
Forced Exercise's Effects on the Brain - robg
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/what-parkinsons-teaches-us-about-the-brain/?src=me&ref=general&gwh=E4BF7E8ADDE0D4187FA2C07FE7836D88
======
scotch_drinker
I'd be interested to see the difference in "forced" versus "high intensity"
exercise. What if the animals are forced to run at a much lower pace than they
prefer? Do we get the same results?

My guess is that the forced part of this has little to do with the effects.
It's the increased intensity that is providing benefits.

~~~
ellyagg
No kidding. The emphasis on forced made it a little confusing. It seems
extremely likely that the "forced" can be internal. When I'm at CrossFit, the
criteria of the workout force me to exert much more strenuously than I'm
comfortable with.

~~~
rkalla
ha, when I read that article all I had in my head was images of me doing
death-by burpees and thinking "... I hope there are health benefits to that,
because it really hurts..."

~~~
malbs
> death-by burpees

a most unpleasant way to die!

------
brudgers
I am not an exercise physiologist, however, moving people from an inefficient
noodling cadence of 60 rpm to a highly efficient 90 rpm may have played a role
in shaping the results.

As any cyclist knows, over the long term, 90 rpm's is far more comfortable
than 60 and it is my understanding that 180 strides per minute (i.e. 90 with
each foot) is also optimum for distance running.

~~~
latch
Most amateur runners don't hit close to 180 spm unless they are barefoot
runners. The general idea around a shorter stride for amateurs isn't about
efficiency, as I understand it, but about injury prevention. Smaller strides
means less time flying in the air, less mass displacement, and a softer
landing.

edit: that doesn't mean you aren't right about professionals doing it for
efficiency reason, I just don't know.

~~~
jrockway
The faster cadence is technically less oxygen efficient, but since oxygen is
not the limiting factor, that doesn't really matter. The reasons cyclists
pedal at a fast cadence is because it uses the aerobic system more heavily
than the anaerobic system, and the aerobic system is easy to keep "on" for a
long time. You breathe harder, but your legs never hurt.

(I decided to start following this advice a few months ago. A 30 mile ride in
2.5 hours at 75-80rpm used to tire me out. My first 40 mile ride at a high
cadence (95 rpm) took the same amount of time but I wasn't even close to being
tired. My usual "training rides" of 20 miles take almost no effort unless I
make a conscious effort to go anaerobic for a few minutes at a time.)

~~~
stan_rogers
That's a lot more individual than the aggregate study results generally
indicate. I'm a cranker, not a spinner, and I used to do 250 miles/week --
that included a "century Sunday" -- with little fatigue (no more than I was
looking for, certainly). Most of the folks with me would be turning at about
150% of my rate at any given point. I tried the 90 cadence, and it just didn't
work for me; I'd get pooped over a piddling 20-miler, and never really
improved in endurance.

~~~
jrockway
Yeah. It's important to keep in mind that the pros are pedaling their 100rpm
in a 53/11 gear, whereas most of us non-pros are ... not.

------
Almaviva
How are you forced to produce power output on a tandem bicycle? You can force
the cadence but what happens if you just relax and let your legs go around
with the pedals? I would think you would be producing zero power on your own,
not exactly a grueling forced workout, or am I missing something?

~~~
MediaBehavior
Read the NYTimes article... you learn that the two sets of pedals are 1:1
connected. Your partner pedals faster and _you_ have to pedal faster. Maybe
not _harder_ \- but you do have to keep pace.

~~~
sp332
It says that the power output was higher.

~~~
sliverstorm
Power is work done per unit time. Inducing someone to pedal faster is going to
increase their power output, so long as they do not slack.

~~~
sp332
Alviva was wondering why the people on the back were not slacking.
MediaBehavior says they were only pedaling faster, not necessarily harder. I'm
pointing out that the article clearly says they were pedaling harder.

------
codex
Wankerish speculation: Involuntary exercise may tell the body that it needs to
work smarter, not harder. Hence, more brain cells. In prehistoric times, it
would be a warning signal that risk of death or is elevated. In a world of few
calories, the body must prioritize, and relies on certain signals to set
priorities. Voluntary exercise doesn't indicate nearly as much danger.

------
fferen
Is it the "forced" part that yields results, or the simple fact that it was
more exercise? The article said they were forced to go at a speed faster than
what they were comfortable with, yet the rodent study had them forced to go
slower than their natural pace, with better results. A follow up study forcing
people to go slower than usual would be interesting.

~~~
alexmat
I think it matters more if you are cognitively present for the exercise,
rather than the intensity of the exercise. It doesn't matter if you go fast or
slow, it only matters that you are doing something you're not used to and as a
result actively think about it when you are doing it.

For example, writing with your left hand if you are right handed may be an
equally effective method of achieving similar cognitive results.

One well worn piece of advice from health fitness trainers has always been to
vary up your routine. I think this is the key to making sure you work out
different muscle groups, but also a way to keep your mind engaged.

My hunch is that this is partially what's going on in the study.

~~~
aangjie
I agree with the basic hypothesis. Though wonder how it can be measured. I
know my preferred term is awareness, but neither is it any more measurable. My
experience suggests two tasks at a time is a reasonable substitute to make
sure you are aware. For ex: counting the steps while running

------
tremendo
In Parkinson's disease equilibrium is usually very impaired, yet from this
article apparently the subjects are still able to ride bicycles. I wonder how
big of a confounder that is, or perhaps it's patients in very early stages of
the disease, or relatively young. Having an elderly patient risk falling from
a bike or a forced-effort threadmill machine doesn't seem to me like a
reasonable risk to take. What other forms can this forced exercise take?
Swimming, running on sand, these can be taxing but how do you incorporate the
"forced" factor in? Parkinson's is an auto-immune disease, so other approaches
involve trying to minimize immune responses, via diet. Apparently ketogenic
diets have also been used with varying degrees of success.

