the impossible people for whom keeping weight off worked.
I guess I will have to settle for being one of the impossible people for whom keeping weight off worked.
[deleted]
I don't like the "diet, not exercise, is the key to weight lose" matra because exercise goals(run a 5k in X minutes, bench press X lbs 6 times) in my experience are the far bigger motivators(though I've never been severely overweight).
[deleted]
> in my experience are the far bigger motivators
While I agree with you that it's a much more compelling motivator, that still doesn't change the actual fact that diet is (oftentimes substantially) more important to weight loss.
While I agree with you that it's a much more compelling motivator, that still doesn't change the actual fact that diet is (oftentimes substantially) more important to weight loss.
You might not like it but abs are made in the kitchen. No amount of exercises can balance out a bad diet in the mid and long term.
key and motivation are not the same thing, if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet
", if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet"
My entire point is that you won't want to have a bad diet if you're setting serious athletic goals.
My entire point is that you won't want to have a bad diet if you're setting serious athletic goals.
Excellent point. I find that in a period when I exercise regularly I am more conscious of just how hard it is to burn 500 calories, while in more slothful periods it's really easy to take another piece of cake without thinking about it.
"Many people will be surprised at how little you need to do to achieve these results. Years ago, in an effort to get in shape, I tried the P90X routine. It proved too hard for me. Later, when I tried Insanity, it beat me so badly that people at work kept asking me if I was ill. Two years ago, I tried P90X3. It was a bit more manageable, but I still couldn’t keep it up.
I’m not alone in thinking that physical activity to improve health should be hard. When I hear friends talk about exercising, they discuss running marathons, participating in cross-fit classes or sacrificing themselves on the altar of Soul Cycle. That misses the point, unfortunately. All of these are way, way more than you need to do to get the benefits I’ve already described.
The recommendations for exercise are 150 minutes per week of moderate intensity physical activity for adults, or about 30 minutes each weekday.
Moderate intensity is probably much less than you think. Walking briskly, at 3 to 4 miles per hour or so, qualifies. So does bicycling slower than 10 miles an hour. Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough. Even vacuuming, mowing the lawn or actively walking your dog might qualify."
A lot of people abstain from exercise because they think it's "hard" and "scary," when really, 30 minutes of brisk walking to and from the grocery story would do just fine.