~~~
stonemetal
Is the forced part even necessary? It says the people were pushed harder than
comfortable. You don't necessarily need someone cracking the whip to do that,
especially with that kind of thing hanging over your head.

~~~
jonnathanson
_"You don't necessarily need someone cracking the whip to do that..."_

You'd be surprised. Long-term goals are notoriously bad at motivating most
people in the short run (hence, why procrastination is such a powerful force).
So, even if you have the specter of something like total physiological
degeneration looming over you, you're still going to work only to the brink of
your comfort level unless someone pushes you further.

Anecdotal, but: I broke my arm a few years back in a really bad fall. Totally
shattered a few of the bones in my right wrist (and I'm right-handed). Got a
metal plate put in, and went through a year of physical thereapy. At the
outset of the PT, I was told in no uncertain terms that I'd never regain
proper movement of my right hand unless I worked my ass off every day at
range-of-motion exercises -- which, at the time, were extraordinarily painful.
So, in theory, sure, I could do them at home and never actually go in for PT.
But whenever I did that, I'd work up to the edge of my comfort level, but
never go past it. Conversely, when I went in for PT, having someone there to
"crack the whip" pushed me past that discomfort threshold, and that's how I
broke through the plateaus on the path to recovery.

The body's (and mind's) natural inclination is to avoid pain and discomfort,
so you trick yourself into thinking you're working as hard as you can when
you're actually not. And exercise isn't about working as hard as you can; it's
about working _harder_ than you can. That's where the progress happens.

~~~
Angostura
I suppose the question is over the nature of forced.

I have a rowing machine which gives me a readout of speed/distance/cadence
etc.

I 'force' myself to maintain a certain speed for a certain time even when it
is quite uncomfortable. Is that sufficient for the 'forced' effect to come
into play. I suspect it is.

~~~
jonnathanson
Do you work out to the point of muscle failure? Do you maintain a speed so
grueling that you literally can't row at all after a certain point? That's my
interpretation of "forced," at least as experienced in my PT. Granted, I don't
know what "forced" meant in the context of the study being talked about in
this article. Accordngly, I can only guess at it. (No desire to play "No True
Scotsman" on this, I assure you.)

~~~
stonemetal
In the article they said they tested them and if you went around 60 RPM on the
bike the forced part was at 90 RPM. So they could measure swim pace then have
them train at a higher pace.

------
javaru
"In one study from 2008, rats forced to run wound up with significantly more
new brain cells after eight weeks than those who ran when they chose, even
though the latter animals ran faster. "

This earlier study's conclusion that the forced aspect was more important than
pushing the exerciser outside of their comfort zone. It seems like they should
experiment with 45rpm forced exercise to see if that has the same effect.
Though, it may have been just the article making that logical jump.

------
danso
Can't wait for the first standing-desks-chained-to-a-treadmill to pop up.

~~~
yakto
You don't have to wait: <http://www.trekdesk.com/>

------
orky56
I'm curious to find out if what they're trying to isolate is "discipline." I'm
not talking about the colloquial definition of discipline but rather
exercising the ability to do what's best even if it's not convenient.

I'm talking about the foresight of the intellect over the mind and body. Often
times, when we rationalize things or activities just become habits, the mind
and body passively agree. I'd argue that's not actually practicing discipline
anymore since there's nothing within ourselves (mind & body) to fight.

------
nphase
I'm by no means an expert, but from my reading of body hacking and dieting
etc, it seems that higher intensity workouts lead to increased cortisol
release, a hormone released in response to stress. I'm not sure if this is the
hormone they're referencing though, because IIRC extended periods of elevated
cortisol levels are associated with Parksinson's/Alzheimers...

~~~
lemming
But the rats got the benefits even though the forced exercise was _lower_ than
the intensity they would choose themselves.

~~~
Herring
The abstract says the rats ran the same distance, so the voluntary exercisers
spent less time. That could be the important variable.

------
kb101
So running on a treadmill going so fast you can barely keep up actually makes
you smarter? Great, quit my corporate job for nothing.

------
jmitcheson
It's pretty clear that "forced" in the context of the experiment is being
physically forced to do more work, not being "forced" like being forced to eat
your vegetables.

I think it has something to do with external energy being added, and the
subject not having control over the speed.. I don't know if a treadmill really
meets this criteria. I think you would have to be physically strapped into the
treadmill :P

------
eitally
Honestly, this seems like one of those experiments which, in retrospect,
provides obvious results. Exercise is a net positive for physical health. Why
wouldn't forced exercise provide an additional cognitive/neurological health
benefit in addition to the cardio/muscular benefits? I know this is a
completely simplistic and unscientific opinion, but it seems to make sense.

~~~
tlholaday
> obvious in retrospect

I recommend reading the preface to Everything is Obvious:

[http://everythingisobvious.com/wp-
content/themes/eio/assets/...](http://everythingisobvious.com/wp-
content/themes/eio/assets/EIO_preface.pdf)

~~~
aangjie
I would also recommend reading
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/7e5/the_cognitive_science_of_rationa...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/7e5/the_cognitive_science_of_rationality/)
and perhaps trying out this experiment*
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/7z1/antiakrasia_tool_like_stickkcom_...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/7z1/antiakrasia_tool_like_stickkcom_for_data_nerds/#more)

* - Am just starting out with this one. so no clear data yet

